Archive | Da Slate RSS feed for this section

Is Dear Prudence going through menopause? What a fucking cunt!

29 Aug


I have a weakness for Emily Yoffe who writes as Dear Prudence over at Slate, and I usually find something to disagree with in her “advice”, but she really takes the cake in today’s column!  Seems like Prudie has been hitting the haterade a little hard these days.

Here’s the first letter:


I’m a 28-year-old male and have a 4-year-old daughter with my partner of nine years (we’re not married but completely committed). My daughter was not planned and I had serious reservations about having a child at such a young age, but there’s a lot of love in our family and everything has worked out. But since taking a new job several months ago, I’ve started feeling differently. All of my co-workers are young and I’ve made a few good friends, but I often have to decline invitations to events I’d really like to attend because of my family obligations, or because I can’t afford it. I’m the only one with a full plate of adult responsibilities, including supporting my partner, who is an artist and doesn’t bring home a paycheck every week. So I have to say no to joining them on road trips or at exclusive restaurants, because my weekend consists of toddler birthday parties and visits to the playground. It’s making me rueful that I’ve missed my 20s and worried I will wind up bitter no matter how much I love my family. How do I get out of this funk and regain happiness with my circumstances, and how do I face my co-workers every day when they’re a constant reminder of what I’m missing?

-Longing for Lost Youth

Okay, so Prudie starts off her answer by pointing out that while the letter writer has jumped the gun on the having kids stage of life, sooner or later most of his co-workers will catch up with him, and he can have a good chuckle at their bleary eyed shock when they find out babies aren’t really fond of the whole “sleep for eight hours on a corporate schedule” thing and then blissfully enjoy sleeping through the night.


Fair enough.  That’s what I would have answered, too.  You get your twenties or your forties, and quite frankly, there’s something rather nice about having the energy to take care of your children because you had them young enough, and knowing that by the time they are off to college, you yourself will still be young enough to do all those things you missed out on when you were younger.

Not to mention that couples who have their children while still relatively young are unlikely to find themselves facing the utter heartbreak of “Oops!  We left it too long and the eggs done flew the coop!” Infertility is a brutal sorrow, and the couples we know who decided that material possessions and fabulous experiences were far more important than children are now left with the bitterness of an album full of great vacation pics and a nursery that will never hold anything more than dreams.


But rather than point out all that, Prudie goes off onto a rant about how his lazy-ass partner better ruck up and start earning some cash, mostly to protect herself from the inevitable day when the letter writer decides to leave his child to starve in the gutters.

Now that you have a child, you two need to be more deliberate about what you want out of life. It’s fine if your child is an only, but if you want to expand your family, that’s a discussion you should be having. Being an artist can be a dream career, but since your partner is not make a living at it, it’s time she applied her skills to more remunerative endeavors, especially as your daughter gets ready for full-time schooling. If something happens to you, your partner will be completely financially vulnerable.

Oh, it’s time she applied her skills to more remunerative endeavors, is it?

Fuck you, Prudie.

And if by “something might happen to you” Prudie meant the letter writer might die or become disabled, she might have suggested the precaution of some insurance policies.  The implication is that the woman is vulnerable simply by virtue of being dependent on a man.  Because you know men, right? There’s nothing they enjoy more than walking off into the sunset and leaving a beloved child to suffer wretched poverty and a broken heart.

Rather than expressing gratitude for a man who is supporting his family and allowing the woman to whom he is committed to pursue her artistic dreams, Prudie instead insults both of them by casting her as a leech and him as someone not to be relied on.


And it gets better!

Here is another letter:

My husband’s friend is a perpetual bachelor. He dates a girl for a few months, introduces her around, brings her to group functions, etc., and then dumps her once it has gotten too serious. Because the friend and my husband are close, I become the new best friend for the girlfriend du jour during camping trips, double dates, sports games, and happy hours with our group. The bachelor is charming and has the women believing everything is perfect until the breakup blindside. Then they are devastated and I end up having to deal with tearful phone calls and get-togethers while they ask me what went wrong. The most recent breakup involved a fragile woman with no close friends or family in town. I felt rude for not returning all the frantic calls and texts of this woman, but I’m frustrated that this draining duty always seems to fall on me. I’ve talked to the bachelor about it, and he says no one is forcing me to become friends with his girlfriends. That’s true, but it’s hard not to act like a decent human being to these women. How can I avoid this pitfall in the future?

—Sick of the Bachelor

A charming man dates women, introduces them to his social circle and has a habit of NOT stringing them along endlessly when he discovers they are not The One.  If the ladies in question are “blindsided” by the breakup, that strongly suggests that no lengthy period of playing games and putting up with squabbles and quarrels simply to get as much sex out of each relationship as possible is going on.

Bachelor dates women, and the minute he realizes he’s not with the right one, he breaks it off.

break up

I dunno.  Seems to me to be EXACTLY how dating should happen.  When you know the relationship is not going to work out, put an end to it and move on.

What does Prudie think?

As was said of one character on King of the Hill, “He’s going to make some woman very happy. Until he makes her very sad.” You’ve talked to the bachelor about this problem, but I think you should bring this up with your husband. I hope by this point he’s getting a little squeamish about his friend’s manipulative and even sadistic pattern, and is willing to have a frank discussion. Whatever happens, you could also request your husband see the bachelor alone for lunch more often, for example, and have fewer group outings with him and his latest. But if inevitably there will be occasions when you’re with the new Patsy, I think you should give it to her straight. Do that thing where women go off to the bathroom in pairs. While there, as soon as she makes some noises about what a great guy Dick is, let her know he’s a cad. Explain you’ve been through this with endless women. He charms and misleads them and when they think things are going somewhere, he dumps them. That’s how he gets his thrills. Say you’re being so blunt because you just can’t stand to nurse anyone else through the inevitable. She’ll probably dismiss you because she knows this time it’s different. She might even report what you said back to Dick. If he brings it up with you, just tell him you look forward to being proven wrong.

Let’s take this apart, shall we?


As was said of one character on King of the Hill, “He’s going to make some woman very happy. Until he makes her very sad.”

Oh goodie.  Let’s begin with a reference to a very popular, very funny show about god-fearin’ ‘Murrican trash! We know what Prudie thinks of this whole crew right off the bat.

You’ve talked to the bachelor about this problem, but I think you should bring this up with your husband. I hope by this point he’s getting a little squeamish about his friend’s manipulative and even sadistic pattern, and is willing to have a frank discussion.

Manipulative and sadistic.  Manipulative and sadistic?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Nope, nope, nope.  Stringing women you have ZERO intention of pursuing a serious relationship with is manipulative and sadistic.  Keeping the booty call on stand-by while you scout for new talent is manipulative and sadistic.  Letting someone believe there is potential when there is NOT is manipulative and sadistic.

Finding a long series of women inadequate is neither of those things, but it sure pisses Prudie off, doesn’t it?  It’s almost like the Bachelor is working his way through some women who suck, and he refuses to settle.

What an asshole!

Whatever happens, you could also request your husband see the bachelor alone for lunch more often, for example, and have fewer group outings with him and his latest.

Oh, yes.  Interfere with your husband’s relationship with his friends.  Make him really uncomfortable and start determining where, when and under what circumstances he is allowed to see his friend. And if hubby doesn’t agree, you can always ground him or take away his phone privileges.


Excellent advice, Prudie.  I’m sure her husband will be thrilled.

But if inevitably there will be occasions when you’re with the new Patsy, I think you should give it to her straight. Do that thing where women go off to the bathroom in pairs. While there, as soon as she makes some noises about what a great guy Dick is, let her know he’s a cad. Explain you’ve been through this with endless women. He charms and misleads them and when they think things are going somewhere, he dumps them. That’s how he gets his thrills. Say you’re being so blunt because you just can’t stand to nurse anyone else through the inevitable.



Just no.

Do not do this.

First of all, you are betraying your husband by betraying his friend.  Why the fuck should you care what happens to the Bachelor’s women?  Where do your loyalties lie?  With other women deemed unacceptable?  You will stab your both your husband and his friend in the back to protect some woman that means nothing to you in the long run?

I can’t believe Prudie would suggest this.  And how does she know that the Bachelor gets his thrills by dumping women?  How does she know he is a cad?  And what is a cad anyways?





A man who behaves dishonorably, esp. toward a woman.


scoundrel – boor – scamp

Again, how is it dishonorable to dump women you are no longer interested in?  Prudie just can’t wrap her mind around the fact that lots of women are simply not worth a man’s time.

I wonder what the Bachelor does for a living?  How exactly does he find all these women?  Who wants to bet he has a fairly high social status in his group?  A good income?  A bit of nice property?  Speculation, but no amount of screaming in the world is going to change the fact that men tend to value beauty and women value status.  If Bachelor has women lined up, it’s a pretty safe bet that he has something that women value.


And who is behaving dishonorably here, again?

She’ll probably dismiss you because she knows this time it’s different. She might even report what you said back to Dick. If he brings it up with you, just tell him you look forward to being proven wrong.

She MIGHT report what you said back to Dick?  Oh, honey, she most certainly WILL.  And no, you should not respond with some smug cunty statement like “I look forward to being proven wrong”.  All you are doing is making it clear that YOU think Dick the Bachelor IS a dick, and again, you are not going to please your husband or Dick by insulting him to his face.

You might just get your husband wondering why HE wasn’t a little more picky.

Here is what Prudie should have said:

Dick’s romantic life is really none of your business, and as an adult, you should assume he knows what he is doing and is perfectly happy with how his relationships work. If and when discarded ladies text or call you, you respond with this:

I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.


I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.


I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.


I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.

Repeat until she gets it.  Refuse to comment on anyone’s love life but your own.  And as an aside, you should make a special effort to welcome any woman Dick decides to introduce you to.  It’s actually a compliment.  He wants to see how the women he dates interact with the people he loves most, and whose company he values.

Couple In Front of Campfire

I hope Sick of the Bachelor ignores Prudie and decides that Bachelor really is capable of handling his own affairs.  She will be making a big mistake to interfere with her husband’s friendship and the Bachelor’s love life.

You know, even if I have this dead wrong, and the Bachelor IS the kind of guy who is thrilled by the chase and loses all interest once it is over, the letter writer should STILL back the Bachelor.  You never takes side against your husband’s friends.  Not ever.

The people we marry come to us in a web of relationships, and it is not up to us to decide on our partner’s behalf which friends are acceptable and which are not.  I wouldn’t necessarily pick all my husband’s friends as my own, and some of my friends grate on his nerves, too.

I have, in fact, let friendships lapse because I could see that Mr. JB wasn’t particularly enamored of the friend in question. But that was MY decision. I am the one who stopped to consider if his dislike was grounded in any facts, and when I discovered that he had a REASON to dislike the person, I chose to let them go.

Because I know where my loyalties lie.


And that’s what it comes down to. Be loyal. Anything less is hard to forgive.

I place an enormous premium on loyalty. If someone betrays me, I can forgive them rationally, but emotionally I have found it impossible to do so.

Richard E. Grant

And don’t listen to Dear Prudence.  Her advice sucks.

Lots of love,


This report on the use of GPS technology in Domestic Violence cases, funded by the Department of Justice, will blow your mind. Even when women are enrolled as abusers, they’re still victims.

16 Jul

Our favorite little feminist, Amanda Marcotte has an article up at Slate extolling the virtues of programs that use GPS to monitor domestic violence (alleged) offenders, and to the surprise of no one, she of course assumes all the accused are men and all the victims are women.  Naturally, her story is illustrated with the proverbial pretty white woman splattered with blood.

white woman

In theory, domestic homicide should be easy to prevent, since men who kill their wives or girlfriends (85 percent of victims are female) generally give us lots of warning by beating, stalking, and even raping their victims, usually for years before they finally kill.

One of the commenters at Slate takes her to task with her assertion that it’s only ever men who kill women, quoting from Warren Farrell, in “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say” (1999).


On the surface, the Bureau of Justice reports women are the perpetrators in 41 percent of spousal murders. However, the male method of killing is with a knife or gun, done by himself; it is easily detected and reported. The three female methods of killing are designed not to be detected, to have the man’s death appear as an accident, so insurance money can be collected.

The first mostly-female method is poisoning. The second is the wife hiring a professional killer. The third is the wife persuading a boyfriend to do the killing.

These last two methods, IF discovered, are never listed by the FBI as a woman killing a man. They are listed, rather, as “multiple -offender killings. We only know that IN MULTIPLE-OFFENDER KILLINGS THERE ARE FOUR TIMES AS MANY HUSBAND VICTIMS THAN WIVES, according to the FBI. That is, the 41 percent figure does not include either of those female methods of killing.


How common are multiple-offender, usually contract, killings? We don’t know. Perhaps the best hint we have of how many husbands could be killed by contract comes from the FBI, reporting that some 7800 MEN WERE KILLED WITHOUT THE KILLER EVER BEING IDENTIFIED (vs. 1500 women). This number is ALMOST NINE TIMES LARGER THAN ALL OF THE WIVES KILLED BY SPOUSES AND EX-SPOUSES PUT TOGETHER. However, this “nine times as many” figure is a very inadequate hint since many of these men were doubtless killed by other men, and many are unmarried. It just gives us an understanding that multiple-offender killings must be considered before we can claim that more men murder wives than vice-versa.

Most important, of the hundred or so contract killings about which I have read, only a small percentage were originally recognized as such. The very purpose in hiring a professional, as with poisoning, was to have the husband’s death appear as an accident so the wife can collect the insurance money.”


And let’s not overlook the fact that even when women are FILMED BY POLICE trying to hire a hit man to kill their husbands, they are not convicted of any offence.


Some women think organizing their husband’s death because it’s “easier than divorce and I want the insurance money” is just a giggly good walk in the park.

I wanted to know more about exactly who is enrolled in the GPS monitoring programs, and I found this very interesting study, funded by the Department of Justice.  The details are not just shocking, they’re very, very disquieting.


Here’s what happens:  someone (usually a man) gets arrested for domestic violence. Rather than remain in jail until trial, or post a bond, he can agree to wear a GPS tracking device which will monitor him and alert the police when he enters forbidden zones.  He has to pay a fee for that option, and agree to the conditions.


In this report, a total of 3656 defendants who accepted GPS monitoring were studied.

In the mid-west region, 92.2% of the defendants were male (p. 62). In the west region, 95.5% of the defendants were male (p. 75).  In the southern region, 83.6% of the defendants were male (p. 84).

Let’s look first at conviction rates:  for all the charges laid, how many defendants were subsequently convicted?

Midwest?            40.7 % conviction rate

West?                   57.1 % conviction rate

South?                  46.7 % conviction rate

The researchers found that yes, GPS monitoring did indeed have both a long term and a short term impact on whether a defendant was re-arrested between the arrest and trial period.

Could that possibly be because in two regions less than HALF of the charges had any evidence whatsoever to support the charge, and barely more than HALF could be proven in the other region?!?

The DV allegations were either false, unprovable or so mired in mutual violence as to be unpursuable.


If you begin with the assumption that most domestic violence is mutual, then the simple act of keeping the warring partners apart will reduce any subsequent charges and accusations.  In a way, the report DOES acknowledge that DV tends to be mutual, but the spin they put on that is really quite astonishing.

The context of domestic violence is often fraught with claims and counter-claims by estranged partners. Justice personnel at times become enmeshed in intimate partners’ conflicts, as one party – often more experienced with the system – attempts to use court procedures and restrictions to harass or drain the other. The justice system often struggles to sort out disputes about who is the abuser and who is the victim, a struggle in which an experienced abuser may have an advantage in comparison to a less experienced victim. In an especially troubling scenario, GPS technology may become one more tool that unscrupulous parties can use to “punish” their adversary.

Thus, some victims described how their abuser managed to turn circumstances in his favor, resulting in the victim being placed on GPS. As described in the section on defendants’ experiences, victims as offenders – victims whose abusers succeeded in turning the tables against them and having them placed on GPS – were found among the female defendants who were interviewed.

(Page 107-8)

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me!  Hardly any women are ever arrested for DV in the first place, and even fewer are convicted.

The idea that judges can be manipulated into placing women on GPS monitoring when really it’s the women who are the victims is laughable.  My guess would be that the evidence for abuse when it’s women who are charged is OVERWHELMING.  So much so that judges can’t issue the standard pussy pass.


But the report still wants us to see women as “victims”.  Poor victims.  So abused that the courts have ordered the women to stay away from their male partners.


For some men, the GPS monitoring had a positive effect, forcing them to disentangle themselves from dysfunctional relationships and providing structure and routine to their lives.

Although most defendants remain resentful of the restrictions that they must observe in order to remain in good standing with their case manager, some clients in these GPS programs spoke of the benefits of being on GPS. Positive aspects include acquiring a newfound appreciation for the comforts of home, feeling relieved of pressure to be “on the street” every night, thus helping in the severing of ties with “bad company,” i.e., those who participate in activities that introduce legal jeopardy for someone who has “caught a case.” These defendants may see their tenure with the program as an opportunity, in fact, using it to spur themselves toward altering their ordinary practice, thereby marking a turning point in their lives.

It may entail something as simple as finally finishing a home improvement project; it may involve something more emotionally rewarding, such as renewing ties with one’s parents or other important persons who otherwise the client would have found little reason to spend time with. References to this moment as a “wake up call,” for example, were not uncommon in interviews.

In particular, the experience may lead some defendants to ruminate on patterns in their interpersonal relations with women. In other cases, defendants may see their estranged partner in a new light that is less favorably disposed toward continuing the relationship once their tenure in the program is completed.

(P. 140-1)

In plenty of other cases, the effect was anything but positive.

cant sleep

You know, it’s just, I, I think that’s just part of the stress that I’m under. I’m not able to sleep at night. Ah, you know, I’m constantly making sure that this thing can [get a signal], and I’ll even so much as point it at a window, pull the antennae out to make sure that, you know, if I have to prop it on a pillow so it lays at an angle, I mean, I get a little, just, emphatic about it, which, I’m sure, it doesn’t have to be. I mean, I think whatever signal it picks up in, in realistic concepts, it’s going to pick it up no matter what.

I have a hundred and fifty tenants that we take care of. You know, if any one of those tenants knows what happened, the charges that I got, they might not want me in their suite. And if they don’t want me in their suite, you know, word gets around and I don’t have a job.

Yea, so I would definitely have a lot less stress, absolutely. And I definitely would be, have a lot less stress on a daily basis, an hourly basis of making sure this thing can read a signal somewhere, but still being able to carry out my job and make sure I’m leading this group of people through a successful night at work. So, yea, absolutely, there’s definitely a huge amount of stress just by having this thing that, that is completely unjust.

(p. 114-15)

Keep in mind in two jurisdictions less than HALF of the men subjected to this level of anxiety and control will be convicted of any offense at all.

It all sounds so good on the surface:  yeah, let’s keep these violent people away from their victims and allow everyone to go about their life with some semblance of sanity.

6d7c0-Big Brother

In reality, GPS monitoring is an unprecedented use of technology by the state to control the movements and curtail the freedoms of mostly men.  The majority of whom will never be convicted of the offence for which they are charged.

That’s a nice weapon to put in women’s arsenal, isn’t it?  A woman can charge a man with domestic violence, have him arrested, force him to choose between being in jail or having his whereabouts constantly monitored (which he gets to pay for out of his own pocket), forbid areas of his community to him, forbid access to his children, delay court dates and trials and eventually, have the charges dismissed or acquitted.

Gee, what could possibly be wrong with that scenario?

Does GPS monitoring “work”?  Depends what you mean by “work”.  It certainly has a dramatic effect on the people subjected to the monitoring, most of whom are men.  And it’s not all negative.

Defendants reported having both positive and negative experiences during their time on GPS, viewing it as “a mixed bag.” Most felt it was far preferable to “sitting in jail” and were grateful that participation enabled them to maintain their employment. They also appreciated the fact that GPS shielded them from false accusations that could be (and in some cases were) made by a vengeful estranged partner. Defendants at a more treatment-oriented site spoke of being thankful for the various kinds of assistance they received from supervising officers. Defendants also spoke about using their time in the program, and away from the alleged victim, as an opportunity to engage in various constructive pursuits, including rebuilding relations with family members, looking for work, returning to school, and reimagining their lives without the victim having a part in it.

(p. xviii)


Does it work to prevent domestic violence from turning into homicide?  If Washington, D.C. is anything to go by, nope.

“If someone has access to a gun and motive, we can’t prevent them,” Keenan said. “Technology by itself is not a cure for illegal conduct.”

GPS doesn’t deter someone bent on murder –  it is used against individuals who will go on to either be acquitted or have the charges filed against them dismissed, it curtails the freedom of defendants severely and may violate a number of different civil liberties, including the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

What worries me the most about the use of GPS tracking in domestic violence cases is not that it is applied mostly to men (although that is troubling).  It’s the fact that researchers, even when confronted with women who are abusers, refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it’s men who need protection from women.

…although it happens infrequently, men do seek out protection orders against women. The implication of these trends is that women are becoming likelier candidates for EM programs as tethered parties, raising questions about how women fare in programs designed with male batterers in mind.

(p. 12)

Women …. Candidates, tethered parties….

Men … Batterers

And how will the poor little girl duckies fare under a program designed with the assumption that only men abuse?

Even when women abuse, they are still deserving of our sympathy and attention.  The snowflake, she is special! Even a program designed to keep her away from the man she is abusing must be designed with her needs in mind.

Even when women abuse, they’re still the victims.


That pretty white woman splattered with blood? Don’t be so quick to assume it’s her own.  It could be from the man she just hit with a baseball bat.  But don’t worry.

She won’t be convicted of any crime.  Not even if she kills him.

And she sure as hell won’t have to wear a GPS tracking device.


They’re not very comfortable, you know.  Her ankle might get sore.  And it totally ruins a great pair of shoes.  Can’t have that, now can we?

Lots of love,


Drunk chick gets in car with man she doesn’t know to do a line of coke, ends up getting raped. Totally didn’t see that coming! Utterly shocked that Grand Jury won’t indict! The state of rape in the USA.

2 Jul

Every time I write a piece about rape, I think to myself, “okay, that’s it. I am done with this subject”. But then I run across stories like this one and I just can’t…..

Here is the story, quick and dirty: Gina Tron goes to a bar to meet some friends and she gets drunk. Some guy she doesn’t know is there, but she assumes he is with the group. He’s lean and swarthy and has a “disconnected” look in his eyes. He makes her nervous. But then he offers her cocaine, and hey, cocaine! She sets aside all her misgivings, and gets in the car with a guy she doesn’t know, who makes her nervous and who is “disconnected”.


Because cocaine?

What the fuck, Gina. Seriously. What the fuck are you doing? Gina ends up locked in the car with this guy, they drive to his apartment, she goes with him and whatever happened next, Gina considers it rape. She is transfixed by the 666 tattoo across his abdomen, and based on how Gina describes the guy, it’s a complete and utter shock that he would have such a thing, right?

He said, she said. Okay. Whatever Gina.

You know what kills me about this case? That three other women report the same thing happened to them. THREE! There are at least three women who are so unconcerned with their own safety and well-being, they put themselves in the exact same situation.

Parts of Gina’s story are bizarre, too. She went to the guy’s apartment. She knows where he lives. Why does she need to spend hours looking at mug-shots then? So she can ID him and then find out where he lives? She KNOWS where he lives. It makes no sense.

grand jury

And she claims the defence attorney had incriminating character evidence against her at the Grand Jury trial, except Grand Jury trials don’t have defence attorneys and there is no cross-examination of any kind. The Grand Jury just considers whether there is the tiniest shred of evidence to have the case proceed to trial. In Gina’s case, the answer was nope.

The other two women who were allegedly assaulted by the same man declined to take part in the trial.

Let’s just assume for one moment that Gina is telling the god’s honest truth and the story played out exactly as she said. The commenters at Vice, and at Slate, where Amanda Marcotte (big surprise!) picked up the story use the same analogy over and over again:


Someone’s new car gets stolen, and the police respond that having a nice, new car is just asking for someone to steal it. A man walks down the street in an expensive suit. When he gets robbed, the officer tells him that his outfit was just a come-on for thieves, and, besides, he had been seen giving money away, and how did anyone know for sure that he didn’t give his money to the thief and just change his mind about it later.

Dea Henrich

If a man is walking down the street in a $10000 suit wearing a Rolex watch and someone jumps him and robs him, no one ever says it was not robbery because he “wanted it.” They never say it was HIS fault for dressing in a way to indicate he had wealth worth taking. If he is counting hundred dollar bills while walking down the street and gets mugged they don’t say it was not a crime because his actions led the attacker on. Nor do they dredge up things like, he likes to play poker therefore he has a history of willingly losing money. If someone steals a car they don’t declare it’s not stolen because the owner did not defend himself and fight back hard enough.

Ethan Wallace

Really? Let’s take a look at that, shall we?


Here’s a story from Boston University that is roughly parallel.

A research assistant from the BU Medical Campus was stabbed, punched, and robbed of an iPad by two assailants at 8:32 p.m. Tuesday at the corner of Pleasant Street and Browne Street in Brookline. The victim, a 30-year-old postdoctoral fellow, was treated at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for two superficial stab wounds.

Yikes! Stabbed for an iPad. That seems a little harsh. Surely the commenters at the Boston U story are calling for the criminal to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and offering their heartfelt condolences to the victim.


Looks like maybe not.

When you move out of on-campus housing, this is a risk you have to expect. Instead of blaming BU, students should learn not to walk with their iDevices out and their heads buried in them. All of the people that nearly slam into me everyday with their head mashed in their phones become prime targets at night when they walk down dark side-streets that way.

Anonymous on 01.30.2013 at 8:00 am

I’m born and raised from Boston (not outside of Boston, the inner city of Boston) and when I hear about these things happening it doesn’t surprise me. Inner city kids know that a lot of wealthy kids go to BU. They know that students have laptops and electronics on them. Automatically you are talented. I grew up surrounded by this mentality.

The point is, all of us students need to be smart and aware of our surroundings. Don’t walk alone at night. Don’t have your cell phone in your hand or out at all. Walk swift and with a purpose. If you see people walking towards you, cross the street. Don’t keep your hood up so you can keep your peripheral vision.

Street smarts people. If you aren’t from a city, start learning them.

Local Girl on 01.30.2013 at 5:32 pm

Just because we “shouldn’t have to be afraid” of getting mugged doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take precautions ourselves. You certainly won’t see me walking around with my nose buried in my iPhone or iPad (not that we know that was the case with this robbery, but still). I value those possessions and value my safety, so I can wait to tweet or send that text until I get home. Of course having these things out of sight will not guarantee I don’t get mugged, but it certainly makes me look like less of an easy target.

BU Student with Common Sense on 01.30.2013 at 1:51 pm

What, exactly, is it about demonstrating just one iota of common sense that feminists hate so much? What part of “don’t get in a car and do coke with a guy who makes you uneasy and who is completely unknown to you” is unfair or unreasonable to expect?

I think Amanda’s spin on the story is rather revealing:

Women, it turns out, are in a perpetual state of consent unless they bring weapons to bars and are able to wield those weapons against rapists who have made it clear that they are willing to beat you into submission.


Excellent suggestion, Amanda. Bring a weapon. The one located between your ears is probably the best bet: your BRAIN!! Do you fucking have one?

The Grand Jury refused to indict in this case because it defies the imagination that anyone could be so utterly, implausibly stupid. As soon as your story starts with, “well, I went out with this guy I never met before to do coke in his car”, everything else you have to say loses all credibility.

And apparently, a lot of women who recount their “rapes” to police will often do so in a way that invites police to think they are crazy, stupid, and probably lying.


When Tom Tremblay started working for the police department of Burlington, Vt., 30 years ago, he discovered that many of his fellow cops rarely believed a rape victim. This was true time after time, in dozens of cases. Tremblay could see why they were doubtful once he started interviewing the victims himself. The victims, most of them women, often had trouble recalling an attack or couldn’t give a chronological account of it. Some expressed no emotion. Others smiled or laughed as they described being assaulted.

Rebecca Ruiz, writing at Slate, goes on to explore how neurobiology explains the way women recount their rapes, comparing rape to PTSD or the kinds of trauma torture victims endure. It’s all very compelling information, chock full of fancy medical terms and explanations that sound tickety-boo. Women don’t lie about rape because SCIENCE!

In the past decade, neurobiology has evolved to explain why victims respond in ways that make it seem like they could be lying, even when they’re not. Using imaging technology, scientists can identify which parts of the brain are activated when a person contemplates a traumatic memory such as sexual assault. The brain’s prefrontal cortex—which is key to decision-making and memory—often becomes temporarily impaired. The amygdala, known to encode emotional experiences, begins to dominate, triggering the release of stress hormones and helping to record particular fragments of sensory information. Victims can also experience tonic immobility—a sensation of being frozen in place—or a dissociative state. These types of withdrawal result from extreme fear yet often make it appear as if the victim did not resist the assault.

But there is another explanation for fractured memories and laughter and total lack of credibility: women are not necessarily LYING about the fact they think they were raped, but they are nervous as hell about the fact that they did not take one single reasonable precaution to avoid putting themselves in a dangerous situation. Perhaps the “traumatic memory” they are recalling is just how brainless and idiotic they were in the first place.

Looking Away

Perhaps Tron really WAS raped, and perhaps the jury really did refuse to indict a serial rapist: I don’t live in Brooklyn, but even if I did, it wouldn’t frighten me to know this man was loose in the least. Why not?

I don’t do coke, and I sure as hell would not get in a car with a man I don’t know who makes me nervous.

See how easy that is? I value myself. It’s really that simple. When feminism insists that no woman should ever be required to consider her own safety and her own actions and only rapists should be held responsible for rape, they are essentially asking women to discount their own value. Don’t consider yourself smart, capable, sensible, rational or in any way responsible for yourself.

This is why I don’t understand why any woman would embrace feminism. Feminism doesn’t just hate men, IT HATES WOMEN. What kind of philosophy rests on the assumption that women are incapable of taking the tiniest measures to protect themselves? That it is somehow unfair if women are asked to observe their environments, make a rational assessment of threats, believe themselves capable of avoiding potential harm and deserving of their own protection?




Perhaps the reason so many women are floundering in their lives and suffering existential angst is because they have bought the story feminism is peddling: women are irrational, incapable and undeserving. Victims. Always victims.

The only definite thing Tron is a victim of is her own colossal idiocy.


Don’t take car rides from strangers. Every five year old knows this. How does anyone grow up to think car rides from strangers mixed with drunkenness and some cocaine is a good idea? No one deserves to be assaulted, but holy hell!

When five year olds show more sense than grown women, you know we have a problem.

And the solution is fairly simple: grow up ladies. You can make better choices. Really. Give it a try. Believe you are capable. Believe you are rational. Believe you are deserving. Because you are, no matter what your Daily Feminist Blogger tells you.


And remember, only do coke with people you know!

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: