The Aftermath: The Feminist Occupation
The war was now over and feminists had become the occupying force. The job of the feminist occupying force—as with any occupying force—was to watch over its dominium, spread it across the world, and make sure that everybody fell in step and kept in step. The next generation of feminists now grew up under feminist mothers and knew just what to do to keep the dominium going. As we looked toward 2020, the third wave became the fourth wave and the future of feminism looked to be pretty well entrenched, but feminists were scared.
When you have made up false reasons and suddenly hit your countrymen with a war and easily won it against a clueless foe (men), who hardly fought back, there is a fear that the enemy will wake up at any moment and wonder, “Hey, what just happened?” There is the fear that all you’ve grabbed will be taken away from you. Although the feminist revolution was not, for the most part, a bloody revolution—it was fought by an angry mob with poisoned words rather than with swords or guns—it nevertheless took its toll.
Over the course of history feminists had gone on a rampage against men, and many males were left by the wayside. Some view the feminist movement as a mass persecution of men, as I have previously mentioned. As the movement accelerated over the years from the 1900s until today, it had become more extreme and more relentless in its insistence that its way, and only its way, is the right way.
When looked at with open eyes, one clearly sees that men, not women, were the leading victims of the six decades since the beginning of the second wave. People always find excuses for going to war and so the feminists found many male wrongs to right. But war is never the answer to discontent; constructive communication is the only enduring way to resolve dispute. This never entered the minds of the feminists, who were apparently too disturbed to engage in this kind of dialogue. Towards 2020 more and more people were beginning to speak out about the feminist abuse and the undermining of boys and men. A woman named Janet Wilkerson was one of them; she started a petition on Change.org in 2018 entitled, “It’s Time to Class[ify] Feminism as a Terrorist Group.”
“Over the years feminism has constantly attacked men and women for choosing to live their lives the way they want to,” she wrote. “These actions have now progressed to physical violence where we have seen feminists violently attack men who are concerned about men’s issues. Repeated attacks in Canada and elsewhere have left many injured and maimed. Another feminist cell activated recently and is planning on attacking another talk for men in the US. Its time we stopped the violence, its time we put a stop to the hatred feminists are constantly generating. Its time we stopped women’s studies courses from brainwashing women into thinking they are victims. Its time these misandristic lunatics are stopped”
Before she closed the petition down, she had 14,323 supporters. One comment by Samuel Black pointed out, “Feminism is a hate movement, and if they can try to classify human rights activists as terrorists than it’s only fair to do the same to them”
Another person, Erin Pizzey commented, “Because I opened the first shelter refuge in the world in 1971, from the beginning I said it was not a gender issue. I said it’s generation issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a human issue, and then had to watch the emerging feminist movement fraudulently blame men to collect money to fund their political ideology”
Feminists had become an occupying force, but they had not become totally accepted. They had pushed their way into positions of power in all aspects of life. Even if there hadn’t yet been a woman President of the United States, they were on the verge. Even if there weren’t as many Congresswomen as men, as many governors, as many mayors, as many cops, the males who were in power were not really in power. The men were under the feminist spell and for the most part spoke and acted out the feminist party line. One President, President Donald Trump, was clearly not a feminist man and he suffered the slings and arrows of refusing to fall in step. When a man refuses to fall in step with the feminist value system, feminists dig up all the dirt they can about you and portray you as the worst human being who ever lived, worse than any serial killer, worse than Hitler, worse than Attila the Hun.
The feminist occupying force had to hold on as if their lives depended on it. Its well-being depended on keeping men down. At the same time, feminists could not help but be aware of what they had done to men, and therefore they could never feel at ease. Happiness at the expense of others is not true happiness. Liberation won by outside force will not last; liberation attained by inner contentment, self-acceptance and understanding will long endure.
Men Who Were Trampled by Feminism
Below are some anecdotes about men who suffered abuse at the hands of feminists over the years. In some cases the names have been changed to protect their anonymity. Other men and their stories were publicized and are therefore named.
Dwayne Buckle was in the news in 2007. This is when Buckle, an African-American man, was stabbed by four militant lesbian women after he made a comment, “If I fuck you I’ll turn you straight.” Admittedly this was rash and uncalled for, but nothing justifies the kind of violence that ensued. He was sitting on a bench in the Village in New York when the four women left a club, and he saw them holding hands and tongue-kissing one another. Upon hearing his comment, the four turned around, rushed him and attacked him. One of them, Renata Hill, had a knife. Later in court she pleaded guilty, along with her three companions, and all four were given jail sentences. However, they later appealed and the three accomplices were set free while Hill’s sentence was reduced considerably. No matter what militant women do, they seem to get by with it because of the feminist propaganda to the effect that men are always the victimizers. In this appeal, the judge focused on the man’s provocative remark as a form of sexual harassment. If a man had stabbed a woman for making a provocative remark, the judge would have no doubt thrown the book at the man.
Robert was the child of a mother who deeply identified herself as a feminist. He described a reverse double standard in his home. His younger sister (by two years) was encouraged to go to college and become a doctor. She was clearly her mothers favorite, and when the first Bring Your Daughter to Work Day occurred, organized by Ms. Magazine, her mother brought her to her job, but not her older son. He was never brought to work, even though he begged her, nor was he encouraged to go to college or make something out of himself. He heard his mother continually raging about men. “Men cheat. Men lie. Men are the cause of all the problems in the world. Men cause all the wars.” His mother looked at men completely from a negative viewpoint, and her son could not help but apply those comments to himself. His father had divorced his mother after two years of marriage, when she had become pregnant with his younger sister. In a rage at the father for “abandoning her and the children,” she proceeded to bad-mouth the father and turn the children against him. Robert seemed to receive the brunt of her man-hatred. She continually lashed out at him for trivial reasons. Once he was fondling his penis through his pants as he played with a toy train and she yelled, “Stop that. That’s dirty. If you keep doing that it will fall off.” She degraded his masculinity and his masculine anatomy. Later, as an adolescent, she found some Playboy magazines in his drawer and took them outside to the backyard and burned them. When he later expressed an interest in going to college she told him if he did he would probably just get in trouble with a girl because he had such a dirty mind. Instead she encouraged him to work in a nearby factory. As an adult, Robert had a lot of anger at women and his mother’s negative attitude became a self-fulfilling prophecy; he became an angry, woman-hating man.
Joel was what today would be termed “transgender” but in the 1970s he would have been referred to as a transvestite. He was a man who liked to wear skirts. Even though he wore skirts he nevertheless identified himself as a man, and his sexual relationships were heterosexual. Sympathizing with the women’s rights movement, he attempted to join NOW, only to initially be rebuffed by them because he was not a woman. (This was early in the 1970s when NOW had not begun to champion LGBQ people.) Joel had a deep craving to be accepted for who he was, a man who wore skirts; he thought there was nothing wrong with it and that it was just his preference. And he felt he was a feminist man in word and deed (wearing skirts). Eventually they let him in, and he was subjected to constant harassment by the members of NOW, who were by now mostly militant lesbians. They never included him in their discussions about political strategies and when he did make a comment the comment was either ignored or dismissed in a few words. Their attitude, he explained later to his friends, was that men couldn’t understand women or feminism so they were never listened to or taken seriously. All men to them were innate sexists and unaware of it. They saw Joel’s skirt-wearing as an attempt to pose as a woman and feminist, and found it laughable. One day when they were putting down men as they usually did, Joel finally spoke up. “In case you women haven’t noticed, I’m a man. Yes, I wear a skirt, but I’m a man. And I don’t appreciate you putting down men. You act like I’m not even here.” He was soon expelled from the group.
Martin wrote novels and his novels were always about male-female relationships from a male point of view, often written in the first person. He had a mother who was a feminist, who always complained about the “glass ceiling” that kept women from rising up in companies. When he started writing novels and sending them out to publishing companies, they were always a little autobiographical and usually about a romantic relationship that went awry. His novels portrayed selfish and controlling women who did not care about the man’s feelings and often gave ultimatums if he was not willing to see things their way. He never got any of his novels published. When his mother again complained about the “glass ceiling,” he retorted that there was also a glass ceiling for male writers. Her reply to him was, “Well, did you ever think maybe your novels aren’t good enough. Maybe you should have some professionals read them.”
Whether Martin’s writing was good enough to be published I can’t say. But it appears that today male writers of serious fiction about male-female relations are being shut out. Women writers who write the most superficial stories or the most clearly feminist stories in which men are but peripheral characters get published. Men are not allowed to write about male-female relationships, but are relegated to thrillers and other types of escapist books that do not go near anything to do with relationships between men and women or near feminism. When did you last read a novel by a man that described a feminist character in an objective manner? Feminist editors guard the publishing glass ceiling; they have by now been thoroughly indoctrinated. If Hemingway send in a manuscript, it would be quickly rejected. Likewise Mark Twain, Henry Miller, Dostoyevski, Dickens, Shakespeare, Faulkner, Voltaire or any other serious writer you can name. There is not only a ceiling for men in publishing, but also in education, where feminists now clearly dominate so as to spread their gospel, and in social work and healthcare. They are quickly catching up in other fields as well.
Louis worked as an adjunct professor in a small college and experienced the feminist glass ceiling there on many occasions. In general, he had to keep a low profile. The office that was shared by adjuncts always had a sprinkling of conversation about liberal and feminist politics. Everybody assumed that everybody was in agreement and took the party line. Louis either kept quiet about his view about feminism, which he disagreed with, or he pretended to go along with everybody else and say the right thing. He noticed that entering Freshmen were required to attend seminars to be taught how to treat women. They learned about harassment, date rape and micro-aggressions (unconscious sexist slips of the tongue). His Deputy Chair was, he suspected, a lesbian militant and she looked for any reason to bother him. Once he walked into her office, the door being open, without being invited (which was common among professors) and she started screaming at him, “Don’t ever walk into my office without knocking!” Feminists have passed laws about sexual harassment, and he was sure this was sexual harassment as well, but there was nobody to turn to for help because everybody from the Chairperson of the department on down was a feminist or a feminist male.
On another occasion a woman student who had been defying him and making trouble for several weeks, suddenly became enraged when he announced a pop test and shouted at him, “Fuck you!” When he kicked her out of the class she went to the Dean of Student Affairs, making it seem that the professor was an angry teacher who hated women, and that’s why she had cursed him. He was forced to take her back into the class and be tortured by her the rest of the semester. The Deputy Chair followed up by requiring him to be observed again even though he had years ago fulfilled his obligation to be observed.
On still another occasion, while the #MeToo Movement was going on and women were popping up everywhere to accuse men of sexual misconduct, a young woman student accused him of coming on to her, when in fact he had done nothing. It started after the second class; she asked to see him in his office to discuss a problem. He thought it was a problem having to do with the theories of the class (Introduction to Sociology), but instead she started talking about her personal problems. She told him she had gone to a therapist and quit after five sessions. She talked about being attracted to men everywhere and staring at them constantly, much to the consternation of her boyfriend. But as soon as a man looked back at her, she was disgusted with him. She said sometimes she only dated women because she was so angry with men, and sometimes she only dated older men. She went on and on for twenty minutes before the professor stopped her, suggesting that she go back into therapy to understand why she was so angry with men, why she dated women and why she sometimes dated older men. She interrupted him with a contemptuous laugh. “I never said I was attracted to older men.” He assured her she did say it, but she just chuckled and flashed him a knowing smile, as if to say, “I know what a pervert you are and I caught you.” Then she walked out triumphantly.
The professor didn’t know what to do. If he went to the Deputy Chair she would believe the woman. He decided to do nothing. The woman began laughing and talking loudly to another woman in his class and pulling other shenanigans, as if daring him to try to stop her. At midterm he called her up and told her she had a C in her class participation grade, hoping that would settle her down. But the next class she raised her hand adamantly and said, “When somebody is aggressive with me, I’m twice as aggressive with them. A week later he saw her standing in the hallway and angrily telling a group of women classmates that the professor had come on to her and asked her if she was interested in older men. Her classmates became furious and half the class wasn’t speaking to him (or was sassing him) by the end of the semester.
Bill worked in an office in a large city—an insurance office. He was quite excited when he got the job, but he soon changed his tune. The first thing he had to do was attend a seminar for men on how to treat women. The woman who ran the seminar spoke of office harassment, rape and micro-aggressions (when men were unaware of making sexist remarks or engaging in sexist conduct. Over two-thirds of the workers in the building were women and they were all of the militant variety. Most of the women were African-American, while he was white. He was a mild-mannered man who had grown up being bullied by his mother and older sister so in a sense they had trained him to be bullied by women. Sometimes it seems as though people can read these kinds of things, and before long the women in the office were bullying him. His immediate boss, who sat in the desk next to him, continually addressed him in a condescending tone of voice. If he made any mistakes she would say, “I knew I should have done this myself. Here! Give it to me!” He sensed he was being persecuted because he was male. After taking it on the chin for a few months, he tried complaining to the male supervisor, but to no avail. The supervisor, a tall but effete male, cowered before the women who were working under him, as though they all had some secret hold on him. Whenever he spoke with Bill’s boss, a stocky, outspoken African-American woman, he would coat his words with honey. His answer to Bill’s complaint: “Try to stay out of her way.”
At one point an Asian consultant was hired to investigate destructive communication in the office. She interviewed everybody, including Bill. “Oh, yes,” Bill thought. “At last I’ll have the chance to talk with somebody who will listen!” Bill spilled his guts to her and she turned out to be very sympathetic. “I think I know exactly what you’re talking about. You’re being harassed,” she said. He saw her go into the supervisor’s office and saw her come out a few minutes later looking grim. In a week she disappeared and never returned. She could not breach the feminist curtain.
Professor X, an Associate professor at a small college in Pennsylvania was giving the first lecture of the semester to the students of an undergraduate Experimental Psychology class. During the lecture he saw two female students in the back snickering and chattering as he was trying to explain the difference between valid and invalid experiments. This was a class of over a hundred students and he had a Teaching Assistant, a young woman, to help him teach the class. When he saw the two students disrupting the back of the room, he stopped the class and said, “Excuse me, you girls are disrupting the class. Would you mind?” “Girls?” the two students replied, shaking their heads.
After class, the graduate Teaching Assistant approached the professor and said she felt uncomfortable with the professor using the word “girls” for the two students. A few days later, that professor received correspondence from the Chair of his Department asking for a meeting. The chair would not listen to the Professor’s explanation and demanded that the Professor apologize to his class for using this inappropriate word. The correct word, he was told, was “young woman” or “woman.”
Peter decided to divorce his wife, Catherine when he was 27 years old. He didn’t know it at the time, but he would become embroiled in what had since been written about as a syndrome: Divorce Related, Malicious Mother Syndrome (35). Psychologist Ira Turkat described this syndrome as usually involving mothers who become dead set on vengeance when their husband divorces them. Peter divorced his wife when his daughter was only 3 years old. From the time of the divorce, his wife used his daughter to get back at him. She continually interfered with his visitation rights and yelled at him on the phone for practically any reason. She poisoned his daughter against him, disparaging all the present he gave her as cheap. When he wrote and illustrated a book for her for Christmas, she commented, “He’s too cheap to give you a regular present.” When she was 6, he made plans to take her home to Virginia to see her grandmother and grandfather. He had reserved the airplane and was a week away from leaving with his daughter. Then his wife called and said she couldn’t go because she was too young. Incensed, He took her to Virginia anyway, because it was written in his visitation rights. Upon returning, his ex-wife and her new husband lambasted the daughter, treating her like a traitor, grilling her for hours.
When he tried to take his wife to court, he hired a woman lawyer, who then sided with the mother in court. The judge found him ridiculous, smirking at him, and dismissed the case. After a few years his ex-wife became a devoted feminist and each time he called to make arrangements to pick up his daughter, she would assault him with her newfound feminist terminology. “You’re nothing but a misogynist and that’s all you’ll ever be! I regret that I have to send your daughter to visit you and be contaminated by your sexism. For hundreds of years you men have been using women for sex, objectifying their bodies, and abandoning them!” When his daughter grew up she had become just like her mother, and she became abusive to Peter and laughingly rejected him one day when he visited her school, telling him, “Dad you’re an embarrassment to me.”
Ezekiel Elliot, the noted running back of the Dallas Cowboys of the NFL was suspended for six games in 2017, citing a case of domestic abuse. The NFL starting being involved in feminist politics when feminists began to claim that domestic abuse rose 30% during the Super Bowl. Susan Hoff Sommers, a moderate feminist, looked it up in her book, Who Stole Feminism?—as mentioned earlier—and found that this was a lie. Sommers was quickly dismissed by militants and hence nobody listened to her. Subsequently domestic abuse became an issue in football, and public service announcements about domestic abuse were shown in almost all games, especially the Super Bowl. Henceforth male announcers were replaced with women announcers, and women led panels of men (for the sake of equality). Sometimes the women or men would give impromptu opinions on how bad domestic abuse was for the league. Feminism had now infiltrated the NFL, as it had everything else, and had become like a controlling parent. When Ezekiel Elliot came along the stage was already set. Even though no court ever tried him or found him guilty and the woman who charged him with sexual abuse was said by police to give inconsistent details, the NFL “retried” the case and found him guilty. She claimed he hit her on one occasion, but four witnesses said they did not see Elliott assault the woman and claimed they were present at the time the alleged the incident occurred. The woman posted images of bruises on her body to her private Instagram account, but Elliott claimed the injuries came from a fight she had at a bar. It appears she was angry that she had taken part in a six-day orgy and then felt rejected by Elliott and was seeking revenge. She said to him, according to his account, that she was going to bring him down. It appears to me that Elliott was the one who was abused in this case; because of feminism women are always believed and men are not. In a way, the NFL, pressured by feminism, committed double-jeopardy.
Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, three members of the Duke University Lacrosse team in 2007 were falsely accused by a woman, by the University, and by the media (35) They were accused of rape by a stripper who was hired for entertainment at a party held by the Lacrosse team. The case evoked varied responses from the media, faculty groups, students, the community, and others. The case’s resolution sparked public discussion of racism, sexism, media bias, and due process on campuses, and ultimately led to the resignation and disbarment of the lead prosecutor, Mike Nifong.
It began in March 2006, when Crystal Gail Mangum, a black student at North Carolina Central University who worked as a stripper, accused three white Duke University students—all members of the men’s lacrosse team—of raping her. The rape was alleged to have occurred at a party held at the house of two of the team’s captains. District Attorney Nifong suggested that the alleged rape was a hate crime. Duke University suspended the lacrosse team for two games and the men were subject to intense shaming by the media, particularly the feminist media. Feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the wrongly accused Duke students were “rape-loving scum” (37). Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler was forced to resign and Duke president Richard Brodhead canceled the remainder of the season. By April, Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three lacrosse players innocent. Cooper stated that the players were victims of a “tragic rush to accuse.” Ironically, Mangum, the false accuser, faced no penalty as the result of her actions. Before she was found out to be lying, Mangum had been praised as a hero by feminist pundits and applauded for stopping male sexism in its tracks. Feminists were mum when it turned out she was lying.
Tom was not only emasculated but also rendered psychologically paralyzed by his feminist mother. He was a 47-year-old man named who felt imprisoned in his mother’s house. From the time he was born, he did not see love in her eyes. “She looked at me with angry, almost gleeful eyes, as though I was not a separate self but a part of her that she was in full possession of and would never let go of,” he reported in therapy. She was like a succubus, always on top of him sucking away his soul. Although he had a father, the mother never let the father get near him during most of his childhood. If the father wanted to hold him, she let him know she was the mother, she had given birth to him, and he was to keep away. When he was six and seven years old and gravitated toward his dad, his mother would grab his arm and pull him away. She kept the boy under her surveillance night and day. He was also not allowed to play with neighborhood friends or to have any other attachments.
When he entered school at the age of seven, she got a job as a teacher’s assistant in his school. Tom felt as if she wanted to keep her eyes on him at all times. Every time he walked down the hall, she was there as if waiting for him and staring at him with a strange smile. One memory that stood out for him at that time was when his grandmother (his mother’s mother) got into a knife fight with his mother. The two women went at it in the kitchen and seemed about to kill one another before the boy’s father intervened. The boy was terrorized by that memory. His father had to intervene in the fight or one would have killed the other. His relationship to his father remained distant until he was 31 years old. If he was hugging his father and his mother walked in, he immediately pulled away so as not to upset her. After the age of 31, he began to love his father intensely, and his
father, as if to make up for lost time, developed a very close and loving relationship with the boy. When his father was alone with him, he would confide in his son, often expressing the idea, “Any other man would have killed your mother by now.” However, when both mom and dad were with him, Dad always yielded to Mom.
Once, when he was in his early twenties, he brought his first girlfriend home. He made out with the girlfriend in his room, and when they came out his mother screamed at the top of her lungs, ordering the girl to go home. The girl was so frightened she broke down and cried. Later, as they were sitting in the kitchen, the son appealed to his father. “Dad, could you please tell Mom it’s not all right for her to speak to my girlfriend that way?” His father answered softly, without looking at the mother: “I just want peace in the household.”
Many memories were about her emotional incest. One was of her kissing him full on the lips, which horrified him. He had given her a Mother’s Day card and was about to peck her on the check when she grabbed his chin with her angry hand and turned it toward her, planting a wet one on the mouth. Another memory was of her calling him by his father’s name. This frequently happened after the father passed away. She called her son, “Glen,” the father’s name, instead of Tom, which was his name. “Mom,” he protested angrily, “I’m not your husband!” “Oh, stop being dramatic,” she would reply. “I know who you are.” “Well,” he retorted, “then stop calling me Glen.”
He had only two girlfriends, one of whom was married. The other woman was someone he “lusted after,” as he put it. He did not take either of them seriously as relationship or marriage material. That would represent a betrayal of his mother. He was only able to have intercourse with them after he had overcome his impotence. In his unconscious, he regarded all women as potential demons who would take over his soul and devour his very manhood. One of his dreams conveys this fear of woman as demon. “I’m in a bedroom with my co-worker, Mandy. We’re both naked. I begin to perform oral sex on Mandy. She begins moaning in ecstasy. Her vaginal juices taste bitter to me and I find them disgusting. So much so that I don’t want to lick my lips for fear I may swallow her juices and secretions. Yet she wants me to kiss her, but I’m trying to wipe my lips before doing so. I then go down on her again to lick her vagina. As she convulses in orgasm, what looks like some sort of black, dual-pronged insect-like pincers about two inches long emerge from her pussy. These pincers emerge and contract back into her pussy in conjunction with her orgasmic contractions.
His “demon mother” had established such unconscious control of him that he was never able to move out. He once rented an apartment, but never spent a single night there. His mother, sure of her control of him, would taunt him, “Why aren’t you sleeping at your apartment?” Stan was still living at home at the age of 47 and still fantasizing about moving out and establishing his independence. By then he had had seven years of psychotherapy but the therapy had remained mostly on an intellectual level. In order for any real change to occur in therapy, there has to be an emotional component. Getting out of the grasp of the terror that lurked in his unconscious was a hard job, and he was making strides towards it. He was hard at work on a novel, and to him each sentence was an act of rebellion and independence.
Conclusion
These are but a few of the multitude of cases of abuse of men by women that occurred during the Feminist Revolution, especially during the third and fourth waves. During a stampede, those who are trampled have a difficult time trying to talk to the cattle that are storming across them. A Revolution is a glorified stampede, a lynch mob borne of an angry consensus of hotheads and fueled by hysteria. When people are under the sway of hysteria, they are no longer in touch with their reasoning ability or any sense of logic. The herd instinct is not only something that belongs to lower animals. It is clearly evident in the vicissitudes of human beings. And most recently it is clearly evident in the actions of feminists.
As we head toward 2020, most of America (and indeed the Western World) shows no sign of waking up from the Revolution or the hypnotic trance the Revolution dropped onto America and the Western World. Democrats are wise to the machinations of Republicans and Republicans are wise to the schemes of Democrats, but neither party understands they are all swooning under feminism. Conservatives understand all about liberal “political correctness” and liberals mock conservative hypocrisy, but neither is aware that feminists have played them for suckers.
The aftermath of feminism is upon us and will last as long as it will last. Everything in the universe is finite, and so will be feminism. Whether it is a sign of America’s decline, as Minogue predicts, we can’t say. That America is in decline, we can say. As Cassius says, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
References
- https://www.change.org/p/the-government-its-time-to-class-feminism-as-a-terrorist-group/c/46500770
- http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/newark_lesbian_who_attacked_ma.html
- http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/what-is-malicious-mother-syndrome.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Duke_lacrosse_case#cite_note-5
