False Rape Accuser: Alice Paquet



It all started during the night of October 15th, 2016, in Québec city, Canada. Two young black men intruded in a student housing facility, knocked on doors, and allegedly sexually assaulted a few female students. The sexual behaviors were never specified, so we can only speculate about what happened. A week later, the severity of the behaviors has still not been specified (so far, there is only one count of home invasion in court). Considering that there has been at least 15 complaints within a few minutes, it was most likely milder forms of assault.

The absence of details of the ding-dong-ditch incident did not prevent the media from interpreting the event as unambiguous proof that women face daily violence, turning anecdote into politics. Rather than discussing the violence of “urban youth,” the media initiated nationwide discussions about rape and consent. Ministers made promises for new policies. Security guards were placed on the facility. The university rector was blamed for everything and booed. The local media published updates every few hours for a week. Victims were called survivors.

The atmosphere of moral panic about the security of women in society led a university student, Alice Paquet, to speak in front of more than 500 people who gathered in solidarity with the “survivors.” She claimed to have been raped by a liberal politician, Gerry Sklavounos. At the time, Paquet did not reveal who the liberal politician was, so she might not have expected to be held accountable for this accusation.

She said that she already went to the police, but they advised her against legal action, because it would ruin the man, his family, and his career. She said it was so violent that she needed stitches. “On vous croit! On vous croit” (We believe you!) shouted the crowd, which subsequently became a feminist rallying cry.

Within a few hours, politicians of the opposition jumped on the bandwagon to shame Sklavounos and the liberal party. Leaders of the Québec Solidaire party (a feminist woman, a muslim, and a lesbian with her iconic moustache) immediately demanded the resignation of Sklavounos “as a gesture of respect towards women and men [sic!] of [his district]”. An MP from Coalition Avenir Québec also suggested that the alleged perpetrator be removed from the caucus by the prime minister himself. The newly elected leader of the Parti Québécois claimed that the prime minister should be held accountable. Sklavounos was subsequently expelled from the Parti Libéral du Québec. This happened within a day, before the police could even get into the investigation.

The victim, Alice Paquet, then began being interviewed by multiple broadcasters. Her inconsistencies and statement withdrawals tore her credibility to shreds. Not only that, but to this day, after a week of being everywhere on TV and radio, she still has not met police investigators.

Paquet retracted the statement that the police told her to drop the charges. On Radio-Canada, she explained that what she meant was that they asked her if she clearly said “no”… which she did not. After, the police was accused of neglect and many people demanded an internal investigation, the police made a public statement in which they said that on the contrary, they have tried to reach Paquet multiple times to resume the legal process, but she never replied to their calls. Whoops. Looks like she lied. Shortly after the withdrew the claim that she needed stitches after the alleged rape.

Perhaps the most significant strike to her credibility occurred when she admitted to having borderline personality disorder. Girls with a borderline personality are famously known for making false rape allegations. It has also been documented that borderline girls are “especially likely to misinterpret or misremember social interactions, to lie manipulatively and convincingly, and to have voluntarily entered destructive sexual relationships.” More generally, borderline personality disorder is strongly linked to pathological lying.

Then, we were told more about the story. She was working as a waitress in a restaurant. She was instructed to treat Sklavounos well, and that he was a womanizer. Despite that, after a heated discussion about politics, she went to his room to “discuss politics” in more depth, and to have drinks. They were kissing and everything, “but foreplay is not a contract for sex.” Remember earlier when I said that she never said “no” either. Pretty hard to tell you’re raping someone when she is kissing you, and does not voice her wish to stop. Then the alleged rape occurred. Here’s the best part:

She came back to have sex again with him two weeks later. “I’m a little masochist,” she said.

“I can’t say I said no clearly. I don’t remember. But I know very well I didn’t say yes. If a woman doesn’t feel free to say no, she is being raped. If she feels uneasy, it’s rape.” However, a few minutes prior, she also said this: “at that moment, I thought, if I don’t feel like it, and he feels like it, I can pleasure him.”

“Why should we believe you?” asked a reporter. “Because you have to ask,” she replied.

The final blow came when Paul André Beaulieu (a blogger and member of the Roosh V forum) discovered that Paquet led a conference for sex workers. She was introduced to the attendees as an ex-prostitute. So she might have been working as a prostitute rather than a waitress. Many people started to ask how many of her claims will be debunked, and how many details will we uncover as the investigation goes.

Like nearly all media-hyped rape allegations, Paquet’s claims are unfounded. This is exactly why there needs to be proof and a trial before imprisonment. More often than not, public rape accusations are false.


Has The Infamous Lecturer Who Trashed Sir Tim Hunt Had Her Course Hours Cut?

The ugly fat lying cunt facing karma


University journalism lecturer and (alleged) journalist, Connie St. Louis, has seemingly had her postgraduate course at City University in London downgraded or axed, with her teaching hours apparently cut, Heat Street has established.

If so, St. Louis would also be presenting herself as the director of a non-existent course – following many similar ’embellishments’ of her CV.

Last year, St. Louis accused Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt of making “sexist” remarks at a conference for women in South Korea.

While giving a toast at the conference, Hunt joked: “It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”

St Louis was later found to have quoted Hunt selectively,  but by falsely claiming his words were misogynist she triggered a worldwide debate and ultimately derailed his career. Among her many lies were that Hunt had gone ‘on and on’, when he joked for two minutes, that he sat down to a ‘deathly silence’ when there was applause and laughter, and that a lunch that finished normally five minutes later was ‘ruined’. St. Louis also lied to other journalists stating that Tim Hunt had refused to answer her questions during a later session he was not present at; she confused him with a Wall Street Journal reporter and never apologised for this lie.

Futhermore, St. Louis and her co-conspirators Ivan Oransky and Deborah Blum failed to report that the exact same people who had hosted the lunch invited Sir Tim Hunt to open the WCSJ that very night. Sir Tim’s persecutor Deborah Blum happily shared the stage with him the evening after the uneventful lunch, and the WCSJ’s head of PR was photographed clapping him enthusiastically.

St. Louis then attended a two hour reception with Sir Tim Hunt during which time she never put any of her false allegations to him.

The BBC apologised to Louise Mensch and to Mary Collins and Tim Hunt for putting the words of the Today Show’s presenter in Hunt’s mouth. They also admitted that their understanding of Connie St. Louis basic credibility had ‘evolved’ as the scandal of her gross misresporting grew.

Incorrect and misleading quotes weren’t the only problem for the university lecturer.

The Daily Mail ‘s superb investigative journalist, Guy Adams, had a look at her CV and exposed outright lies and fabrications in her alleged experience as a journalist.

Now it appears St Louis’ misfired crusade against a pioneering scientist is coming back to haunt her.

City University in London, where she used to be the MA director in Science Journalism, appears to have dropped her course, according to a timetable seen by Heat Street  – the only one in the university’s journalism department to apparently suffer this fate.

As a result she will have plenty more free time to play with: the university seems to have given her only one 2 hour-long class to teach every week for two months.



Occidental Professor @LisaWade: Heterosexual Men Are Predators





“Heterosexuality in the U.S. is gendered: women are expected to attract, men are supposed to be attracted. Men want, women want to be wanted. Metaphorically, this is a predator/prey type relationship. . . . Accordingly, women know what it feels like to be prey.”
Professor Lisa Wade, 2014


No one has ever accused Professor Lisa Wade of being heterosexual. It’s difficult to imagine why anyone would even suspect her of such a thing, since her entire career has been built on anti-male hatred.

Professor Wade was among the faculty at Occidental College (annual tuition $49,278) who claimed the college administration was engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the prevalence of rape on campus. After complaints about a delay in reporting a sexual assault accusation, the college president, Jonathan Veitch, issued a statement in which he wrote: “In the first few hours, days or even weeks, it is not always clear what has happened in incidents like these. Investigators need time to sort through conflicting accounts in order to provide a clear narrative of what took place.” Professor Wade accused President Veitch of “reproducing a bias against sexual assault victims that feminists have been trying to eradicate for decades.” In other words, Occidental’s president is anti-woman and pro-rape — but he’s a man, of course, and Professor Wade believes all men are rapists, which is what she means by condemning heterosexualityas “a predator/prey type relationship.” If you believe Professor Wade and her feminist faculty colleagues like Professor Caroline Heldman, the only reason boys go to Occidental is to rape the girls who go to Occidental.

Becoming notorious as the Rape Capital of America™ might not be the kind of publicity Occidental College wants. When you’re asking parents to fork over $49,278 a year to send their kids to your prestigious elite private liberal arts school, it’s probably not good for recruitment to have professors claiming rape is the most popular sport on campus. Occidental’s crappy Division III football team went 5-4 last year, losing to such obscure opponents as Claremont-Mudd-Scripps and University of La Verne, but when it comes to rape, Occidental is the undisputed national champion, according to Professor Wade and her fellow feminists.


That number is what you get when you multiply $49,278 (annual tuition at Occidental) by 2,040, the college’s reported enrollment. A college with annual revenue of more than $100 million (and an endowment of more than $400 million) is an inviting target for political racketeers trying to run a shakedown operation: “Nice reputation you got there, Occidental. Sure would be a shame if something bad happened to it.”


The feminist faculty helped stir up a climate of fear on campus with a group called Oxy Sexual Assault Coalition, and pretty soon there were more than 50 Title IX complaints against Occidental, with big-money lawyer Gloria Allred holding a press conference to announce a lawsuit. Naturally, the college paid up rather than risk a trial:

Occidental College has quietly reached a monetary settlement with at least 10 current and former students who have alleged that the Eagle Rock liberal arts school repeatedly mishandled sexual assault accusations, according to three sources with knowledge of the agreement.
During confidential settlement talks last week, senior Occidental officials agreed to pay the women an undisclosed sum to avoid a lawsuit.
Under the terms of the pact, they are barred from discussing publicly the college’s handling of their cases and participating in the Occidental Sexual Assault Coalition, a campus advocacy group of students and faculty that over the last year has been battling fiercely with the college administration over its handling of sex assault allegations.

Ah, but once you start paying the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane, and the more college administrators try to satisfy campus feminist demands, the more demanding campus feminists become. One wonders if Occidental College’s president knows what is being taught in the school’s Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies program. Does he not realize that Professor Wade, for example, is against marriage?

I’m not married because the history of marriage is ugly and anti-woman . . .
I’m not married because I don’t want to support a discriminatory institution that has and continues to bless some relationships, but not others, out of bigotry. . . .
I don’t believe that a state- or church-endorsed heterosexual union between two and only two people is superior to other kinds of relationships.

Unlike Professor Wade, Occidental’s president does support the “anti-woman . . . discriminatory institution.” Jonathan Veitch and his wife have three children from their state-endorsed heterosexual union.


Professor Wade is co-author of a 2014 textbook, Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, a 400-page elaboration of the postmodern theory that there are no such things as men and women, only the gender binary, which is socially constructed by theheterosexual matrix. Feminists generally believe there is no such thing as “human nature.” According to feminist gender theory, human beings are the only mammals on the planet without any kind of instinct that might be involved in the reproduction of the species. The traits we call “masculinity” and “femininity” are anillusion, according to feminists. The “performance of phallic power” is “the essence of hegemonic masculinity,” as Professor Carol Harrington (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand) has explained, and “widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy,” as Professor Marilyn Frye said, because “most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”

You might not be surprised to learn that Professor Wade considers beauty standards to be a manifestation of patriarchal oppression:

The sexualization of girls and the infantilization of adult women are two sides of the same coin. They both tell us that we should find youth, inexperience, and naivete sexy in women, but not in men.This reinforces a power and status difference between men and women, where vulnerability, weakness, and dependency and their opposites are gendered traits: desirable in one sex but not the other. . . .
What does it mean that feminine beauty is conflated with youthfulness, but masculine beauty is not — that we want women to be both cute and sexual? It means that we feel comfortable with women who seem helpless and require taking care of, perhaps we even encourage or demand these traits from women. . . .
It’s about infantilizing adult women . . . as a way to remind women of their prescribed social position relative to men.

There is nothing natural about male admiration of “feminine beauty,” according to Professor Wade. Feminists do not believe any hard-wired animal instincts are involved in men’s preferences. Instead, all human sexual behavior is interpreted as an expression of “power and status” under the regime of patriarchy. This is the only explanation for why men prefer supermodel Kate Upton to feminist Jaclyn Friedman.

Jaclyn Friedman, feminist (left); Kate Upton, supermodel (right).

“A steady diet of exploitative, sexually provocative depictions of women feeds a poisonous trend in women’s and girl’s perceptions of their bodies, one that has recently been recognized by social scientists as self-objectification — viewing one’s body as a sex object to be consumed by the male gaze. . . . Perhaps the most striking outcome of self-objectification is the difficulty women have in imagining identities and sexualities truly our own.”
Professor Caroline Heldman, 2008

You see that any depiction of women that men actually enjoy looking at is “exploitative,” because women are objectified by “the male gaze,” according to Occidental College Professor Caroline Heldman who, not coincidentally, co-founded the groups Oxy Sexual Assault Coalition, End Rape on Campus (EROC) and Faculty Against Rape (FAR), and is “a visible figure in the campus anti-rape movement.” Feminism’s “rape culture” discourse is a form of anti-male hate propaganda. By demonizing college boys as rapists, feminists like Professor Heldman and Professor Wade teach college girls to hate and fear their male classmates. Likewise, Professor Heldman and Professor Wade portray normal male behavior as pathological. Their students at Occidental are being taught that it iswrong for men to admire beauty, that it is predatory for men to be attracted to women, that marriage is “anti-woman,” and that heterosexuality is inherently harmful to women. If a man even looks at a woman, she is victimized by his “sexually objectifying, predatory, always potentially threatening gaze,” according to Professor Wade:

I study sex on campus, where sexual violence is perpetrated disproportionately by “high-status” men — fraternity men and certain male athletes in particular. These men are more likely than other men to endorse the sexual double standard, believing that they are justified in praising sexually active men, while condemning and even abusing women who are less sexually active.
They are also more likely to promote homophobia, hypermasculinity and male dominance; tolerate violent and sexist jokes; endorse misogynistic attitudes and behaviors; and endorse false beliefs about rape. Accordingly, athletes are responsible for an outsized number of sexual assaults on campus, and women who attend fraternity parties are significantly more likely to be assaulted than those who attend other parties with alcohol and those who don’t go to parties at all.

It is “high status” that makes college boys rapists, according to Professor Wade. Therefore, it might be argued, colleges should deprive males of status — ending athletic programs for men and abolishing fraternities, for example — if they are really serious about preventing rape. Or perhaps Professor Wade means that Occidental College President Jonathan Veitch is also a rapist. Being president of the college is a rather “high-status” position on campus, after all, and you can’t be too careful, especially considering President Veitch’s known history of heterosexuality.


Professor Wade’s next book, to be published in January, is entitled American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus, and in an article for the Guardian, she previews her attack on the usual suspects:

Hookup culture prevails, even though it serves only a minority of students, because cultures don’t reflect what is, but a specific group’s vision of what should be. The students who are most likely to qualify as enthusiasts are also more likely than other kinds of students to beaffluent, able-bodied, white, conventionally attractive, heterosexual and male. . . .
Hookup culture, then, isn’t what the majority of students want, it’s the privileging of the sexual lifestyle most strongly endorsed bythose with the most power on campus, the same people we seeprivileged in every other part of American life. These students, as one Latina observed, “exude dominance”. On the quad, they’re boisterous and engage in loud greetings. They sunbathe and play catch on the green at the first sign of spring. At games, they paint their faces and sing fight songs. They use the campus as their playground. Their bodies — most often slim, athletic and well-dressed — convey an assured calm; they move among their peers with confidence and authority.

So, according to Professor Wade, it is rich, good-looking, heterosexual white males whose “privilege” is expressed in “hookup culture.” Probably there are some of those guys at Occidental College, where their parents pay $49,278 a year so they can “use the campus as their playground.”

It’s wrong for girls to hook up with “slim, athletic and well-dressed” rich boys at an elite private college, according to Professor Wade. Why are “affluent, able-bodied, white, conventionally attractive, heterosexual and male” students even allowed to attend Occidental College? Everybody on the Occidental faculty hates white male heterosexuals, and yet these rich boys keep showing up on campus with their boisterous loud greetings, their “assured calm . . . confidence and authority,” etc. Gosh, why does this sound strangely familiar?

Good grades, good home
gets college student profiled
as rapist, claims lawsuit

Being a valedictorian from a “good family” helped get a California student blamed for an alleged rape by a bizarre, college tribunal that critics claim is part of an overzealous culture of blaming men for hookups that go awry, according to a lawsuit.
A former Occidental College student known only as “John Doe” has sued the Los Angeles school after it found him “responsible” for an alleged Sept. 8, 2013, rape local police could not substantiate ever happened. The student was expelled after the liberal arts school’s investigation, despite offering strong text message evidence that the encounter with another first-year Occidental student was consensual. . . .
The suit, which claims John Doe’s due process rights were violated, charges that a faculty member and anti-rape activist coaxed the alleged victim into making baseless accusations.
“[John Doe] fits the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and was from a good family,” the suit quotes Occidental Sociology Prof. Danielle Dirks, who co-founded the school’s Sexual Assault Coalition, telling the woman, who was initially reluctant to accuse the man of rape.

If a boy is a valedictorian and an athlete, he’s a rapist, according to feminist professors at Occidental College. Parents definitely should not pay $49,278 a year to send their sons to Occidental College, which pays these professors to encourage girls to accuse their sons of rape:

John Doe’s Title IX complaint, alleging gender discrimination against himself as a male, argues that the female complainant (Jane Doe) was counselled by Professor Danielle Dirks and Movindri Reddy to convince her that she had indeed been raped, despite her initial protestations that her consensual sex ‘didn’t feel like rape.’ . . .
Jane Doe spent many hours with Professor Reddy. According to her testimony: “She said that Professor Reddy put her in touch with Professor Danielle Dirks. On Tuesday night, Jane Doe said, she met with Professor Dirks for three hours, and told her the entire story…. During this period, Jane Doe stated, she went to see Professor Reddy every day to talk about what had happened, and how she was dealing with it.”
Professor Reddy went on to become Jane Doe’s advocate/advisor through the internal Occidental hearing process. . . .
In Professor Dirk’s testimony, in her discussions with Ms. Doe, she repeatedly profiled John Doe as a rapist. . . .
Dirks stated that she believed that Jane Doe was experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Dirks stated that Jane Doe appeared to be “in a strong state of denial” about the events, and told her at one point that she was not yet able to call the incident “rape….” Dirks noted that Jane Doe’s reluctance to call what had happened to her “rape” was consistent with other victims of sexual assault whom Dirks has talked to on campus.

Doesn’t it sound like John Doe was the victim of a conspiracy? What actually happened was that John Doe was drunk in his room when Jane Doe, who was also drunk, texted him she wanted to come have sex with him, then showed up and, among other things, performed oral sex him. Unlike so many other cases like it, John Doe v. Occidental is not even a “he-said/she-said” story — there is no dispute about the basic facts, and nothing about these facts can be construed as rape. Both students were freshmen, both were equally drunk, and she was the one who initiated their sexual encounter. Yet on a campus where hatred of males is encouraged by feminist professors who denounce heterosexuality as “a predator/prey type relationship,” facts don’t matter.


Feminazi Steph Yin at NYTimes: “Fire is even tied to the rise of patriarchy — by allowing men to go out hunting while women stayed behind to cook by the fire, it spawned gender norms that still exist today”




Feminists have declared war on many aspects of technology, science, health care, & modern life, such as dentists, doctors, air conditioning, vaccination, the tech industry, etc.  Thus it can not be a surprise that feminists would declare war on any human advance since the dawn of humanity.  The latest thing feminists have declared war on is fire.  Yes, fire.  Feminists are blaming the rise of patriarchy on the discovery of fire.  In other words, feminists are saying that women got burned by fire.

Where would be without fire?  We would probably be sitting in caves with none of the advancements humanity has made in the last several thousand years.  We would have no way to prevent freezing to death.  Feminists would have us all freeze to death just because they feel that fire oppresses them.  This has to be the ultimate example of how feminists are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-civilization, and all around anti-humanity


How Much Does @JessicaValenti Enjoy Her Husband @AGolis’s ‘Male Tears’?


Just about the time Jessica Valenti’s latest book hit the New York Timesbestsellers list, her husband’s business venture went belly-up:

This, the awkwardly named share-one-link-per-day platform, is shutting down at the end of the month, founder Andrew Golis announced over email to users and in a Medium post. The site, launched in 2014, had generated some significant interest among media types, having been invite-only for most of last year. It opened to everyone last fall and began offering automated, curated email newsletters. It recently added a commenting option, and had been exploring sponsorships as well as premium membership options; a new version of its app was featured in the App Store just last month, and Golis was giving it a promotional push just 10 days ago.
Golis explained in his announcement that the lack of funding and any indication of sustainability prompted the decision . . .

You can read the whole thing, but I’m sure you’re less interested in whyThis ended up in the rubbish bin of bankrupt dot-coms than you are incongratulating Jessica Valenti on her husband’s failure. However, to repeat what I’ve said so often, never talk to a feminist:

There are 21 million women ages 20–29 in the United States, most of whom are not hate-filled anti-male ideologues constantly shrieking about how they are being oppressed by the patriarchy. Why, therefore, should the young bachelor bother arguing with a feminist? She hates the mere sight of a man, and certainly doesn’t care to hear any man speak. Learn to walk away.
Of course, feminists generally claim they don’t hate men, even while they’re busy dreaming of putting men in “some kind of camp” (Julie Bindel) or proclaiming their pleasure in “male tears” (Jessica Valenti).
Any man who disagrees with a feminist is a “misogynist,” so that her ideology has the effect of negating the opinions of half the world’s population. And what does Jessica Valenti’s husband Andrew Golis say about this? Nothing.
Well, what could he say? Male silence is necessary to feminism’s success. Feminism is not about equality, because if it were, a man might have the right to his own opinion. Yet any man who says anything to a feminist is condemned as “mansplaining,” in the same way that any man who expresses attraction toward her will be denounced for “objectification,” and if he claims he meant no harm, she’ll give him a lecture about “rape culture.”
Feminism presents men with exactly two options:

1. Damned if you do.
2. Damned if you don’t.

There is no way for a man to win this game, except never to play it, which is why smart men avoid feminists, rather than “crawling around on all fours” in a hopeless attempt to placate the cruel whims of a sadistic Bitch Goddess. . . .

You can read the whole thing at Medium.com. Did I mention I threw in a few Elvis Costello lyrics? Because I’m cool like that, you know.