01/16/2014 Jonathan Taylor

Female teacher guilty of serial statutory rape gets four months in jail, doesn’t register as sex offender, and is surprised she’s punished at all.

Sometimes it’s hard being a woman in a patriarchal society.

You have to go through life knowing that the world devalues your experiences and vulnerabilities while prioritizing men’s.

You have to put up with men being routinely excused for irresponsible or even criminal behavior while women are held to impossibly high standards. This is especially true in the workplace, and most especially when it comes to sexual behavior.

In essence, you have to go through life knowing that men have it much easier than you, that the world is built “just for them,” and that if any justice ever occurs in your favor it will be noteworthy not for how prevalent that justice is, but for the surprising fact that it happened at all.

And then, there’s statutory rape. Headlines from this article from ABC News in California:

Valley teacher surprised by jail time for sex with student

Surely, given that our patriarchal society privileges men over women (which we – grateful for our enlightened modern indoctrination education – accept unquestioningly), the teacher in question is not a woman.

But she is.

A tearful apology from a former teacher couldn’t convince a Fresno County judge to let her stay free after admitting to sex with a student.

Quick question: why did this teacher only give a tearful “apology” after she discovered she could not avoid jail? Sentencing hearings are usually separate from verdict hearings. Why did she not apologize, or at least become tearful, when she found out that what she was doing was wrong?
She does believe what she did was wrong…right? Or is this just another case of a woman turning on the waterworks and playing the poor, helpless damsel card to avoid being punished?

Megan Denman, 30, pleaded guilty to six felony charges just a few months after her arrest. But she wasn’t expecting to serve any jail time.

Only four months for six felony counts of rape. Not one. Not two. Six. What 30 year-old man would get only four months for that many counts of statutory rape and – like Megan Denman – not have to register as a sex offender?

And why was she surprised?

Denman came to court knowing other female teachers in her situation had avoided prison or even jail time.

That belief was based in part on the sentence given to former Washington Union teacher Nadia Diaz less than two months ago for her sexual relationship with a 15-year-old. Diaz got probation and no jail time.

I don’t think I need to ask anyone how a man would have been treated (except a Feminist, of course, who would just blame it all on men anyway).

She was emotional throughout the hearing, and the worst of it came when she found out she wouldn’t be as lucky as her peers.

Yes, the “worst of it” was that she was punished at all. Note her sense of entitlement. Is it open season on underage boys or something? Apparently Megan Denman thinks so. Aren’t we usually lectured by Feminists that it is men who feel not only entitled to sex, but also entitled to rape?

Megan Denman’s already wet eyes filled with tears as a deputy put her in handcuffs for a long trip to the Fresno County jail — a trip her attorney says came as a shock.

“Was Megan ready to go to jail today?” an Action News reporter asked her attorney, Roger Nuttall. “I don’t think so, mainly because I didn’t think she would go to jail today,” Nuttall replied.

The attorney himself – the man in the legal trenches day in and day out – didn’t think she would go to jail despite being convicted of a series of felony criminal behavior. And that, folks, should tell us a lot about which sex truly is the privileged class. Basically, when it comes to getting off easy in the justice system, you can’t get any better than being a white woman.

In [Megan] Denman’s case, she faced as long as 26 years in prison for a lengthy sexual relationship with a student.

Note: the maximum was 26 years, but she only got four months and didn’t have to register as a sex offender. It like she got the least possible sentence she could have been given.

The former social sciences teacher was 28 when it all started. The victim was 16.

By the way, the age of consent in California is 18.

Prosecutor Lara Clinton argued that a sentence of probation would prove a double standard for female teachers.

“I think if we were talking about a 28-year-old man having sex with a 16-year-old student who is a child, his student, that would be pretty repulsive,” she said.

Give the woman (Lara) credit where it is due.

But the victim didn’t want Denman prosecuted, psychiatrists said she’s extremely unlikely to repeat the crime, and she gave the judge an emotional apology.

Let me get this straight: she’s considered extremely unlikely to repeat the crime despite the fact that it occurred six times (that we know of) over a prolonged period of two years? I’d really like to know the names of these psychiatrists.

“I’m very sorry for ther disappointment I’ve cause co-workers, students, myself, my husband,” she [Megan Denman] said. “Every day I live with the guilt and hate that I have for what I’ve done.”

Is she sorry for the guilt that she feels, or the guilt that is thrown at her?

The judge’s final ruling means she’ll carry that guilt to jail.

“Carry that guilt to jail.” Gee, that sounds pretty heavy. Until, of course, we remember that she is going to jail for just four months. And she’ll probably get out earlier than that due to “good behavior.”

Denman is scheduled to get out of jail on April 30. She won’t be able to work as a teacher again, but the judge also ordered she won’t have to register as a sex offender.

So she won’t have to register as a sex offender (as any man would have) and consequently live under a bridge, notify everyone around her whenever she moves close to then, and cut off 75% of her employment prospects. Note: she can still get a job in education, just not as a teacher.

Yes, she’ll “carry that guilt to jail,” but unlike a man that’s where she’ll leave it.

What a joke, folks. A slap on the wrist for a serial rapist solely on the basis of her sex. Any man would have the book thrown at him, be locked away for half his life, and have whatever life he had left obliterated by being registered as a sex offender.

Men and boys are being hit from both sides. Not only do those who advocate traditional notions of gender excuse irresponsible and criminal female behavior, decades of Feminist propaganda have also primed much of the world to simply not give a damn about things like this through the repetition of the lie that men and boys “have it all.”

We’ve got a damn good reason to be angry, folks. Many reasons, in fact.

And this is one of them.

Jonathan Taylor
Follow me

Jonathan Taylor

Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.
Jonathan Taylor
Follow me
Share and rate this post:
 
Tagged: , ,

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.

Comments (18)

  1. I think you’re too kind on pointing out the double standard, a man in that situation would be a murder target based on the moral crusaders we got in the country. But a women, boy, ‘the kid sure was lucky.’ While I think this whole statutory rape thing is nonsense (given that teenagers aren’t mentally incapable), it’s absolutely ridiculous that this occurs and I’m sure there are already a site or page or something petitioning this women be set free, not on the grounds that crime can be viewed as a victim-less crime, but on discrimination. I noticed a thousand posters on sexual assault on campus and noticed the absence of any possible middle ground or gray area (though they are hardly the worst posters I’ve ever seen on a campus) and this just slashed my mood. Le sigh, time to break out the shochu.

     
    • Yes, he would stand a much higher chance of being killed. Especially since many dads are very protective of their daughters, sometimes to the point of violence.

      I do think teenagers, generally speaking, are smarter than adults tend to give them credit for. I also think teenagers aren’t especially suited for analyzing long-term effects, however. For that reason and others I think statutory rape laws are necessary, especially where adult teachers are concerned.

      Where the age line should be drawn is up in the air, and I don’t think it’s worth a lot of time debating where that line is. But in terms of whether statutory rape is a valid concept, yes, I think it is.

       
      • Part of the problem as I see it is our education system has fallen so much that the idea of long term goals has been lost. Our society has morphed into one where immediate gratifications are viewed as important. That’s not always a bad thing, but the problem is its become the norm, and one thing that doesn’t have immediate benefits is education, so any attempt to teach about anything is lost a lot of the time, especially when what is being taught is about long term consequences. Ideally, these statutory rape laws are rather idiotic, but as we are today (At least in North America) they are needed for certain cases and the real problem is we need a better definition for it.

         
  2. Brian

    Thank you for reporting this Jonathan. Outrage is indeed the proper response, and if it were a male Social Studies teacher who raped a 15 year old student 6 times starting at age 15, the public outrage would be palpable and the man would be thrown in jail after having the book thrown at him along with multiple jokes about not dropping the soap in the shower. And so goes the villification of men vs. the glorification of women.

    I wonder what the students in the HS where she worked are thinking… I wonder what the message to the girls is (you are not responsible for your actions so have at it)… to the boys (you are not worth protection under the law… or much else for that matter). I wonder if anyone understands the damage this asymmetric sentencing by gender (and we can go further into RACE should we decide to as well) is causing. And people wonder why boys and men are checking out… going their own way… staying off the grid entirely?

    Interestingly, due to the number of times I have read similar articles, I am only nodding as if to say “Yep… there goes another. Nothing new here. Been the same for 100s of years.” Oddly… confirmation and acceptance have begun to replace the feeling of outrage… is that a good thing?

    I think I need another red pill.

     
  3. Darren White

    OMG this is really cruelty against men and boys, those innocent boys from whom this witch has snatched their innocence…

     
  4. Untame Able

    They want equal pay for the same job – thats fair. But they neglected equal punishment for the same crime….yeah, women indeed have a long way to go.

     
  5. Mick

    MEGAN DENMAN is a serial Rapist!
    MEGAN DENMAN is a serial Rapist!
    MEGAN DENMAN is a serial Rapist!
    MEGAN DENMAN is a serial Rapist!

    Name and shame this serial Rapist!

    Make this go viral on the Net!

     
  6. “Where the age line should be drawn is up in the air, and I don’t think it’s worth a lot of time debating where that line is”

    That’s an utterly bizarre statement. It’s like saying – ‘how you define rape is up in the air, and I don’t think it’s worth a lot of time debating the definition’.

    You admit that men who break statutory rape laws risk being killed (and as we know, raped multiple times in prison), yet you do not think it matters if they are actually committing a genuine crime or not? You’re a men’s human rights activist and you don’t think it’s wrong to lock up men to be raped for performing an action that might not even be immoral (and how do we know if dont’t even bother discussing it)?

    Furthermore, and given that you clearly don’t care about men but at least pretend to have concern for boys – applying the label of victim to a teenage boy IS undeniably harmful. It might be justified for the greater good, but it is, in itself, damaging to the boy. Therefore, for the sake of the boy alone, we ought consider carefully whether he has really been abused, and whether we need to label him a child abuse victim for the greater good. Otherwise, we are child abusers ourselves inflicting unnecessary harm upon him and other children. And the only evidence that older partners having sex with teenagers (boys or girls) comes from feminist junk science.

    Lastly, statutory rape laws were created by puritanical feminismsts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The same feminists who were handing out white feathers to boy solidiers returning from the trenches of the first world war. This was in an age before contraception, abortion on demand, a welfare state, the acceptance of pre-marital sex etc. There is no rational reason why feminist statutory rape laws should continue to exist, and for ‘mras’ to support them is like black civil rights leaders supporting white men’s laws against interracial sex.

     
    • Calm down. To clarify:

      Relative to the difference between 16 or 17 (a one year difference) being the age of consent, and the difference between men being given 30 years and being women given four months (a thirty year difference), I think it seems more reasonable to focus on the thirty year difference. Focusing on the greater disparity in injustice in one area isn’t the same as giving tacit acceptance to the other (false dichotomy).

      From falsely assuming this, you appear to have launched into internet bloodrage mode and made a bunch of asshattedly false assertions. Examples:

      “yet you do not think it matters if they are actually committing a genuine crime or not?”

      Never said it didn’t matter.

      “You don’t think it’s wrong to lock up men to be raped for performing an action that might not even be immoral”

      Never said that.

      “Lastly, statutory rape laws were created by puritanical feminismsts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”

      Go to a church in the deep south and say that. Regardless as to whether puritanical Feminists conceived of them, many chivalrous men greatly support them.

      “There is no rational reason why feminist statutory rape laws should continue to exist”

      I disagree (and I also disagree that they are “feminist”), for various reasons. But if you’re just going to rage and make personal attacks I don’t see the need to explain why.

       
      • Ian B

        The history of the introduction of the package of sex laws (age of consent, censorship of obscenity, imaginary “white slavery”, gay persecution, etc) by Feminists of the first wave is thoroughly documented historically. The Social Purity movement consisted of First Wave Feminists and their male enablers.

         
  7. As I quoted you in my reply, you said – ‘“Where the age line should be drawn is up in the air, and I don’t think it’s worth a lot of time debating where that line is”.

    So you ARE saying, as a men’s rights activist, that it’s o.k for feminists to imprison men for performing ‘crimes’ that are not immoral? Why else would it not be ‘worth time debating’?

    “Regardless as to whether puritanical Feminists conceived of them, many chivalrous men greatly support them.”

    So if we adopt that criteria, what’s left exactly for men’s rights supporters to campaign against exactly? Can you name me one feminist law that many chivalrous men do not greatly support?

    Chivalrous men support ill defined feminist date rape laws, or laws on domestic violence, for example, yet AVfM regularly questions these laws, quite rightly, on the basis that they are feminist laws that do and will send many more men to prison than women.

    And in many cases of men expressing their support for the age of consent or rage at male ‘predators’ it’s simply on account of the hysteria involved and a wish not to have the accusing finger pointed at themselves.

    If that’s your motivation, it would be better to just stay silent on what you think the age of consent should be, rather than expressing your support, and just focus on demanding that women be punished as severely as men (although that shouldn’t be the end goal, as equality of feminist injustice is no justice for men or boys).

     
    • To clarify: it’s not worth the time debating what the age of consent should be in this article. Not *in general.* This article is about the disparities in sentencing. I’m not saying that’s not an important concern. Perhaps I should have clarified that better.

      I’m also not convinced that Feminists created statutory rape laws. I’ll need a source for this.

      Some modern domestic violence laws may be Feminist laws, but they are chivalrous in nature and origin. AVfM also questions the chivalrous origin of these laws. They do not mindlessly attribute all the problems in the world to Feminism, as though it somehow arose in a vacuum absent millennia of chivalry.

      Also, we have had DV laws long before Feminism, and many of them were quite draconian and anti-male. Check out The Unknown History of Misandry here:
      http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2013/03/treatment-of-domestic-violence-against.html

      Lastly, if you want to run around saying 40 year-old men should be legally allowed to have sex with 13 year-olds (which is fucked up in case you didn’t notice), do that on your own blog and take the heat for it yourself. It will not be done here. And if you cannot do that, perhaps it is you who should stay silent on the matter.

       
  8. You’re supposed to be a student and a men’s rights supporter, you can research the origins of the age of consent laws yourself.

    You seem to be unable even to engage in basic reasoning. If domestic laws are the result of chivalry and not feminism, and if the age of consent is the result of chivalry and not feminism, then why can one be a men’s rights issue because of this but not the other.

    “Lastly, if you want to run around saying 40 year-old men should be legally allowed to have sex with 13 year-olds (which is fucked up in case you didn’t notice), do that on your own blog and take the heat for it yourself. It will not be done here. ”

    Yes I do think the age of consent should be 13, just as the early men’s rights supporters fought against the feminist raising of the age of consent, but that’s not the real point – the point is the utterly barbaric and excessive punishments being meted out even for those who have willing sex with teenagers as old as 17, or even looking at pictures of 17 year olds. And to highlight the barbarity of these punishments it is necessary to critique the absurd feminist logic behind these laws themselves.

    Regarding wishing to avoid scrutiny, you may want to reflect that it might look more suspicious for a ‘men’s rights supporter’ to support these feminist laws and arguments than it does to speak out against them. For example, claiming that 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused means that you believe that at least 1 in 4 men are paedophiles. That means that you want 25% of the male population put in prison under feminist laws. Any idiot can see that this is inconsistant with men’s rights, and for a men’s rights supporter to claim it, well you must really want to avoid the heat.

     
    • “You’re supposed to be a student and a men’s rights supporter, you can research the origins of the age of consent laws yourself.”

      No, dipshit. That’s not how argumentation works. You made the claim. That means the burden of proof rests on you. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, prove it. If you can’t prove it, then what is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. When you make a claim and I ask you for evidence, you either provide it or you get nothing.

      I know this may be hard for you to understand, but there is more to misandry than Feminism. Looking at your website, I’m not sure if you ever will.

      Also, I never even discussed the “1 in 6” statistic on this website, nor in this article, so falsely accusing me of taking some kind of position about it is absurd. I suppose if you can’t actually back up your claims with any kind of evidence, the recourse is to just start falsely accusing people, right?

      I’m not wasting any more time with you. You think you’re entitled to walk around making evidence-free claims and it’s everyone else’s job to prove you wrong, rather than you citing evidence to support your case? And when you don’t provide that evidence you just make personal attacks as some kind of valid substitute?

      Get lost.

       
  9. K

    I agree with you on the absolute horrific-ness of this double standard. As for blaming it on “feminists”, you lose me. It seems beside the point. The true meaning of feminism is to obtain social/legal gender neutralism and to gain equality for all people. Feminism is not about hating men, and if someone who calls themselves a feminist shows this type of gross double-standard, they’re no “feminist” at all. They’re just an asshole.

    ((–I for one believe the word “feminism” in its true sense should be replaced by “humanism”- that, after all, is the true point of the idea, and it helps clear up the common misuse on both sides.))

    In any case, there should be legal justice and protection for ALL victims of rape and abuse. The law is meant to be objective and should be upheld as such. To do anything else, to allow rapists and child-molesters to walk free on the basis of subjective opinion would be a gross abuse of the law. Judges who subscribe to this (illegal) double-standard and fail to protect victims are unprofessional and should be stripped of their positions.

    “In this instance, the bias against male victims stems from traditional sex stereotypes, not feminist ones. Indeed, before the feminist push for gender-neutral laws in the 1970s, sexual contact between a woman and an underage male did not legally qualify as statutory rape in most states.” – http://reason.com/archives/2002/06/04/double-standard

     
    • Miriam Webster Dictionary on Feminism: “organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests.”

      Not one word on equality. Doing it in an equal way would be consistent with this definition, but it is by no means entailed by it. Just rights, related to their interests. The vast majority of femninsts who claim to be feminist are the double standard baring types you claim are not feminists. Is Christina Hoff Sommers a feminist? Is Andrea Dworkin a feminist? By what standard do you determine what the label is. Dworkin is a misandrist through and through, yet she is taught as a shining example of feminism. Please tell me who isn’t a true Scotsman.

      Ideologies and movements are defined by their collective baring tiny outliers, and the feminists people hate are the vast majority, which is why feminism is hated and why alot of women increasingly reject it. Equality in feminism is in word of mouth only, and that’s rarely, action is almost always to the detriment of most men, and even still alot of women. It’s Orwellian.

      As for humanism, if you want to use that term, go ahead. I don’t for definition reasons. Doesn’t change what feminist is or isn;t.

       
  10. cross

    well the double standard exists, in this situation we see that the male student is a “willing participant” however this same standard is not applied when male teachers have sex with female students! when speaking about the 14th amendment something is very wrong here! why is this not national news!

     

Comments are closed.