From time to time, something will happen on the Internet or in real life that I know I should write about for Man Boobz, but it’s so infuriating or depressing that I can’t bring myself to write about it. The recent bullshit on Reddit involving a young woman whose story of a sexual assault was met with angry disbelief until she provided video proof that her injuries were real is a perfect case in point.
Briefly, what happened is this:
A young woman posted about a sexual assault she’d endured a day or so earlier – a man had tried to rape her, pushing her to the ground and scraping her face on the pavement. In a separate topic she posted a picture of her injuries, most notably a giant scrape on her cheek. You can see it at right; click on the picture to see it full size.
Then another Redditor noticed that some time back, the same woman had posted a picture of herself in zombie makeup. This, he said, made him skeptical that her injuries were real — it was probably just a good makeup job.
That was all it took to send Reddit into a full internet lynch mob frenzy: obviously this woman was a liar and an attention whore and, even worse, possibly a feminist anti-rape activist! Redditors suddenly became both medical and makeup experts, and declared that the giant scrape on her face was obviously phony. (Not to me; I tried arguing with several of them to no avail.) It got ugly, very ugly, very quickly.
The woman at the heart of the storm asked if she needed to post an actual video of her cleaning the wound on her face to show that it was real; a redditor demanded that she do just that.
So she did. (Here it is.) Long story short: the scrape is real. The woman also posted a picture of the business card given to her by the police detective she’s spoken to when reporting the incident. It’s now pretty clear that there is no reason to doubt that her story is true. Even the Redditor who originally challenged her story realized that she was almost certainly telling the truth.
Here’s her post offering proof to back up her story.
At this point the lynch mob lost its steam; some people even apologized to her.
But the evidence of the ugliness remains in a host of different threads and different subforums on Reddit. I honestly don’t have the energy or the patience to sift through all of the ugliness; luckily, Jezebel has given a decent account of the whole spectacle; you can go there to get some more of the details.
You might also want to look in to the main thread where most of the ugliness occurred — though at this point many of the vile accusatory comments that got upvoted when everyone seemed to assume she was lying have been retroactively voted down. (The screenshot I posted above gives a better idea of what it looked like at the time; here’s another screenshot with some of the choicer comments.)
Naturally, Men’s Rightsers contributed to the ugliness – though most of the worst comments appeared outside of the Men’s Rights subreddit, and a surprising number of r/mr regulars refused to jump on the original “she’s a liar” bandwagon.
While many Men’s Rightsters are now apologetic, others still think she may be lying.
Here’s a good discussion of the whole thing in ShitRedditSays, and a followup.
DKM, meet NWO. You two should get along juuuuuust fine.
Ooh, Beth, I mean “princess liesalot,” you touched a nerve.
NWO, ever been charged with DV? These… rants lead me to believe that may be the case.
Hey Slavey, you sure have a lot of hate for claiming someone has standard hatred.
“Back in the old days everyone pretty much came from a large family, as oppossed to the abortion ridden society we live in today. Do you think for one minute a father is going to let some man rape his little girl? Or her brothers or uncles. Nuh uh princess. Ya see princess, for starters, in the patriachy of old, before women decided they wanted Big Daddy as their new and improved patriarchy, that shit didn’t fly. You can bet your pampered ass, back in the day, rape was as rare as a sixteen year old virgin is today.”
Your knowledge of history is lacking again. Substantiate with fact or go home. Clearly you’ve never heard of war. Nor do you seem to be aware of the reason for high family offspring. Nor do you address economic exchanges using women as a form of currency. But then, what would you know? You are only a fake engineer who can’t manage basic math or really anything else. You’ve got nothing in basic discourse.
NWOslave, have you ever been to the bathroom once in your life?
Because you are seriously full of shit.
*ba-dum CRASH!*
/bad joke
Of rape? Personally? As in legally? No one. I know one person convicted of 2nd degree murder. Three of manslaughter; and two of obstructing justice in the same case (it’s a moderately famous case, “Dilawar”), and one who has been plead down from Attempted Murder to simple assault in a DV case; which is not yet resolved.
But no one for rape.
NWO, the purpose of primary aggressor laws is to prevent victims of domestic violence from getting arrested when they defend themselves during an attack. This works both ways. If a women is beating up a man, then he can hit back in self defense. A woman can also hit back when she is getting beaten by a man. It applies the same way for same sex couples, too. Primary aggressor laws are written in gender neutral terms.
The National Institute of Justice had a study in 2008 on domestic violence cases involving arrests. I apologize that the study refers only to dv in the US and not other countries. Anyway, the factors that make it more likely that an arrest will occur when officers respond to a domestic disturbance are the presence of minors in the home, one or both partners suffering physical injuries, an offender staying at the home after the fight, the people involved being romantically involved instead of like a sibling or parent type relationship, and the incident occurring in a large city. The genders of the perpetrators and victims was not a factor. Gender was also not a factor when determining how likely someone is to be convicted after arrest.
National Institute of Justice statistics
I know you like telling your persecution fantasies where women beat men up all the time while the police give them trophies for their violence, but that isn’t reality.
@Flib
“Your knowledge of history is lacking again. Substantiate with fact or go home. Clearly you’ve never heard of war. Nor do you seem to be aware of the reason for high family offspring. Nor do you address economic exchanges using women as a form of currency. But then, what would you know? You are only a fake engineer who can’t manage basic math or really anything else. You’ve got nothing in basic discourse.”
And now, as if princess liesalot wasn’t bad enough, we have Flib and his women as currency theme. You do know TV and movies are fake, right? Were women on the stock exchange? How many shekels or doubloons was the going rate? Were they sold by the pound? By the bushel? By the metric ton?
I’ve heard of war. Isn’t that where men are often faced with the choice of killing and dying to protect their wives and children, (even their daughters I suppose). My guess for high family offspring would be they didn’t slaughter the unborn. I mean in the U.S. alone that’s 60 million over the last 40 years, which doesn’t count any offspring they didn’t have due to their deaths. Unless of course your thinking of selling off the daughters. Of course that’s a losing proposition.
I’ll try my math skills out though. Lets try your plan on raising girls as currency. We’ll say it costs about 15k a year and we’ll plan on selling her at age 13, so that’s a 195k. Of course we’ll wanna keep mom around as breeding stock and the primary caretaker, so we’ll add another 10% cost there since she’ll continue to breed other girls to offset her cost. That’ll be another 19.5k plus the original 195k = 214.5k I’d need to break even on my investment. Being the savvy businessman I am I’ll want at least 20% profit on my investment, so I’m gonna start my bidding at 214.5 + 20% = 257.4k. I’m gonna be totally honest with ya, I just don’t see your women as currency scheme taking off. But maybe it’s my poor math skills that’s skewing the numbers, you run with it if ya think it’s a profitable market.
Someone has never met a cop. I know plenty of them (I work with them) and most of them will hand a hankie to the woman then stick the cuffs on her. And the judges will do the same while ordering them to jail.
Yes actually-some fathers even do the raping themselves.
__________________________________________
Does this mean I get a crown now that I am a princess? Because I want the St. Edward’s one if I do.
No.
Someone has never met a cop.
id bet hes met a few, considering how many arrests for existing while in possession of a penis he apparently has under his belt.
NWO, do you think abortion is a recent thing? It has been around for centuries.
I see your math skills are as sharp as ever.
in possession of a penis he apparently has under his belt
That’s generally where you keep it 🙂
i dont think you understand what currency means.
@katz
😛
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
“Yes actually-some fathers even do the raping themselves.”
No. no. no princess liesalot. Here’s what you said, “merely 40 years after the first successful attempts to prevent men from being able to beat their wives, rape them with impunity”
With “impunity.” With impunity is all the time by all men. What? Were they saving their daughters virginity for that big payoff as Flib stated? Women as currency. According to my math I couldn’t make a profit. Perhaps Flib could enlighten me on the money making scheme.
You quite clearly state, up until 40 years ago, the first successful attempts to prevent men from beating and raping their wives with impunity. Up until you enlightened me, I had a world of respect for my dad. Now that I know he beat and raped mom, it throws a whole new light on dad.
Feminism, it’s all about truth, justice and the american way. Oh wait a minute, that’s superman. Feminism is a hate movement, that’s right. Now your comment makes sense.
Let’s see, prior to less than 40 years ago it was legally impossible for a husband to commit rape.
It’s possible, if he beat his wife in the course of demanding his, “conjugal rights” he might be charged with beating her, but it was, at law, impossible for him to rape her.
Amazingly, in this legal climate where spousal rape wasn’t a crime, there are no criminal cases about spousal rape; so it must never have happened.
About those idyllicly large families NWO goes on (and on, and on and on and ad nauseam
Family Trends in the United States, 1890-1940
Paul C. Glick Bureau of the Census (American Sociological Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, 1942)*
Family trends in the United States as a Whole. The first census of the United States showed that in 1790 there were more families consisting of five persons than any other number. One hundred years later, in 1890, four-person families were the most numerous. By 1900 there were more three-person families, and by 1930 more two-person families than any other size. In brief, the moodal or typical family size, changed from five persons to to two persons over the course of 140 years. In all probability two-person families will remain the the most frequent for several decades.
Moving on to more recent studies, on what family size means for children.
Looking at “Family Sizes of Children and Family Sizes of Women (Samuel H. Preston, Demography, Vol. 13, No. 1, Feb 1976)
“The size of a child’s family of orientation has been suggested to be a negative influence on his or her survivorship, intelligence, phsysical growth, access to higher education, and, during the adult years, income and occupational achievement.”
In other words, the “large families before feminism” is a myth, and the actual effects of a larger family is to spread out the parents resources, with a negative effect on the future of the children (parental time/money being what a biologist would call, “a limiting factor in the environment, as with nitrogen and potassium for plants).
N.B. This was published prior to the “40 year period of feminism” NWO blames for all the ills of the world
Anyone else shocked he doesn’t know what “impunity” means?
@Sharculese
“i dont think you understand what currency means.”
Really? Currency is a form of legal tender. Barter would be trading good’s/services. I think I might have a mild grasp. Would that funny green paper I use to buy stuff be considered currency. Well, whatever. I seem to fail here regularly. However, I am curious about the profit margin I mentioned. Can any of you kinda smooth over the numbers for me, so I can more plainly see the bottom line. Keep in mind I’m quite dim.
No, I’m not.
Nor about dowry murders, or dynastic cement by means of marriage.
Keep in mind I’m quite dim.
Hard not to.
@hellkell
“Anyone else shocked he doesn’t know what “impunity” means?”
It kinda means like when a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, right? She’ll face no consequences. Of course if a woman, even 1000s of years ago was raped, my guess is the perpetrator, even if it was the husband, wouldn’t live to see the next day. Unless of course you have some evidence where fathers, brothers and beloved relatives normally didn’t give a rats ass. You know if any of you actually thought for yourselves instead of buying into your hate ideology, ya might not hate men quite as much.
NWO always claims we’re so much smarter than him. Chuckie always claims he’s so much smarter than us. I wonder if we could pit them against each other.
@Pecunium
Ohhh, are we playing the oppression olympics? Yippee, that’s my favorite. I’d knew you’d come to the rescue. You simply can’t help but protect women no matter what can you?
Tell me sir knight, if you had a daughter in the days of old would you allow her husband to rape her with impunity? Or really even any woman you might know? Your answer of course would be no, of course you wouldn’t let that happen, even 41 years ago. Correct? Well guess what? Neither would I, and neither would virtually every other man in the fucking world, no matter how far back in history you go. Therefore, it’s a feminist lie.
NWO, I prefer the law to protect people from spousal rape rather than relying on vigilante justice to prevent it. The vigilante protection you describe wouldn’t be very reliable. What if a victim lives far away from his or her family? What if they don’t believe the victim? It’s better to rely on an impartial jury of your peers to deal with that crime.
Really? Currency is a form of legal tender. Barter would be trading good’s/services. I think I might have a mild grasp. Would that funny green paper I use to buy stuff be considered currency. Well, whatever. I seem to fail here regularly.
no, that’s backwards. legal tender is a form of currency. specifically, one that sellers must, by law, accept as a marker of value. but anything that can mark value at an agreed upon rate such that its useful as a medium of exchange can be currency. and no, it doesnt have to be traded on the stock market. currency predates stock markets by quite some time, because guess what you need to buy and sell stock- a medium of exchange!