Protecting Her Lies By Calling Others “Liar” (Update)

Soon after I wrote about Mary Anne Franks’ efforts to distort free speech to gain advantage in promoting her revenge porn law, and catapult her from a decidedly undistinguished, untenured, career as an academic toward Kim Kardashian recognition, I received an email from a very well-regarded law professor who told me that she was a disgrace to the Academy.

“Why don’t you do something about it,” I asked?

“Because Franks will call me a misogynist or racist, and I don’t need that.”

He asked me to keep this to myself, and I agreed not to disclose it. He didn’t need to become embroiled in this sort of garbage, which has been the modus operandi for those challenging the religion of a small group of law profs who try to make their name by championing radical views. This wasn’t his fight.  That was understandable.

But when I received an email yesterday that Mary Anne Franks had decided to embarrass herself yet again with this twit by wallowing in the gutter of intellectual dishonesty, I checked out what else she was twitting.  Uh oh.

Franks Twit

As is typical of people who cry “liar,” Franks neglected to link the target of her attack.  But easy enough to check, as Mike Masnick wrote a Techdirt post about Article 230 involving an interview of Anupam Chander yesterday, that included this line:

You have short-sighted law professors who think that a way to fix “bad” sites online is to gut Section 230.

The link refers to a Techdirt post by Tim Cushing, which in turn refers to a post by Mark Bennett and here, which includes this quote:

“A lot of companies are under the impression they can’t be touched by state criminal laws,” Franks said, because “Section 230 trumps any state criminal law.”

The Communications Decency Act, however, doesn’t trump federal criminal law, she said, pointing to child pornography.

“The impact [of a federal law] for victims would be immediate,” Franks said. “If it became a federal criminal law that you can’t engage in this type of behavior, potentially Google, any website, Verizon, any of these entities might have to face liability for violations.

So here’s where it all gets weird. Is Mary Anne Franks the liar? Is Mary Anne Franks intellectually dishonest? Does Mary Anne Franks suffer from mental disease or defect that causes her to scream “liar” at anyone who hurts her brand, no matter how absurd and false it may be?  All of these? A combination?

It’s becoming impossible to say, given her inexplicable attacks. The only thing clear is that, this time, she called Mike Masnick a liar when she, yet again, is the one doing the lying. There appears to be no bounds to her virulence, and dishonesty.  Nor, for that matter, her Slackoisie entitlement, as she demands that others “research” her (as opposed to read her quote) because she is just the most important person ever, a recurring theme in her efforts to slough off criticism.

While her motivations and methods are fairly obvious, attack anyone who calls her out on what she says by calling them names, from liar to misogynist, to pretend she’s not the turd in the bowl and pray no one exposes the truth, it’s harder to understand why she’s allowed to continue to teach.

Academic freedom is a core value, and should be.  For example, one of Franks’ closest allies, Danielle Citron, promoted another failed concept, Cyber Civil Rights, which sought to turn the focus of bullying into a gender issue. Her argument was that men bullied women online, and so free speech for women required silencing free speech for men.

While Citron’s issue had some internal inconsistencies, with which non-feminist supporters of free speech took issue, at no time did Citron launch attacks by calling those who opposed her views liars.  She continued to pound her position, but never wallowed in the gutter to do so.

Franks, however, has consistently disgraced herself and the legal academy, both by falsely claiming to have addressed her detractors’ arguments and ad hominem attacks. Disagreeing is fine. Disagreeing strongly is fine. Lying about everyone and anyone who calls you out is not fine. This isn’t academic freedom. This is a disturbed personality that shouldn’t be allowed near young people.

As for Charles Thomas’ “response” post to me, it’s neither a response (or he lacks the acumen to grasp the legal issues I address) nor a post of any intellectual significance. “Don’t rape?” Well, okay then. Depth of thought may not be his strength. If he wanted to use me as an excuse to post something vapid about rape culture, what do I care? People make stuff up about what I write all the time. It’s no big deal anymore. No one who doesn’t pray to the feminist religion would care either way, and the religious will believe no matter what.*

Hopefully, his post is just a come on, and he knows better than to actually sell out his clients for his personal sensibilities. After all, if a practice is built on trying to make the first page of Google, and fails, it suggests he might need to work harder on client referrals and perhaps spend more time considering what’s needed of criminal defense lawyers and less courting feminists and spouting simplistic rhetoric.

As for Mary Anne Franks, there appears to be no fix. She appears terminally truth-challenged, and incapable of responding to disagreement with anything other than a lie.  She has no place in the courtroom, where liars are frowned upon.  Will the legal academy continue to tolerate her?

Update: After a fascinating morning on twitter, with Mary Anne steadfastly trying to deflect responsibility, she wrote a tumblr about how she’s the martyr of her very own fantasy land. Nothing in it sounds remotely familiar to me, but then, I don’t live in that warm and fuzzy place in her head where delusions run rampant and she is the benevolent but unappreciated Queen of the World.

Rarely are we presented with as clear an opportunity to look into a person’s fantasies as this. Enjoy.

* In the original iteration, I included some background about Charles Thomas that dealt with the messenger rather than the message. Almost immediately after posting it, I deleted it, realizing that it was inappropriate and petty of me.  A screen cap of it was twitted, and I was told that Thomas posted the original on Facebook. As far as I’m aware, I had already deleted it.

If you’re wondering why I changed it, this is why.  When I make a mistake, I correct it.

40 comments on “Protecting Her Lies By Calling Others “Liar” (Update)

  1. AP

    I see that Charles Thomas is the type of criminal defence lawyer who takes selfies of himself at the Montgomery Township Police Department when “helping a client turn himself in.” That lovely self-satisfied picture of himself can be found under the “Charles Thomas” section of his website.

    1. SHG Post author

      I’ve deleted some of the post about Thomas, as it really wasn’t relevant to the message and it was unnecessary to delve any deeper into Charles Thomas’ other issues. So my fault that other issues surrounding Thomas were raised, but it’s wrong of me to kick a guy when he’s down.

  2. Marc J. Randazza

    I get a pretty hearty laugh at these lawprofs who never had a fucking job, yet again, having some wisdom about what the victims need.

    As far as lawyers who have actually helped (or tried to help) revenge porn victims go, there are probably 10-15 in the whole country. I would bet that Ms. Franks hasn’t spoken to any of them (I know she hasn’t spoken to me). Meanwhile, legislative aides in CA and the cyberlaw committee in Fla. asked me what I thought — and as reprehensible and shitty as any revenge porn perpetrator is, I don’t think he belongs in jail for it.

    The answer is to make adjustments to Section 230. Minor ones — ones which might ultimately benefit the ISPs too. That won’t fill jails with stupid boys who lacked judgment, but it will help the victims.

    1. SHG Post author

      I wouldn’t feel too badly if, say, Hunter Moore does some time, but that’s not the issue for me. If this was somehow limited to just revenge porn, that would be one argument. It’s not, she knows it, and is happy to sacrifice everyone else in her quest to get the revenge porn guys. She lacks the guts to be honest about it (or much of anything else, for that matter), but she doesn’t care about the collateral damage her pet project might cause.

      And I fully expect one of her pals will claim I made a sexual comment about her for using the word “guts.”

    2. Bill

      @Marc – it is indeed interesting how animated so many people get when they haven’t lifted a finger to help any of the victims. While Franks was on her promotion tour, the revenge sites started to fall like dominoes . As cliche as it is, there are talkers and doers, you and Ken did a whole lot of doing, Professor Franks did a whole lot of talking. Every victim that I worked with knows your name (and Kens ) and greatly appreciates what you did – I don’t think a single one knows of Ms Franks.

    1. SHG Post author

      Only those people who view life through the prism of gender politics see people as either feminists or misogynists. Since that’s not my view, I don’t see myself as either feminist or misogynist, though I suspect that my failure to be a feminist must, in the eyes of feminists, make me a misogynist as everyone must be pigeonholed according to their politics.

      To those who lives in this one-dimensional world, you’re either friend or foe. To them, I’m foe because I’m not friend.

      My horses in this race are free speech, intellectual honesty, avoiding the prosecution of people who have done no wrong and the attacks by Franks on anyone who doesn’t adore her. I can’t be bothered with the nonsensical dichotomy they want to impose on others, and I have absolutely no “regret” for being what I am. If feminists want to call me a misogynist because of it, I really don’t give a damn. I have no plans to hand over my man card to please anyone.

        1. SHG Post author

          I accept the premise that Franks thinks she’s a feminist. I frankly have no clue what defines a feminist, and know that within the ranks of those who self-identify as feminists, they fight amongst themselves over who’s radical enough. As for Thomas, the best guess I can offer is he wants to be invited to the party so he can bask in the glory of carrying their water.

          1. Nigel Declan

            Or, more accurately, Franks and Thomas want to be defined as “right” and want their critics, detractors and anyone who does not unquestionably and enthusiastically support them defined as “wrong” (or “evil”. The particular terms, deliberately broad, vague and loaded, that they use to identify the two sides of their simplistically binary world are largely immaterial.

            1. SHG Post author

              That’s the nature of religion. They’re right and we’re evil because they’re right. They can couch it in whatever terms they please, but it’s ultimately an unshakeable belief because they are the righteous.

  3. Charles Thomas (by proxy)

    I’m writing this on behalf of Charles Thomas, who has been engaged in a lengthy private Facebook discussion about me and this post, but refuses to discuss his issues with me directly. He informed me that I’m ” not interested in debate or engagement, just as hominem.” He then informed me that he would consider engaging me directly upon this condition

    If and when you reply to what I wrote, as opposed to as hominem I’ll consider it.

    So on his behalf, I offer this brief comment:

    I am very angry that you attacked me personally, even though you later deleted it. I am also very angry that you failed to address my post.

    If this isn’t what Charles Thomas wanted to say, then he’s free to speak for himself.

    1. SHG Post author

      First, you are right to be angry about what I originally wrote about you. While you did put your experience in issue when you wrote the parenthetical of how “slut-shaming” and “victim-blaming” don’t work, which Bennett has adequately addressed, it was inappropriate of me to point out your personal issues. Upon realizing that my characterization of your was inappropriate, I deleted it. Still, I apologize for that.

      Second, your post was titled a response to me. If you think that’s what it was, then you failed to understand what I wrote. If not, then I can’t explain what you were thinking. Nothing in my post suggested slut-shaming or victim-blaming. Not even close.

      My post was about the definition of rape and the asymmetry of two drunk kids, one male and one female, where the male by definition loses. My point was that consensual sex doesn’t become rape the next day should the female change her mind. My point is that two drunk kids are equivalent, one no more guilty than the other, and one no more a victim than the other.

      Now, you may disagree, and feel that the fight against “rape culture” dictates that the boy must be guilty if both are in the exact same status, because that suits your agenda. If so, then I find your position fundamentally reprehensible, to suggest that a boy should be convicted of rape and suffer the consequence of prison to further either gender politics or feminist sensibilities. I am also shocked that you, as a criminal defense lawyer, would find this acceptable.

      As for the definition of rape, and whether a consensual act can be made a rape the next day, there is neither a logical nor doctrinal basis that supports such an absurd definition. The only thing I can conceive of that supports that view is some sort of religious belief that males are evil and women never responsible for their consensual choices. Your post offered nothing on this, so I’m at a loss to understand what position you might have.

      And finally, your conclusion was “don’t rape,” a position that is manifestly simplistic. No one ever suggested otherwise, and your knocking down a strawman isn’t something worthy of discussion. My question was “what is rape,” and you don’t address that. I can’t give you credit that you haven’t earned.

      Sorry if this hurts your feelings, as I’m sure you received a great deal of appreciation for women for your sensitivity toward them given our “rape culture.” I do not share the desire or interest in engaging in gender politics. I defend people accused of crimes, and I find it inexcusable that a young man should be sacrificed on the altar of rape culture. As a criminal defense lawyer, you should too. It’s unfortunate that you care more for gender politics than you do about defendants and non-existent crimes.

      Now, you can either talk here like a lawyer or go back to your private Facebook discussion and complain about me some more.

      1. Just A Guy Lawyer

        Let me see if I’ve got this straight. So you write about defining rape as something a woman can decide the day after sex, and Charlie responds by claiming you’re slut shaming because you question whether consensual sex should be turned into rape when the woman decides she made a bad decision?

        And then Charlie cries to his friends on facebook about what a mean person you are for not “engaging” with him on his terms, showing him the the respect he believe he’s due because he’s such a fragile and sensitive soul? All this after he’s whined about how you think his argument is moronic?

        And Charlie is a lawyer, who writes about what a great lawyer he is even though he refuses to use things that might help his clients because “they don’t work,” even though any competent lawyer knows better?

        Charlie, hope you enjoy wringing your hands with the feminists over how awful men are in your rape culture. Maybe they will let you braid their hair and paint their toe nails. You are one gutless piece of shit, you poor delicate little snowflake. I don’t know what’s worse, your cowardice or your stupidity, but I sure as hell hope I never have you standing next to me in the well. There’s a reason you’re a loser, Charlie.

        Does this make me a misogynist too, Charlie? Go cry about me to all your sensitive friends on Facebook, who can tell you how wonderful you are to be in touch with your feminine side, because no lawyer is going to give you any sympathy for being a coward, a moron and a loser. What a disgrace.

        Oh, and by the way, Charlie. I’m not ashamed to be a man or a lawyer. I would tell you to man up but that obviously will never happen.

        1. SHG Post author

          There seems to be a dichotomy in the reactions here, including some of Charles’ friends, some of whom tell me he’s a generally good guy, this incident notwithstanding. It’s not, as some might expect, a split between men and women, but a split between those for whom “rape culture” is a core part of their personal agenda and those for whom it isn’t. The problem is that anyone who doesn’t adopt the belief that “rape culture” trumps everything else is a misogynist, etc., and doesn’t get it. It’s like Catholics condemning Jews because they just don’t accept Jesus. After all, he’s the real messiah, right?

          But your comment raises a different problem. Yes, Charles’ refusal to come out of hiding isn’t exactly what one would expect of a criminal defense lawyer. We’re supposed to be a bit tougher than that, even if our “friends” tell us it’s okay to hide and seek the comfort of only those who understand our sensitivities. But part of the problem is that any discussion is internally hampered by the language we’re “allowed” to use. You, for example, tell Charles to “man up.” How dare you? That’s sexist, the product of a patriarchal society that gives rise to rape culture. See how that works?

          Any discussion that involves the use of language the evokes masculine imagery is proof to feminists of sexism. Ironically, someone twitted at me that I should “man up” and adopt the feminist view. Had I said that, I would have been sexist. On the other hand, is adopting someone else’s religion manning up? Not to me.

          So there really can’t be a discussion unless it’s entirely on their terms. They dictate the language that’s allowed. There is no questioning their “feelings” or experiences because it’s theirs, and they’re entitled. You can’t argue with feelings and they can’t be changed by reason, especially when they dictate the permissible words.

          This is why I can’t be bothered. I get their point. It just doesn’t dictate my world view, which means that to them, I don’t get their point because if I did, it would. And as for Charles being a coward for hiding on Facebook rather than standing up and taking the risk of disagreement, what difference does it make? He hides because that’s the only place where he is assured that people won’t disagree with him. That’s what people do when they can’t take the heat.

          1. Victoria Pynchon

            One more comment and then I’m going. there is simply not an organized group of men and women who call themselves “feminists” who can be reduced to a single set of opinions just as Democrats do not all believe the same thing. These comments avoid the primary issue Scott raised -> is an academic policy calling sex with a woman who has had any intoxicating substance in her the victim of rape. The answer is no, of course not. Are there some feminists somewhere who believe it to be true? I imagine so. The college policy seems a throw-back to the 50s, not a 21st century solution to a real problem – sexual assault and rape on campus and elsewhere followed by skepticism of women’s reports because the incidence of false rape accusations is so small. Scott then observes that anyone falsely accused deserves representation with which of course I agree. No one seems to want to talk about the real problem – sexual assault and rape on campus and how it can be diminished as well as women’s reluctance to come forward and mention it even if it’s only to those who are closest to them. Few are the people immediately doubted when they say they’ve been robbed or burglarized or defrauded. Many are the women who are scorned, shamed, bullied, pilloried and ridiculed if they so much as claim in a public space like this that they have been raped. If you all would like to continue in the comfort of echoing one another’s views on those nasty feminists, have at it. I would think you all would not waste your time in such a manner but feel free. I tried to have a mature, adult conversation here. I was brutally honest about my own experience in an effort to steer the conversation back to a societal problem that affects millions WITHOUT contending that men should be automatically disbelieved, shamed, bullied or ridiculed for saying they DIDN’T rape or sexually assault a woman. But . . . if it makes you guys feel better to engage in ad hominem attacks on people and evade a socially important and sensitive topic that deserves the attention of the legal community, proceed.

            1. SHG Post author

              I was brutally honest about my own experience in an effort to steer the conversation back to a societal problem that affects millions WITHOUT contending that men should be automatically disbelieved, shamed, bullied or ridiculed for saying they DIDN’T rape or sexually assault a woman. But . . . if it makes you guys feel better to engage in ad hominem attacks on people and evade a socially important and sensitive topic that deserves the attention of the legal community, proceed.

              That’s disingenuous on every level. So after your ad hominem attack (did you forget about that?), you end up having no disagreement with me, but thought you were entitled to “steer the conversation” to where you wanted it to be? This isn’t your blawg or your post. You don’t get to control the content, which, I note again, you have no disagreement with. And you don’t get to chastise me or others for not doing what you want. It’s not all about you.

              Yes, feminists aren’t a monolithic block, but they share a common theme in at least one aspect, that being that people for whom feminism isn’t their central focus are the enemy. No one “evades a socially important and sensitive topic” because they won’t let you control someone else’s discussion.

              You want the legal community to discuss your topic? Great! Write a post and let the discussion you want to happen happen. But you don’t get to “steer” discussion on my posts to a completely different issue to suit your agenda.

              And don’t try to play the ad hominem game. This has been nothing compared with the nasty, ignorant crap being said over on Facebook. Did you tell the women not to engage in ad hominem attacks, or is it different when they’re women, because women are allowed? If you want to complain about the abusive things said to women on the internet, then you really need to avoid being just as abusive, if not more so, yourself.

  4. Adam Marks

    If Professor Franks is really as unimportant as you claim, then why have you spent an entire weekend writing and tweeting about her?

    Alternately, if she is important, why not engage with her substantively rather than quoting anonymous (but highly respected!!) professors and using dismissive terms like “tummy rubs” on Twitter?

    I like a lot of the things you write, but you really can’t have this one both ways.

    1. SHG Post author

      Revenge porn, like bullying and more recently the knock out game, has made it onto the radar of a number of legislators who are looking to pass laws specifically designed to prohibit it. Franks has had the good fortune of seizing this issue and crafting a model law to criminalize revenge porn, and there is no other model around. Because of this, a very young, inexperienced law prof has found a timely niche, and she’s milking it for all it’s worth.

      I wouldn’t be concerned about Franks, per se, except for her milking her good fortune, in an effort to “make a name for herself” on the back of revenge porn. She is otherwise an undistinguished scholar, but has become the poster lawprof for revenge porn. So is she important? Only to the extent of the harm she can do and the profile she seeks for herself in doing so. On a personal level, she is not.

      The law she has written is dangerous, as it sweeps a broad array of protected speech into its ambit. Franks doesn’t care, as her position is that revenge porn is so evil it must be stopped, even if free speech and people who have nothing to do with revenge porn get hurt in the process. She makes numerous strawman arguments to try to deflect attention from the problem, such as contending that we argue that revenge porn isn’t a big deal.

      As for the highly respected professors, I would very much like to name names, but they aren’t mine to offer. That said, the reason they are brought up is because Franks has used a similar tactic, claiming, for example, that Eugene Volokh supports her law. He does not. He never had. This is a lie. So this point is made in juxtaposition to her false claims.

      As for the tummy rubs, I’m dismissive of the mindless support by others who share her gender politics, to whom she turns whenever a mean guy (like me) calls out her BS. And as for “an entire weekend,” you probably mean one day, since it’s only been one day.

      And why is this important enough to spend a day dealing with? Because it creates a huge gap in free speech, and once that gap is opened, there are many other “evils” on the internet that feminists desperately want to criminalize. This is important.

      By the way, all of this has been said before and was available in the links to the post with all the background detail and support. If you really wanted answers, they were there for you the whole time.

  5. Turk

    If Professor Franks is really as unimportant as you claim, then why have you spent an entire weekend writing and tweeting about her?

    I can’t answer for SHG, but I suspect it’s because he sees:

    1. Impingement on the First Amendment; and
    2. That the issue of scuzzball revenge porn folks can be handled by existing laws (such as those against extortion).

    Toss into that mix that the effect of the proposed law will also alter section 230 immunity. And then toss in that she called someone else a liar when he called her out on it — despite the fact that she has conceded that is exactly what she said her proposed law would do — and you have a pretty volatile cocktail of issues.

  6. Ann Lee Gibson

    Scott,
    Many times I want to heart, like and favorite your blogs and twits. Other times I want to call your mom and beg her to take your Internet connection away. Your arguments are more persuasive when you aren’t trying to make your opponents scream, “No, U!” That’s no way to win an argument. Or an audience. You’ve got good points. So make ‘em. I, for one, would actually like to hear both sides debate these issues, not ridicule them. They aren’t ridiculous issues.

    1. SHG Post author

      Ann, I don’t do this as a teaching or debate exercise. I write posts because I feel like writing. Same with twits. The problem I have is that much of what I see is just, in my view, stupid and unworthy of the time to respond or explain. I’m an old guy. I’m impatient, and don’t really give a damn about people not being pleased with me.

      When it’s a subject, question or issue that interests me, I address it. A lot is just too damn simplistic to be worth the time and effort. I’m not under an obligation to respond at length, in soft and soothing tones, to every idiotic thing someone writes to me.

      So I can fully appreciate your point, but I’m just not inclined to spend my days explaining basic stuff for the benefit of anyone who has the ability to @me. A lot of it is just plain stupid, and is unworthy of thoughtful response. I hope you can understand my position as well.

      Edit: As for winning an audience, I have never before, and never will, give a shit. If people want to read, they’ll read. If not, they won’t. I will never try to win an audience. If anything, I try to scare them off.

  7. Victoria Pynchon

    You were quite right to opine that a policy assuming women who have consumed any kind and strength of drug or any amount of alcohol are incapable of consent is ridiculous on its face. It barely warrants comment, however, because women in staggering numbers don’t report rape and sexual assault at all.

    Of course there are some (likely sociopathic or tremendously disturbed) women who consent to sex whether intoxicated or not and make false rape accusations. That number is diminishingly small compared to the number of women who are raped and sexually assaulted. The reason your post is so disturbing to women is the same reason people of color are angered to hear that whites are justifiably fearful of black when the omnipresent threat has been and remains quite the reverse.

    If Stanford has a code of conduct that defines sexual assault as sex with any woman of consenting age who has taken a sip of wine or a puff of weed, you are quite right to call that policy absurd. In the social context in which we live, however, where the rate of unreported rape and sexual assault is staggering and the number of false rape accusations de minimis – your post is offensive.

    Young women are routinely sexually assaulted, Scott. They are routinely grabbed, pinched, slapped on the butt, groped and threatened with violence by men who are complete strangers to them in bars and restaurants and on the street. Young women who experience these routine threats and assaults do not have to be overly sensitive Victorian prudes to be frightened by men who are 9.9 times out of 10 quite obviously capable of physically over-powering them.

    If women shouted sexual assault every time they were actually sexually assaulted, the justice system would grind to a halt. Thankfully, these routine assaults tend to stop when women pass the age of 25 or 30 or 35. They never stop completely. But they stop being routine.

    False rape accusations, on the other hand, are more rare than asteroid strikes. That’s why people – women mainly – say that talking about false rape accusations as if they are a genuine threat to men are a part of “rape culture.” This may be too subtle for some men to grasp, Scott, but I doubt you’re one of them. Believe me, it is not subtle for women.

    All of us – all of us – have been pinched, groped, slapped on the butt and shoved up against the wall by men when we were younger. Some of us won’t admit it because we’ll be disbelieved, ridiculed and bullied for acknowledging how frightened and powerless we feel when men physically overpower or simply take physical liberties with us. We are not “colliding.” We are being battered in the legal sense of that phrase.

    You don’t have the slightest idea what it’s like, Scott. I know you don’t because it doesn’t come naturally even to me at this age to to recall how it felt to be routinely subjected to verbal abuse and physical assault. I have to make an effort to remember walking down the boardwalk in Mission Beach when I was 20; walking into a bar in San Diego when I was 22, or walking past construction workers in Sacramento on my way to court when I was 28.

    I have to recall waking up with some guy shoving his prick into me after I’d passed out from drinking. I have to remember a boyfriend forcing himself on me and realizing, for the first time at 17, that it was genuinely more important for him to have sex with me than it was for him to refrain from forcing me to have it against my will.

    I don’t like to recall these things and I certainly don’t like to talk about them but if I don’t, when will the day come when young women will stop silencing themselves because they know they will be shamed for having been raped or sexually assaulted.

    When false rape accusations account for, say, 10% of the sexual assaults committed by men on women, then, perhaps, wringing your hands about the innocence of college boys who drink with college girls will not offend. Until that time, the suggestion that women are responsible for the sexual and physical abuse heaped upon them, particularly when they are college-age, is a part of rape culture.

    1. SHG Post author

      Whether or not the frequency is as you say remains unclear, largely because most of the evidence is anecdotal. But I’m not arguing against much of this. I’m arguing definitions. Your last makes the point: Women are not responsible for “abuse head on them,” but that hardly translates to young men (or young woman, as far as I’m concerned) who have committed no cognizable crime go to prison to vindicate rape culture.

      If the outgrowth of rape culture is that innocent people go to prison to vindicate asymmetric gender politics, then I have a very real problem. I would hope you would too.

      Not so sexist for a well-known misogynist and bully, eh?

  8. Victoria Pynchon

    I think there’s as much chance of a rash of false rape accusations as there is of the GOP sucking Obama’s dick. Not such a wuss after all, huh?

    And Jesus, Scott. I have to do MATH to leave a comment? Quite clear you’re a woman hater.

    1. SHG Post author

      I don’t doubt there is no epidemic of false rape accusations (though your metaphor is a bit too graphic for me). I don’t subscribe to a single false accusation as being inconsequential, any more than I would subscribe to a single rape as being inconsequential. My agenda is law, not gender.

      And yes, everybody has to do the math. Get over it. It’s equal opportunity (get it?).

            1. SHG Post author

              It was kind of you to make the effort. Unfortunately, I am not prepared to sacrifice innocent people in the name of gender politics. Don’t feel bad. Your effort was valiant, but I’m just incorrigible.

            2. Jim Cline

              I don’t get it. Was the feminist implying that women aren’t good at math? Who’s supposed to be the misogynist? I’m so confused.

            3. SHG Post author

              It’s all confusing to me too, but then, that’s because I don’t get it. I guess you don’t either. Welcome to the club.

            4. Victoria Pynchon

              this was a joke . . . despite the fact that women who believe they should have rights equal to men’s (“feminists”) allegedly have no sense of humor . . . and, yes, I’m bad at math and it MIGHT have something to do with being raised female in the 50s when girls were not encouraged to be good at much of anything other than home ec.

  9. Mark W. Bennett

    Tumblr’s perfect for Mary Anne Franks because with no comments her bad ideas can be insulated from criticism. It looks as though she wrote this little Tumblr fantasia in November.

    1. SHG Post author

      Having wrapped herself in this facile martyr cocoon, which she continues to do in other social media, she may be able to cover her eyes and ears so the criticism doesn’t reach her, but she isn’t fooling anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.

  10. Pingback: Special Victims, Special Rules | Simple Justice

Comments are closed.