Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

+1 PP--I think there may be just one--refuses to understand this. If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed.

This kind of incorrect simplifying is misogynistic. Take an allegation of assault and attempted rape down to that is misogynistic.

Women are done with this. DONE. We need more representation in congress so that this kind of crap is voted out.

Many of the people responding to you seem to be women who are not accepting your tired memes of misogyny. WNt this kind of crap done away with

1. Don’t get blackout drunk or stoned at parties and expect men to respect you

2. Don’t accuse men of rape and then continue an extra marital affair with them

3. Don’t dilute the seriousness of rape by accusing every man who doesn’t call you the day after consensual sex of tape

Women around the world endure rapes daily. Don’t diminish their suffering by turning a 30 year old dubious sexual assault into a rape.

If you care about women, you would cut the crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

+1 PP--I think there may be just one--refuses to understand this. If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed.

This kind of incorrect simplifying is misogynistic. Take an allegation of assault and attempted rape down to that is misogynistic.

Women are done with this. DONE. We need more representation in congress so that this kind of crap is voted out.

No its not. Misogyny is prejudice/contempt/ towards ALL women.

It is contempt of women that is causing people to ignore that her statement IS evidence. In old English and American laws, the victim of any crimes of muggings, assault, robbery could have their testimony alone lead to a conviction. It was MISOGYNY that rape was the exception. In the 1970s the law was changed in the US so that rape could be considered like the other crimes - there no longer HAD to be a direct witness to the crime. And you know who spoke out against that law change? Misogynists who claimed that women were untrustworthy.

It is misogynistic to say "If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed." It is minimizing sexual assault, and it is implying once again that women cannot be trusted.

It is okay to not believe the evidence against Kavanaugh - it is MISOGYNISTIC to claim there was no evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer to this is of course.

But Ford had zero supporting evidence for a 30+ year old claim and as for rape Swetnick was quickly discredited. I am not sure what perjury you are referring to except that he denied these allegations, which does not constitute perjury

And as has been explained to you time and time again his finances were covered in a closed hearing--if those at the hearing thought there was any there there, they would have raised it in the open hearings. But they didn't and it is very likely his parents paid off his debts.

And this is why the White House spiked the FBI’s investigation. The FBI does investigate cold cases and they frequently can come to conclusions. Why didn’t they allow an investigation? McConnell had held a Court seat open for how long? There was no rush. These two facts - that the FBI can conduct investigations of decades old crimes and be able to come to accurate conclusions and there was no rush for the seat - suggest to me that not only was Christine Blasey Ford’s account correct, but that an investigation might have revealed additional similar crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, you would be a terrible juror. You believe testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of any corroborating evidence even though the testimony itself is riddled with gaps with regard to large details and inconsistencies with regard to small details.

When the testimony is that poor, you need some kind of corroborating evidence. CF had none--her best friend said she recalled no such party even though there is a lot of evidence she was pressured to say otherwise. There was not one person who stepped forward to say she told them about it at the time. In addition to which, it is not difficult to infer CF had political motives for reporting this to Feinstein. This is a weak, weak case.

I certainly hope to never have you on my jury. And having been on several I can say pretty certainly you'd be that one that all the other jurors complain about.

No, really just stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

+1 PP--I think there may be just one--refuses to understand this. If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed.

This kind of incorrect simplifying is misogynistic. Take an allegation of assault and attempted rape down to that is misogynistic.

Women are done with this. DONE. We need more representation in congress so that this kind of crap is voted out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

You are upset by the posters who are exercising common sense.

it's sad you think hating women is just common sense

this is why republicans are polling so well among women. you've made your bed. or probably your wife made your bed and then you yelled at her for not doing it well enough.

There are bills in a couple of states now limiting abortion and criminalizing it for women who have been raped. There are states that refuse to allow medicare to cover emergency contraception and allow pharmacists to decline to fill those prescriptions.

Please learn about these issues. You have access to the internet. Everything is at your fingertips.


You are conflating different things. This thread has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with labeling someone guilty of an allegation with zero corroboration of any kind. Please stick to the subject and stop trying to twist it into something it’s not.

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what - emergency contraception is part of treatment of sexual assault survivors. Offering emergency contraception is part of the procedures that hospitals are supposed to follow when treating sexual assault survivors, whether they choose to press charges, make a statement to police or allow the hospital to complete the kit and do the physical examination.

It is 100% understandable WHY a sexual assault survivor would have a huge problem with having someone who assaulted her and could limit abortion on the supreme court.

Sexual assault and abortion are closely linked. Kavanaugh being a federal judge was one thing - being a supreme court justice is something else entirely.

You do not need Pilates today, you have stretched quite enough.

Well said.

I guess I am not surprised that some people refuse to actually look at these issues. YES, sexual assault and abortion and emergency contraception are inextricably linked.

There are bills in a couple of states now limiting abortion and criminalizing it for women who have been raped. There are states that refuse to allow medicare to cover emergency contraception and allow pharmacists to decline to fill those prescriptions.

Please learn about these issues. You have access to the internet. Everything is at your fingertips.

Anonymous wrote:Somehow the posts talking about the TIme opinion piece PP posted have gone AWOL. Kind of weird--none of it seemed offensive.

1. Don’t get blackout drunk or stoned at parties and expect men to respect you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

+1 PP--I think there may be just one--refuses to understand this. If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed.

This kind of incorrect simplifying is misogynistic. Take an allegation of assault and attempted rape down to that is misogynistic.

Women are done with this. DONE. We need more representation in congress so that this kind of crap is voted out.

Many of the people responding to you seem to be women who are not accepting your tired memes of misogyny. WNt this kind of crap done away with

1. Don’t get blackout drunk or stoned at parties and expect men to respect you She wasn’t, he was.

2. Don’t accuse men of rape and then continue an extra marital affair with them CBF had an affair with Brett?

3. Don’t dilute the seriousness of rape by accusing every man who doesn’t call you the day after consensual sex of tape No one’s doing this.

Women around the world endure rapes daily. Don’t diminish their suffering by turning a 30 year old dubious sexual assault into a rape.

If you care about women, you would cut the crap.

Your whole post is so riddled with misogyny you can’t even see it.

Anonymous wrote:PP, you would be a terrible juror. You believe testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of any corroborating evidence even though the testimony itself is riddled with gaps with regard to large details and inconsistencies with regard to small details.

When the testimony is that poor, you need some kind of corroborating evidence. CF had none--her best friend said she recalled no such party even though there is a lot of evidence she was pressured to say otherwise. There was not one person who stepped forward to say she told them about it at the time. In addition to which, it is not difficult to infer CF had political motives for reporting this to Feinstein. This is a weak, weak case.

I certainly hope to never have you on my jury. And having been on several I can say pretty certainly you'd be that one that all the other jurors complain about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

+1 PP--I think there may be just one--refuses to understand this. If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed.

This kind of incorrect simplifying is misogynistic. Take an allegation of assault and attempted rape down to that is misogynistic.

Women are done with this. DONE. We need more representation in congress so that this kind of crap is voted out.

No its not. Misogyny is prejudice/contempt/ towards ALL women.

It is contempt of women that is causing people to ignore that her statement IS evidence. In old English and American laws, the victim of any crimes of muggings, assault, robbery could have their testimony alone lead to a conviction. It was MISOGYNY that rape was the exception. In the 1970s the law was changed in the US so that rape could be considered like the other crimes - there no longer HAD to be a direct witness to the crime. And you know who spoke out against that law change? Misogynists who claimed that women were untrustworthy.

It is misogynistic to say "If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed." It is minimizing sexual assault, and it is implying once again that women cannot be trusted.

It is okay to not believe the evidence against Kavanaugh - it is MISOGYNISTIC to claim there was no evidence.

And because of the way that Old English courts were run, is precisely why the Fifth Amendment was passed. It's a good thing, too. Look at the other accusers that ended up saying that they lied (one was a man). Look at the Duke lacrosse case. That accuser was "believed" at first and it ended up to be a lie. Ruined those families' lives.

And what about Bill Cosby, Roy Moore, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Adam Venit?