Man falsely accused of rape released from prison 9 years later

[Bini]

[Vort]

This is wrong. We know that women never lie about being raped. It's one of the NOW's articles of faith. And if she did lie -- which she didn't! -- that just shows how abused she has been by the men in her life. Probably mainly her dad, the jerk. Doubtless he deserved the prison time anyway.

[Saldrin]

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur says that the county will not take legal action against Kennedy, partly because authorities do not want to discourage individuals in similar circumstances from stepping forward.

Is it just me or does that statement say they want people who are going to falsely accuse other people of rape to come forward?

[beefche]

Yes, and there is nothing to discourage them from making the false claims in the first place. I realize this girl was a child when she made the accusations, but there are plenty of women who make false accusations--Duke Lacrosse players, anyone?

[Dravin]

Is it just me or does that statement say they want people who are going to falsely accuse other people of rape to come forward?

It says they want people who have falsely accused people of rape who are going to recant to come forward. Or to include the original nuance, that they don't want to discourage such.

I suppose there are a couple items for debate in the thought process:

1) How likely are legal consequences for false accusations to discourage recanting.

2) How likely are legal consequences to prevent false accusations in the first place.

3) Which is the more desirable aim, legal consequences for false accusations or not discouraging recanting?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Dravin

[JudoMinja]

I found a link that gives a more detailed account. I just had such a hard time believing something like this could happen, and after reading the full article it's just frightening. This girl really worked out all the details about her lie, and I can see how the jurors were fooled. It wasn't just a case of someone claiming "rape" and the guy getting quickly imprisoned without a thorough investigation. I don't see how her getting away scot-free does her father any justice or encourages people to be truthful about such serious allegations, but if her father isn't pressing charges then I guess thats that. It's so sad.

[Vort]

I just had such a hard time believing something like this could happen

Not sure why. False rape allegations are as old as mankind. Heck, the Salem witch trials are evidence enough that young girls will lie for absurdly petty reasons. This is not news. In our rush to protect the innocent, we condemn the innocent. How ironic.

Having said that, I have the following objections to the breast-beating about Cassandra Kennedy not being charged:

• She was ELEVEN when she lied. I'm no lawyer, but I feel quite sure that you cannot try an adult on criminal charges stemming from a lie she told when she was eleven.
• Even if you maintain that she's an adult NOW and that she should have told the truth five years ago when she turned 18, I don't believe such a thing is a criminal activity. Not volunteering exculpatory information years after a conviction is reprehensible but not, I suspect, illegal.
• After all is said and done, this young woman is trying to right a wrong that she committed WHEN SHE WAS ELEVEN. She claims she did not understand the repercussions of her lies, and I see no reason to disbelieve that part of her words. Why put a young woman in jail for trying to right a wrong she committed as an eleven-year-old?

According to feminist theology, all men are rapists. We live in a vomitously feminist world, which is the basis for much of the evil we see around us. But the solution is not to lock up an eleven-year-old-liar-turned-23-year-old-regretter. The solution is to quit indoctrinating ourselves and our children in the feminist lies we have almost all heard since our childhood.

[Backroads]

I'm just amazed by it. That's quite a complex lie. And yet, part of me is proud of her for coming clean. I don't know whether it's stronger than my horror at her.

[MarginOfError]

so...with whom was she having sexual experiences that allowed her to provide sufficient evidence for this conviction?

[JudoMinja]

Not sure why. False rape allegations are as old as mankind.

I understand that academically, but it's just something I've never had experience with, which makes it difficult for me to comprehend. I've looked into the topic of rape very little, and I was under the impression that we were far past an innocent person being accused of rape just on someone's word- though it is something that has happened quite often in the past. Part of what made it so difficult for me to understand was that she was so young when she lied about it and that they had enough information to believe she was telling the truth. The detailed story I looked up helped me see just what extent she'd gone to in order to fabricate her story, and it was shocking.

After reading yours and Dravin's post, and some of the comments on the news article, I can also understand why the girl didn't receive any reprecussions for her lie. At the same time though, it worries me that such leniency will encourage others planning on lying to continue doing so- and going to the same rediculous lengths to make their lies appear credible. But... I guess if someone has the mindset to do something like that, they would do so anyway.

It just baffles me. I've never understood liars. While I get the base reasons for it (escaping punishment, getting unwarranted rewards, etc), and I understand the psychology of it (people will continue doing something that "works" and gets them their desired results), I just can't get myself to make the connection and really understand WHY people lie. And then of course- when we have so much scientific and technological advancement to help us with forensic investigations- how someone could get away with it.

[MarginOfError]

Keep in mind, Judo, that this is a pretty exceptional case. This is a girl who claims that she began having sexual experiences when she was in second grade. We don't know who here experience was with, or what the circumstances were, but it would be incredible if all those experiences were voluntary and consensual.

In all likelihood, this girl had suffered some pretty serious traumas. Her sense of right, wrong, and of ethics may have been pretty trashed.

[applepansy]

Not sure why. False rape allegations are as old as mankind. Heck, the Salem witch trials are evidence enough that young girls will lie for absurdly petty reasons. This is not news. In our rush to protect the innocent, we condemn the innocent. How ironic.

Having said that, I have the following objections to the breast-beating about Cassandra Kennedy not being charged:

• She was ELEVEN when she lied. I'm no lawyer, but I feel quite sure that you cannot try an adult on criminal charges stemming from a lie she told when she was eleven.
• Even if you maintain that she's an adult NOW and that she should have told the truth five years ago when she turned 18, I don't believe such a thing is a criminal activity. Not volunteering exculpatory information years after a conviction is reprehensible but not, I suspect, illegal.
• After all is said and done, this young woman is trying to right a wrong that she committed WHEN SHE WAS ELEVEN. She claims she did not understand the repercussions of her lies, and I see no reason to disbelieve that part of her words. Why put a young woman in jail for trying to right a wrong she committed as an eleven-year-old?

According to feminist theology, all men are rapists. We live in a vomitously feminist world, which is the basis for much of the evil we see around us. But the solution is not to lock up an eleven-year-old-liar-turned-23-year-old-regretter. The solution is to quit indoctrinating ourselves and our children in the feminist lies we have almost all heard since our childhood.

Unfortunately its not just young girls. Didn't you know children don't lie? Ask any DCFS case worker. Children always tell the truth. (typed with as much sarcasm as possible)

[Vort]

Keep in mind, Judo, that this is a pretty exceptional case. This is a girl who claims that she began having sexual experiences when she was in second grade. We don't know who here experience was with, or what the circumstances were, but it would be incredible if all those experiences were voluntary and consensual.

Wrong. It would be absolutely and utterly believable.

[applepansy]

Keep in mind, Judo, that this is a pretty exceptional case. This is a girl who claims that she began having sexual experiences when she was in second grade. We don't know who here experience was with, or what the circumstances were, but it would be incredible if all those experiences were voluntary and consensual.

In all likelihood, this girl had suffered some pretty serious traumas. Her sense of right, wrong, and of ethics may have been pretty trashed.

I hope it would be important for her to "remember" who really abused her and resolve those issues.

[Windseeker]

So I don't get this the charges are dropped? What if it really did happen but she feels her Dad has changed and feels bad for him and just wants him out. They just let him out?

[Vort]

He was convicted based entirely on her testimony as an eleven-year-old, with circumstantial corroberation (i.e. evidence of sexual "trauma"). Once she withdraws her testimony, the case against him vanishes.

[Windseeker]

How do we know she's telling the truth now?

[Vort]

That's the point. It doesn't matter if she's telling the truth now. She is casting doubt on her testimony of twelve years ago, and that testimony is the only reason her father is in jail. Whether she is lying now or was lying then, there is no other reasonable course but to free her father and drop the conviction.

[Dravin]

That's the point. It doesn't matter if she's telling the truth now. She is casting doubt on her testimony of twelve years ago, and that testimony is the only reason her father is in jail. Whether she is lying now or was lying then, there is no other reasonable course but to free her father and drop the conviction.

It's similar to if she'd recanted during the trial. Objectively we may not be able to tell which scenario (if any) is the truth, but if you're willing to assert what happened as A at one point and as B at another (in this context) it casts doubt as to the veracity of both statements. If it would have been enough to create obvious reasonable doubt at trial it makes sense to exonerate the accused. The courts are, ideally, predisposed towards a not-guilty verdict. If one is looking at a 50/50 chance of guilt*, that's not really beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there had been something like DNA evidence (e.g. semen sample) then her recanting probably wouldn't have changed anything, as her change in testimony doesn't create sufficient doubt in the face of the other evidence.

*Not quite that simple, but if we assume one assertion must be correct it works well enough.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Dravin

[PeterVenkman]

According to feminist theology, all men are rapists. We live in a vomitously feminist world, which is the basis for much of the evil we see around us. But the solution is not to lock up an eleven-year-old-liar-turned-23-year-old-regretter. The solution is to quit indoctrinating ourselves and our children in the feminist lies we have almost all heard since our childhood.

I cannot overstate the intensity with which I disagree with your assertion. Which feminist authors are you reading? Please, identify the names of the feminist authors that say all men are rapists. A majority of my academic work focuses on feminism and I have never in my life come across a feminist who made this claim.

First wave feminism - A push for equal rights for women (voting rights, property rights, personal autonomy).

Second wave feminism - A push to equalize the percentage of women and men in traditional "men roles" (like governance, business management, education, political advocacy, legal and medical professions, etc.).

Third wave feminism - A post-modern reflection on feminism itself. Third wave feminism is often critical of all other forms of feminism because they promote stereotypes about what it means to be a woman.

You say feminism is "the basis of most of the evil we see around us". I don't understand this at all and I think it is a dangerous claim to make. Please elaborate on the nature and context of these "lies" you say we've been fed. Which one is most evil? First wave, second wave or third wave feminism? Are we talking Mary Wollstonecraft (women should have the right to vote) or Judith Butler (womanhood is socially constructed)? Are we talking international relations feminism or third world feminism or marxist feminism? Which one is the purveyor of evil lies? Don't say all of them because they don't exactly agree on major issues.

The closest I can come to fitting your allegations to an actual theorist is Catharine MacKinnon, who is a canadian/american feminist. Among other major theories, MacKinnon has been the most influential critic of pornography. She does claim that objectifying someone in pornography requires the same philosophical foundation as sexual assault, but she never says all men are rapists. In fact, it seems that MacKinnon's ideas and anti-porn activism are consistent with church doctrine.

It seems to me that THE MOST COMMON MISCONCEPTION about feminism is that it is comprised of a bunch of "man-hating feminazis". The truth is that if you were to create a list of concepts that feminists believe in, most people would say they agree with those concepts. Simply calling it "feminism" however brings all of these stereotypes and misconceptions to the surface.

Equal voting rights, equal pay, a belief that all human beings have equal worth, a belief that victimization holds the potential to do harm, a belief in the value of bodily integrity, and principles of compromise, understanding and sensitivity...are these the values that make you vomit?

On the topic of the thread: Rape law is a complicated issue, and even has its own rules associated with its prosecution. However, in the court of public opinion, we may be quick to jump to conclusions, and sometimes those conclusions end up assaulting the victim of crimes multiple times. Do false rape accusations happen? Sure. Do they happen as often as some people assert that they happen? Absolutely not. There is too much shame and judgment of rape survivors as it is, and I'm not sure many people would be willing to take on all of the reputational and psychological baggage that comes from accusing someone of rape without some kernel of truth or confusion about a particular encounter or something. All I'm trying to say is that the facts of any given situation may be more complicated than they seem and it would not be fair to reduce confusion to "lying".

Edited April 5, 2012 by PeterVenkman

[Vort]

I cannot overstate the intensity with which I disagree with your assertion. Which feminist authors are you reading? Please, identify the names of the feminist authors that say all men are rapists. A majority of my academic work focuses on feminism and I have never in my life come across a feminist who made this claim.

You must be joking. You claim to work in the field, yet have never encountered these quotations:

Robin Morgan: "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Andrea Dworkin: "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

Susan Griffin Rape: The All-American Crime: "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."

Susan Brownmiller: "[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"

Catherine MacKinnon, "A Rally Against Rape" in Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (1987): "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated."

If this is the case, I can only suppose that your word is not to be trusted.

You say feminism is "the basis of most of the evil we see around us". I don't understand this at all and I think it is a dangerous claim to make.

Of course you think it is a dangerous claim to make. As you freely admit, you don't even understand it. But then, somehow you have missed the obvious and unbridled hatred of men and masculinity in the feminist movement, so I am not surprised.

Please elaborate on the nature and context of these "lies" you say we've been fed.

Their nature is the nature of lies -- untruths. Not sure how to be more explicit. The context is in talking about men, women, families, and the interrelationship between them.

The closest I can come to fitting your allegations to an actual theorist is Catharine MacKinnon, who is a canadian/american feminist.

You know, I briefly but seriously contemplated a career in academia. You illustrate well why I rejected the idea.

Equal voting rights, equal pay, a belief that all human beings have equal worth, a belief that victimization holds the potential to do harm, a belief in the value of bodily integrity, and principles of compromise, understanding and sensitivity...are these the values that make you vomit?

Ah, yes. "Feminism is the radical belief that women are human beings." But mention that you believe, for example, abortion is the killing of a human being and that women should not be allowed the unrestricted freedom to kill their babies before birth, and suddenly the feminists brand you some absurd appellation like "anti-choice".

Do false rape accusations happen? Sure. Do they happen as often as some people assert that they happen? Absolutely not.

Do they happen a great deal more often then many feminists assert? Absolutely.

Why didn't you mention that one? Huh. I wonder.

All I'm trying to say is that the facts of any given situation may be more complicated than they seem and it would not be fair to reduce confusion to "lying".

The woman freely admitted she lied. How dare you defend her actions when she openly admits to lying and sending her father to prison for a decade?

You are a case study in how feminism warps people's perspective.

[PeterVenkman]

You must be joking. You claim to work in the field, yet have never encountered these quotations:

You said "feminists believe all men are rapists." This is a totalizing claim that I am questioning. None of the examples you have provided actually say that, and any actual reading of the materials you've quoted will show that context is important. (As an aside, I just want to note that each of these quotes appear on the Conservapedia article for Feminism, but you actually copied and pasted them from "feminist-hate.org" which is hardly a fair representation of the feminist movement)

Robin Morgan: "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Robin Morgan is a famous civil rights feminist and long editor of Ms. magazine. She is very important in the development of feminist ideology because of her focus on the ways that language informs masculinity and femininity. She developed the idea that "the personal is political", which is not only true but a major development in philosophical discourse. In this quote, Morgan says that she considers it to be rape if the woman does not consent out of her own genuine affection and desire. She thinks there is sexual assault when a woman is pressured into having sex or feels like she has to when she doesn't want to. Seems reasonable to me, but that's probably because I believe rape is possible without forcing someone down...intimidation and threats still count.

Andrea Dworkin: "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

This quote is misattributed. Straight from wikiquote: The first appearance of this quote is in P: A Novel (2003), by Andrew Lewis Conn, as a quote from the fictional feminist "Corinne Dwarfkin". The original reads, "In capsule form, my thesis is that heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled expression of men's contempt for women." In the altered form given above, the quote is attributed in several books to Andrea Dworkin. Neil Boyd, in Big Sister (2004), attributes the quote to Letters from a War Zone; however, this quote, nor any one with similar phrasing, does not appear in that work.

Dworkin is also a famous feminist, and she can be angry sometimes. She is kind of like the Christopher Hitchins of feminists, not afraid to defend a radical idea...but she never said men were rapists. I prefer this quote of hers:

"I have spent 20 years writing these books. Had I wanted to say men are beasts and scream, that takes 30 seconds."

Susan Griffin Rape: The All-American Crime: "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."

Susan Griffin is a major contributor to ecofeminism, which is a branch of feminism that is dedicated to drawing connections between the exercise of masculine power and the destruction of the environment. This quote also does not say all men are rapists. It even says there is a difference between the average male and the "professional rapist"...they are not one in the same, even if the difference is not qualitative...

Susan Brownmiller: "[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"

This quote defines rape, not men.

Catherine MacKinnon, "A Rally Against Rape" in Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (1987): "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated."

This also doesn't say all men are rapists. It says that Catharine MacKinnon considers it rape when a woman feels violated after sex (as in, pressured into it, threatened into it, etc.)

If this is the case, I can only suppose that your word is not to be trusted.

Well that's not very nice. At least when I typed out my response I didn't simply cut and paste from "all men are rapists" at feminist-hate.tripod.com. I have a feeling my word on this forum already suffers from distrust, but I'm not going to cry about it.

Of course you think it is a dangerous claim to make. As you freely admit, you don't even understand it. But then, somehow you have missed the obvious and unbridled hatred of men and masculinity in the feminist movement, so I am not surprised.

I've been an active member in the feminist movement for over a decade, and I am a masculine guy. I somehow missed the "obvious" unbridled hatred of men and masculinity because such unbridled hatred does not exist, in my experiences. It is simply a stereotype about feminists that is projected by forces that have a vested interest in protecting masculinity. The truth is that the feminists are the most welcoming and accomodating progressive group I've ever been part of. In truth most people in the feminist movement have been nicer to me than many members of the LDS faith.

Their nature is the nature of lies -- untruths. Not sure how to be more explicit. The context is in talking about men, women, families, and the interrelationship between them.

Again with the totalizing claims. Third wave feminists don't believe in "human nature", or even that their movement has a specific "nature".

You know, I briefly but seriously contemplated a career in academia. You illustrate well why I rejected the idea.

Presently I'm a lawyer not a professor, but I'm still not sure what this means. Are you insulting me?

Ah, yes. "Feminism is the radical belief that women are human beings." But mention that you believe, for example, abortion is the killing of a human being and that women should not be allowed the unrestricted freedom to kill their babies before birth, and suddenly the feminists brand you some absurd appellation like "anti-choice".

Not all feminists are pro-choice. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are two examples of pro-life feminists that have had a major impact on the movement. The abortion debate is not the same thing as feminism.

Do they happen a great deal more often then many feminists assert? Absolutely.

Why didn't you mention that one? Huh. I wonder.

I didn't mention that one because I think rape is actually UNDERREPORTED, not overreported. In other words, there is a lot more sexual assault happening every day that is not reported to the police or prosecuted in a court of law. There is a lot of gender violence that goes unseen. As such, I am not willing to say that feminists are exaggerating the numbers when it comes to sexual assault.

The woman freely admitted she lied. How dare you defend her actions when she openly admits to lying and sending her father to prison for a decade?

You are a case study in how feminism warps people's perspective.

On the last page, it was asked, "how do we know if she is lying now?" and you responded by saying that we don't know and it doesn't matter because the guy gets out of jail and she is not punished. My entire point was that it may be more complicated than it seems.

Feminism has taught me to respect other people and care for others. It has taught me to be responsible for my actions and compromise when in disagreement. If I am a case study in how feminism can warp people's perspective, then I take that as a compliment in the highest degree because that warp in perspective has made me a better person.

Edited April 5, 2012 by PeterVenkman

[Vort]

You said "feminists believe all men are rapists." This is a totalizing claim that I am questioning. None of the examples you have provided actually say that, and any actual reading of the materials you've quoted will show that context is important.

Heh, heh, heh. In other words, you will attempt to explain away the clear meaning of words.

Robin Morgan is a famous civil rights feminist and long editor of Ms. magazine. She is very important in the development of feminist ideology [blah blah blah] In this quote, Morgan says that she considers it to be rape if the woman does not consent out of her own genuine affection and desire.

Wrong. Try reading it again. I'll help by providing you the quotation:

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Does that help you? Let me give you two examples of Morganian "rape":

• A husband proposes sex to the wife, and she agrees.
• A wife proposes sex to her husband because she feels guilty that they haven't had sex in almost a week.

In each instance, the husband is raping the wife, by Morgan's own definition.

Seems reasonable to me

Of course it does. I am not in the least surprised.

This quote is misattributed.

You are correct. The broader quote, in context, from her work Intercourse:

There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy. ...

There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has, in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while the subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

Good luck talking your way out of this one.

Susan Griffin is a major contributor to ecofeminism, which is a branch of feminism that is dedicated to drawing connections between the exercise of masculine power and the destruction of the environment. This quote also does not say all men are rapists. It even says there is a difference between the average male and the "professional rapist"...they are not one in the same, even if the difference is not qualitative...

Serously? You are seriously, truthfully arguing that, since she said that the only difference between a "professional rapist" (didn't realize there were men paid to rape) and your average everyday heterosexual man is one of degree, not type, that she is therefore saying that they are of a different species?

That is pathetic. It is clear that you are unable to truthfully acknowledge the hateful, vile things feminists say about men and masculinity, even when their words are before you.

This quote defines rape, not men.

Wrong. She applied it to all men. Reread the quote. Here, I'll help you again:

[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear

This also doesn't say all men are rapists. It says that Catharine MacKinnon considers it rape when a woman feels violated after sex

So, then, if a woman freely agrees to sex -- heck, if she INITIATES sex -- but then afterwards "feels violated", it's rape.

And you're okay with that.

Your credibility decreases by the minute.

Well that's not very nice. At least when I typed out my response I didn't simply cut and paste from "all men are rapists" at feminist-hate.tripod.com.

Whine about the source all you want. The quotations are truthful, and you have failed adequately to defend even one of them. (Arguably you defended the hateful Dworkin's quote by pointing out that it is not actually a quotation, but the substance of it is exactly what she wrote -- no matter how she tried to spin it in her later "clarification".)

I have a feeling my word on this forum already suffers from distrust, but I'm not going to cry about it.

Why, no. Instead, you defend the indefensible.

I've been an active member in the feminist movement for over a decade, and I am a masculine guy. I somehow missed the "obvious" unbridled hatred of men and masculinity because such unbridled hatred does not exist, in my experiences.

It does in my experience. How is your experience any more valid than mine?

Again with the totalizing claims. Third wave feminists don't believe in "human nature", or even that their movement has a specific "nature".

Wow. Now you're qualified to speak for "feminists" and what they do or do not believe about human nature.

What happened to your disdain of "totalizing claims"? Or do those rules only apply to those who don't buy into your political agenda?

Presently I'm a lawyer not a professor, but I'm still not sure what this means. Are you insulting me?

Nope. I'm stating a fact.

Not all feminists are pro-choice. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are two examples of pro-life feminists that have had a major impact on the movement.

You bring up two examples FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY to demonstrate how feminists don't agree with abortion?

What a hoot!

The abortion debate is not the same thing as feminism.

Tell that to the feminists who refuse to allow pro-life speakers at sponsored events.

I didn't mention that one because I think rape is actually UNDERREPORTED, not overreported.

Therefore, if an innocent man gets screwed, so be it.

On the last page, it was asked, "how do we know if she is lying now?" and you responded by saying that we don't know and it doesn't matter because the guy gets out of jail and she is not punished. My entire point was that it may be more complicated than it seems.

And a pathetic point it is. As long as she maintained her father raped her, why weren't you out there crying in defense of the convicted rapist father, "Look, it may be more complicated than it seems!!"?

Oh, that's right. Because you're a feminist.

Feminism has taught me to respect other people and care for others.

This may be the single funniest thing you have written.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Vort

[MarginOfError]

So let me get this straight.

Vort says that feminism is nothing more than man-hating.

Peter says that's overly simplistic and describes a number of forms of feminism that all vary in their treatment of men.

Vort retorts only with quotes that support his notion of what feminism is and ignores anything that does't conform to his notion.

Nice.

[Vort]

So let me get this straight.

Vort says that feminism is nothing more than man-hating.

Peter says that's overly simplistic and describes a number of forms of feminism that all vary in their treatment of men.

Vort retorts only with quotes that support his notion of what feminism is and ignores anything that does't conform to his notion.

Nice.

Shows how well you do in getting things straight. More or less what I expected from you.

Peter refuses to acknowledge the open hostility toward men in the quotes I provided. I wonder* why you aren't taking him to task for that?

*I don't really wonder.