Categories
evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit the spearhead violence against men/women

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest: A Rorschach test for misogynists

Looks like another evil lying bitch, doc.

Some highlights, by which I mean lowlights, of a recent discussion on The Spearhead of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest on sexual assault charges. The Spearheaders, naturally, have some unique and interesting perspectives on the case:

Black women (like the accuser) are all a bunch of liars. Run away!

Reality May 18, 2011 at 11:04

I knew it was going to be a black woman- I suspected from the second I heard about this. Crystal Magnum anyone? Don’t want to make this a racial issue- but how can you avoid it? You take 5 ounces of Female/Feminist hate and deception, add 8 ounces of the stereotypical black thing of always sniffing around for a lawsuit, stir .. and you have more than enough reason to avoid black women even more vigorously than women in general.

The case is somehow all about how badly “beta” men are discriminated against by evil women:

Commander Shepard May 18, 2011 at 11:53

Typically false rape allegations are made when a woman realizes she’s slept with a beta but doesn’t want her rep taking a hit and wants to avoid feeling like crap (betas are icky) my gut tells me either this is a totally fabricated set up (politically motivated) or Strauss-Kahn is getting a lesson in how betas have to apologize everyday for their existence.

She’s accusing him because she’s got AIDS and therefore (?) wants to make a quick buck, ethics be damned:

Avenger May 18, 2011 at 18:55

Since she has AIDS she knows that an infection could take her out at any time and she has a teenage daughter. A person like this will certainly not think like a normal person and may very well do something for a lump sum of cash since she has nothing to lose and may have some resentment towards men and doesn’t care what happens to this one guy. She also may be thinking that if she dies at least her daughter will have the money. This is not someone I would trust. …

I predict that Strauss will be released on bail tomorrow. He’ll pay the female’s lawyer some money and then the whole thing will just fade away.

He’s probably innocent, but he’s a white-hating Commie Jew bastard, so ha ha:

goldenfetus May 18, 2011 at 09:57

Libertarian here. I doubt this guy is guilty. Seems unlikely, yet possible. But as observed, this guy is a White-hating elite Marxist Jew. So while I agree that political disagreement is not sufficient grounds for wishing false-rape accusation/conviction on him, I submit that his hostility toward my people coupled with his general evil is enough to justify the enjoyment of his suffering. We can’t forget that his politics are what makes this possible in the first place, or ignore the ‘reap what you sow’ component here.

As a white guy, I’d like to say that goldenfetus does not in fact speak for “my people.”

And before anyone steps in to complain that I’ve picked the “outliers” in the discussions, the fanatics whose opinions aren’t shared by the MRA masses, I will note that (as is generally the case with Spearhead comments I quote) all of the comments here have gotten numerous upvotes from Spearhead readers, and only a handful of downvotes, if any. In other words, they represent something close to the Spearhead conventional wisdom. (And by “wisdom” here I mean “offensive idiocy.”)

210 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NWOslave
NWOslave
11 years ago

Thanks Dave.

Life is What You Make It
Life is What You Make It
11 years ago

You need to learn what the mens movement is, the mens movement position is that women should be treated like and held to the same standards as men, and that we should embrace equality as in equal opportunity and equality under the law

@lol…yeah, right. The only people who would believe that is someone who had never read a single post on a MRM blog.

Pecunium
11 years ago

lol: Where are these other MRAs? The reasonable one’s you say are refusing to inhabit The Spearhead, Roissy, Stand Your Ground, Rex Patriarch, The Antifmeminist, Elusive Wapiti, etc.?

If they are the majority you claim them to be, where are they? Why aren’t they the face of the movement? Why do they the hate-mongers have the podium?

Why are the lurkers supporting you in e-mail.

Wait…. I know, they are scared. They see how mean we are. How’ve we’ve savaged you… how we’ve put you to public shame an obloquy for your reasonable explanations that saying there is a rape culture, and that people who do x,y, and z support rape is just the same as being falsely accused of rape and the realise that if they come here and say rape accusations need to be thoroughly investigated, and those which turn out to be maliciously false ought to be prosecuted; and those which aren’t should have the rapists prosecuted, they will get worse.

I see it now. They know that if they argue for, e.g. a court appointed mediator who is the advocate of the child; and beholden to neither parent, who should make a recommendation as to custody and support with no other interest than what it best for the child… we will hunt them down and kill them, because of how harshly you’ve been treated.

I understand now. I was so foolish. How could I be so blind?

Thank you. Really. Thank you.

Bee
Bee
11 years ago

Are you talking about California Penal Code 261? I’m finding…

261 (a)(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused. (4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused.

Perhaps that’s not what you’re referring to? Please let me know if it’s a different state’s law that you were quoting — I’m only finding CA come up in a quick google search.

It’s true that state laws generally don’t give a bright line analysis for when a person is too intoxicated to consent. Here is one law blog’s analysis of CA case law on the above quoted statute:

“In short, a case involving the alleged rape of an intoxicated woman requires a determination of whether her intoxication prevented her from exercising reasonable judgment and a consideration of all the circumstances to determine whether the victim’s mental impairment was so great that it deprived the victim of the ability to exercise reasonable judgment –- merely being “tipsy” is not enough.”

Pecunium
11 years ago

lol: To be a bit more serious (in tone). You can’t pull that “if you knew what the men’s movement was about” routine on me.

Why? Because, while I don’t make the diverting hobby of it that Dave does (I have photos to take, bread to bake, torture and politics to write about… and Dave does a better job at this than I would) I’ve gone around the block a few times. I’ve read the blogs, and the books, and the newspaper columns.

I see how the MRAs define equality. It’s not a good definition, and it assumes a twisted sort of marxism; assuming that “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a rule for social interaction which allows one to decide that women “need X” and that “X” happens to put them in the kitchen, and rearing the children while men do all that hard thinking and voting and stuff, so the hamsters in the little women’s minds don’t die of exhaustion from spinning the wheel.

I’ve read it. Don’t lie to me about what it says.

Pecunium
11 years ago

Bee: That law also has an out for the accused: this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. That lets someone say, “I didn’t know” and the courts have to show a reasonable person would have known.

It’s not as bad as the case in Canada where a guy tried to beat a rape charge, by saying he didn’t know the victim was passed out, he thought she was dead. (It was in the Northwest Territories, IIRC and she was passed out drink, outside, in the middle of winter).

He lost.

NWOslave
NWOslave
11 years ago

@Bee…One law blogs analysis doesn’t mean anything. All you’ve done is excused someones bad behavior, just like the law blog. Besides, unless the breathalizer test was given immediately following the “act of sex” to determine alchohol levels its pointless. So if the accusation was given the day after, “too intoxicated” comes down to what exactly? The answer of course is the accuser “felt” she was “too intoxicated” to give consent.

I just can’t understand your aversion to holding someone accountable for their actions, (if its a woman). I’ve already given my opinion of violent rapists, I believe it went something like 50 lashes in the town square and 20 years in prison. Yet somehow I’m slavey, less than a pig according to C bathrobe and countless other derogatory remarks, as well as a rape apologist.

Captain Bathrobe
11 years ago

@Pecunium:

Wow, “I wasn’t trying to commit rape, I was trying to commit necrophilia!” Got to give him credit for creativity, I guess.

Captain Bathrobe
11 years ago

If it’s any consolation, NWO, I consider you be above the average intestinal parasite, depending on the parasite. I’m a reasonable man.

Bee
Bee
11 years ago

Slavey: I’m not excusing anyone’s bad behavior. I quoted a statute to you, and then found a link to a law blog that contained analysis of the case law that spoke to that statute. The case law (that’s a judge’s opinion from a case, and it governs lower courts in that state unless overturned) from People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 454 says:

“When interpreting the phrase ‘prevented from resisting,’ the jury must determine whether, as a result of intoxication, the victim lacked the legal capacity to give valid consent based on a reasonable and informed use of judgment.

“In deciding whether the level of the victim’s intoxication deprived the victim of legal capacity to give consent, the jury must consider all of the circumstances, including the victim’s age and maturity.”

So, that’s the law. That’s not my opinion, or a lawyer’s opinion, that is California law.

NWOslave
NWOslave
11 years ago

Exactly Bee, thats the “law.” And being a man I’m on the bad side of that “law” because for a man to even attempt to say “I was too intoxicated” would get him laughed off the planet. It seems the “law” has a “side” to it.

Doctress Julia
11 years ago

Ok, hey…? I have been raped twice in my life (this is not including the myriad of different ways that men have tried to sexually assault me- which were NOT rape, luckily, I have krav maga and street fighting experience. I digress…) and I still date and have sex with men- as many as possible, heh. Before I am labeled ‘hypergamous’-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

I have no children, have never been married, and never intend to do either. I am mostly hetero, so I am (very!) attracted to men. Despite the COUNTLESS times I have been harassed and mistreated by SOME (read: quite a few) men, I still continue to have wonderful relationships with men. How would it be fair to generalize about all men that way? It seems like that would keep me from meeting many, many potentially awesome dudes- and be very lonely! Each human is different, regardless of gender- give em a chance! 🙂 And, hey, mediumdave: thanks for those links for supporting male rape victims. I know more of those guys than should be right (:C)… and more than half have NEVER told anyone or talked about it with anyone close (I keep a LOT of secrets for my friends), even their parents and partners. There is stigma for them, too- although it seems slightly different than the shit women put up with- NOT better or worse, just different. I will post them on my Facebook; I know a few of my friends on there might find it helpful. Again, thanks. :3

Doctress Julia
11 years ago

AAAAH, Bob Loblaw!!! XD Dammit, you made me shoot sun tea out my nose, David…

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
11 years ago

Exactly Bee, thats the “law.” And being a man I’m on the bad side of that “law” because for a man to even attempt to say “I was too intoxicated” would get him laughed off the planet. It seems the “law” has a “side” to it.

Where does it make reference to gender, NWOaf? When I read it, it said, “victim.” Victims can be male or female, right?

You seem to be making a bizarre assertion, to the effect that the law will not permit you to charge a woman with rape, if she has drugged you and then rape you, solely on the basis of your gender.

I’m going to hazard a guess and say that as usual, you are pulling this opinion out of your ass and won’t be able to show us the evidence for your beliefs.

There are cultural barriers to men being able to charge women with rape–mostly sexist myths about the nature of “real rape” and “real rapists.” You know, the myths that feminists fight to destroy. But any legal barriers exist only in your mind. Well, let me qualify that. In states with archaic definitions of rape that require p-i-v penetration for it to be rape, you won’t be able to charge a woman with rape. But you will be able to charge her with sexual assault.

Care to join feminists in trying to change those archaic definitions so that male victims of rape get justice too?

NWOslave
NWOslave
11 years ago

No SallyStrange, I’ll pass on joining the Marxist feminist regime. I doubt handing more power to the State would help anything. I don’t believe in the State being all things to all people.

As far as “pulling things out of me ass” I gave you your law as evidence. Your faction lobbied and had this law enacted. I guess you can always wash your hands and claim innocense.

Since there is only one definition of “rape” (forced sex). Why would I want to change reality into a political tool that benefits no one while handing power to the State.

I always answer questions but get no answers. So anyone try and answer me these question.

A man and a woman are drinking.
1)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to drive and gets into an accident is “he” culpable?

2)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to walk and falls and injures herself is “he” culpable?

3)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to shoplift is “he” culpable?

4)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to have sex is “he” culpable?

Ami Angelwings
11 years ago

its the same game that feminism has been playing against heterosexual males, using rape and abuse by a minority to stereotype men, masculinity and society, but feminism has power and is pushing for a situation where all a woman has to do is point her finger, its already the case with DV.

And women are the most protected abusers, not white males.

That’s not true o_o;; As somebody who actually works w/ social service agencies (as well as having been through them, both ways), and working with shelters incl men’s shelters… that’s not true at all o_O;; And this isn’t ideological… this isnt’ cuz ppl are MRAs or nething… it’s just not true. 🙁

I mean I’m sure that theoretically some ppl prolly think it’s true (should I bring up my BABIP baseball analogy again? xD ) but that just means they’re lacking in factors and information to add in, since real life doesn’t fit the theory (and the thing about abuse/rape/assault is that it’s not a theoretical thing to be used in ideological theories… it’s real, there are real ppl out there who need real help 🙁 ).. and real life is where we need to help real survivors (male, women or however they identify 🙂 ) … female survivors don’t get easy treatment in courts, or are even often believed (or even think they will be believed) and male survivors face similar issues b/c of stereotypes that men are too strong to be abused and women too weak to be abusers 🙁 and men’s and women’s shelters work together… and feminists do not have all this wonderful power you suggest either o_O

It’s not actually how reality and real society works… and it SUCKS for male and female survivors that there is so much stigma and BS out there… but ppl are working to fix it, men and women, agencies and shelters… and one of the big issues is intersectionality and the lack of that understanding in social services, so white cis straight abled males and white cis straight abled females are the ones who have an “easier” time (and statistically face less chances of abuse and rape), which isn’t that they have it EASY just that other ppl can’t even ACCESS these systems… :

But the solution isn’t blowing up feminism or anti-oppression or men’s shelters, that’d make it worse : It’s fighting rape culture (which includes MEN, as I keep saying, feminism can’t believe men aren’t raped b/c we have SHELTERS FOR THEM, reality disagrees with theory, so theory should change 🙂 OR you could get involved w/ reality! shelters always need more volunteers and donations 🙂 or create a fund for abused men, or open your door or offer a couch to any homeless or abused men on the Spearhead who need help… regardless of ideology, I always encourage ppl to help, b/c real ppl out there are suffering, and it’s not a game 🙁 ) and oppression and stigma and the lack of understanding in intersectionality. Everybody should be safe and never face abuse, assault or rape. 🙂

Lady Victoria von Syrus
Lady Victoria von Syrus
11 years ago

It seems to me that the solution is easy… don’t fuck drunk women. Hell, you can even administer a field sobriety test to be really sure, and if she fails… don’t fuck her!

I know, it totally sucks and is probably a human rights violation somewhere that you can’t actually fuck her, and y’all probably suspect somewhere deep down inside that the only women who’ll fuck you are ones who have had their inhibitions severely reduced*. But on the other hand, MRAs always whine about how feminists accuse them of being uncontrolled beasts – so why not prove them wrong by refraining from engaging in sexual activity you know to be of questionable morality/legality?

* You’re probably right, but that means that you need to become a better person, not fuck drunk women to get laid.

Bee
Bee
11 years ago

NWOslave said: A man and a woman are drinking.
1)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to drive and gets into an accident is “he” culpable?

2)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to walk and falls and injures herself is “he” culpable?

3)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to shoplift is “he” culpable?

4)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to have sex is “he” culpable?

So, you realize that we can answer these on the basis of who has committed the crime, right?

1. Drunk driving is a crime. Absent extenuating facts (does social host liability apply?), the drunk driver would be responsible.

2. No crime committed here, absent extenuating facts.

3. Shoplifting is a crime. The shoplifter would be responsible.

4. No crime committed here based on your facts. If the woman in question was so drunk that a reasonable person would say that she lacks the ability to give valid consent, yes: a person who took advantage of her incapacitated state and raped her would have committed a crime, and would be the one who was responsible for that crime.

Arielle
Arielle
11 years ago

“You take 5 ounces of Female/Feminist hate and deception”

And so once again, we see some typical pathetic, ironic, hypocritical drivel from the MRAs. They claim the female sex and those who identify as feminists are hateful and deceptive, yet MRAs are some of the most hateful people around.

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. It’s almost like really believable trolling, yet I think these people are being serious. How can so many men believe such shit? It doesn’t make any sense…

Pecunium
11 years ago

Bee, it’s a wasted effort. The law says that a person who takes advantage of a person’s incapacitation/intoxication is committing a crime. NWOslave has decided the law really means a “woman” who is intoxicated/incapacitation can be raped by a “man”.

Never mind that the law does say that. His idea that social distinctions, and cultural prejudice are such that no charge of rape will be supported at trial isn’t, to his mind, proof that the social understanding of rape is wrong. No, it means feminists have it in for men.

NWOslave
NWOslave
11 years ago

@Pecunium…If a woman is drunk and buys something she can’t afford can she just give it back and claim the contract null and void? Could she claim she was taken advantage of? Just because a woman is drunk at the time she is still accountable.

No one forced you to get drunk. No one forced you to make a decision to have sex while drunk. You, as a woman chose both to drink and have sex while drunk. Feminists love to go on and on about how they love sex and they own their sex. Well if thats the case the own up to the responsibilities.

Are you an equal or do you need special protection like a child. I was drunk so I can’t be held responsible for the desicions I make while drinking. You’re a big girl now act like it. You chose to drink, you chose to have sex while drinking, grow up. Equality means be accountable for your actions at all times.

Ami Angelwings
11 years ago

Also incapication/intoxication doesn’t mean “a girl has a drink and then says “let’s fuck” and the guy is a rapist!” -_-;; Kinda like “unconsciousness” doesn’t mean “I feel drowsy”. xD And that’s not how the law is applied (nor is it an AUTOMATIC, which is one of the myths of the justice system, that trials are essentially “did you have a drink miss?” “yes” “did you have sex with her while she had alcohol in her system sir?” “yes” “GUILTY! NEXT!” Again, maybe this is what some ppl ASSUME b/c tv/googling the law/etc has helped them construct this, but the good thing about this is that it’s not theory, there’s a reality, and in real life this isn’t generally true (you can always sit in on a court case, or talk to rape shelter counsellors, or rape survivors (any gender) or lawyers, or etc) Given that none of us are lawyers (as far as I know), it’s meaningless in general to argue about how we personally interpret the law we just googled 🙁 B/c it’s gonna be ironically “ey said/ey said” xD But the whole “she has any BAC and anybody she wants to f- has raped her!” that’s not how the law is interpreted IRL, and it’s not gender specific. 🙂

If ppl dun BELIEVE this tho, there’s easy ways to verify since real life is just outside the door! 😀

Bee
Bee
11 years ago

NWOslave: If a woman is drunk and buys something she can’t afford can she just give it back and claim the contract null and void?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. (Mostly no.)

“Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract. Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).”

From this site.

But you’re looking at this backwards. If a drunk person is murdered, would the murderer be able to use the victim’s drunkenness as an excuse? If a drunk person is physically assaulted, would his assailant be off the hook? (Answers: No.)

Intoxication can be a defense in some crimes, too, when the perpetrator is drunk. Something about the perpetrator needing to form specific as opposed to general consent. Read the wikipedia article about intoxication defenses and you’ll know as much as I do about that. It’s not a defense, as I’m sure you know, for rape.

But that’s a completely separate issue. You appear to be looking at this in a way that puts the blame squarely on the victim, and not the person who committed the crime.

%d bloggers like this: