I don't normally try to talk too much about Catholicism, partly because I don't know where to begin.  The child abuse?  The misogyny?  The overall corruption and love of money?  Should I roll all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition and what they did to the Mayans?

But this story just annoyed me.  Really?  A Catholic priest is going to have an order of nuns shut down claiming that one of them broke her vow of chastity?  Oh, that's rich. 

Richard Daschbach was openly molesting girls all throughout his career in East Timor, just for one example.  It's  a miracle they got rid of him, much less close down his entire facility.  Daschbach had a list posted on his door so the children could know what day it was their turn to get raped by the cryptkeeper. 

I can't even with the Catholic Church and their bullshit.  My guess is it has more to do with either (a) some petty interpersonal situation where the bishop wants to consolidate power; or (b) the world's largest landholder wants to do something with their land. 

Just like Katie Perry was able to buy the home out from under another group of cloistered nuns, the men in the golden dresses don't care what happens to the women who devote their lives to Catholici$m.

 I'm a huge fan of DNA testing.  I wonder if suspicion would ever have fallen on Attorney Matthew Nilo without genetic genealogy?  Probably not.  I'm always glad to see the rape kit backlog whittling down.  Remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Let me be very clear:  I voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for two reasons:  both Anita Hill and Angela Davis insisted it was imperative, no matter how we personally felt about it.

Beyond that, I will never vote again.  I will never listen to a word Biden or Harris say.  I turn away when I see their faces.   Speaking now as a veteran paramedic, if Biden or Harris keeled over in front of me, I would not do CPR. The Democrats have been twisting my voting arm all my life, and in 2020 it snapped.  The Biden-Harris 2020 campaign relied very heavily on rape trolling -- I should know, I took plenty of it from their supporters.

If I took that much bullying and abuse, I can only imagine how much crap Tara Reade took.  In fact I remember watching in real time as the left side of Twitter ripped her to shreds.  I will never go back on Twitter after that, no matter who owns it, especially not Elon Musk.

TARA READE HAS MOVED TO RUSSIA

I'm now going to add Pilar Melendez to the list of journalists whose work I will no longer read, along with professional feminists/rape trolls Amanda Marcotte, Joan Walsh, and Michelle Goldberg.  All three of them jumped on the rape culture bandwagon of attacking Reade rather than investigating Biden.  I don't know about Marcotte or Walsh, what juicy tidbits they got from their paymasters in exchange.  But Michelle Goldberg apparently lives in Ari Melber's green room now.  If any of them get raped, I'm not the one they should cry to.

Rape culture starts with DARVO:  Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim-Offender.  So you begin with attacking the victim, then the offender becomes the real victim -- of a false accusation/witch hunt.

Because that's the go-to move for rape culture, really Step 1 in the playbook:  investigating the victim.  Think about it.  They don't do that with any other crime, do they?  

Fuck all of you who do/did this.  Investigate the crime, not the victim.  What do her politics now have to do with whether he assaulted her back then?

Yes, it's weird that Tara Reade has moved to Russia.  But so what?  I don't blame her for not wanting to live here anymore.  I no longer want to live in America after the Biden-Harris campaign.  Unraped women just don't know how ugly that shit was, how hard the Biden-Harris supporters rape trolled everyone who stood in their way.  We all got called liars and MAGA trolls.  Those people couldn't imagine simply not being okay with the hair-sniffing because it's fetish behavior.  They can't/won't digest it with their brains.

Why are we talking about her and not him?  Joe Biden's behavior got less investigation than Brett Kavanaugh's.  There is a mountain of videotape of Biden touching children inappropriately and he's never given any explanation for any of that.  There is no explanation.

The fact that Don Jr. is the one bringing that shit up makes me want to gouge my eyes out.  I would love to live in a world where sexual abuse was something other than a political IED, just a grenade shitty people can toss at each other when it suits them.

I don't care if Tara Reade is crazy.  I have no reason to disbelieve her story that Joe Biden stuck his fingers in her snooch.  Everything the Krassenstein brothers had to say sounded like DARVO to me.

Joe Biden will never be my president any more than Trump was.  And I will never vote again.

What gets me about this, aside from the fact that he also brought some hand tools == as if to possibly remove the door from its hinges if needed? -- is the way he says, "Sorry, I thought my girl was in there."

"My girl," because he owns her.  If that little scallywag tries to escape, why, he has every right to chase her down with a machete.

This is real life for some woman out there.

Sometimes we see police officers get away with so much nonsense it seems like there's nothing they could possibly do to be found unsuitable for the job.  And then other people get weeded out fairly quickly for relatively minor offenses.  That seems to be the case with Christopher McKinney.

I'm not saying McKinney sounds like a good officer who deserves another chance -- he doesn't.  I'm glad his department was apparently keeping an eye on him.  They have GPS trackers in police vehicles these days for good reason.  That's how they catch a lot of people doing sexual misconduct and other crimes.

It sounds like his chief didn't trust McKinney after an incident in which McKinney, while assigned as a school resource officer, was sitting in his girlfriend's car while a student ran out of the school.

In the video posted above, he was found to have a GPS blocking device in his car that he initially said was something to prevent 5G from making him sick at the recommendation of Alex Jones.

Anyway I thought it was refreshing to see someone getting decertified simply because his chain of command found him untrustworthy in general.  I've seen officers commit rape and all kinds of crimes and their commanding officers didn't want to lose them.

People may remember this incident from 2020 in Loveland, Colorado.  A 73-year-old woman with dementia, Karen Garner, walked out of Walmart with $13 worth of merchandise.  She was stopped by the police, who apparently delighted in using force on her.

From the above link at Law & Crime:

"Later in the video, Hopp [the arresting officer] said, “I can’t believe I threw a 73-year-old on the ground.”While bantering with a male officer, he said later that he was “proud” because it was the first time he got to use his hobble restraint.

“I was super excited,” he said, and recounted his version of what happened. “I was like ‘I’m fine, I can handle her. I mean it’s done, you know.’ I was like, ‘Alright, let’s wrestle girl! Let’s wreck it!'”

Hopp is seen in bodycam video manhandling Ms. Garner, then laughing about having dislocated her shoulder.  The part where he's excitedly listening for the popping sound is notorious.

One of the other officers, Daria Jalali, has been sentenced for what the judge called her "abysmal failure to serve and protect.

I write true crime for survivors.  After having seen the original video of her playing along with the disgusting Officer Hopp, it's refreshing for me to see this new look on her face, the difference in her attitude.  At one point Jalali went back to check on Garner while the men laughed about the incident.  Garner was complaining about the pain she was in, and Jalali was more bothered about one of the men farting.  So this look on Jalali's face, for me, is a big improvement

This case involves nine felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, along with the person having admitted to possessing child porn.  They're facing a 30-year sentence as the title says.

So this must be a trans woman who took all these pictures in public bathrooms, right?  Or a drag queen bothering all the kids at the library read-along?  Isn't that how this works, America? Anyone in a betting mood?

Fox13:

"SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah man arrested last year in Idaho with members of a white nationalist group has admitted to possessing child pornography.

Jared M. Boyce, 28, of Springville, pleaded guilty in a Utah court last month to nine felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and a misdemeanor count of dealing in material harmful to a minor. He faces up to 30 years in prison when he is sentenced Tuesday in Provo.

Boyce was among 31 men associated with the group Patriot Front arrested last year near a gay pride event in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and the child pornography case appears to be an outgrowth of what happened there."  [emphasis added]

HAHAhaha wheee!  Sorry, but the Ustase killed a lot of my relatives.  So I can't help but laugh when a Nazi steps on a rake.

"Court records say the FBI searched Boyce’s phone a month after the Idaho arrests and found images depicting children in sex acts. Boyce, the court document says, admitted to an investigator he possessed the images in Utah County and to sending a sexually-explicit photo of his genitals to a 16-year-old girl."

What's that you say?  This was not a trans person or a drag queen but a straight white man, arrested during an LGBTQ protest with his Nazi buddies, and that's how they found out about the child-sex activities he has pled guilty to?  Color me shocked, deeply amazed.

Often when a man gets sexually harassed or assaulted, the conversation turns ugly.  It's something that I really struggle with. 

Because while I do want to support all survivors as much as possible, I have a policy about disengaging people with abusive narratives -- which is unfortunately very common with male survivors, especially those who are minimally or less-injured.

Here is today's example, from Virginia:

“I thought he was going to [expletive] rape me.”Those were the words that James City County police officer Michael Rusk screamed at a 911 operator shortly after allegedly shooting and seriously hurting Sgt. Christopher Gibson outside a Williamsburg bar in January.

Rusk is facing charges in connection to the January shooting, which investigators initially said happened as a result of a “verbal argument” after a night of drinking. The 911 call made by the alleged shooter, however, along with surveillance video exclusively obtained by 10 On Your Side, shows another side of the story.

Rusk’s family and lawyers agree the evidence makes a case for self defense, after he says he suffered unwanted sexual advances from his superior officer."

I would ordinarily be supportive of Officer Rusk in this scenario.  The video shows his superior officer putting hands on him in a sexually suggestive way, and Rusk clearly not wanting that as they walk out.

"The video shows the two leaving the bar just about an hour before the shooting. After Gibson puts his hand on Rusk’s shoulder, you see Rusk forcefully push him off and put a finger in his face before walking away."

And then we come to this part of the narrative, which is where it all goes to hell in a hand basket.  I can't be both a friend and a punching bag at the same time.

“If our client was a female, this case would be drastically different. It’s a clear self defense issue,” said Peyton Akers, one of Rusk’s lawyers."  [emphasis added]

Really?  Is Peyton Akers suggesting there are laws that protect women in this country that don't protect men, that allow women to shoot a police officer without consequences?  What color is the sky on his planet?  We're not even mentioned, not considered in the original constitution in this country.  We can be legally discriminated against by our gender in America.   If he's a professional attorney he should know men have always had more rights than women in America, from the very first day, in black-letter law.

Maybe he's saying that there was an attempt to deflect from the sexual nature of the situation because it involved two men, and reframe it as some other sort of personal disagreement, and that that is somehow gender-biased against men.  I will file a writ of calling bullshit.

When I got stalked by a paramedic coworker, every superior that I talked to about it worked very hard to put me into a personal dating relationship with that individual which absolutely did not exist. Literally every one of them tried repeatedly to get me to say I had socialized with him in some fashion, which would have made the whole thing a non-issue, a lover's quarrel, and my problem alone. 

So the only difference that I see is how people use gender to try to spin things one way or the other to make their administrative case loads easier.  Gender only tells them which direction to take it.  Because if I had ever gone out drinking with that jackass, even once, the police would have done even less to help me than they did (almost nothing).  And I didn't even shoot my stalker/coworker.  I was only asking someone to stop him from following through on his threats of murdering me.

I suspect that Akers was only trying to upgrade Rusk's father's comment, which is what really set me off:

“If I had a daughter in the same position as my son, we wouldn’t even be here. They would have listened, we wouldn’t have an innocent person fighting for their freedom,” Rusk said."  [emphasis added]

HAHAHAHHahahahahhHAHAHAHhahahahahHAhahahahhHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahhdhahahhahahAAAAAaaaaaHAHAhahahahAHAHHAHAHahahahaaaaa  OMFG

I really struggle to think of any response to that statement that wouldn't make my grandmother ashamed.  Forgiveness and unconditional love are always my goals, and Mr. Rusk makes it a real stretch, doing a backstroke in crazy juice before he talks to reporters.

My first thought is to ask him for at least one example of a female police officer getting harassed by a superior -- not even having the sexual assault completed, only fear of it -- and being allowed to shoot him without consequences.  That's what Mr. Rusk expects in this scenario. 

Mr. Rusk needs to watch the show Victim/Suspect so he can see how he looks to those of us who live in rape culture from cradle to grave here on Earth 1.  I'm sorry this is your first day waking up to reality, sir.  That first step is a doozy, I know.

Mr. Rusk isn't the first person to speak so rudely  about women sexual violence survivors after joining us late in the game.  I really wish he was.   His lines are classic. This is his very first time noticing that people, including men, get sexually harassed, bless his heart. 

Mr. Rusk's gobsmackingly ignorant statement is a product of both psychological projection and "himpathy," the way empathy is heavily leveraged towards men in our society.  That's all.   It's the huge cloud of cognitive dissonance that arose when he got socked right in the sense of entitlement at seeing what happened when his son got treated like a woman and then reacted like a man, how it's working out for him.

I've seen this happen too many times, it's the only explanation that makes sense.  Men think getting sexually assaulted makes them special, because they never have to think about it until it happens to them.  They walk around believing raped women get all the help in the world -- way too much in fact.  Then when they don't get that level of service, when they're forced to personally cash the reality check, they're convinced it's discrimination against themselves.  That's the only explanation that makes sense to them.

I'm willing to bet that if it weren't Mr. Rusk's own son in this scenario, he would be the first one to ask why the female officer was out drinking with a superior officer she claims had been harassing her for over a year.  He'd be the first one calling her a ladder-climbing slut, bitter that it wasn't working out for her.

Whenever a man gets sexually abused, social media is instantly filled with men proclaiming, "But nobody admits it happens to men!  They only help women!"  Plus all the same shit Mr. Rusk and his attorney said.

No, women survivors are very well aware that it happens to men often enough.  That's pure projection.  It's men who constantly deny that it happens to us.  

And not for nothing, it's almost always men PERPETRATING, against both men and women.  No matter how much we support them emotionally, the entire conversation is entirely circular, always male-driven and centered.  It's always their conversation, always their turn to be the most-important person in every scenario.  It's good to be king.

If a gay man gets assaulted by a date he wants it upgraded to a hate crime, because, "He could have done this to a woman," White said. "Instead, he chose to do something to someone who's gay and proud about his sexuality."  I was so eager to support Mr. White about the horrific violence he experienced, right up until he threw people like me under the bus.

That position didn't sound even slightly misogynistic to Mr. White's supporters.  Women are the default, acceptable targets.  It's not a hate crime when you target women for being women, only when you target gay men for being gay men.  

Think about it.  The perpetrator chose a gay man because he had violent sexual fantasies that he wanted to act out on a man and not a woman.  That was a personal psychosexual thing about that maniac, just like it is when they do it to women every day since forever.

Louisiana is very homophobic and law enforcement likely wouldn't have properly prioritized what was done to Mr. White had the gay community not roared about it -- which I fully supported them in prior to Mr. White's ugly comment.  And also?  Louisiana is extremely misogynistic and abusers of women can also pretty much run wild -- check out The Jennings 8.  I've always stood with the gay community.  It sucks to see how much they're not reciprocating the sentiment, resent being asked to. 

That entire conversation about "hate crime or nothing to see here" comes down to the perpetrator's sexual preferences, his personal agenda, if you think about it.  Would his majesty prefer to act out on a female or male body today?  If female, probably no consequences whatsoever except for m'lady.  If male, STOP EVERYTHING, IT'S A HATE CRIME!  You may not treat men the way you treat women just because they're gay.  Men must not be put below a certain line in society even if they are gay.

I have always wanted violence against gays to be taken as seriously as anyone else.  I'm glad this situation got dealt with appropriately and the suspect was caught and charged for attempted murder, which it was, and not brushed off as a lover's quarrel or something -- which at first it looked like they might be trying to do.  It's unfortunate to me that Mr. White, and the many people who supported him online and saw no issue with his position, have clearly never given a shit about violence against women and never will.  They see themselves as the only victims.

Syracuse University would like to have a word with Mr. Rusk if he ever touches back down on Earth 1:

"Workplace sexual misconduct perpetuates costly gender inequality at work and in society. Efforts to encourage reporting of gender-based discrimination (e.g., sexual misconduct) at work have increased; however, victims who report sexual misconduct in organizations often face significant sanctions for doing so.

Women who make sexual misconduct complaints often experience organizational and third-party retaliation for reporting misconduct (involuntary transfer, poor performance appraisals, job loss, ostracism), which can take a severe toll on their well-being. In contrast, men accused of engaging in sexual misconduct rarely experience transfers or terminations and are less likely to be terminated or resign than their victims.

Further, termination of those accused of sexual misconduct may not prevent perpetrators from gaining power in other organizations. Although there are recent high-profile cases in the media of men accused of sexual misconduct facing significant penalties, suggesting that organizational responses to sexual harassment allegations have changed following the #MeToo Movement, most of the accused escaped repercussions altogether or recovered from this career setback within a few short years."  [emphasis added]

Have you ever noticed that rape victims are much more likely to kill themselves after the fact than rapists?  Why do you think that is?

IF YOU ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THE SUFFERING ALL AROUND YOU, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM

In my experience, the whole "They didn't help me because I'm a man" narrative comes from people who never had any empathy for women, never cared what anyone did to us.  If they hadn't been part of the problem before the problem came to their own doorsteps, they'd know better.  They'd already know that when we come forward, we get attacked.  They're shocked to discover that saying, "I got raped" doesn't lead to the entire world racing forward to punish the bad man and sing you a lullabye. 

So I truly struggle with this.  Basically Mr. Rusk and his son want to go directly to the front of the line, ahead of all the women officers who have been raped by their commanding officers, sexually abused and exploited by their entire departments, all manner of bullshit, had their entire careers destroyed, not shot anybody, and got nothing for their trouble but threats and ostracism., the proverbial bad liver and broken heart.

Mr. Rusk seem to think this is the first day that a police officer did something uncool with his junk and then denied somebody's FOIA requests about it, bless his heart.   He should take Andrew Mitchell out for coffee, they give the same number of fucks what happens to women.

So I'm just going to have to let the cast-iron skillet of life do its thing on the Rusks and sit this one out.  I can't be both a supporter and a punching bag at the same time.

I had to stop watching the coverage of Andrew Mitchell's retrial when it became clear that he would be acquitted.

For those who may not be familiar, Andrew Mitchell is a former Columbus, Ohio vice officer who shot a sex worker to death in his car. 

This case sickens and infuriates me to the point where I believe I will eventually write a book about it.  My opinion stands firmly with The Columbus Free Press, that acquitting this officer was inexplicable -- other than rape culture always winning, like the house in Vegas:

"Former Columbus police officer Andrew Mitchell was inexplicably exonerated by a jury this week for the brutal murder of 23-year-old Donna Dalton Castleberry. What was not brought before the jury was the fact, as reported in local media, that Mitchell remains in custody and “faces nine federal charges after being accused of forcing women to perform sexual acts in exchange for their freedom and lying to federal investigators, among other accusations. Trial in that case is scheduled to begin in July 2023.” (Columbus Dispatch).

Mitchell was already under investigation

At the time of Donna’s murder, Mitchell was the subject of a CPD Internal Affairs investigation, according to the Appeal website, and there were “multiple previous complaints” about his behavior."

This whole trial sickened me and I couldn't watch.  I'm working on a book about my friend Wendy Huggy's murder right now.  Once I get that done and dusted I may start working on this.  I may wait until the July 2023 trial is over with.  Disgusting that he's being tried for the exact same thing Donna Dalton believed he was doing to her before he shot her dead, and that wasn't brought into evidence.

But everything about this outrages me to my core and makes me want to thoroughly investigate and write a book about it.  How many apartments did Mitchell own?  How many police calls were there of drug and prostitution activity in apartments owned by Mitchell?  Is it a coincidence that all of his former coworkers who testified had recently retired?

Shame on all of these people, JFC.

So Michael Irvin is in one of those situations, like with Daniel Holtzclaw, where his side of the story makes him sound guilty.  In this situation it's especially bizarre, since he's centering himself as a victim of persecution when nobody was accusing him of anything.

But before we get to that, what is DARVO, and why should you care?   Basically it's when abusers attack you for speaking up.   "You're ruining my life by complaining about my bullying."  Once you learn to identify it, you'll notice people doing it all the time.

If you haven't heard of DARVO before, it's a critical, need-to-know concept for every survivor to understand.  And if you've never seen it before, you'll never see anyone allegedly do it harder than Michael Irvin -- some sportsball man I  had never heard of before and hope to soon forget.

Wikipedia

"DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior.[1] Some researchers indicate that it is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers.[2][3][4]

As the acronym suggests, the common steps involved are 1) the abuser denies the abuse ever took place, 2) when confronted with evidence, the abuser then attacks the person that was abused (and/or the person's family and/or friends) for attempting to hold the abuser accountable for their actions, and finally 3) the abuser claims that they are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the positions of victim and offender.[2][4] It often involves not just "playing the victim" but also victim blaming.[3]

Origins
The acronym and the analysis it is based on are the work of the psychologist Jennifer Freyd.[2] The first stage of DARVO, denial, involves gaslighting.[3][4]

Freyd writes:

... I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. ... [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. ... The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.[5]"

Here we have an incident, caught on videotape, where an admittedly intoxicated sportsball man approaches a hotel employee.  He touches her arm twice.  She moves away from him and clasps her arms behind herself.  As a woman who has been in similar situations I recognize this as a way of preventing him from repeating that behavior; remove the temptation, the same way you keep a child from breaking something he has already reached for.

A male coworker approaches them and eventually escorts the woman away from the giant sportsball man, who is towering over the female hotel employee.  The intoxicated guest has extended his hand for a shake, which she does before parting ways.   He is then seen watching the woman walk away, before taking a selfie with another hotel employee.

This is apparently what can be seen in the video, the indisputable part.

Irvin allegedly slaps himself on the face and says, "Hold it together, MIke," as well as saying he would come back and look for the woman after she got off work, among other lewd comments that can't be heard on the tape and which he disputes.

There is no audio on the video -- which I haven't seen.  I've only read the breakdown of it here.

WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION?

Has this woman filed rape charges against Irvin for touching her arm?  Is that why he's in the news?  Is she calling for his head on a platter and demanding a multi-million dollar settlement?

NO, MICHAEL IRVIN IS SUING HER!

Seriously!  Famous sportsball man Michael Irvin, who couldn't leave that minimum-wage bartender the fuck alone at her job in Phoenix to the point where several of her coworkers had to escort her away because she was allegedly freaked out by his lewd conversation -- WHICH CAN BE SEEN IN THE VIDEO WHETHER MICHAEL IRVIN LIKES IT OR NOT -- is now suing her for reporting it as an on-the-job incident, as she was almost certainly required by Marriott to do.

HIS EMPLOYER REQUIRED THAT TO BE REPORTED

I'm pretty sure that Marriott, as a huge hotel chain, has reporting requirements for when employees get harassed by guests -- because it happens all the time. 

And as reported, multiple coworkers took note of the situation in real time and were concerned:.

"[Marriott's filing in response to Irvin's suit] alleges Irvin made the woman uncomfortable by touching her arm, and that the two other hotel employees noticed a “look of concern” on her face. Before the woman left, Irvin told her he’d come back and find her when she wasn’t working, according to the Marriott filing.

“She bad, She bad, I want to hit that,” Irvin said, slapping himself in the face and saying to himself, “Keep it together, Mike,” according to one of the woman’s colleagues cited in the filing.

"The woman reported the incident to hotel management the next day, and Marriott alerted the NFL, which had reportedly asked the company to flag any misbehavior by its staff."  [Emphasis mine]

Ask yourself, why would the NFL have standing orders with a major hotel chain, asking them to flag misbehavior by their personnel with hotel staff?  Because such a thing has never happened before?  That's why upper management has this phone tree established?  As far as I've ever been able to tell, professional sportsball is like the lounge where capitalism and rape culture meet up to drink beer. 

So if "boys will be boys" is getting in the way of their bottom line to this extent, that they're being this proactive with Marriott, it's been a problem in hotels.

According to one of the bartender's coworkers, Irvin said he was coming back to look for her when she got off work.  I would be terrified of this giant, drunken goof with his lack of boundaries -- even more so when I found out how his mind works while sober.  

Because this whole situation is off the deep end.  She absolutely needed to report that for her own safety. 

BOO HOO HOO, POOR MICHAEL IRVIN!

The Daily Beast

"Five days later, Irvin filed a $100 million lawsuit against Marriott and “Jane Doe,” alleging they sabotaged his career. ..."

Because that's totally a thing!  Sabotaging the careers of random sportsball men you've never heard of before, by luring them into saying weird, gross shit to you at your job is a big lucrative side gig that all the hot hotel bartenders are doing these days, because it benefits them ______________________???

Really though, could Michael Irvin get over himself?  Does he imagine he's the first or only celebrity that ever stayed at that place?  What makes him so special? 

And what's theoretically in it for her or Marriott -- neither of whom initiated any of this, remember?  This all started when she didn't want what was on offer.  Neither the hotel nor the employee had done anything but comply with the NFL's policy and moved Irvin to a different hotel.  And he got $100 million worth of diaper rash about it..

He apparently felt picked upon and demonized because she felt unsafe -- which she should have, IMO -- as if he was being called a kidnapper, so he had no choice but to sue her. 

Telling a woman half your age/size, who you don't know, that you're coming back for her when she gets off work might freak her out even if you are drunk, broseph.  Somebody needs to sit that guy down man-to-man.  He's too old for this shit. 

(I'm going to add emphasis to what Irvin's lawyer, Levi McCathern, said below.)

“Marriott’s recently created account goes against all the eyewitnesses and Michael’s own testimony as well as common sense,” he told the Morning News. We will release the video next week. There is no sexual assault. The fact Marriott is taking the position that it is is an insult to all of the true female victims out there.”

1.  No, from what I can tell we have another "Holtzclaw interrogation" situation, where his side of the story makes him seem guilty, and the video makes her seem perfectly credible.  In other words, from what I can tell from the reviewed reporting, the first sentence is pure lies and bluster, and he's just gaslighting the fuck out of the world.  I wonder what color the sky is on their planet, McCathern and Irvin.  As long as I never have to visit!

2.  There is no claim of sexual assault!  Liar.  She reported inappropriate comments from a guest that made her uncomfortable, as she was probably required by company policy to do. NOTHING MORE.  SHE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ASKED ANYONE FOR ANYTHING.   He's the one making the false sexual assault claim here.  It's a truly ugly straw man.

From the same Daily Beast article linked above:

"No criminal charges have been filed against Irvin."  .
                
3.  Please ask yourself who, at any time, for any reason, ever authorized Levi McCathern, Esq.,  to speak on behalf of "true female victims."  How is he representing both Michael Irvin and people like me, both at the same time?  How would that even work, gaslighting and suing us while fighting for us?  The balls on this guy..

Okay, so that's his lawyer's position.  What does Mike himself have to say?  Guessing by the fact that he's pressing a $100 million lawsuit against a minimum-wage employee who had no idea who he was, asked nobody for nothing, and had already let the matter drop, apparently he's not like, "Sorry for the misunderstanding, ma'am, guess I had one too many to drink."  She wasn't even asking for an apology.

THE 80S ARE OVER.  DON'T BE LIKE MIKE ANYMORE

Still from The Daily Beast:

"“It just blows my mind that in 2023 we’re still dragging and hanging brothers by a tree. It blows my mind that I have no opportunity to defend—I don’t even know what I’m defending,” Irvin, who admitted he had been drinking that evening, said at a press conference last week."

WAIT, HE GOT LYNCHED?  WTF?!?

They put hands on Michael Irvin?  Dragged him behind a truck and strung him up in a tree just for allegedly being rude while drunk?  Holy shit, what did I miss? 

"The woman complained to hotel management, and a Marriott operations director reached out to their point of contact at the NFL, as the league had directed the chain to do in instances of alleged misconduct. The NFL moved Irvin to a different hotel, and ultimately dropped him from the upcoming Super Bowl broadcast."

Oh, okay.  So not  LYNCHING lynching. The meaning has evolved. Now it means they put you in a different hotel and you can't be on the Super Bowl.  Not nearly as gruesome and horrifying as the other kind.

Nobody ever put hands on Michael Irvin about this.  Nobody even wanted to talk to him about it.  There's nothing in the report about him even being asked to apologize to the employee.  They literally just moved him to a different hotel, and his boss took away a privilege per their internal policies.  Ladies and gentlemen, DARVO.

Not only did nobody even think about putting hands on this piagnucolone, Michael Irvin put hands on that employee more than once, which is on that video, and she didn't like it.  He can redefine it as a "friendly conversation" all he wants.  But she wasn't enjoying him at all, and it was obvious to her coworkers in real time, so they got her out of there.  His ego apparently can't take it.   So he filed a lawsuit against her.

Michael Irvin sobbing at a press conference that he has no opportunity to defend himself?  He doesn't know against what?  WTF, he's the PLAINTIFF!!   He could have just shut the fuck up and gone away and nobody would ever have known any of this even happened.  She wasn't asking anyone for anything at all.  She simply reported an alleged workplace creeper, which I would also have done in the same reported circumstances -- according to statements made by her coworkers.

But really, fuck the Plaintiff for complaining that he can't defend himself.  What's the name of that bartender he grossed out, who works at the Marriott lounge in Phoenix?  You know, the one who can't call a press conference about this bullshit that Michael Irvin initiated while intoxicated, and now he's burning himself at the stake at the press conference he called after nobody even knew anything about it?  The minimum-wage employee he's suing for $100 million?  Her name?

Oh, Michael Irvin, what I love most about you -- aside from your irresistible sex appeal -- is your honesty, your integrity, and your courage.  It's the way you step up and take accountability when  you make a mistake, rather than being a fucking loser, scumbag punk and trying to crush the life of a minimum-wage employee who you  harassed while you were drunk like a fucking goon -- which of course you would never do, SUPERSTAR!!!  luv you Mike, mean it <3