'Rolling Stone scapegoats rape victim, makes matters worse'

... but who is most likely to be punished, and just what is the true nature of the blameworthy aspects of this latest round of misandry?

Answer: The fraternities at UVA are, or at least the one in the fast-falling-apart narrative told by the RS article's author.

Is "Jackie" even a real human being, or a fictional character?

Note the article's author continues to assume the account of "Jackie" is still fundamentally correct: she was gang-raped at that fraternity house during a party. But it looks like there was no party. Nor was there any ordinary physical evidence, nor anything like corroborating testimony or forensic evidence.

In fact, there's nothing here at the moment but a magazine article written abt a person whose existence hasn't been confirmed detailing a serious violent felony being perpetrated on her at a time and place that had nothing happening at it described in the story.

Even if Jackie were both a real person and if she did tell this story to a reporter, w/out more evidence than a story told, there's nothing to justify either presuming she's being honest in her accusation, esp. after fundamental facts around the accusation are shown to be unsubstantiated.

AND YET... some still believe the story, even when shown that it's false or highly doubtful.

Nymphotropism's motto:

"Men: guilty even when shown to be innocent; women: innocent even when shown to be guilty."

Google: Jackie and GotNews

The name is out.

Was it justified to track her down and release her name and picture?

If it was all a hoax: yes.

But if she was traumatized in another way: no (a modicum of compassion would have been in order).

Regardless, even her home phone number has been released.

And the feminist howling will soon commence. I fear this will become hysterical. This is going to get bad.

I don't think there will be a Swizterland in this war.

I place this at the feet of feminists. This past year, they went on a rampage, fueled by Obama's misinterpretation of Title 9. And men reacted in justified self defense (we are not rapists, we are in pain, our needs are being ignored and we respect women). The feminists reacted back in unjustified hysteria and misandry, (refusing to acknowledge that men have needs and dismissing the achievements of men as patriarchy).

Rape hysteria was raised to a fever pitch.

Rolling Stone said they went in search of a victim. Well, in their salacious hunger they stepped over the line. They were driven to such ambition: they wanted an article to be feminist click-bait and they bit off more than they could chew.

At the end of the day, it was feminist hysteria that brought this all about.

Will true victims of rape fear coming forward now? Yes.
Who is to blame? Feminism.

Does anyone really expect a female to accept responsibility and be held accountable for her actions? The source gets blamed so the writer won't get blamed. That's just the way it's done in certain circles: CYA.

Of course, I do know women who do take responsibility for their own actions. But none of them are feminists. Female avoidance of responsibility has become a standard part of modern feminist culture--and most culture today is feminist, especially when it comes to defining the female role.

I just re-read the headline here and at the source and the headline still assumes Jackie is a rape victim.

Even though it appears she lied about being raped, she's still a rape victim.

It's very difficult to have a reasonable conversation on this issue when women who lie about being raped are still treated as rape victims.

The writer says "Jackie" can't defend herself, but Jackie had a chance to get the record straight and obtain justice if she'd just gone to the police after she left the fraternity. But, of course, she didn't go to the police because the rape never happened.

Oh, people don't deny sexual violence occurs. If that were the case, why would we have laws against it? It's just we like proof when someone alleges it occurred to them.