"....preaches a doctrine he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

"Demagogue: One who preaches a doctrine he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." --H.L. Mencken.

Fascinated by human bias – particularly its behavioral causes and origins - I subscribe to as many as a dozen politically-oriented websites on either side of the Left-Right (or Right-Left) spectrum, some so biased that my choice of “left” or “right’ to go first in citing them here would label me as “conservative” or “liberal” there. Any agreement whatever with one of these points of view will result in labeling of the speaker by the opposite point of view as a member – almost invariably, an extremist member - of the opposition.

The fact, in that regard, is that I often agree with even extremists on some political issues. I sometimes agree with Media Matters, Truthout, Daily Kos, and others the like. I agree sometimes with Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Nancy Pelosi. I even agree on occasion with Ted Kennedy. Hell, I even agree with Al Franken now and again. The human condition what it is, some people get it right, even when they’re trying to get it wrong.

I sometimes agree with The American Conservative Union, NewsBusters, Accuracy in the Media, and their like. I sometimes agree with FoxNews, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter (agreement with the latter three always results in careful examination of my facts – to say nothing of my thought processes and mental condition). Like I said, no one can be wrong all the time – no one is that smart.

You see, the matter of bias has been a favorite subject – an avocation, even – since high school and my first investigations of news stories in the press (no television then, just the paper and the radio). My high school graduating class’ prophesy was that it would be I who tracked down the abominable snowman, a reference to my weekend and vacation expeditions – often hundred of miles by car - to check reports in the news. Interest in bias - and the truth, its victim – led me to what some consider an inordinate interest in logic, mathematics, statistics, and physics, subjects which proved almost always the best antidote for ideological prejudices and their fractious and factious spawn. A continual college student in classes taken in lieu of perhaps more pedestrian entertainment, I probably have more (a lot more, matter of fact) total classroom time in subjects related to logic, math, and physics than most PhD-holders in those subjects.

Bias, and its exposure for what it is, have always fascinated me. Why are human beings so uncomfortable with the truth? Why, as H.L. Mencken observed, does the public in the U.S. adulate the most obvious liars while detesting angrily, even violently, those who try to tell them the truth?*

I may have hit the nail on the head a few years ago, when I first observed in writing (I realized long ago, but this time I wrote it) that human beings seem to fear thinking, their own thoughts, more than anything else in the world. In an essay here (August 15, 2006), I wrote that people seem to consider thinking subversive and revolutionary. Thinking, I said, is always merciless to privilege, to established institutions, and to comfortable beliefs – everything, in other words, that the common man holds dearest. To society and government, thinking is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority and the “wisdom” of Man.

My answer then to my own “why?” question concerning thinking may explain bias, too. Bias must be about fear, the fear of thinking. Perhaps no latter-day (and, therefore, accessible) ideology better exemplifies the fear or thought than that of feminism. A recent article in the local paper is a case in point. “Rape Happens to Real People,” the article blazons, “police lieutenant (a woman) wants to show that victims are more than numbers.”

Typical of the genre, the essay must be searched assiduously and with care in order to find even a single example of objectivity. It is, in other words, archetypical of the word “bias;” but nothing therein is moreso than a high-lighted section entitled, “Common Myths About Sexual Assault.” Nothing here is original, all of it gleaned from similar publications (by typing whole phrases from the piece into an Internet search engine, matter of fact, one can arrive at each plagiarized quote).

The list of “myths,” in other words, is part of the mythology of militant feminism. Because the adherent wants to believe this stuff, they will not only refuse to think about it, they will tell you so emphatically.

The first of these supposed myths tells pedestrian minds like yours and mine that people believe rape victims “brought it on themselves by the way they acted/dressed/spoke.” The truth according to the article? “No means no. Always.”

The non sequitur is the writer’s, not mine. Sprinkled liberally throughout feminist thought and literature, the phrase, “No means no” seems to have become a militants’ slogan derived for the purpose of empowerment based upon woman’s societally-given sexual prerogative.

It’s such “feel good” stuff, I don’t suppose the author of “Myths” could resist using it.

In a manner similar to the way apologists for extremist Afro-American views never dare recognize by thought the incontrovertible fact that were it not for slavery, they in all probability would personally have been born and lived their lives in Africa, the feminists dare not think that were it not for male strength and the evolutionary political power derived from it, not only would rape never have been designated a crime, but the female would not have come to the historical place where she could acquire the political power by which she now successfully challenges natural male superiority.

“Common myths about rape” does not mention thought like that, either. At any rate, my response in a letter to the editor of the Victoria Advocate was:

“’Common myths about sexual assault,’ the article blazons. A rough count of the number of times that same slogan-phrase has been foisted upon the public since the rise of feminism would probably reach the tens of thousands, and the ‘common myths’ argument has itself become a myth.

“In discussing rape, or any feminist ‘issues,’ of course, one must immediately realize that feminist mythology is expressed in FemSpeak, that ‘true-because-I-say-it-is’ argot of the feverishly ideological and militant. All terms and expressions, in other words, have special, esoteric meaning.

“As a young woman whose rape charge sent four young men – one physically incapable of sex - to prison for forty years once told me several years after the conviction, ‘Maybe they didn’t know it was rape – that’s up to the woman, isn’t it?’ She didn’t say ‘No,’ it would appear.

“That, incidentally, was the same case in which a female juror later confided that in her mind any time a woman had sex with more than one man it had to be rape.

“The lady juror didn’t have to hear that ‘no,’ either, I guess.

“I happen you see, to have been a private detective who during the early seventies did a thoroughly detailed investigation of literally dozens of rape cases, investigation that included interview with the supposed victims several years after their ‘trauma.’ During one representative period, thirteen of fifteen rape cases I worked as an investigator for the defense were dropped or reduced to misdemeanor (“disorderly conduct”) severity, moreover.

“Here’s the truth, from one who took the trouble to do what was necessary to learn it objectively. First, half of the men in prison now for rape, were not guilty of what society commonly considers rape (another statistical evaluation made by myself personally in interviews with the public from coast to coast). The fact of DNA tests having freed more than a hundred men imprisoned on account of false rape charges is a stubborn fact, one reflecting powerfully on those “myths” the lady lieutenant cites (flaunts?) in the Advocate.

“Let’s have a look:

“’Myth #1’ (purported truth that how a woman acts, dresses, or speaks has nothing to do with rape): That’s not what men say. How many rapists has the lieutenant interviewed years after their conviction? How many men who were tempted to commit rape, but didn’t? The fact is that almost any male knows better than this old feminist “fact;” more, its self-serving, self-forgiving character – “that I was going ninety miles an hour with no brakes has nothing to do with my wreck” - is obvious.

Nothing irritates me more than this particular bit of feminist nonsense irrationality. Some years ago, I wrote about “Becky” an aerobics instructor in Denver who walked home from her classes still dressed in her scanty and form-fitting workout costume, though an area where a dozen rapes had then recently occurred. When the story broke that she had been raped, I wrote that one might also have expected that having learned of man-eating piranha in the local river, she would cover herself in blood before going swimming in the river to thrash about as energetically as possible. She could probably take great consolation from her feminist sisters insistence that her having been devoured was a crime of violence, not hunger.

“’Myth #2’ (purported truth that men are also victims of rape): Ahem! This one obviously requires some very special, FemSpeak interpretation. It will suffice perhaps to note that Viagra instructions caution that desire must be present for the product to be effective. Only in FemSpeak can armed robbery occur without arms.

Tell us, ladies - how many men, outside of prison, are raped?

“’Myth #3’ (purported truth that anyone can be a rape victim): This is called the ‘straw Man’ fallacy in logic (look it up). More, I’ve personally never heard this particular “myth.” It’s also true that anyone thinking could fill volumes with conditions under which a woman cannot be a victim of rape. I’ve never heard, for instance, of a woman having been raped while armed or in the charge of a bodyguard. Say for instance, ‘any woman wandering about alone at obviously – to one not demented by feminist ideology, that is - the wrong time and the wrong place, and I’ll agree.”

I note, parenthetically, that my clumsy “mouse” hand seems to have obliterated a paragraph, wherein I explained that the “straw man” in the “myth” argument supposes those who believe only beautiful women are raped. If anyone actually believes that, he’s even more biased than the authors of the Advocate article in question.

Notice that I didn’t mention stupidity, but it’s a possible reason – for both the straw man and the article’s author – too.

“’Myth #4’ (purported truth that 15 to 20 percent of rape victims don't know their assailant): ‘Ditto Myth #3.’ Does anyone wonder what the ‘truth’ cited in the article as related to this particular myth has to do with proving anything material to the question? And, what, pray tell, is a ‘dirty, old man’ (isn’t that all of us?).

“’Myth #5’ (that rapists succeed by means other than physical force): Yeah, like the young lady I mentioned above said, maybe the guy didn’t know it was rape – that’s up to women, isn’t it? Among the oldest principles of law, on the other hand, says ‘Unus testis, nullus testis’ – one witness, no witness.

“People lie when they have a reason – or hadn’t you noticed?

“’Myth #6’ (purported truth that wives and prostitutes - odious comparison, that - can be raped): Special FemSpeak interpretation again, what? Just – for all practical purposes - leaves the question of whether rape occurred up to the ‘victim,” doesn’t it? And, of course, ‘maybe he didn’t know it was rape’ – until I told him. And by what device of clairvoyance would society ever determine that rape of a prostitute means she simply wasn't paid?

“’Myth #7’ (that false accusations of rape are few [good grief - in what world does the author live?!]): I trust this means “most charges of sexual assault don’t take place,” etc. The “myth” as written here has a certain logic, one supposes, but I know of no instance in which a man raped a woman on account of her having charged him with rape.

“It happens, too, that I also happen to have first hand insight into this one. Of sixty-two insurance claims men I interviewed in 1977, forty-eight reported having been threatened with rape charges by women trying to make false insurance claims and extort insurance payments from the adjuster. Police records, as recognized in police department defensive regulations and practices, are replete with evidence of attempts by women to use false rape charges in order to gain advantage and evade arrest. The same is true of teachers and educational institutions. The fact, easily documented with research of public records, is that false rape charges have reached epidemic proportions (feminism, anyone?) in the U.S. It is also a fact that by using evidence documented by means of a tape recorder, I personally have been able to save myself from similar tactics four times - twice as a PI, and twice as a police officer (on two additional occasions, I was also able to stymie police ‘sting’ efforts intended to result in soliciting for prostitution charges). In several of the cases I worked successfully as a private investigator, women admitted having brought rape charges for the purpose of revenge (one, for instance, a student, charged with rape a teacher who had given her a failing grade), or to prevent traffic tickets.

“The fact is that nearly half of rape charges brought since the year 1975 have been false (police blotters across the country record the evidence in incontrovertible detail – for anyone interested and sincere enough to do the leg work necessary). As I said, false charges of rape have become an epidemic, one spawned almost entirely by feminism and the hysteria it engenders.”

Crystal Mangum, you know, has lots of company among persons who are able to bring false charges of felony crime without repercussion (gee, why do you suppose the lady lieutenant and the Advocate writer didn’t mention that singularly exemplary case?).

Now, it is unlikely in the extreme that the newspaper in question will print my letter. This is an “end justifies the means,” it feels good for feminists and it is therefore politically correct, subject, one where objective thinking is singularly taboo. The one fact mitigating the otherwise deleterious effect of journalism like this is the probably innocence of its perpetrators. Victims of the same ideology they espouse, the authors probably believe they are actually doing right. People defending mythology like that engendered by feminism, mythology like that blazoned in the “Rape Happens to Real People” article will say that lying for the purpose of rape prevention (how, by the way, does an article like “Myths” tend to prevent rape?) is a good thing. It isn’t.

It isn’t, and the trouble with fallacious reasoning like that, like most fallacious reasoning, is that it is cancerous, its own worst enemy; and, like bias, it inevitably finds itself “hoist on its own petard.” The lies and fallacious reasoning of the biased promoting their ideology are like erroneous numbers in a mathematical equation or column of numbers, seeming to proliferate as exponentially as viruses. They are suicidal.

Let me tell you what you’re thinking. It will make my point better here than anything else I’ve said (anybody remember Bill Cosby’s, “I told you that so I could tell you this”?). You’re thinking that I’m a misogynist, a guy who really does think women who are raped have brought their hurt upon themselves. You have just demonstrated objectively what I said at the outset here concerning those who are biased. No, I don’t dislike women, and - except as noted here - I don't believe women are to be blamed when they have been raped (I do know, on the other hand, that feminism is responsible for many – probably a majority – of women who by their credence in tripe like that dispensed by feminist extremists both put themselves in danger and/or rendered themselves defenseless against rapists).

“Rape Happens to Real People” is an example of something I detest, a statement that is illogical, or dishonest, or egregiously wrong otherwise, by someone with whom I identify and agree in principle. I, on the other hand, don’t care – certainly don’t want to see him silenced – when someone with whom I disagree says something erroneous or stupid. In fact, I exult in it. I have, for instance, often pointed out here that I seldom comment upon things coming from the liberal side of the political spectrum because people there seldom say anything with which I identify. More, I don’t care if what they say is wrong. I want them to keep talking, and as much as possible.

Yes, I know – thinking will do that to a person every time.

As wife Rita would tell you, I not only deplore the fact of scores of thousands of missing women, and the hideous statistics having to do with women and children raped in the U.S., I agonize over each new instance in the national press. I am literally furious with a male society that by its craven, boot-licking (high heels licking?), politically-correct cowardice in the face of militant feminism has condemned thousands of women and girls to the kind of oblivious stupidity that makes them walk right into the arms of their rapists.

I am equally disgusted with having to protect the women about whom I care particularly from feminist drivel like the authors of “Rape Happens to Real People” articles. I am damned sick and tired of having to worry while the several beautiful women in my charge as a husbanding man insist on account of utter nonsense like “Myth #1” to go out into the night alone and dressed in a manner they, themselves strive to make “attractive.” More, I have often had to be concerned about women I have never so much as spoken to, or am seeing for the very first time, concerned because of their circumstances and behavior at the moment. I wish I had kept count of the number of times I have waited, and obliged those with whom I happened to be to wait, while I watched to make sure a pretty and shapely, revealingly clad young woman makes it to her car late at night in the empty street or parking lot of a big city. Always, when the logical question comes to mind - how could she be so stupidly oblivious - the answer is always the same: feminism, and "Myth #1."

I guess I don’t believe “Myth #1.” I think, you see. Feminism, and the biased generally, ought to try it. Would that ever be an adventure!



*"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."