Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and I

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick

Background

According to the Wikipedia article on the former Cardinal Archbishop of Washington Theodore McCarrick was ordained in 1958, he became an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of New York in 1977, then became bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey in 1981. From 1986 to 2000, he was Archbishop of Newark. He became a cardinal in February 2001 and served as Archbishop of Washington, D.C. from 2001 to 2006........... McCarrick has been accused of engaging in sexual conduct with adult male seminarians over the course of decades. This sexual conduct was alleged to be an open secret in some ecclesial circles.Though multiple reports about McCarrick's alleged conduct with adult seminarians  were made to American bishops and the Vatican between 1993 and 2016, allegations of sexual abuse against male minors were not publicly known until 2018. [My emphasis] In June 2018, the Vatican removed McCarrick from public ministry because of credible sexual abuse allegations. In July 2018, the New York Times published a story detailing a pattern of sexual abuse of male seminarians and minors. The emergence of these reports and the lack of action from the church hierarchy infuriated Catholics and sparked demands for action against church leaders believed to be responsible.

McCarrick submitted his resignation from the College of Cardinals in July 2018, and his resignation was accepted by Pope Francis. After a church investigation and trial, he was found guilty of sexual crimes against adults and minors and abuse of power. McCarrick was dismissed from the clergy in February 2019.  He is the most senior church official in modern times to be defrocked and is believed to be the first cardinal ever defrocked for sexual abuse. [End of Wikipedia quote]

One result of the atmosphere of hysteria surrounding allegations of child abuse, is that it makes it difficult to evaluate genuine complaints. Also in the United States, ages of consent to sexual activity have always made at the State level. Since 2018 the legal age of consent varies between 16 and 18 depending on the jurisdiction but has been much lower (I think it was 13 in the State of Texas as recently as the early 2000s). My reading of the McCarrick case is that he sexually harassed male seminarians - who would have been adults or very close - and that the "minor" claims were made as a result of the explosion of media publicity in 2018. According to Catholic League President Bill Donohue  "In the case of Cardinal McCarrick, the alleged abuse took place a half century ago (in the 1970s), and the alleged victim was a teenager, thus ruling out pedophilia."

 I originally suspected that the entire scandal might be a fake - similar to the false allegations against all four Irish Archbishops or the lunatic "Operation Midland" in the UK that targeted top Tory leaders.

Article in America Magazine - and Discussion 

Part of the publicity was an article in America Magazine on 25 July 2018 by Michael J O'Loughlin  Albany priest describes culture of harassment under McCarrick that described the experiences of Desmond Rossi when he was a seminarian in Newark in 1986.  Apparently McCarrick, then newly appointed Archbishop of Newark routinely invited a number of seminarians to a house on the shore with limited sleeping accommodations, resulting in one of them sharing a bed with the bishop. According to Fr. Rossi, he and a friend later realized that the archbishop would cancel weekend gatherings "if there were not enough men going that they would exceed the number of available beds, thus necessitating one guest to share a bed with the archbishop". Apart from harassment by the Archbishop      Fr Rossi narrated an episode where following a night of drinking, he and two other student priests returned to the rectory. There, he said, one of the men threw him onto the bed and began kissing him while the other tried performing oral sex on him. He said he did not report the assault out of a “strange sense of loyalty,” fearful that it would derail his friends’ careers. "Part of the problem was, I think, [Archbishop McCarrick] kind of gave license to others by his own behavior,” Father Rossi said. “When you have that kind of corrupted morality at the top, it gives permission to others."

Desmond Rossi was aged about 25 at that time and subsequently transferred before ordination from the Archdiocese of Newark to the diocese of Albany in New York State where is is currently a  priest in active ministry. According to the America article, Father Rossi returned to active priestly ministry in the Diocese of Albany in 2017 following a roughly 15-year leave, which he said was due to developing “major depression and P.T.S.D. related to the abuse I experienced in Newark.” He said the sexual abuse crisis in the church, which was coming to light in 2002, triggered his depression. 

Father Rossi says he wants a “total inquiry” to discover “who knew what” about Archbishop McCarrick and to discover why steps were not taken to protect seminarians from harassment. “I hope that this gets cleaned up,” Father Rossi said. “I hope we’re starting now to be honest.” Given the current atmosphere of hysteria, this scenario resembles a Jew who has a (possibly justified) grievance against the Chief Rabbi but chooses to voice it during an anti-Semitic pogrom!

Extract from (52) Comments on Article

arthur mccaffrey
my advice to Mr Rossi is to sue for as much $$ as he can get from RCC for PTSD, then leave the priesthood and find another vocation of service to his fellow man that does not involve being part of a criminal organization.

Seems like Rossi is very confused and conflicted and I hope he finds a good therapist to guide him. Rossi is absolutely correct that McCarrick was GROOMING him for further sexual exploitation--this is a classic behavior pattern among all pedophiles, and McCarrick was a pro-----the same charm that he used to bed his victims is the same charm he used to rise thru the RCC hierarchy. McCarrick should be in jail and on the Sexual Offender list just like all the other guys who are predators.

Fred Keyes
As wicked and deserving of severe punishment as the Cardinal's behavior and those of others like him was, it's still exceptional. The Church will survive it.

Suing it seems to me is OK to cover costs as Fr. Rossi did, but I can't see suing for money that comes ultimately from good people's pockets.

Joan McKniff
Over a period of decades this behavior was not reported by a priest who said Mass, heard Confessions of Sins by lay people, who went to confession and received Communion, who pledged his life to service to God and others, put or let others be put at risk for abuse. That delay needs more of an explanation than he felt a sense of loyalty and the Bishop was charming! Come on!

J Jones
Joan ---- Your response has a name: "blaming the victim".

Fr Rossi explains the delay. 1) The power dynamics in the Church. 2) mental illness which resulted from the abuse irself AND the trap created by the power dynamics and abuses in the church; 3) 15 years NOT in ministry

Rory Connor
"Blaming the victim" does not explain why people doubt certain allegations of sex abuse directed against Catholic bishops. I have a separate comment regarding the situation in Ireland where (among other things) four Archbishops were subjected to false accusations. There are only four Archdioceses in Ireland and after the THIRD was accused, I used to joke that the Archbishop of Tuam was obviously next on our anti-clerics hit list! OBVIOUSLY I was correct!

Rory Connor
I have a blog essay entitled "Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland". All four of our Archbishops were the subject of false abuse-related claims and the other four "ordinary" bishops were VERY prominent. No obscure Irish bishops were accused! Is this American case for real?
http://irishsalem.blogspot.com/2018/07/seven-falsely-accused-bishops-and.html


Of the eight prelates accused, most were conservative but I would classify two as "liberal". However none of the false allegations came from Irish conservatives. The first one in 1994 involved The Guardian newspaper in the UK claiming that an unnamed Irish bishop was a member of a paedophile ring. They thought they could avoid a libel suit by not naming him but they gave enough details to expose themselves to a class libel suit from the Conference of Bishops and had to apologise.

J Jones
Rory, I did not read Joan's response as an indicator that she doubts this priest's allegations of sexual harassment and abuse. I think she is criticizing this victim for not having responded to the abuse the way she thinks (and understandably wishes) he had responded.

She seems to misunderstand both the context and meaning of the priest's observation that McCarrick was charming. He was describing McCarrick's personal characteristics which increased the success of his grooming and sexual hassassment of seminarians and young priest's.

She overlooked the power dynamics McCarrick exploited and many of which the priest identifies in this article. The combined force of McCarrick's charming social skills AND his power AND his cagey manipulations would give any thinking person pause as to whether anyone would choose to listen to an underling's profoundly serious allegations about that charming, powerful leader.

Criticizing a victim for not meeting others' expectations about how a victim should behave is, indeed, the very essence of blaming the victim.

Rory Connor
OK. We begin with different attitudes and experiences. I have some experience of these kind of allegations in Ireland and UK and have got very cynical. In the UK, CLASS hatred is a bigger issue than (our Irish) anti-Clericalism. See Wikipedia article on "Operation Midland" where victims of lunatic claims included - and I quote - "the former home secretary Leon Brittan, the former prime minister Edward Heath, the former chief of defence staff Lord Bramall, the former director of the Secret Intelligence Service Maurice Oldfield, and Michael Hanley, the former Director-General of MI5".

The only victim who never achieved Ministerial rank (or similar) was a Tory MP who had to resign 20 years before as result of a GENUINE sex scandal; thus he was a "celebrity" of sorts and became a target! ALL targets of "Operation Midland" in the UK were well-known conservative members of the Establishment. There are too many parallels with Ireland and the USA I believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midland

J Jones
Rory, of course there will be false allegations and lives are damaged by them.

That is why credible investigations are essential before everybody and dogs named Joe start attacking. McCarrick has victims who have already been paid off by the RCC. This priest's allegations are factually similar. This priest went public from the altar, risking losing everything.

There is no acceptable or credible justification for attacking this priest, for blaming him for McCarrick's abuse of others (as joan did) or for blaming or maligning him or attacking his masculinity or his courage (as the male commenter below did) or for having been impacted negatively by McCarrick's harassment.

That is all classic victim-blaming and it is well understood as part of the pressure that silences existing and future victims of this and other perpetrators. And perpetrators KNOW this and they COUNT on this


Victoria Bako
God bless you, Fr. Rossi. I know this isn't easy for you, but I hope more will come out and talk about their abuse so this madness comes to an end and justice is done. These abusers are very, very charming. Never underestimate the charm of a predator. They have to win you over to get close enough to hurt you.

Frank Gibbons
48 seminarians from Tegucigalpa’s major seminary have written a letter protesting the large scale existence of homosexual behavior within the seminary. The letter is unsigned because of fear of reprisals. Many are considering leaving the seminary. True to form, Cardinal Maradiaga accused these young men of being "gossipers".

The news of the seminarians’ protest came after months of allegations involving homosexual abuse and financial misconduct by Bishop Pineda.

Since last December, Cardinal Maradiaga has been accused of allowing Bishop Pineda to continue to serve in his post, and even placing him in charge of the archdiocese during the cardinal’s absence to receive medical treatments for prostate cancer in Houston, despite a body of allegations against Bishop Pineda of homosexual relationships — including with seminarians." National Catholic Register 7/25/18.

Cardinal Maradiagra is one of Pope Francis' closest advisors.

The corruption is ubiquitous. But the hedge is down. I have never criticized Pope Francis but he needs to enter a period deep reflection and reconsider some of the appointments he's made and the advisors whom he surrounds himself with.


justinreany@gmail.com
I have asked repeatedly: Where is the courage of young men today?!?! The moment that this homosexual pervert touched any of these young men, he should have had a broken jaw! That's how you deal with these pervs in the clergy! Beat the living sense out them and expose it. I can tell you if any cleric did this to me when I qas in discernment or my sons he would have to flee in hiding because of what I would do to him. Two things have perpetuated this crisis: (1) evil men covering for each other in the hierarchy; (2) lack of testicular fortitude amongst men. Period.

J Jones
Justin --- your response has a name: "blaming the victim" . It is one of the reasons victims remain silent. If they disclose their abuse, someone (you and Joan, above, in this case) will be dissatisfied with some aspect of the disclosure and will attack them for THAT.

You and Joan just contributed to another victim's decision to remain silent.

Florence Sundberg
July 27th: Sorry but this Priest seems like an immature adolescent. He says others threw him down and molested him... I have brothers and male cousins and friends - none of them would ever have allowed another male to seduce them or engage in any kind of sexual behavior with them. This Priest did not report those who allegedly molested him because he did not want to harm their 'careers' - what hogwash!!! He needs to man up and admit that he is part of the problem. How did McCarrick get adult males to allow him to engage in sexual activity with them? I don't care how much power or influence McCarrick had ... again, no male in my family or among my friends and colleagues would have permitted this for any reason...

J Jones
Florence -- Perpetrators like Cardinal McCarrick are 100% aware that people (even women!) will attack, malign, humiliate, verbally abuse, shun, reject and otherwise participate in destroying the lives of victims (especially men!) if they dare to tell anyone.

Perpetrators COUNT on people like you behaving exactly as you have here.

You just made YOURSELF part of McCarrick's harassment of innocent men who just wanted to serve God and YOU.

And I would put money on it that you just silenced another victim, either one harassed and abused in the past or someone just being victimized as I write.

THIS IS HOW ABUSE OF POWER WORKS. Other people volunteer, as you have here, to ensure the silence of victims by publicly attacking and humiliating any victim who comes forward.

People who speak as you have here today are part of the problem. The priest is a victim of McCarrick and, now you, Florence

And I would money on it that this innocent, dedicated priest will forgive you. Cardinal McCarrick created the opportunity for you to behave in such an ugly way.

And, no, I do not know this priest. The depth of his faith, the sincerity of his vocation, the test of his strength and courage as a man and the depth of his love of the people of God (even those who would act in the ugly way you have here) --- his love of God and his determination to respond to God's call that he serve God and all God's creation --- all of that is made manifest in his return to seminary, his return to the priesthood, his return to ministry.

Next time I am on the east coast, I will seek out this priest and the opportunity to participate in Eucharist with him. THIS priest, this brave man, has been tested and he survived, faith intact. God bless him.

Dolores Pap8 
You are so right! My friend's brother was molested by the local parish priest in a neighboring town- he was too was scared to tell his parents because he felt that nobody would believe him..That priest was finally sued by 21(!!) of his other victims, but sadly, one of the men was so emotionally damaged that he killed himself.

Thank you for speaking out for these innocent victims..


Rory Connor
Reply to Florence Sundberg. Florence: That is the first thing that occurred to me when I read the article [Immaturity] but the point is so unfashionable nowadays that I kind of forgot about it and concentrated on a different - although not unrelated - issue. I also find the following comment surprising:
“I hope that this gets cleaned up,” Father Rossi said. “I hope we’re starting now to be honest.”

What does he expect except a CONTINUATION of an unrelenting media assault on the Catholic Church, that has been underway for the best part of two decades now? Nothing is "starting"!!

J Jones
Rory, I am not aware of any context in which it is unfashionable to refer to immaturity as immaturity.

Rory, please help me understand you.

Are you saying that this priest is responsible for public awareness of former Cardinal McCarrick's abusive and harassing behavior? Are you further suggesting that that makes this priest culpable for the negative press about former Cardinal McCarrick's abusive and haraassing behavior? Are you further blaming this priest for the harm to the RCC caused by the former Cardinal's abusive and harassing behavior?

Rory Connor
You are not aware of any context in which it is unfashionable to refer to immaturity as immaturity? What about when someone suggests that an (alleged) victim of sexual assault should not have drunk herself into a stupor in the company of a man she barely knew - or alternatively that she should not have agreed to go home with a man she first met in a night-club a couple of hours before? A well known Irish radio broadcaster very nearly lost his job for saying something like that. One feminist critic informed him that "Victim-blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish..." This lady was advocating behaviour that is both criminal and stupid. A woman who walks down the street drunk and naked would be lucky to be arrested before she is assaulted! However I may have been the only one to say that - certainly no-one in the mainstream media did so. It is becoming dangerous for men to give pragmatic advise to women that they should avoid dangerous situations because the man can be accused of "victim-blaming" and may even be fired!
http://irishsalem.blogspot.com/2017/09/fiona-doyle-and-george-hook.html

As to your related question - the then 25 year old priest should have behaved like an adult at the time. Since he did not, he should not now be making his allegations in the middle of a hysterical media attack on the Catholic Church. A Jew may have a valid complaint about his Rabbi but he should not air it in the middle of an anti-Semitic pogrom because what then occurs will NOT be "healing"!

Fr. Des Rossi
Rory, this is Fr Des Rossi. There are many feelings and many concerns out there in response to the behavior of Archbishop McCarrick. I was a 25 year old kid when this all happened to me. I have come forward as part of the healing process, to assist our Church going forward to learn the lessons here and "right the ship." I want to remind others that I spoke with the journalist who published the article for a few hours, so it's important to remember that not everything I said was included in the article. I want to Thank Michael O'Loughlin for a job well done. Peace!

Rory Connor
Father Rossi. Sorry for delay in replying. I was a 16 year adolescent - and immature for my age - when I had my first summer job and my first time away from home. I was working in a hotel and actually didn't make a great success of it. However when a drunken hotel guest made a sexual suggestion when I had brought him and his luggage to a room, I handled it quite well. I was extremely startled but recognised I was in no danger and politely said no. I informed my immediate boss because I thought I should, but he just raised his eyes to the skies and did nothing as far as I know. I didn't expect anything different as the most junior member of staff had less status than a paying guest. I have never blamed it or ANY other single episode for damaging me. I did make a couple of serious mistakes in my life which cannot now be repaired (I am 68) but I don't agonise over them and especially I don't blame others - even though these errors were not entirely my own doing. (Also other people suffered because of what I did!).

There is no "healing process" going on in the Catholic Church at the moment certainly not in Ireland and not in America either I'm sure. Nothing is "starting" either - just relentless thuggish abuse from journalists whose anti-clerical hatred is the "liberal" equivalent of the anti-Semitic variety. (In Ireland this LITERALLY includes Blood Libels that are directed against Catholics instead of Jews - one of them coming from a politician who later became Minister for Justice! ). Your narrative just feeds into this and I cannot understand how it is supposed to "right the ship".
Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland

Carlos Orozco
Gay culture in the Seminaries. Not a new phenomenon. I remember a papal commission during the pontificate of Benedict XVI reporting of such an infestation. What steps have been taken to erradicate it? One Marcial Maciel is one too many.

J Jones
Carlis, your use of the word "infestation" to describe the presence of human beings in an institution is both repugnant and it reveals your bigotry.

Carlos Orozco
J, Please don't try to bend my comment: human beings are not an infestation. I stand by the term to designate the presence of a destructive CULTURE that directly contradicts 2,000 years of Church teachings. I am not willing to close my eyes and ears to the consequences of relativizing the toxic effects of such culture.

J Jones
Thanks for the clarification. I still would encourage you not to use the word in this context.

Fr. Des Rossi
First of all, I want to thank the hundreds of people who have reached out to me on email, phone, cards, letters and on the street. Your support not only strengthens me but it also strengthens us all. Please be charitable with one another. Listen to one another. Try to heal one another. Don't let the the divisive spirit of the evil one win. Christ calls us to bear up with one another. As for ones who are angry, I am angry also. As for the ones who weep, I have wept, too. As for the ones who feel ashamed, believe me, I have been there. I was in exile in the wilderness for many years wondering where my God was and felt abandoned. But today, I realize he was strengthening me for the future that would unfold. Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ. Bless us and your Church. Assist us in doing good and avoiding evil, so that your kingdom may be made manifest among us all. Love & Peace, Fr. Des Rossi

J Jones
Fr Des Rossi, you are indeed a minister to and for the people of God. I am profoundly grateful for your courage and willingness to be healed and to heal. I will take your message to prayer and be mindful of your example. I wish iived in Albany so I could be part of your parish and participate in the mystery of the Christian experience with you and grow in my own journey. You are the real deal. Welcome home, brother Des Rossi. You are needed.

Jean Davis
Father Rossi you are so admirable and I am praying for you.

Jean Davis
Father Rossi’s narrative is deeply disturbing and tragic. How brave he is! This evil in the church must end.

J Jones
Many want to deny that abuse of power is the fundamental dynamic here.

I do not think power makes otherwise healthy people sexually attack other people.

Power does, however, provide the opportunity for sexual predators to groom, abuse, harass and then threaten their victims with harm should they disclose all of the above; power then provides the sexual predator with the protection of others who are invested in the predator's retention of that power and who will deny that it is possible the abuse could have happened and/or join the predator in destroying the victim's credibility, courage and, if necessary, the victim's entire life. The "power" of power is so real and, yes, POWERFUL that perpetrators need not even overtly threaten many victims because "the power of the powerful" to control the narrative and the outcomes is so obvious that victims understand the threat without having to hear the words. ........

For instance, sexual abuse is "about sex" only some of the time. Sexual abuse and harassment is often about violence (with sexual assault often being an incredibly violent act), domination, the perpetrator's pathological pride that he/she has that power, humiliation, retaliation, control, punishment, retribution, manipulation, a threat to achieve another end, psychological torture, or to relieve pathological stress/anxiety/etc. within a predator who is psychologically damaged and had no other coping tools, etc.

Those motives are NOT "about sex".

Abuse of power is not a hypothesis. It is well known dynamic in just about every sphere of human endeavor and in just about every field of scholarship. It is addressed in law and policy at every level of government all over the world.

Justine McCarthy, Fintan O'Toole and the Power of The Patriarchy

Justine McCarthy

Fintan O'Toole

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [1]

Justine McCarthy has an article in the Sunday Times on 15 October 2017, 'Boycott of Newstalk Goes Both Ways Now'  that includes sentiments that would cause  our FemiNazis to foam with rage if she wasn't one herself.
The sub-heading is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen"

The following is a sample:
"The morning Fintan O’Toole wrote in the Irish Times that he would no longer appear on Newstalk radio because it was “flagrantly sexist”, I texted him: “I just want to say, as a woman, thank you for writing that column.” .........

I agreed with O’Toole’s every sentiment, except the very first one in the opening sentence when he modestly opined that his declaration of a boycott was “of no consequence”. It was bound to create ructions, for he is eminent, erudite, and a man. Ergo, he is listened to.......

Women can yell from the rooftops but it takes a man’s voice to make the world listen......Women will continue to need courageous men to speak out until female liberation is credibly delivered. [My emphasis]  It is no coincidence, after all, that there is a man in emancipation. ...."

Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex .  HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [2]

I wrote about the Fintan O'Toole article that Justine McCarthy is so keen on here. The title is "Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops" and there is an extract below:

In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy"), Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:

"What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes." 

O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [3]

It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists' reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!

Irish feminists  are becoming as stupid as they are vicious. I have written here and elsewhere about Fiona Doyle and her statement that women have the right to walk down the street drunk or naked if they so desire. An aspiring rapist's wet dream!

Irish Salem: Fiona Doyle and George Hook

This type of demand for "Rights" is well expressed in the old doggerel

Here lies the body of Michael Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, quite right as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

The stupidity is linked to the fact that feminists believe they can get away with publishing ANY kind of rubbish. They no longer have to exercise their brain cells - and boy does it show!

The following are a couple of comments and my reply

Originally Posted by 'Who is John Galt?' 

 Just as robbers have no right to steal the Patek Philippe I leave on the passenger seat of my unlocked car.

Of course men do not have the right to rape any woman.

The cops might take a different view of my common sense however.

Reply by 'tokkie' to 'Who is John Galt'

Rape and theft are gulfs apart in terms of crime.  So too are the motivations, reasons and logic of the perpetrators behind either crime.   

Comparing them is a bit weird.  Dark too.

My Reply (Kilbarry1) to 'tokkie'

OK. Take the case of a man who insists on walking through a dangerous area of a city at night and does so regularly, sometimes while drunk as well. The police stop and question him a few times - because no outsider in his right senses should be there at night. The guy insists that he is doing nothing unlawful, he is entitled to walk the streets of his own city and the police are supposed to protect him. All of these are valid points - in the same way that Michael Jay had a valid point  (see post #5181). Eventually he is attacked and murdered.

What do you think the police will say among themselves about this guy?

Also his murderer will NOT get a reduced sentence by saying the guy was an idiot who had no business being in the area - but that does not change some basic facts. And one of the facts is that the murder victim WAS an idiot.

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [4]

Originally Posted by 'talkingshop'

Yeah, I'm not disputing that he [George Hook] probably meant the right thing, but the way he said it was wrong. He suggested "some blame" might be attached to the girl, which could be interpreted as saying that the "blame" for the rape was somehow shared, and that the rapist therefore had less "blame" to carry because of the behavior of the girl. I don't think that is what he meant, but it could be interpreted that way.

Reply by 'Who is John Galt?'
A mistake that hardly warranted the explosion of indignation and cleaver-wielding that has ensued since.
George Hook has suffered more for that remark than the accused rapist.

My Reply to 'Who is John Galt?' and 'talkingshop'  

Yes indeed feminists can talk utter drivel and get away with it whereas if a 'reactionary' puts one foot wrong, he will be savagely criticised. I have written previously how Justine McCarthy got away with her hymn of praise to the Dominant White Male in the form of Fintan O'Toole (Sunday Times, 15 October). I will just repeat a short extract from post #5181

It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!.....

And again
.....Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex .  HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?

There is also the following in the same article by Justine McCarthy:
"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."

So she was silenced by a belt from the crozier. But hold on - a PRIEST does not have a crozier. Was he even a Parish Priest or just the local curate??

So what is the female equivalent of WIMP and why have Justine's feminist colleagues not criticised her for her cowardice?

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [5]

Extracted from a post by 'EPIC SUCCESS'
Hook is a drooling simpleton ......
 a idiot like George who adjusts his accent for British RP (received pronunciation) speakers, who makes a fool of himself over his obsession with Pamela Anderson, who likes to pontificate, who has a very obvious belief in a class system and sneers at the working class, who works for filth like Denis O'Brien,  
........... He has and always will be, radio text bait and certainly not a 'broadcaster' or 'journalist' in the traditional sense of the word.

My Reply to 'EPIC SUCESS'

Any comment on Justine McCarthy's statement about Bishop Brendan Comiskey in the Sunday Times 2 days ago? It is part of an article whose subtitle is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen" [see post nos 5181 and 5232]

"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."

"Job done. Woman silenced" because she was afraid of a belt of a priest's walking stick??

The above is part of McCarthy's  denunciation of Newstalk and hymn of praise to Dominant White Males (and specifically Fintan O'Toole.) "Drooling simpleton" would be a mild description for Justine McCarthy since the description only targets her intellect and not her morals. Should The Sunday Times take action against her?

George Hook and That Old Time Religion

George Hook

[Or I could have entitled this "George Hook and the Four Cardinal Virtues"]

A few of my so-called friends have suggested to me that - while, they agree with some of my views [traitors!]- they feel I am being too extreme and alienating potential supporters. One even quoted to me the words of St Francis de Sales: "You can catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a hundred barrels of vinegar".  OK I looked up the quote and St. Francis de Sales was Bishop of Geneva from 1602 to his death in 1622 but was never able to reside there because the area was firmly under Calvinist control. I have no doubt that he was a very holy man but the "spoonful of honey" approach was the only possible one he could have adopted in the circumstances! And apparently he had some success.

So taking inspiration from the Saint, I will quote some of my more "moderate" comments from the Politics.ie discussion on George Hook.

The Meaning of the word "Responsible" [1]

Originally posted by owedtojoy
 22-year-old man raped in an alleyway after leaving Glasgow nightclub   The Independent 25/09/17

Was he a "slag"? A "slapper"? Was he drunk? Wear his jeans too tight? Shouldn't he stay out of alleyways?

 What did he do to get himself raped?

Reply by Pabilito to owedtojoy:
Well yes he put himself in a dangerous situation wandering alone around dark alleyways in the early hours. He certainly does bear some personal responsibility however that doesn’t detract any blame for the crime from the rapist.

I once worked for an American multinational and sometimes would take visiting engineers out for a meal and a few drinks in Dublin, one particular guy insisted on staying on late in Temple Bar when we all went home and I told him to be careful and gave him money for a Taxi. Following morning I learned that he’d been stabbed several times in a laneway behind Pearse Street. Fortunately he survived and when I visited him in hospital before I could say anything he said “I know, I know I was stupid .. I got drunk and went up the lane for a pee”.

Reply by Kilbarry1 - to owedtojoy and Pablito
Leaving the fanatical man-haters aside for a minute, SOME of these disagreements are about the meaning of words and in particular the word "responsibility":

(a) "Responsibility" can relate to the concept of Justice - and so we have criminal responsibility. A criminal is always fully responsible for the crime he or she commits - and this applies even if the victim has been careless e.g. wandering the streets late and drunk.

(b) The other meaning is more closely related to the virtue of Prudence. Every person has a duty (responsibility) to take reasonable  care of their own safety.

When I was at school, we were taught that the four cardinal virtues were Prudence, Justice, Fortitude (Courage) and Temperance. Our very orthodox teachers also told us there might appear to be contradictions between the four but "properly understood" the contradictions disappeared. One topic we discussed in religion class about 1965 was Prudence vs Fortitude e.g. if you were a soldier in wartime just what did "Prudence" mean. Of course we came to the conclusion that the virtue was still valid but it didn't mean the same kind of behaviour as in civilian life!

 As young teenagers, we had no great problem making that kind of distinction. I went to an all-male school but I'm sure that girls of the same age had the same ability to apply logical reasoning.  Nowadays many adults - especially women - seem unable to understand the concept of "responsibility" and the fact that it doesn't mean exactly the same thing in relation to Justice as it does in relation to Prudence. It is quite possible for a criminal to be 100% responsible for committing a crime AND for the victim to have facilitated the crime by stupid or careless behaviour!

The Meaning of the word "Responsible" [2]

Of course we came to the conclusion that the virtue was still valid but it didn't mean the same kind of behaviour as in civilian life!

And the reason for the "of course" was that it was a directed discussion with the adult teacher very much in charge. If the discussion had veered in the direction of "Prudence is meaningless in wartime" or "Prudence is only cowardice" then the adult would have stepped in to correct us. Nowadays it is the adults who are leading the hysterical mob against someone who probably has much the same values that we teenagers accepted in 1965.

I recall a comment by George Orwell when he was writing dismissively about Spiritualism - which was the New Age Philosophy of his own time. He wrote something to the effect that "It may well be true to say that organised  religion is a defence against superstition".  It is also a defence against the kind of hysteria directed against Kevin Myers and now George Hook. (Let's not forget that Kevin Myers was denounced as an anti-Semite and our Taoiseach and Tanaiste joined in the chorus of abuse.)

The Churches and Personal Responsibility

No doubt it's because I'm getting old but I am saddened by the failure of the Catholic Church - and especially our own Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - to say anything about the hysteria generated by the media against anyone they dislike. I have quoted the following in a previous post but it is worth repeating:

The following is the beginning of an article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading  "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

"It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

"In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness

"The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. .......

 [It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook -including the hysteria propagated by Fintan O'Toole?]

Has any Catholic Bishop said anything as powerful as that? I do understand that Catholic clergy feel they cannot speak out on this sort of issue without exposing themselves to the same torrent of rage that was directed at George Hook. BUT there is one exception -our own beloved Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin. Archbishop Diarmuid is a hero to secular liberals like Fintan O'Toole. It would be safe for him to speak out and condemn the hate-filled ranting. So why doesn't he do so. Maybe it's BECAUSE he is a hero to secular liberals (like Fintan O'Toole) - and wants to ensure that things stay that way?

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan Vs George Hook and Nora Wall

Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan

Former Chairman of Fine Gael Phil Hogan (now EU Commissioner for Agriculture)

FINAL (?) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Nora Wall and George Hook [1]

Is this thread [on Politics.ie] coming to an end? Rather than let it go quietly into the night let's try for a final summary. My own summary relates to

(1) Minister for Justice and Equality  Charlie Flanagan
(2) Feminist activist Fiona Doyle AND
(3) Fintan O'Toole

all of whom have condemned George Hook and ALL of whom have made far more outrageous statements in the past and got away scot-free. I have recently referred to Fiona Doyle and Fintan O'Toole but my several comments on our beloved Minister for Justice are about 3,000 posts ago. However I have summarised them in three articles on my blog and here is the first article

For convenience I am including a passage from the above-mentioned article. I am quoting our current Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan speaking in the Dail on 8 July 2009 during the debate on the Institutional Abuse Bill. At the time Charlie Flanagan was an ordinary Fine Gael TD but subsequently became Minister for Children(!) and then Foreign Affairs before receiving the Justice and Equality portfolio.

........."While I do not have time to speak in detail about the Louise O’Keeffe case, I wish to speak about another woman, namely, Nora Wall. Nora Wall has hardly been mentioned in the debate on the Ryan report. She became something of a heroine for those who mistrust the Irish courts when her conviction for rape was overturned in 1999. Since her conviction was overturned, she has been portrayed as an heroic martyr in many quarters with references to witch hunts and witch trials abounding. Six weeks ago, the columnist Kevin Myers wrote in a national newspaper:

 'The liberal-left lynch mob that went after poor Nora Wall a decade ago was prepared to destroy her life on the basis of lies.'

 "Mr. Myers would do well to read the description of “poor Nora Wall” in the Ryan report. Nora Wall does not deserve the plaudits that have been directed her way since her conviction for rape was overturned. While her case may have collapsed, the Ryan report reveals graphically that Nora Wall was no saint. She exposed the children in her care to unacceptable risks by allowing male outsiders to stay overnight at the Cappoquin care centre which was in her charge. She entertained past pupils and student priests in the home and allowed them to stay overnight. A witness stated that much drinking took place at these gatherings.

"There is more to this than meets the eye in respect of these social events. It has been suggested that there were frequent visits to the Cappoquin home by some clergy from Mount Melleray Abbey. Access to children may have been a key motivation for these visits. One must bear in mind that Mount Melleray was selected by the notorious paedophile, Fr. Brendan Smith, as a holiday destination or as a haven to which to escape when he was on the run from the authorities in Northern Ireland. This issue must be revisited" [My emphasis]

. 

FINAL (?) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Nora Wall and George Hook [2]

So Charlie Flanagan - as a TD in 2009 - repeated the kind of lie about Nora Wall, for which she had received a libel settlement from the Sunday World several years before. It is possible that Charlie Flanagan TD did not know about the libel case as it was ignored by almost all of the Irish media (Phoenix Magazine was the only exception I think). But he certainly did know that a TD cannot be sued for what he says in the Dail!

Subsequent to this atrocious allegation Charlie Flanagan became Minister for Children, Minister for Foreign Affairs and is now Minister for Justice and Equality. Was George Hook's offence worse than Charlie Flanagan's??

Reply To Me by'Owedtojoy'

Of course it was not worse.  But that does not put George Hook in the right. Setting up dozens of fake "What abouts" is a bizarre defence. Multiple wrongs do not make something right, though it might help with the context. Flanagan wrong does not equal Hook right.

I support investigation of all past paedophilia accusations, but I also think Hook's remarks were unacceptable for a professional broadcaster.

I am glad he has not been fired, and hope that when he returns to the airwaves, he is chastened and more balanced in his discourse on sensitive subjects.

My Reply to 'Owedtojoy' (regarding Phil Hogan)

I could indeed have set up dozens of "what-abouts" and they would not have been fake. The "context" that you mention is vital and not just a side issue as you seem to suggest. It is clear that people who are regarded as Politically Correct will be allowed to get away with any kind of lunatic lie whereas persons regarded as right-wing will be savagely criticised and hounded from their jobs.

In my Blog article and above I mentioned that Charlie Flanagan was the SECOND politician to slander Nora Wall. I didn't go into detail about the first because I am not aware that he denounced George Hook. However you can read all about him here - Irish Times article on 25 April 2002

"TD Cites Retired Official in Child Sex Abuse Allegations"

It was then Chairman of Fine Gael Phil Hogan TD and his allegations involved a paedophile ring, convicted murderer Malcolm McArthur, an unnamed senior official in Dept of Education as well as Nora Wall. Also children being tortured and forced to have sex with animals. Extremely lurid stuff - even more so than Charlie Flanagan in 2009 BUT Phil Hogan is not Minister for Justice and Equality today and I don't think he denounced George Hook. (Perhaps as European Commissioner for Agriculture he doesn't see any political advantage in so doing?)

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Phil Hogan and Nora Wall

The allegations made by Charlie Flanagan and Phil Hogan are also discussed on the Nora Wall thread
on  Politics.ie

Incidentally Nora Wall successfully sued the Sunday World for similar atrocious allegations. She succeeded in her claim for an apology and damages in October 2002. This was 6 months AFTER Phil Hogan's Dail allegations.

However even if she had succeeded 6 months before, I don't suppose it would have made any difference. Phil Hogan knew he could not be sued for anything he said in the Dail!

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan
Well this thread seems to have reached a conclusion now and I have done a final (?) summary on my Blog. [I am referring to this article!]

Let us suppose that during the 1950s, these kind of obscene allegations had been directed by senior members of Fianna Fail against a Protestant or Jewish woman. We would be hearing about it still with journalists claiming that they revealed the truly fascistic character of "The Age of de Valera" (and of his friend John Charles McQuaid). The claims  were in fact made by members of Fine Gael in 2002 and 2009 - respectively
(a) the then Chairman of the Fine Gael party (and current EU Commissioner for Agriculture) AND
(b) the man who is currently Minister for Justice and Equality (!!)

The allegations have been ignored by the media - no calls for an investigation of the criminal accusations OR of the people who made them.

So does this tell us anything about the nature of Fine Gael today or of modern Ireland?

Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops

Fintan O'Toole

Archbishop Eamon Martin (Catholic) and Richard Clarke (Anglican)

Fintan O'Toole "columnist, literary editor and drama critic for the Irish Times" is described by Wikipedia as having "generally left-wing views" which is a curious way of putting it and might suggest that he occasionally expresses viewpoints that stray from the strictly orthodox. This is not correct!

The following is from a discussion on the politics.ie website regarding George Hook Note that the two Archbishops I refer to in the title, are John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973 and the current Church of Ireland Primate Richard Clarke. (For obvious reasons, there is no photo of those two  standing side by side but I'm sure that, given the opportunity, Fintan O'Toole would write a kindly review of a book that slandered Archbishop Eamon Martin!)

In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy")
Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:
What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes

O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!


Fintan O'Toole and Believing Lies

Original Post by Surkov
There is a piece on this by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times where he lambasts Newstalk. In his mind, he seems to imagine that the entire organisation is corrupt, hateful, etc. As though some cancer of hate had metasticised to an horrific extent.

Admittedly I don't listen to it all that much, but Newstalk seems pretty standard fare to me. Why does FOT hate it so much? Did they do something to him in the past that made it personal for him

Reply by Kilbarry1
I don't know the specifics of why Fintan O'Toole hates Newstalk. I have his article in front of me now and it is indeed grossly over the top.  One clue as to his attitude. In 1999 John Cooney former Religious Affairs correspondent for the IT (and future one for the Indo) published a biography of John Charles McQuaid that depicted him as a homosexual paedophile. The allegations were panned by every historian who reviewed the book and by ALMOST every journalist. (Guess who was the exception.) Reviewers who praised the remainder of the book said that Cooney should have omitted the Paedo claims. Most anti-clerics were annoyed and embarrassed; I recall one guy who REGRETTED that the accusation might create sympathy for the late Archbishop!

The exception was of course Fintan O'Toole. Not that he exactly believed the claims but he WANTED to believe them. The article entitled "Cooney Has At Least Posed Right Question" was published in the Irish Times on 26 November 1999.
"...   In the midst of the recent controversy over the allegations in John Cooney's new book that John Charles McQuaid had an unhealthy sexual interest in young boys, I began to interrogate that old memory. Was it just an innocent encounter with a nice old man who was privately more at ease with children than his stern public demeanour would suggest? Or must all such memories now be lit with the sinister glow of corruption?

The answer, tentative and paradoxical though it must be, is probably "yes" in both cases. Certainly, John Cooney's suggestions are not backed by anything approaching an acceptable level of historical evidence. But at the same time anyone reading another book published this week has to acknowledge that everything we know about the history of the State has to be re-examined from the bleak perspective of its most vulnerable children." [The book was "Suffer the Little Children" by Mary Raftery]   .........

"Speculating about the nature of John Charles McQuaid's sexuality, as John Cooney does, may not be the right answer. But John Cooney at least managed, as no historian has done, to pose the right question. ....."

O'Toole's thuggish desire to believe lies because those lies would depict his enemies in a bad light, may throw some light on his  rant in today's IT!

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop Richard Clarke

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness.

The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. ......

It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook??

Also his article is on the same page as Fintan O'Toole's preposterous one "Why I Won't be Appearing on Newstalk any more." It functions as a kind of response to O'Toole's rant!
NOTE: See Post #1835 concerning Fintan O'Toole vs a different Archbishop!

Newstalk Managing Editor Patricia Monahan Replies to Fintan O’Toole

However I see that Newstalk managing editor Patricia Monahan replied to Fintan O’Toole on 16 September in an article entitled All who work in Newstalk subject of outrageously unfair attack

Among the points she makes are:

....... O’Toole chose to ignore several salient facts, most importantly the number of women employed by the station and their impact on the daily output. Would it not have been worth mentioning that I as a woman, am Newstalk’s managing editor, that the chairperson of our group is a woman, or that our head of news is a woman? At Newstalk, the majority of our production staff are women. As editor, I am the final decision-maker on all editorial matters and have responsibility for content produced by the station across all platforms. But my work apparently deserves no recognition because I am not a presenter. Do I not qualify as female representation because my voice is not heard on-air? ....

Does [Fintan O'Toole] conclude that we are all party to a concerted effort by the station to “keep women presenters off the airwaves” and that I as the principal editorial decision-maker proactively restructured the schedule to do just that in a “highly conscious” manner? .....

As a commercial station in Newstalk we fight for audience share in every quarter hour of every day, as if our lives depend on it. And the truth is, our livelihoods do. That is the commercial reality of our business. Almost €40 million has been invested in Newstalk in a media landscape where the State-owned broadcaster is given the lion’s share of the €330 million collected in television licence fees. We don’t have the luxury of hiring men or women because it is the politically correct thing to do. We make decisions that make sense for the business....

And Finally:
One is only left to wonder why he never bothered to tell anyone at Newstalk how “flagrantly . . . and systematically sexist” the station was on any of his visits to our studios. [My emphasis]

The last point is the key one. Fintan O'Toole joined a lynch mob BECAUSE it was a lynch mob.

Fiona Doyle and George Hook

Fiona Doyle

According to the Irish Independent on 8th September:

Victim blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George [Hook] is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. "Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a women and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame. [My Emphasis]

"What George said is that a man can't help himself if he comes across a drunk woman. It takes the responsibility off men. Men should know not to touch a woman."

Fiona said that the comments broadcast earlier today were "old fashioned" and that it brings women back centuries. "George Hook needs to get off his dinosaur backside and see the impact of what he is saying on young women."

She added that campaigners, gardai and the rape crisis centres have been working with women to get them to come forward after a rape. "We're working so hard to get women to stand up and come forward without thinking they are responsible.

"It's a big thing for women to blame themselves after a rape happens. It's very hard for women to get over something like that and to tell women that it's their fault is outrageous." Fiona said that George Hook's comments will "pull out that stigma that women are responsible".

"No man has a right to touch a women. It's that simple." [My Emphasis]

Again there was some disagreement on this issue during the course of a discussion on Politics.ie

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [1]
........40 years ago, we had already reached the point where a male  doctor had to be very careful when informing a female patient that her STD problem had something to do with the number of her sexual partners. We are now reaching the stage where a male has to be cautious when he advises a woman to take care of her physical safety. Especially if he tells her that she has a responsibility to do so!

ON THE OTHER HAND feminists can say exactly what they like - no matter how preposterous, illegal or dangerous to other women. The following is also a repeat of a post from ages ago (well about a week)

Feminist heroine Fiona Doyle said something  a lot crazier and seems to have got away with it - as per the Irish Independent yesterday.
'Way too soon to tell' if George Hook will face formal internal investigation over rape comments

....Speaking to Independent.ie following the broadcast of the show on Friday, rape victim and campaigner Fiona Doyle said Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous and offensive". Her father Patrick O'Brien (79) was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2013 for raping and sexually abusing his daughter from 1973 to 1982.

Ms Doyle said: "Victim-blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a woman and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame."...

Of course a woman does NOT have the right to walk down the street naked if she wants; she would be arrested for public indecency. An additional reason for the arrest would be that a naked drunk woman is putting herself in danger of sexual assault but Fiona Doyle is either unaware or uninterested in some basic facts, so eager is she to denounce George Hook!

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [2]

However let's take a charitable interpretation of Fiona Doyle's words. She doesn't LITERALLY mean that women should behave in a manner that is stupid, illegal and actually facilitates rapists. She WANTS to make the point that rapists are fully responsible for their own actions but has mis-spoke herself in the process. George Hook has specifically condemned rapists, wants to make the point that women should take precautions to protect themselves and MAY have strayed into "victim blaming" in the process.  Nevertheless it is obviously Fiona Doyle who has completely over-stepped the mark and made comments that could endanger women. There's no way she should be allowed to get away with it in view of what is happening to George Hook. This hysterical over-reaction by the media  has nothing to do with any desire to protect vulnerable women.

Reply by Jimmy Two Times
What a load of nonsense. Fiona Doyle wasn't chairing a national radio show.  The ott reaction to this Hook issue is from the Rightist snowflakes whingeing about him getting suspended for making an idiot of himself

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [3]

I suspect that one reason Fiona Doyle made her ludicrous statement is that she knew that she could get away with anything. If she HAD been chairing a national radio show it wouldn't have made any difference. Do you suppose that Fintan O'Toole and our Minister for Justice would have been lining up to condemn her? The hysterical reaction against George Hook is based on the fact that he is supposed to be  a reactionary. John Cooney was a former religious affairs correspondent for the Irish Times when he made allegations of paedophilia against John Charles McQuaid that were so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed and annoyed. I recall one reviewer who REGRETTED that the transparently false allegations might create sympathy for the late Archbishop. A few years later Cooney was appointed Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent. There was no campaign of denunciation directed against Cooney's appointment - precisely because he was a liberal. (OTOH suppose that  an  Irish Catholic journalist made similar false allegations against a former Church of Ireland Archbishop - how would HIS career have developed subsequently?)

Reply by PeaceGoalie
A related point is that many of these women are just as thick as bricks and logic and maturity are beyond them. Many men are the same, and even some transexual freaks

Why are Feminists and Liberals So Stupid?

The problem is not low IQ or similar but the fact that they can say ANYTHING and expect to get away with it. I have written here and elsewhere about a certain type of anti-clerical allegation that I call "Murder of the Undead" or "Victimless Murders" [try googling the terms]  i.e. journalists and/or leaders of "Victim" groups claim that children were murdered by brothers or nuns - at times when no child died of ANY cause. Why couldn't the journalists do a bit of research, find the name of a child who actually died and accuse the Church of murdering THAT child? Well they sometimes do that also BUT they know they don't need to; because they know there will be no consequences of their lies. So they become lazy and stupid and sometimes they do get themselves into serious trouble (Like the RTE clowns who accused a priest of rape and fathering a child - they actually ignored his offer to take a DNA test before they broadcast the libel!)