Thursday, April 18, 2013

Feminist regrets women's rights

Judith Grossman belatedly discovers that the costs of the cause she has so energetically supported are being paid by her son:
I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of "nonconsensual sex" that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment....

I fear that in the current climate the goal of "women's rights," with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.
I have pointed out for years that "women's rights" are totally incompatible with the rights that are the foundation of Western civilization: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, and the rule of law.  Unfortunately, most women are absolutely unwilling to consider the matter rationally until a man they love is caught up in the chaotic legal maelstrom created by the so-called rights of women.

I feel sorry for the son. But it would be no more than his mother deserves if he was kicked out of school, forced to register as a sex offender, and rendered unemployable by the very regime she worked so hard to impose.

54 comments:

Alpha Philosopher said...

With more and more women waking up to smell the coffee, feminism will be licked within our lifetime, I'm 100% sure. It's just a small blip on the radar of history. Just another goofy, unnatural, error-ridden ideology that has risen and ultimately must fall.

Höllenhund said...

Yet another typical delusional leftist old cunt. "I have marched at the barricades"? Who the hell does she think she is?

Big Bill said...

I don't get it. Her son was accused of doing unmanly things by a fellow student. He gets a hearing. The problem is ... ?

Does she think that rape was invented by feminists or something? Does she think that college student hearings did not exist before feminism?

Frankly, her argument seems to be, "My boy wouldn't do that, he's a nice boy!"

thayer said...

Karma is a bitch.

Sigyn said...

Big Bill, the question to ask is why it took the ex-girlfriend three years to come forward with this. And "non-consensual" is a weasel word to mean anything from outright rape to "I just wasn't 100% feeling like it right then but I went ahead because I felt obligated" to "I was all about it THEN, but I regretted it afterwards."

This sounds like the standard script for a girl trying to rewrite her history to make herself look more pure than she was.

Disgusting, and this poor kid is going to have this following him around for the foreseeable future.

Mike M. said...

The Army used to have a saying, "Nobody ever got raped in a top bunk." Meaning that an accusation of rape needed physical evidence of the use of force, not just a verbal accusation.

To the modern misandric feminist, evidence and due process are merely hindrances to venting their hate.

tz said...

Women, science, lies...

http://www.copblock.org/29456/crime-lab-scandal-could-put-34k-felons-back-on-streets/

And this story - man-fault divorce without the marriage part. Or "sexual harassment".

"Women's Rights" can mean two discretely different things which is used by those arguing (similar to the new atheists when talking about science and evidence and the like). The first is that all the liberties and freedoms in the constitution and the rule of law and equality under the law should apply between men and women just like between black and white, jew and muslim and christian and atheist. That under the law (coercion by government), both are held to the same identical standard, rights, but also responsibility.

The other meaning (the superset is "Minority Rights") is that there needs to be special privilege for "victim classes", so things like the "If I change my mind after two years..." rape charge ends up in a guilty until proven (though you can't prove it under the rules) innocent situation.

The former definition begins to die when government goes out of its normal bounds of being a forum for settling disputes and handling crimes of fraud, stealing, or violence. When it starts doing punitive taxation, subsidy, and regulation, it becomes a game to see who can insure they are treated better - and there are many opportunities at various levels of corruption, but those are echoes. The law itself has become corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Her mental conflict is easily resolved in feminist doctrine: abort or smother male babies before they can become rapists.

Sigyn said...

I will add this, though:

She had no sympathy for men who suffered through this kind of thing before; it's only once it happened to HER (vicariously) that she starts to care about the injustice. Natural, maybe, but even so, this is why women should not vote.

Red Pill Theorist said...

Female solipsism at its finest. She can't understand the impact of her ideology until it affects HER.

Daniel said...

Even the shock of solipsism isn't enough:

[It] runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct.

Uh-huh. Because the injustices that feminism sought to correct were the wrongful and permanent secular punishment and exile of innocent people.

She's just a rabbit that got caught, and only now makes an appeal to the better nature of the monsters she called her own.

Sometimes the most beautiful teachable moments are just opportunities for ignorance to calcify.

Robert in Arabia said...


http://feministconservative.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/my-first-week-of-work/

feministconservative
secular humynist, pro-Israel, feminist, and fiscally conservative Arianna Pattek
My first week of work
Posted on June 8, 2012 by feministconservative

Like I said in my last post, I’m working in my school’s admissions office for the time being. This is a great opportunity for me, and I’m so glad to have the ability to decide who will come in and who won’t. We are here to make future leaders of America and the world, and as such we have the responsibility do keep those who would make the world a worse place far away, while admitting those who have potential to use their abilities to improve the world.

For instance I can’t tell you how many applications I saw that were just dripping with white male privelege. Any of those that I saw basically went straight to the garbage can regardless of how good their qualifactions were. If I saw an application from a white male that basically was just good test scores, and activities like chess club or math club or what not then it shows me this person is not interested in a diverse environment. Obviously he made no effort in integrating with minorities or to sympathize with them and is counting on male privelege to get in. So that kind of application should get ignored. In their place I admitted a female student. This goes double especially for math/science majors.

Another time this I had an application for what sounded like an arab male who wanted to study computer science. On paper he looked good enough, decent above average scores, and such. But I checked facebook and sure enough on his wall I came came upon a particularly hateful post about Israel supposedly not having a right to exist. I promptly trashed the application and sent out a rejection letter.

The lesson here is that people are multi-dimensional. We can’t boil people down to numbers or statistics, or reject people based on the color of their skin. I’m happy to say that I approved nearly 90% of all female minority and 80% of all (white female applicants especially if the girls want to study math or science) while rejecting over 50% of white males this week and hope this trend holds out.

DrTorch said...

I read this yesterday, glad to see it discussed here.

What I don't understand is how any of this kangaroo court isn't subject to libel suits?

Daniel said...

Because it isn't libel to say someone was accused of rape and that they were charged with a sex offense. It isn't libel to say that he ran afoul of Title IX.

The charges were dismissed, of course, but the damage was done. It isn't libel to say he was interrogated about sex offenses for two hours.

That's the way a school declares you a rapist: by jumping through the hoops, you prove that you are hiding something. If you don't jump through the hoops, you are obviously hiding something.

False declarations never have to be made. They are simply assumed.

It isn't libel to ask someone loaded questions and ruin his life in the process.

JCclimber said...

This comment here is the best example of female solipsism I've encountered in awhile:

"I feel sorry for the son. But it would be no more than his mother deserves if he was kicked out of school, forced to register as a sex offender, and rendered unemployable by the very regime she worked so hard to impose."

Her son may be labeled a sex offender and kicked out of school. Does she have any idea how that would impact HIS life? No, not really. It's all about her and what "his mother deserves".

Incredible.

earl said...

Once again the world according to a woman stops right outside their eyeballs.

Miserman said...

After reading both the original post and the linked article, I am struck by how this woman never fully reached the conclusion that she should renounce feminism as a lifestyle. She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem (she only focused on "fairness"). If it were someone else’s son, I doubt her article would have been written. This, of course, places a feminist in a place of hypocrisy for criticizing feminism and challenging a feminist entity (the college tribunal) while still essentially being a feminist (as a powerful female attorney).

Even more, feminists have often complained about the "male privilege" and yet this woman's defending her son is supporting the very accusation of privilege feminists have claimed to be dismantling.

If this woman were a true feminist, she would have disowned and disinherited her son and allowed him to suffer what fate was visited upon him. Politics and maternal instincts clash loudly.

Cail Corishev said...

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment....

What's interesting here is that she should have known. Feminists haven't kept their victories in this area a secret; they've bragged left and right about them. As a self-professed feminist, she's probably cheered as other evil men were brought to their knees by kangaroo courts, as in the Duke lacrosse case. So it's disingenuous of her to act like she doesn't know this was going on; she just never minded it before because it only hurt Men, not Her Man.

At least now we know what it'll take for women to reconsider feminism: every woman has to be personally harmed by it in a specific, undeniable way. That's all.

dannyfrom504 said...

like i said before- it's gonna all come full circle VERY soon. and women will NOT be pleased. and this give will give not 2 fucks.

Cail Corishev said...

"I have marched at the barricades"? Who the hell does she think she is?

Maybe the barricades they use to keep anti-abortion protesters far away from abortion mills, and she was on the other side? I dunno. I doubt her womanhood has ever caused her to be barricaded from anything, unless she was trying to play in the Masters.

Jack Amok said...

After reading both the original post and the linked article, I am struck by how this woman never fully reached the conclusion that she should renounce feminism as a lifestyle. She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem...

This is really just another example of the gamma fallacies from a couple of recent threads. "Excluders are evil" misses the point that someone has to be excluded, has to be the "out" group. Feminists don't realize what that means until someone they care about is excluded.

But rabbits - gamma or distaff - will always claim any problems are limited to one specific warren, that they aren't intrinsic to the very concept of living in a warren.

But they are.

Stickwick said...

She had no sympathy for men who suffered through this kind of thing before; it's only once it happened to HER (vicariously) that she starts to care about the injustice. Natural, maybe, but even so, this is why women should not vote.

Agreed.

It's rare for a woman to understand and care about something on principle. And while it's no doubt tempting for some on our side to celebrate winning an ally, I'm always a little leery of such changes of heart, because, as you said, the suffering of others meant nothing to her prior to her vicarious experience. All it might take is another more powerful motive to cause her sympathies to run in yet another direction.

What I don't understand is how any of this kangaroo court isn't subject to libel suits?

Perhaps not libel, but there are other ways you can sic lawyers on these kangaroo courts and prevail. Not long ago, a woman was interviewed on The Dr. Laura Show, because her son was going through the exact same thing (don't think it was the same woman; she didn't identify herself as a lawyer or a feminist). She immediately lawyered-up, went on the offensive, and the school was forced to back down. IIRC, they were going after the accuser next, which is precisely what should happen to discourage false accusations.

Anonymous said...

Alpha Philosopher said...

Too bad the birthrate catastrophe feminism has caused throughout the world and particularly among whites in North America and Europe cannot be undone.

Much like Denethor, White feminists will realize their mistakes just in time to see the white city burned to ashes.

Sigyn said...

She immediately lawyered-up, went on the offensive, and the school was forced to back down. IIRC, they were going after the accuser next, which is precisely what should happen to discourage false accusations.

Black-knighting at its finest, I think.

VD said...

After reading both the original post and the linked article, I am struck by how this woman never fully reached the conclusion that she should renounce feminism as a lifestyle. She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem (she only focused on "fairness").

The female imperative, once removed.

Anonymous said...

Female imperative, sort of like how women will proclaim that all husbands who cheat are dogs and deserve ass raping in court.... the exception being a husband that she is cheating with her, of course.

Play free games said...

I read this yesterday, glad to see it discussed here.

Anonymous said...

I read this post fully on the topic of the difference of
hottest and previous technologies, it's amazing article.

Feel free to visit my webpage waist to height ratio

T14 said...

I anxiously await Amanda Marcotte's error-riddled response.

Though I doubt she'll be able to top her recent confusion re rapport and repertoire.

tz said...

Is her son a bastard (in the legal sense of the word?).

Just askin' ;)

Such things are also why the federal government has to control everything and infect state governments. The liberty project in NH is one thing, but imagine a flyover state enclave that returned to traditional values of the constitution and family, it would rapidly overtake the surrounding states and displace the culture of death.

tz said...

The catastrophe of feminism was done in one generation and can be undone in one, but reading the Game blogs, the white Christians are more interested in complaining about Islam and immigrants than finding mates and repopulating the genome.

What is the term, what do they do over what do they say?

Is it the first derivative of the femperative, or is it that hamster in a suit and carrying a briefcase racing with rats is still a hamster?

JCclimber said...

Saw an interesting article today on Zerohedge about Switzerland losing its heritage of secrecy in banking, and having a national identity crisis.

We are seeing the 1-2 generation time lag results of them finally giving their women the voting franchise.

Now that their women have had the vote for more than 1 generation, expect that country to rapidly give up the freedoms that made them so unique in Europe.

MrGreenMan said...

Remember this the next time you hear a woman say how women are "naturally empathic" or "empathize better than men" - combine that with women always mean the opposite of what they say and you understand that there's a natural female narcissism and selfishness. This was the first time she thought by advancing her bra-burning cause that there could be anyone but a nameless, faceless person victimized by another resource stripper needing to earn her sisterhood victimhood card?

Stickwick said...

Remember this the next time you hear a woman say how women are "naturally empathic" or "empathize better than men" ...

Women are highly empathetic towards that which they love, which is why the plight of this woman's son was enough to at least partially overcome her feminist ideology. But as Nietzsche pointed out, women are capable only of love, and in a woman's love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love.

MrGreenMan said...

@Stickwick

I'll probably continue to disagree with you on this, but we're probably saying the same thing talking past each other. In Vox Popoli fashion, if we first turn to the definition of empathy:

"the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

I believe my point is, like most people, but especially most women, it is a foreign and strange idea to ponder being in the other person's shoes rather. (I've never heard a man apart from a politician actively courting the women's vote talk about how great an empathizer he is...I can't name a woman I've talked to in real life who hasn't at one time or another tried to excuse emotionality by claiming to be particularly skilled at feeling the other position, then proceeded to be a selfish, spoiled child within a very short while.)

I'm still not certain from her reading that she is considering things from her son's perspective -- it wasn't her son's nightmare; it was her nightmare through the looking glass; it is the defense of the legal institutions that she's made her life career out of -- she still is not actually empathizing -- she's just been jarred awake. This could be the inciting incident of a journey of coming to understand how the shoe feels on the other foot. Her interests are just now aligned with her son's as, in particular, she is his quasi-lawyer in the whole proceeding.

Cail Corishev said...

She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem (she only focused on "fairness").

Reminds me of the socialists who say socialism didn't fail in the USSR (or elsewhere); it just wasn't done properly.

She's not ready to see that what happened to her son is the end goal of the feminism she professes -- what happens when feminism is enacted by the book -- so she has to think it's been corrupted or subverted somehow. It's a start, though.

Dr. Faust said...

The less rational a person is the less likely they are to understand the consequences to their actions. At extreme levels of irrationality we see people who believe they exist within a vacuum. That actions have no consequences and desire is the only requisite. The future minded must constantly grapple with the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What this woman didn't understand was that by expressing female privilege that she would castrate her son. Women are learning this as their sons are in a state of perpetual childhood, stuck in dependency and a drain on the single mother's income.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that no oppressor ever willingly surrenders their power over the oppressed. The oppressed must demand it, must take it. When women protested for their "liberation" there was no counter protest. The voice of the opposition was silent as men leapt to do their bidding. How could an oppressed group have little or no resistance? Do we see the same thing with men's rights?

The personal is the political and now that women face the financial and romantic consequences of their actions they're beginning to understand that they do not exist in a vacuum. Their son's suicide, false rape charge, joblessness are the consequence. Their daughters pregnancy, spinsterhood, and anxiety and depression is a consequence. As a wise woman once said, "We can evade reality but we can't evade the consequences of reality."

could use a linkback on my blog:

http://novelandmundane.blogspot.com/

Orion said...

" This, of course, places a feminist in a place of hypocrisy for criticizing feminism and challenging a feminist entity (the college tribunal) while still essentially being a feminist (as a powerful female attorney)."

Feminism - I've never been wrong, just had bad information! Pushed on me because men are so unfair! YOU just don't understand what it means to be me!

Red Pill Theorist said...

I'm betting we'll see an outraged response from the feminist blogosphere. This article is too damming to go unchallenged.

Boogeyman said...

You got what you wanted, now choke on it.

Natalie said...

@Stickwick and Mr.GreenMan

It's also been my experience that women are better at empathy or at least better at expressing empathy. I know that my experiences growing up have made me more sensitive to people with rough childhoods - to the point (and I think this ties in with Stickwick's point) that I am sometimes concerned that I'm giving folks a pass or giving into their need for drama by sympathizing instead of seeking to strengthen them by sharing what I've learned.

When it comes to general community, the women who sit around clucking about pregnancy or marriage or what have you are often engaged in a sort of empathy. Of course I come from a Bible Belt community that appears (from what I read on the manosphere) to have an unusually high concentration of rational women. The most un-housewifely mom I know has never said a disparaging word about her husband or kids in my hearing. In other words - YMMV.

Anonymous said...

So, pushing relentlessly for false rape laws that allow women to do this to men, while simultaneously shouting down and shaming any opposition = "a nightmare [that she] could not possibly have believed existed".

Who's oppressing her again?

tz said...

Art imitates Life

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

John Cleese as Holmes.

Morarity ends up being the granddaughter - yes female, and American!, and explains that ending civilization "runs in the family".

The hand that rocks the cradle may rule the world, but the hand that rocks the boat gets cut off (or there is that old thing from Leviticus about attacking that which is sack-rosanct ...).

tz said...

I wonder which state - did she vote for someone who didn't question that all rapes are "legitimate rape"?

lancelot said...

What an uncomprehending sow.

Anonymous said...

She gets 1 point for recognizing there's a problem, 1 point for identifying the root cause.
She loses 1 point for failing to reference any other boys who have gone through the same thing, 1 point for only defending her son and 1 point for failing to state specifically needs to change to help fix the problem.
Overall score: -1 point.
Every woman I know talks up gender quotas until it's their son/husband/male relative that loses out because of it.
Empathy as far as I can see (I just can't see past my front gate).
I work with a woman who have the most flexible work arrangement of anyone, she's always pushing for more, yet she's forever committing her male colleagues (me included) to working weekends even though she doesn't have the authority. Don't tell me that women have got more empathy, because it is the male managers that check what's going on in other people's lives and if work is negatively impacting that.
This woman doesn't know anything about me, yet I know all of her hobbies because she delights in telling everyone everything she's doing.

Toby Temple said...

to Judith Grossman, this is all that I have for you:

bwahahahaha

Jack Amok said...

It's also been my experience that women are better at empathy or at least better at expressing empathy

No, women are not better at empathy. Women are better at imagining what they might be feeling in the situation the other person is in, but they are abysmal at actually recognizing what the other person is really feeling.

They're too busy projecting their own emotions onto someone else to pay attention to the actual emotions of the other person.

Daniel said...

She stood at the barricades and screamed "Destroy my son! Destroy my son!"

Now her son is destroyed.

And she blames the barricades.

Rex Little said...

I'm betting we'll see an outraged response from the feminist blogosphere. This article is too damming to go unchallenged.

Any sightings yet? Those would be fun to read.

She loses 1 point for failing to reference any other boys who have gone through the same thing

She doesn't reference any specifically, but she does say "Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness." I think that's enough to return that point to her.

Doh-San said...

Nice that she finally saw the injustice. Too bad it took her 20+ years.

ray said...

Natalie -- It's also been my experience that women are better at empathy or at least better at expressing empathy


it hasnt been your "experience," it's merely been your received propaganda, a delusion designed for you to embrace and enjoy

women (and their government, skools, and Medea) are better at TALKING (endlessly) about how empathetic they are

men are far better at BEING empathetic, as Lawyer Judy the hypocrite and son-abuser illustrates

Judith isnt a woman, she's a Gross Man, a pseudo male set up in power by Satan and his institutions specifically to degrade and destroy maleness

ive been listening for half a century to delusional, spoiled brat females insisting to one another how Nurturing and Empathetic they are

it's just another lie concerning a female superiority that doesnt exist, except in their own hothouse hiveminds

telling females the truth -- that they ARENT the Empathetic, kindhearted darlings they envision themselves to be, is verbal harrassment and a hate crime

Judge Judy the Gross Man saw "her" son subjected to merely a taste of the gynogulag, but did she extend her vaunted Female Empathy to the REST of male humanity, that she and her ssisters crushed underfoot for fifty years?

probly not eh?

... bc her trumpeted Female Empathy doesnt exist, except marginally towards her own son, and only then with the greatest reluctance, and without renunciation of her self-serving gynocracy, which is solipsistically pathological -- the exact opposite of empathy

Judith wants to be both Judith, and a pseudo-masculine Gross Man, leaving "her" son (and eveybody elses) to be . . . what exactly? certainly not actual MEN, but instead whatever Judge Judy and her United Sisterhood decide and demand, even to the destruction of her own bloodline

i guess women really are more empathetic, if empathetic means reptilian

Joe Blow said...

Pro Wrestling legends D-Generation X coined the proper response to Ms. Grossman: SUCK IT!

The rest of us have boys we're trying to raise in this screwed up system. I have zero sympathy for her. She just spent 50 years sneering at us traditionalists, and now she gets that our arguments are not without merit. It's a little late for that, dear...

It's always the revolutionaries who get lined up against the wall and shot first. I have no sympathy for them, and in fact will be buying a lot of popcorn to enjoy the show over the next few years.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.