This article can also be subtitled, “What in the Hell is Wrong with Lawyers?”
The Washington Post (among other media) has a radical feminist as a contributing journalist whose topics include, “…national politics and cultural issues including domestic violence, sexual assault, and gender inequality.”
Where are the freelancers and/or staff columnists offering far right points of view such as we see with left wing radicals like this woman? They’re all but completely missing, cast to the bowels of the internet, while Critical Theorists have a field day in various national and international media. How can it then be said the radical Left don’t control the media? This is one of many examples of content scrubbing we see from Western media in which only one perspective in social or political viewpoint is presented as a legitimate view. When it comes to Left-wing pet causes such as claimed “inequality” (and its various manifestations), there is often only a single voice: That of the Left.
And it is beyond viral.
This woman is black and yet she has such a mental disconnect that she thinks it acceptable to accept every accusation made at a certain demographic of people on face value. She wrote a rather horrifying piece called, “No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims: Incredulity hurts victims more than it hurts wrongly-accused perps.”
Did this woman sleep through her lectures on Southern lynchings?
She undoubtedly recalls them, but she has been so mentally poisoned by the neo-Marxist post modern New Left that only groups with a historical axe to grind are allowed such privileges as to be held innocent before proven guilty. Whites and males need not apply. Especially when they’re both white and male. They represent the established power order. Attack them, NOW. Attack and ask questions later. For the sake of “the victims,” even if they are proven liars later on.
Note this woman’s biography states that she is a lawyer, even while she openly proclaims that, “Even if Jackie fabricated her account, UVA should have taken her word for it until they could have proved otherwise. This is not a legal argument; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.”
At least she admits it’s not a legal argument. Moral? No – more so political.
And what justifies her trashing the Constitution? Because in her fevered imagination, the idea of innocent proven before guilty means that, “The cost of disbelieving women, on the other hand, is far steeper. It signals that that women don’t matter and that they are disposable — not only to frat boys and Bill Cosby, but to us.” After this she proceeds to recite a rather unsurprising rendition of common radical feminist talking points such as that, “‘Rape culture,’ as it is often called, is real. Because rape it is such a poisonous charge, we are so careful not to level it until we can really prove it. But this is exceedingly hard: the evidence vanishes quickly, often as soon as the survivor takes a shower, so unless she immediately reports the assault, much of the physical evidence is destroyed by the time she can get to a rape kit. (It doesn’t help that 400,000 untested rape kits are sitting on warehouse shelves collecting dust.) Many survivors do eventually come forward, but 60 percent of rapes are never reported to the police… Disbelieving women, then, not only compounds their trauma (often by making them doubt their own stories), but it also lets a serial rapist go free… The time we spend picking apart a traumatized survivor’s narration on the hunt for discrepancies is time that should be spent punishing serial rapists.”
“Serial rapists” due to a single study she cited in Boston which claimed most rapes on a specific campus were committed by a small number of serial rapists.
One study doesn’t justify any action let alone burning the Constitution. Un-effing-believable.
Note throughout her article she never questions the woman’s behavior at all. This is a common hallmark of radical Left propaganda: Present a victim of the majority culture or majority group and make it appear as if all blame is externalized to the majority demographic. Thus, women aren’t to be questioned; hurting their feelings will merely layer on their PTSD. The burden of change and action is on the target demographic, because the target demographic are really the ones these activists are after. These so-called “victims” are either fake or are real rape victims but are being used for political purposes. They are props to these people, and I’m not kidding.
To promote this false ideal, it is loudly claimed that it is “misogynistic” or similar to expect women to act like adults and lift a finger to be more assertive in defending themselves against perverts. It is “traumatizing” to expect adult behavior.
So, like there is this supposed “rape culture” which the radical feminist Left keeps invoking but has no evidence to support and like, these girls are so upset and feel afraid to step forward, so like, it’s society’s fault and the way to remedy this is to blame society (by invoking “rape culture”) and tar men guilty before proven innocent because this one study in Boston made me poop my panties and besides this one study says you can snag like big serial rapists and shit.
Imagine! Not blindly believing accusations from aggrieved demographics in our modern, enlightened society! We can’t have that, we may injure these delicate flowers – but by the way, how dare you insist we’re unequal!! We’re just as strong as you are so stop treating us like delicate flowers!
Well, isn’t that special?
Yes, this is what a doctorate in Law gets you.
And now you know what is behind the motivation of these organizations and sympathetic media blindly believing the complaints of racism from blacks. Same mentality.
This reminds me of another lawyer I had the “pleasant” experience of standing behind at a downtown Denver post office yesterday. After giving advice on his cellphone to a drunken driving client whom he told to “Chill,” the short and rather rotund olive-complected person in a Brooklyn Nets jacket and knit basketball hat had his feelings hurt by the rude post office woman at the window and lapsed into his own neo Marxist race war rant mostly at an older black woman sitting there, as if he assumed she’d naturally be on his side. In summary, his thought process as expressed in his rant was as follows:
Rude postal worker = damned government = I’m a criminal defense attorney and traffic cameras are illegal = I pay too much in fucking taxes = fucking Republican Senate = oh, shit! Republicans! = cops killing “people of color” at whim = kid in Cleveland shot for no reason did you see that shit? = white people are no longer the majority = we aren’t taking this shit from cops anymore! = race war! race war! civil war! = I want a civil war! Bring it on! = Capitalism has failed! = The American experiment has failed!
What in the hell is wrong with lawyers?