The Definition of Feminism – Alyss Majere
March 8, 2014 in Blog by miSter_inFamies
Nephanor’s Natterings 11: Sex, Drugs & Feminism
March 7, 2014 in Blog by Nephanor
The first video with an actual intro animation. It’s nothing spectacular, but hey, I just took an hour to create it. This time we talk about the terrible crime of having sex with a drunk person, who is really to blame, and why everyone has the whole story backwards. We are going to examine things with an analogy that actually is a perfect parallel, as we all know that drinking makes you totally not responsible for your actions.
Nephanor’s Natterings 10: Sexism, Lies & Video Games
March 7, 2014 in Blog by Nephanor
This time around we explore the world of video games, sexism controversy, and the lies told by those who wish to change it. All footage used in this video is under the Fair Use policy and copyright law.
Read the rest of this entry →
Unpacking the Invisible Nutsack
February 28, 2014 in Blog by Raz
From Taki’s Magazine, a superfluous article on patriarchy, and supposed male privilege. Enjoy!
———
We are told, often with ill intent, that we live in a patriarchal culture. Our schoolteachers, who always seem to be female, lecture us that males enjoy unfair privileges merely for being born with an “outie’ rather than an “innie.”
We are also told, on buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee cups, and even whiskey flasks, that “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” I think antimisandry.com phrased the problem more accurately: “Feminism is the radical notion that men are not people.”
For all the gum-flapping that these dizzy broads do about male privilege and the brute emotional coldness of the entire male gender, they’re either blind or indifferent to the multifarious ways that women enjoy tremendous societal advantages. And on the rare occasion when they concede that men are able to experience any emotional pain whatsoever, it is usually to mock them for it. Amid all this balderdash and poppycock and bunkum and flapdoodle about “rights” and “equality,” you gals lose sight of the fact that us guys don’t always have it so swell.
“Amid all this balderdash and poppycock and bunkum and flapdoodle about ‘rights’ and ‘equality,’ you gals lose sight of the fact that us guys don’t always have it so swell.”
Peggy McIntosh, a homely woman at any age, is famous for her essay “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” which urged white people to divest themselves of their allegedly unearned—and apparently imperceptible—privileges ASAP lest they suffer the hell-pangs of eternal racial guilt. In the same misguided spirit of that essay, I would like to suggest that rather than enjoying unbridled and unchallenged privileges, modern males are laden with several distinct disadvantages that we carry around in our invisible scrotums like granite stones weighing down a stretched-out wineskin. Hence, “The Invisible Nutsack.”
‘Tis a nutsack that weighs so heavily upon our fortunes, we tend to die much younger than you do. Even in this allegedly racist society, black women have a longer life expectancy than white men. While male NFL players are forced to wear pink cleats to fight breast cancer, men quietly die in larger numbers from prostate cancer. But perhaps as the saying goes, men die before women do because they want to.
Our male privilege is so egregious, we are far more likely than women to die in war, in the workplace, and as the result of violent crime or suicide. Despite our society’s “war on women,” we are statistically more likely than females to become homeless and/or alcoholics. Our lives are deemed so valuable, we get shoved to the back of the line when evacuating a sinking ship. Our bodies have always been, and may always remain, more dispensable than those of women.
To our privileged eyes, the legal system appears biased in women’s favor. Even when convicted of identical crimes, men are far more likely than women to be sentenced to prison in the first place, and when they are, their sentences are on average more than 60% longer. Only men and not women are required to register with the Selective Service. Women may receive government funds to start businesses that are unavailable to men. The law leans heavily in women’s favor when it comes to adoption, divorce, and child custody. Since a man has zero say in whether a woman chooses to keep or abort a fetus, he literally has zero “reproductive rights,” yet he will be jailed if he does not financially support his spawn. Both the law and public sentiment automatically favor women in any domestic dispute. Women consume a majority of entitlement programs while contributing a minority of taxes.
While women whine about being “sex objects,” men are largely measured by their earning potential. And despite the largely inaccurate and mythical wage gap, a Nielsen report claims that women “control the majority of spending decisions,” which suggests that the schmuck who works for the money may not be nearly as important as the shrew who winds up blowing it.
Double standards abound. Criticizing a girl’s looks is nearly a hate crime, while fat bald males with tiny schweens are fair game for cackling shrieks of ridicule. Men merely get circumcised, while women suffer “genital mutilation.” Adult males who have sex with young women are pedophiles, while adult females who have sex with young men are “cougars.” If a man loses at romance he’s a loser, whereas a woman has the privilege of claiming she was “wronged.” Women getting raped is never a laughing matter; men getting raped is always a laughing matter.
Perhaps most importantly, men can’t win when it comes to expressing emotions. We’re depicted as coldhearted for maintaining a stiff upper lip, but as weak if we cry. And still you wonder why we die younger.
How about you girls be cool for once and check your own damn privileges? I honestly think it would help. You chicks should lay off the henpecking just a tad and acknowledge that we are every bit as human as you, that our suffering is just as real as yours, that we are not monsters and that we bleed, too, although admittedly not every month. By the way, if you’re truly so oppressed, why are you the ones who get multiple orgasms? Talk about first-class citizens!
I often get wistful and wish we actually lived in a patriarchy. I heard it was great.
Jim Goad
http://takimag.com/article/the_invisible_nutsack_jim_goad#axzz2ufbURzJa
A Response From Mr. Vengeance: Glen Canning’s Dark Alter-Ego
February 26, 2014 in Blog by Raz
Glen Canning has responded to my previous article (published on mensrightsedmonton.com) under a sinister sounding pseudonym: “Vengeance.” Vengeance writes:
“It seems to me from where I’m sitting, that Rehtaeh Parsons was not gang-raped, she was the willing participant in a drunken orgy. ” Where your sitting is in a pile of shit. There was an email sent to Leah following Rehtaeh’s death that outlines exactly what happened that night. She was vomiting when they had sex with her. That message came from the kid in the photograph. But really, you’re not interested in proving anything and nothing will convince you. Not even the hundreds of kids who got the text message of the photo wit them saying she was drunk and passed out she they had sex with her.Also saying her parents “permitted her to drink and use drugs” is about as pathetic as you can get. Did your parents “permit” you to do everything you did when you were a teenager? That seriously isa stupid thing to say.——-
A girl referred to as a witness was present for part of the night, and was friends with the boys, having dated at least one of them. When the lead investigator came to her house around November 2011, she asked the girl if she believed Rehtaeh had consented. The girl said yes.But in a later interview with The Chronicle Herald, it was clear that the girl didn’t understand the legal definition of sexual assault, which can take place when someone is highly intoxicated and not resisting.Rehtaeh couldn’t have been raped, said the girl, because the mother who was home that night didn’t wake up.“If you’re getting raped by four people, or two people, or one person even, you’re going to be screaming, you’re going to be yelling, you’re going to be crying,” she said.——-That is from this article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1176343-rehtaeh-parsons-case-not-a-routine-procedureYou know who Christie spoke too? A crown attorney defending their own fuck up.You are a lynch mob whether you want to be or not. You’re just not on the right team.You are a rape apologist Patrick. Grow up for fucks sake!
And here we go again with the robotic knee-jerk responses from Mr. Canning. He calls me a “rape apologist” they way would call a black person a “nigger.” Just for questioning serious allegations that have yet to have been proven with evidence.
You know who Christie spoke too? A crown attorney defending their own fuck up.
More like a crown attorney reporting their side of the story. Something the mass media failed to do mostly while they were busy feeding the public hate machine with hearsay propaganda coming directly from Leah Parsons, Glen Canning, and Facebook.
And here we have the fucker resort to using my own real name to respond back to me. Was that to provoke an emotional response? Isn’t this starting to resemble the behavior of a basic internet troll. That’s what, in my opinion, Glen Canning has become: a troll. Using lame intimidation tactics and toothless threats of using his “Anonymous buddies” to hack people’s blogs and expose their personal information to the public.
This is not the first time Mr. Canning has done this. MrBaconFat53 reports being trolled by Mr. Vengeance on more than one occasion.
Here: http://baconfat53.blogspot.ca/2014/02/vengeance-is-insane.html
Today my little “friend” “vengeance” has gone bereft of his few senses and sent seven threatening ,outraged and poorly written and spelled missives to me. I ought to inform Vengeance that Krysta Ink is not my daughter. I have never heard of her, nor her me. So any harassment of her by you may well end up in the police being called, I would imagine
Our little “friend” Vengeance claims he “knows several folks at CFB Edmonton” and that they are looking for me on his behalf . I as former serving officer with Officer’s Mess privileges I indeed have the acquaintance of a number of military personnel at Edmonton Garrison. Mr. Vengeance is as always, full of hot air.
If you do not like this blog, don’t read it!
Here: http://baconfat53.blogspot.ca/2014/02/vengeance-is-mine-thus-saith-lord-and.html
Rehtaeh Parsons is dead. Rehtaeh Parsons killed herself. Rehteah Parsons died a child, that ought to have been protected, and cherished by her parents. But alas Rehtaeh Prason is dead.
I have no clue is Vengeance is Mr. Canning’s alter ego, or some pimply faced parasite stilling at home sponging off Mommy and Daddy. Nor do I care. But Mr. Vengeance / Mr. Canning during the course of their e mail spam, asked sarcastically what “legacy” a man such as myself would or will have. To which I reply my children, my daughter. My daughter is alive, with a LLB. Your daughter is quite dead, ”food for the worms if it were.” I enjoyed High School graduation, University convocation, Birthday’s, Christmas and so on. Rehateh Parsons is dead.
Real parents want, and need their children to be successful, to have better lives than ourselves. That’s what real parents do. My children are successful and alive. Mr. Vengeance, that is my legacy.
Rehtaeh Parsons is quite dead. That is Glen Canning’s and Leah Parsons “legacy.”
And here: http://baconfat53.blogspot.ca/2014/02/vengeance-saysblah-blah-blah.html
So Vengeance little “buddy,” when can I expect your “friends from CFB Edmonton to visit?
Where is the “big law suit” you promised going to happen. Do you need some money to hire representation? You still live at home, ask Mommy and Daddy for it?
Rehtaeh Parsons is dead. She’s dead partly because of very bad parenting. My daughter and Austin (an accountant) are successful and a joy. My guess is you are an unemployed loser, and or a parasite leeching of his parents.
Rehtaeh is dead. What kind of legacy could Glen Canning have to compensate for that?
So far, we have a pattern of trollish, passive-aggressive thought-policing from Mr. Canning aka “Vengeance.” And we know “Vengeance” is Mr. Canning himself because “Vengeance” only showed up after this Twitter exchange:
@GlenfordCanning @guardian What’s the ethics behind outing your critics? http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/support-your-allegations-glen-canning/ …
Glen Canning The Difference Between “Sex” and “Gender”
February 24, 2014 in Blog by Fidelbogen
————
In the early days of second-wave feminism, otherwise known as the women’s lib era of the ’60s and ’70s, our superfriends the feminists were keen to inform us that there were no basic differences between men and women. They were very serious about this, too. While they grudgingly admitted that male and female anatomy were different, they wanted us to understand that the difference stopped right there. Men and women were only physically different, and that was the end of it.
Their thesis was, to put it simply, that differences in male and female behavior were due to cultural training and nothing more. Such differences, you would say, were merely constructed. Therefore, this school of feminist thinking is known as “constructivism”. It is the “nurture” side of the nature-nurture debate.
In opposition was the theory called essentialism, which said that men and women were different in their essence. That is, that they were spiritually or psychologically different for reasons that cultural training could not fully explain.
The feminists had their reasons for insisting on constructivism. Overtly, they wanted to open up domains of life opportunity to the female population — the job market and the career jungle, for example. To this end, it was important to knock down any rationale for discrimination against women — and for starters, that meant any biological rationale.
But the feminists had more covert reasons for insisting that the sexes were non-physically indistinguishable. These reasons were rooted in feminist patriarchy theory. The feminist narrative, you see, is that women are “oppressed”, and that this state of affairs has persisted for a very long time — thousands of years, by some estimations. According to the feminists, women were forced, by men, to play certain roles in society — wife, mother, homemaker, and so on. And that is why the feminists had to adopt constructivism as their working hypothesis. For if men and women were naturally different in their psychology, they would naturally gravitate toward different functions within the body-politic. You wouldn’t need to “oppress” anybody into doing this.
And so, essentialism was anathema to the feminists because it would introduce so many doubts and questions into patriarchy theory as to effectively dismantle it.
Finally, the feminists had entirely covert reasons for insisting on constructivism as a working hypothesis. They wished to instill this idea because they wanted to force-integrate men and women not only in work and institutional settings, but in every social space you can imagine. Yet with one exception: if women didn’t want men around, they were free to be man-free. Men, however, were not to be permitted male-only space of any significance. Feminism is rife with such double-standards, but I digress.
Thus far the story is simple, but now it gets complicated. However, I will do my best to give you the short version. At a certain stage, the feminists and their leftist cohorts introduced a thing called “gender theory”. They shanghaied the grammatical term “gender” and pressed it into the service of constructivist thinking by making it mean the constructed male or female roles in society. Meanwhile, the word “sex” continued to mean biological maleness or femaleness. But with both terms in use, a state of muddled thinking arose in the average person’s mind. Gradually, “gender” came to be used interchangeably in cases where “sex” was meant. The fact that “sex” is also an abbreviated way of saying “sexual intercourse” gave a boost to this tendency. And to this day, even non-feminist men and women who ought to know better will say “gender” when they mean “sex”. They have been duped into internalizing the categories of gender theory and thinking like feminists.
When men and women were forced together into the same social spaces, conflicts based on their difference naturally arose. This is what you might predict when dissimilar behavior idioms run athwart of each other. But rather than acknowledge natural difference, the feminists shifted blame for the conflict onto men, and emphasized the need to culturally reprogram men in order to make them more like women. This led to a predictable escalation of tensions, and whenever men acted ornery about the situation, the feminists would cite their attitude as male intransigence.
The weight of evidence — folkloric, historic, sociological, anthropological, neurological and so on — does not favor constructivism as an explanation of sexual behavior differences. Indeed, if I were gambling at the racetrack, I would not hesitate to put my money on the horse called “essentialism”. Mind you, I am not disputing that men and women are trained into different cultural roles. However, I cannot buy the idea that such training is the sole point of origin for the apparent differences. I believe the differences are inborn, and that cultural training merely “improves upon nature”. If you think of natural sexual difference as a landscape with bumps and hollows, then cultural training is the snowfall which obscures the detail in this landscape while leaving the main contours evident.
Certain old-school feminists, in a grasping-at-straws effort to save constructivism, will acknowledge what I have just described. They will concede that “nature” indeed might play a role in sexual identity, but quickly brush this aside by insisting that training, too, enters into the mix. And then they will build the subsequent conversation around that point alone — as if it had any real significance. For if the “constructed” part of sexual identity is merely an add-on to what nature has originally set in place, then it is pointless and fatuous to insist that sexual identity is culturally constructed. Indeed, we must enquire why humans would have ordained sex roles at all if nature had not provided a foundation for it.
In fact, if sexual behavior differences arise from nature to any degree, then constructivism — at least for feminist political purposes — is done for. You might scrape away the overlay of cultural training, but the natural foundation directly below would always confront you, as if in mockery — and what would you do about this? And patriarchy theory, which depends upon constructivism, is next up on the chopping block.
As a writer, I will declare my own position. And that is, that I don’t personally care which of the two theories, essentialism or constructivism, eventually proves correct — just so I know what is true. The truth is what matters to me. Right now, as earlier stated, I am betting on essentialism because I think the evidence weighs heavily in its favor.
But however this finally turns out, I will insist that everybody live according to the pattern of consistencies which the outcome logically generates. I will demand that such consistencies be assimilated into the culture with nary a glimmer of hypocrisy or double-standard. Chiefly, I will not allow any form of “code-switching” from constructivism to essentialism or the reverse. If paradigm A is reality, I expect we as a society shall hew to it through all viscissitudes. I do not expect that we shall capriciously adopt paradigm B whenever it is useful for women or seems to put them in a better light — although that is clearly what feminism wants for women.
For example, if you enjoy snarking on the theme of “men can’t multi-task”, then you had better make up your mind to live in the essentialist camp, because essentialism is what you are supporting. Or if you avow that women are inherently “more verbal” than men, then you should put your money where your mouth is and verbally vote for essentialism. Or again, if your name is Barbara Jordan, and you declare that women have a capacity for sensitive feeling which men are just not capable of, then you had best declare yourself an essentialist or else retract that statement. Or again, if you are a great booster of the transgendered cause, then you are co-signing with the idea that there is an independent male or female essence which sometimes gets packed into the wrong kind of body. In other words, you are an essentialist and you ought to maintain that position consistently. This could go on and on.
All right. We know that constructivism gained traction early and logged a lot of miles. Partly, that is because it sounded like a cool idea. It sounded groovy and democratic — just what the utopian zeitgeist called for! So plenty of people signed on and sopped it up.
Yet there is more to constructivism’s staying power than all of that, and nature itself provides this “more”. Granted the “essential” difference between male and female is difficult to dispute. However, this difference occurs as a statistical average, or if you will, a norm, from which individual men and women sometimes vary. And so we often encounter women who seem, all in all, rather “mannish”, and men who seem somewhat “womanish”. You will note that the essential polarity of masculine and feminine remains uncompromised. And yet the presence of such natural deviation clouds the issue and furnishes a rationale for constructivist thinking. The deviation makes it seem that constructivism might be true. There is just enough creative ambiguity or wiggle room for constructivism to shoehorn its way in, with the help of bias-confirmation from people who want it to be true anyway.
Now, we know the feminists love to rattle on about luckless folk who feel oppressed by certain behavior norms. Aye, heaven pity the sensitive chap who wants to wear pink shirts. And spare a thought for the girl who wants to take welding classes with the boys. Well so far as the present writer is concerned, they are both welcome to it. They have my blessing. But apart from that, I’ll not march down the street carrying placards on their behalf. They are on their own. And if they seek anything special from me, anything “above and beyond”, then they had best make a social contract with me, by proving that they are worth something to me.
Very well, the take-away point from all this, is that patriarchy theory sits on a rickety foundation. In order to be true, it needs constructivism. Without constructivism, patriarchy theory is shot to hell. And if patriarchy theory is shot to hell, then the all-important female victim card becomes worthless plastic.
And that brings me to the final subject of my talk, which is: the future.
The feminist regime has profited greatly by the constructivist theory, because that theory makes it possible to suck a lot of blood out of men in a lot of ways. And so with the passage of years, advantages for women have piled up and up. Yet the feminists are still hymning that old refrain about the oppression of women, and they are doing this despite nagging questions about the veracity of it. Well, those nagging questions are set to grow. Long story short: women are now virtually the royal sex in the western world and beyond, and this fact, if it is not yet acidly self-evident to all, is on the way to becoming so. I know a lot of people are blocking that realization, but they can hold out only just so long.
Things are objectively rotten for men. Barring dramatic political action, things will not get better. Nor will things stay the same.
No, life for men will get steadily more rotten because the course of feminist innovation (barring dramatic political action) is bound to continue unchecked. Truly, it can do none other. Feminism is not static; its very being is identical with its being-in-motion, and if motion stops, feminism stops. Full stop.
Therefore, feminism will remain in motion. It will grow and develop as always, on a trajectory that can be roughly predicted. Collateral damage from the war on men will spread into the social ecology, and true to form, the feminists will nail the guilt for their own crime upon the collective back of men. They always do that. But I digress.
At some future date, it will be obvious to everybody that men are getting a raw deal compared to women. The rhetoric of oppression, equality, redistribution and so on, simply will not work any more. And when that day arrives, feminism will need to tack to a very different wind if it wants to stay in business. It will never go out of business if there is any help for that, for if it did, the natural configuration of power between men and women would quickly reassert itself — men would be men again, and women would be women again, and that would be that.
The development of feminism has always involved turning the screws tighter and tighter on men, and for feminism to keep existing as feminism, it would need to keep busy at this. But there must be a rationale for doing so, otherwise a growing clamor for social reform will stop feminism dead in its tracks — and I do mean dead.
So constructivism will be shucked like an old skin, and a new essentialist snake will emerge! The only excuse to keep oppressing men would be an essentialist excuse, and so the idea will come into vogue that men and women are essentially different — and that women are essentially better than men. Some combination of propaganda and bunk science will drill this into the culture, paving the way for anti-male “Nuremburg laws” in one form or another. The alleged inferiority of the male sex will become state doctrine, the necessary traitors will be found to enforce the system, and the third-class citizenship of men will become a legalized and normativized fact of life.
We know that a good many feminists are essentialists already, either in thought or in effect. Indeed, the most radical of the radicals are militantly essentialist — often Y-chromosome theorists — and talk seriously about culling the male population. Other radical feminists may still be constructivist but they are not the wave of the feminist future. That future can only be essentialist and, at the extreme, genocidalist.
But will that future ever materialize? Certainly, the logic of feminist evolution dictates such a future and will accomodate none other. However, if you want my honest opinion, I think that a social upheaval will collapse the trajectory. That is my prediction, although I can’t predict the details any more than I can predict every ripple on a surging wall of floodwater. Yet I can sense that violence is on the way, and that it requires no help from us. Truly, we can sit beneath a tree and play our balalaikas and, willy-nilly, violence will happen. Knowing this, we are left with one consequential power, and that is the power to make our plans by the light of our knowledge.
The only question is, what plans?
Support your allegations, Glen Canning
February 21, 2014 in Blog by Raz
Glenn Canning is the step-father of Rehtaeh Parsons. She was the 17-year-old who tragically took her own life (by hanging) after what her friends and family say were two years of torment and abuse, after a photo of her alleged “gang-rape” went “viral.” Mr. Canning seems to have a problem with me not buying the official story… and expressing my opinion about it on an open forum.
These allegations have yet to be proven in a court of law, and the accused will never get the chance to face their accuser. So far, after two official investigations only two boys have been charged, but not with rape, but for child porn. The accused cannot be named, for they were minors during the alleged incident. Recently, one of the accused has pleaded guilty for breaching the terms of his release by drinking alcohol. The child porn charges are (in my opinion) a joke. A political maneuver to satisfy a biased, bloodthirsty public that’s only been fed a lot of hearsay and propaganda coming directly from Glen Canning and Leah Parsons.
In fact, it seems in the years since Rehtaeh’s death there’s been some public evidence that both Leah Parsons and Glen Canning have been very active in trying to silence critics of the Rehtaeh Parsons story. Leah Parsons was featured on the Dr. Phil television show and use her victim status to shame the producers into submission after an “offensive” question was asked on Twitter. Ahead of the taping, Dr. Phil triggered an onslaught of criticism on Twitter by crowdsourcing opinions on the segment’s subject matter. The tweet from Dr. Phil’s account asked: “If a girl is drunk, is it okay to have sex with her? Reply with a yes, or no to @DrPhil #teensaccused”
This was followed by the obligatory apology to the offended. Glen Canning himself appears used the tragedy and media attention to gain a following on his Twitter and Blog. He has also seemed to have exploited his following on the internet to silence critics. Several posts from a blogger known as “Baconfat53″ have been removed due to legal requests to Google made by Glenn Canning himself (for example: this post). The David Amos Rant blog even reports that Glen Canning had asked him for info on the blog’s author. An excerpt from an e-mail sent by Glen Canning:
“On 8/14/13, Glen Canning <grcanning@me.com> wrote:
Do you know who bacon fat is? I’m trying to get Anonymous to hack
his blog and out him. “
I have also been personally involved with Mr. Canning and his bullying tactics.
Glen Canning has labeled me a “rape apologist” for expressing my opinion on the comments section of this article. I do not apologize for rape, sir. I condemn it. However, I also believe there is a thing called due process, and allegations as serious as rape should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the interest of real justice, I have spoken out against the biased media propaganda. Let the accused be tried in a court of law, not public opinion. After two investigations and still no credible evidence to support rape charges, there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical. Especially when you consider the statement by Rehtaeh’s friend, who claimed her and her mother tried repeatedly to get Rehtaeh to leave the house party, where she was allegedly naked and acting flirtatious with the two accused. One of the four alleged boys apparently wasn’t even at the party! Christie Blatchford reported this and the mainstream media lynch mob crucified her for it. Instead of being crucified, she should be applauded for having the courage to at least inject some objectivity into the mix and present another point of view, other than what was already regurgitated from Leah Parson’s Facebook campaign. I’ve read all the hype. I know what the allegations are and what the media had reported. I have still seen nothing released to the public resembling anything even remotely close to hard, concrete evidence backing up these allegations.
It seems to me from where I’m sitting, that Rehtaeh Parsons was not gang-raped, she was the willing participant in a drunken orgy. I do not believe anybody should have taken a picture and spread it around school to smear her. That’s just cruel and intolerable. I also understand the feelings of angry, grieving parents. However, I will not lay down and let you get away with exploiting your victim-card to suppress criticisms of your unproven allegations. You don’t get to claim “at least I never raised a rapist,” Glenn Canning. Prove it. I believe the real fault lies with the parents for being irresponsible and failing to supervise their children. Glen, why was your daughter permitted to drink and use drugs at her age in the first place? It wouldn’t be a stretch to assume she would also be sexually active at a party.
I’m not joining the lynch mob you helped create. Call me a “rape apologist” all you like, you just have to prove she was raped first. Put up, or shut up. As for my fellow mens rights activists reading this: think for yourselves. That’s the most important message we should take away from this story. Don’t believe everything you read without checking your sources, and be leery of the victim industrial complex propaganda in the media.
-MadShangi