Woman who raped student sues him for “defamation”

It is rare that any case of women sexually abusing boys leaves me at a loss for words. I have read about the most ridiculous situations, from women claiming the boys raped them to women suing their victims for child support. However, the most recent case left me stunned.

A woman convicted of sexually abusing one of her 16-year-old students filed a lawsuit against the boy for “defamation”:

The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”

I will quote it again just in case the multiple face palms prevented you from reading it in full: Continue reading

Jody Allard reveals feminism’s true abusive colors

Jody Allard is back. For those who do not recall, Allard wrote an article in 2016 titled My teen boys are blind to rape culture. Allard argued in the article that despite all her efforts as a good feminist single mother, her two teenage sons are riddled with misogyny. Instead of taking heed of Allard’s demands that they check their privilege, stop their internalized misogyny, and challenge their friends who deal in “rape culture”, the boys laughed her off.

Any reasonable parent would look at that response and reflect on their own behavior. They would ask themselves why this approach did not work. They would ask why their children reject the very foundation of their parent’s identity and political beliefs.

Allard, however, is not a reasonable parent. She is a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, sociopathic ideologue, and so she does what anyone so mentally deranged would do: blame and publicly humiliate her sons. Again. For the fourth time. Here is the title of her most recent article:

I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons)

Think of what type of person you must be to write something so vicious about your own sons. Think about how warped your mind must be to in one breath say that your sons are good and in the next accuse them of being rapists. Because that is what Allard did. You need not take my word for it. Take Allard’s: Continue reading

Canadian Supreme Court finds it’s not rape if the boy looks older

Oh Canada. It seems that every few months I come across another head-slapping instance of utter stupidity. The most recent case deals with the acquittal of a woman accused of raping a 14-year-old boy. Barbara George knew the victim through her son. She assumed the victim was older because he looked and acted “mature”.

According to an article:

Their sexual activity took place after the complainant entered George’s bedroom, along with George’s 14-year-old daughter, during a teenage party involving drinking at her home. The daughter eventually left, but the complainant and George, who were both not drinking, spoke alone for several hours. The trial judge found as a fact that the complainant initiated their first kiss and the sexual intercourse that followed. He also found as a fact that George, although “reluctant at first,” was a willing participant in the sexual intercourse that followed the kissing.

The appellant did not find out the boy’s age until months later when she asked her son.

If that sounds very convenient that is because it likely is something the woman concocted as a defense. Granted, it is entirely possible that she did not know the boy’s age. However, Canadian law is pretty clear on that matter:

Mistake of age

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

Based on George’s statements, she made no attempt to confirm the boy’s age until well after the incident. So this should be a moot point.

But of course, this is a woman in Canada and the Canadian government is abjectly against prosecuting and convicting women of abusing children no matter what the law states. So of course the judge acquitted George based on the claim that George did not know the boy’s age:

The Crown argued at the Supreme Court that the trial judge misinterpreted s. 150.1(4). “Instead of considering whether the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the boy’s age, the trial judge focused on whether there was an objective basis for her belief the boy was old enough to have sex with,” the Crown argued in its factum.

“Instead of asking whether she had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the boy’s age, the trial judge listed reasons why a person might think the boy was 16 years or older at the time of the encounter even when some of those reasons would not have been apparent to any person at the time of the sexual encounter. Moreover, the trial judge erred by relying on evidence that was not probative or relevant to the legal test enunciated in s. 150.1(4).”

This is despite the unquestionable clarity of the law. There is really no other way to interpret it. Assuming a child’s age does not absolve one of responsibility. Even if the child lies about their age a person is still subject to prosecution if they fail to verify it.

The Crown managed to appeal the acquittal to the Supreme Court, yet the Court upheld the judge’s ruling. The members of the five-panel court released an explanation of their May decision. It is a thing to behold:

Today the Supreme Court reasoned that, “the more reasonable an accused’s perception of the complainant’s age, the fewer steps reasonably required of them.”

“In some cases, it may be reasonable to ask a partner’s age. It would be an error, however, to insist that a reasonable person would ask a partner’s age in every case,” the decision reads. “Conversely, it would be an error to assert that a reasonable person would do no more than ask a partner’s age in every case, given the commonly recognized motivation for young people to misrepresent their age.”

In short, it is perfectly okay for someone to just assume a child is of the age of consent because no reasonable person would ask the child’s age in every instance. Yet in the very next sentence they argue that simply taking the child’s word is not enough.

The explanation makes zero sense. Either a reasonable person would ask or they would not. In this particular circumstance, there was no reason for George not ask. Most parents ask questions about their children’s friends, particularly those they do not know well.

Likewise, based on her actions one could infer that she suspected the boy was not over 16. The reason George ended up in court is because she attempted to become a mounty and had to answer a question regarding sex with someone under 16. George asked her son the boy’s age and reported the answer on the application.

If George honestly believed that the boy was of legal age, her actions make no sense. She would have answered in the negative and been done with it. It seems more likely that she either suspected or knew the boy was younger.

But all of that is a moot point now. George gets away with violating the law by using an excuse the law was specifically written to address. And let us not pretend that this would have worked if the accused had been male. There are dozens of cases of men meeting underage girls in clubs and bars who still faced conviction despite having every reason to assume the girls were of age.

Yet when the perpetrator is female, any and every excuse is acceptable.

Riri Williams: Marvel’s Precious Little Sociopath

Marvel debuted the character Riri Williams in July 2016. The character replaced Tony Stark as Iron Man, adopting the name Iron Heart (which ironically turns out to be the name used in a porn parody of Iron Man). Riri’s claim to fame is that she is a 15-year-old black female super-genius supposedly smarter and better than Stark.

Brian Michael Bendis, the character’s creator, faced a backlash from progressives because Bendis is a straight, white, Jewish man writing a black female character. His critics ignored at Bendis and his wife adopted two black girls. They also ignored his reason for creating Riri Williams, as explained in the Time article. His critcis felt much more content to attack the man rather than give him a chance.

However, things have not been that great for Riri. The Invincible Iron Man series that Riri leads has seen its numbers drop dramatically since its November 2016 debut: Continue reading

Why the left became ban happy

I suppose one could argue about generalizations. Yes, not all people on the left want to censor the opposing side. However, it does appear that most of the current voices attempting to censor are on the left. It also appears that while those speaking may represent a small group of people, a significant portion of the left as a group does not seem to have a problem with the attempted censorship.

We are seeing the attitude appear in every sphere, from the news to entertainment. Look at the situation with Cassie Jaye and her film The Red Pill. Feminists have successfully blocked its showing at several theaters, despite that most, if any, of those objecting to the film have never watched it. They are blocking not based on its content, but based on their feelings about what they assume the film discusses.

We can see this within the comic book industry, where several covers were pulled or replaced because of complaints from the left. This has happened in the video game industry, which led in part to Gamergate. The most recent instance occurred a few days ago at E3. This attitude has even made its way into the news, an outlet that is supposed to be unbiased, yet proves highly partisan.

So I think it is worth asking what is going on with modern liberalism that makes its adherents so inclined to this behavior. Continue reading

How not to conduct an interview

One of the first rules of journalism is to know about your subject before interviewing them. No journalist wants to appear ignorant of the basic facts about a person, particularly when that information is easily acquired.

Another important rule is to respect the subject. Obviously this will not apply to everyone. Sometimes a journalist may need to be confrontational. In most cases, however, there is no need to badger the subject. Respect garners better interviews than disrespect.

Those two basic rules escaped the hosts of an Australian morning talk show: Continue reading

Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings

Youtuber TL;DR released a video recently concerning an intriguing paper called Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings. A one Jonathan A. Allan wrote the paper. Allan is the Canada research chair in Queer Theory and Associate Professor in Gender and Women’s Studies and English and Creative Writing at Brandon University. He is the author of works such as Virgin Envy: The Cultural (In)Significance of the Hymen and Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus. He is also the vice-president of the American Men’s Studies Association.

Given such stellar credentials, it is not surprising that a substantial portion of Allan’s work focuses on criticizing masculinity as bad or toxic. In his paper Phallic Affect, Allan argues that men’s rights activists have co-oped the language of feminists in regards to the personal is political. Feminists contend that a woman’s feelings on a matter are important and validate her concerns, even if the evidence suggests her concerns are unwarranted. This usually manifests as “the personal is political” or “listen and believe” or “feels equal reals”.

Allan, however, does not think the men’s rights movement has any legitimate grievances. Continue reading