eBook Real Rape download

Excellent, important work. Far too many people still believe that most perpetrators of rape are strangers. Incest, date rape and acquaintance rape have not yet been recognized by the public as the daily reality of all women and men. This work inspired me to read Andrea Dworkin's INTERCOURSE. Thank you to all those who are brave enough to read, talk and educate others about REAL RAPE. My eternal gratitude goes out to Susan Estrich for her courage to tell it like it is!

Do not let the anti-feminist trolls put you off this book. It is not a polemic, and has no political agenda except to argue for long overdue changes in rape law. Estrich provides a detailed history of the development of rape law, showing the political and philosophical roots of a body of law that put the responsibility for controlling rape firmly on the shoulders of girls and women. As her review of the changes in rape laws shows, the changes instigated by women who knew the reality of rape were only partially successful in their goal of eliminating the underlying biases of the old laws.
This book should be read by anyone, male or female, who intends to go into a career in criminal justice or social services. I would also hope that legislators, who are charged with writing and revising laws, use this book to inform themselves about the toll that the old laws created for victims, the families of victims, and ultimately for society as a whole.
I have used this book in my graduate classes in criminal justice, and students respond to it enthusiastically.

This is a great book. A very factual analysis of laws pertaining to rape in the United States. Estrich points out that the male dominated legal system is reluctant to classify rape as violence, because their idea of violence is based on the sort of things that happen to men. Getting beaten up is violence, rape is just sex.
Estrich talks about many cases of women who attempted to take a rape case to court and lost because, for example, they didn't physically fight back for fear of being hurt by a much larger assailant, or because they were too scared to scream. Yet the legal system is all too ready to say that these terrified and victimized women "consented" -- to sexual attacks by strangers!
This is a powerful book, pointing out the need for revision of rape law.

Susan Estrich is the Democrat political operative who put Dukakis in a tank and would put hillary in the White House. Amazon.com sales rank suggests another tank for Susan: Following her sales pitch on Hannity and Colmes tonight, her book, 'The Case for Hillary Clinton,' went from bad to worse, (It instantly sustained a 10% decline to #8517. As I type this, it is #12,244.)

Ms. Estrich also wrote 'Real Rape,' a book about the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape. But that was before she was tapped by the clinton machine to cover for... and revise the predatory history of... a couple of real rapists.

'Simple rape' is what the system calls this clinton kind of rape... Simple as opposed to aggravated. 'Simple rape,' a horrendous misnomer that only perpetuates the injustice. 'Real Rape' is what Ms. Estrich called it. But, as I said, that was before she was tapped by the clintons.

"In the cases on which this book focuses, the man is not the armed stranger jumping from the bushes--nor yet the black man jumping the white woman, the case that was most likely to result in the death penalty prior to 1977, and the stereotype that may explain in part the seriousness with which a white male criminal justice system has addressed 'stranger' rape. Instead the man is a neighbor, an acquaintance, or a date. The man and the woman are both white, or both black, or both Hispanic. He is a respected bachelor, a student, a businessman, or a professional. He may have been offered a ride home or invited in. He does not have a weapon. He acted alone. It is, in short, a simple rape."

--Susan Estrich, 'Real Rape'

In 'simple rape,' the system invariably revictimizes the victim and protects the rapist.

This horrible perversion of justice was the impetus for her book, so, of course, Ms Estrich knows exactly what is going on here between the clintons and Broaddrick.

Worse still, Ms. Estrich uses the horror of her own purported rape to obfuscate the casuistry and rapelies required to spin yet another rapist presidency. Estrich is contemptible.

This is the usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity.

The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny and that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.

Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons just as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.

Estrich's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick is the typical opportunistic, dishonest feminist reaction.

(See Salon.com article, 'Salon Mothers Who Think: We believe you, Juanita (we think).' Also: Google 'Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?')

While most, if not all of the women who contributed to the salon.com piece believed Juanita, (liberals as well as conservatives), some feminists were in denial; they conveniently relied on false premises to assuage the cognitive dissonance.

One recurring false premise: although Juanita was credible, clinton couldn't be a rapist because he never raped before (or since).

Notwithstanding the fact that not all rapists are serial rapists, did they never hear of Eileen Wellstone et al?

(Google: 'Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years')

Shame on them.

 

"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.

"For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

"Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

"Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

--Richard Poe, "The Hillary Conspiracy"

HANNITY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW: THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK

While Sean Hannity correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify missus clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, he sabotaged his own line of attack.

Hannity's setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As Sean Hannity well knew, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations.

Hannity of all people should know this. He interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. Broaddrick described to him in shocking detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)

In Hannity's original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, he was honest about the real issue. But even then he ultimately failed because he neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:

1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in the Broaddrick rape,

2. the postmodern construction of 'rape,' i.e., the definition of rape is subjective, i.e., what is considered rape by the victim isn't necessarily considered rape by the rapist,

3. the definition of rape has morphed over time, i.e., what is rape today wasn't necessarily rape in the '70s.

 

On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?

The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)

And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. (Google: NANO-PRESIDENT: the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton) And with it, inexorably, 9/11. (Google: WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM? Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?)

Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.

This book should be required reading for Susan Estrich.

ADDENDUM:

Ignoring the facts of the case, ignoring the 'real rape' paradigm, indeed, ignoring her own writings on 'real rape,' Susan Estrich, on Hannity and Colmes, pimping for yet another rapist presidency, openly disputed that Juanita Broaddrick was raped by the clintons.

In response, Juanita Broaddrick has offered to meet with Susan Estrich to discuss the matter. Estrich turned her down, cold. (Google: SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK'S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE -- "not interested")

Well now we know the truth about the perpetual liberal and hypocritical whiner.

OH MY - how touching that she uses the premis of 'simple rape': a man the victim knows--a date, ex-boyfriend, or estranged husband--bullies or tricks her into sex against her will, without brandishing weapons or breaking bones. Simple rape, Estrich argues, is still real rape and deserves punishment.

But, the nation watched her toss aside her "femiinist" convictions to stand as a protector accomplice for Bill Clinton and help besmerch the women he abused.

Knowing how terribly a rape can effect a woman I can only assume that her performance in enabling Clinton proves her to be a liar who fabricated a tale of her own rape to promote her own self!

This book is liberal fiction and should be discounted because it is founded on a lie. Estrich hijacks a horrible crime for the sake of self promotion and a political agenda of enforcing laws only when they are seen as necessary to fight a perceived enemy. --DISGUSTING DRIVEL