You were presented with a golden opportunity to show the world that your movement had matured beyond its man-hating "all men are rapists" and "men who are falsely accused can learn from the experience" period by embracing this announcement as a positive step for the falsely accused. Exactly how did you respond?
Dear feminists:
Please excuse me as I dispense with the pleasantries and polite introductions. Some of you, no doubt, will be finding this site for the first time. You will discover that it is among the few sites in the world devoted to advocating for persons who've been falsely accused of rape. The forgotten. The flotsam. The collateral damage in the war on rape. Many of you will think you know all about this site just from reading about our mission. You will assume we are angry, middle-aged men who are most likely divorced from women we've physically abused, and that we started this site to cling to our undeserved white male privilege. You will assume we think women should be barefoot, pregnant, and that men should be free to rape them with impunity.
We will not bother to dignify your hate, your foul prejudices, your childish metanarratives, with the truth.
We are frequently told by persons sympathetic to your mission that we are rash to judge feminism based on the hate screeds of their supposedly more radical sisters, "All men are rapists" and the like. We are told by some young women that feminism helps men, too. And some even insist that feminists don't approve of false rape accusations.
But here, in 2010, my dear sisters, we have seen the true face of feminism, and, when it comes to rape, it is downright evil. That is a fact, irrefutable and certain. And please excuse my bluntness.
How do I know this for certain? Late last week, the UK announced it would grant anonymity for men accused of rape. This will go a long way toward protecting men falsely accused of that awful crime, because false rape accusations destroy men as no other crime is capable of doing. This site chronicles the horror stories of men falsely accused, and our feminist sisters would do well to spend several weeks reading through this site to see how our present system destroys innocent men and boys. Anonymity will help alleviate much of their pain.
You were thus presented with a golden opportunity to show the world that your movement had matured beyond its man-hating "all men are rapists" and "men who are falsely accused can learn from the experience" period by embracing this announcement as a positive step for the falsely accused.
I have not seen a single feminist speak out in favor of this announcement. Not one.
I have seen innumerable feminists speak out with misplaced rage about it. Much like the rage they expressed when it was announced that the three Duke lacrosse players were innocent of the crime of rape.
You can try to rationalize your anger all you want with self-righteous prevarications with statistics. Spare me. I know the stats a lot better than you do, and I don't lie about them. The fact is, you are angry that any help is being given to the falsely accused because the falsely accused are almost entirely male, and your goal -- let us be completely up front -- is to shame and punish an entire gender, even the innocent men and boys falsely accused of rape, because of what a tiny percentage of evil males do. Many of you would have preferred to see Crystal Gail Mangum brutally raped than to see three "privileged" white boys declared innocent. And please don't deny it.
You are practicing a cult of man-hating and have declared yourselves our enemies. You can help prove me wrong by embracing anonymity for the presumptively innocent accused of rape. I am sure you won't. Hatred this strong isn't so quickly remedied.
But men and the women who care about them must declare war on this cult of hatred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
96 comments:
What a wonderful thing it would have been for MRAs and feminists to come together on this one issue. But it could never happen because feminism is man hatred, the envy of males.
Also the media seemed to be upset at this.
They showed their true colors as well.
The media is now dominated by the Gender/Raunch community; for American news media organisations are a mixture of " News Entertainment", and Gender/Raunch constructionist "framework".
This would seem silly if it were not the truth!!
Society is now concerned about American kids being some of the fattest on earth, and the blooming Diabetes of these overweight children, But does not want to admit that these children are the result of the Gender/Raunch "constructionists" in our schools telling them that sports, and running are so "Patriarchal".
An excellent letter. For feminists to oppose anonymity for men accused of rape is outrageous as is the fact it's taken this long for this issue to start being covered in the MSM. False accusations have been pushed under the rug for too long. If feminists gave even the slightest care about justice, they'd have no problem with this measure.
Does anyone know of any state-side newspapers or news channels that have commented on this development? One would think that this would make at least the back pages, if not the front pages, of newspapers or merit at least a comment from some talking head on the news, but I can't seem to find any.
wow, it never fails to amaze me how well you write, Archivist. You put accross your argument very well, sir.
To move off topic a moment, I thought you guys might want to hear about the case in Britain at the moment, concerning the 'alledged' rape of an 8 year old girl by 2 ten year old boys.
Its a sad day for British justice:
From the BBC online news (May 24th):
[i]Two boys aged 10 and 11 have been found guilty of attempted rape of an eight-year-old girl in London.
The boys will not be sentenced for at least another eight weeks to allow reports to be prepared. They were bailed until then.
The boys were found guilty of attempted rape by majorities of 10 to two.
Both boys were ordered to register as sex offenders.
But barristers for the boys, among the youngest to be prosecuted for rape, said they had only been playing a game like doctors and nurses.
Previously in cross-examination, the eight-year-old told the court she had lied to her mother about what had happened because she had been "naughty" and was worried she would not get any sweets. [/i]
In pervious evidence given to the court, it was found that the girl had asked to on two occassions to see both boys penis's.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8692223.stm
"The boys were found guilty of attempted rape by majorities of 10 to two."
It sounds like ten people should be taken out and shot.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/05/uk-plays-russian-roulette-with-two-boys.html
I am a rape advocate, a therapist for children and adults who have been sexually abused and raped, and I absolutely stand with you on this issue.
Some feminist sites have actually advocated for anonymity for neither party in reaction to this. The idea being to remove the shame of rape by not hiding those who were.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about it as it removes the personal choice. This way everyone is protected through the court process.
A great letter. Having anonymity for accusers but not for the accused is tantamount to legal terrorism.
Come to think of it, that appears to be the fembot's goal with rape accusations anyway. To terrorize beta and lower men so much that they wouldn't dare to initiate or have sex with women.
Leaving more women for the fembots to have their sexual picking of, no doubt.
I’m sure you will endear feminists everywhere to join your cause. First-time viewers will be flattered by the many positive statements you’ve made about your ‘dear little sisters’, and trust me, they will be grateful to you for telling them how they think and feel. Another brilliant letter by one of the most skillful negotiators on the internet. Please don’t take this sarcasm personally – I’m sure you’re a wonderful father and husband in the real world.
"I’m sure you will endear feminists everywhere to join your cause. First-time viewers will be flattered by the many positive statements you’ve made about your ‘dear little sisters’, and trust me, they will be grateful to you for telling them how they think and feel."
We're not required to praise feminists any more than blacks should praise whites for the Jim Crow laws,which is effectively what is happening to us as males, thanks mostly to you.
We don't care if feminists join our cause. This letter was written for the same reason that this sentence was written:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We are declaring war on you, and we want people to know why.
The feminists who declared "this is an insult!" are lying whores who want to rape innocent men. There, is that phrased delicately enough for you, anon 1:20?
J. Bowen said...
Does anyone know of any state-side newspapers or news channels that have commented on this development?
None here in Nashville,TN. For every news report where a man is the victim of any crime, the media here does at least two reports/updates/rehashes of news reports where a female is the victim or, allegedly the victim, of a violent crime.
The woman who falsely accsed me of waving a gun at her( Sandi Delk), victimized a former female co-worker of mine. She stole money that was given to this female as relief for being a victim of the flood that happened almost a month ago. The police were contacted. Now my former coworker, and her former employers (people who have known me for over twenty years) see what she is about. This liar was supposed to be my ex co-worker's best friend.
You really should do something about that stutter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280926/Student-cleared-rape-emerges-second-man-committed-suicide-falsely-accused-woman.html
I am a mom of two boys (12 and 15), a wife to a loving most caring man I have ever known. All these males in my life were [falsely] accused by my stepdaughter of sexual abuse since two years ago. I am a medical professional, and I know the symptoms. What I see now after the accusations is that my stepdaughter (13) is afflicted with histrionic personality disorder -- which would explain why she had always wanted to be the center of attention, sexually promiscuous, etc. We still care for her, and although the case did not go to trial (only protection order for 2 years from my husband, and the boys' case was dismissed), we would like her to receive counseling/psychotherapy, not for sexual abuse, but for HPD. We still hope she will make something of herself someday. What we were seeing even before the accusations was the making of a drug-addict, school-drop-out, knocked up teenager. May God save her soul.
And I am now relieved that my boys' future will not be jeopardized by this, but we warned them never to put themselves in a position where a girl can point to them again and accuse them of the same thing. (My boys are both very strikingly handsome tan-skinned males who we have raised to be very responsible and polite that their teachers say such students give teachers a reason to want to come to school). My heart would break if these wonderful males in my life would be humiliated by having their names exposed had this case gone to trial. Such a thought made me realize what HATE truly meant...
Here is how this works: the feminists are North Korea. They have torpedoed our ships.
Now they are whining because we are taking precautions that will make it harder for them to torpedo our ships, and because we are refusing to roll over for their propaganda. You can say "You're declaring war on all women!" until you turn as blue as a Smurf and pass out, but that won't make it any more true. The problems is this cult of lying totalitarians, and their ideology of victimhood and unfreedom.
For men everywhere: let freedom ring!
Manang: you need to harden your attitude. Those boys never put themselves at risk, and they don't need to take future precautions. They (and you) need to do one thing, and one thing only: never, ever have any contact with that monster again.
I'll repeat that, since your attitude seems soft: that monster is a menace to your boys, to you, to anybody who can possibly be falsely accused of something. You must work to discredit her and to see her punished; never feel sorry for her or wish her well.
She's Dracula. That should be your attitude.
Elusive Wapiti said...
A great letter. Having anonymity for accusers but not for the accused is tantamount to legal terrorism.
Come to think of it, that appears to be the fembot's goal with rape accusations anyway. To terrorize beta and lower men so much that they wouldn't dare to initiate or have sex with women.
Leaving more women for the fembots to have their sexual picking of, no doubt.
May 24, 2010 1:08:00 PM
You have achived true enlightenment. Way to go EW!
You, of course remembers these feminist quotes;
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Men are rapists, batterers (assaulters)*, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women
http://masculinisme.blog-city.com/radical_feminist_quotes_1.htm
*Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no assault / battery distinction under Tennessee criminal law. Basically, what other jurisdictions call a battery is also called an assault in Tennessee
http://www.tennesseecriminallawyerblog.com/2007/08/tennessee_law_assault_and_aggr.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1280752/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Instead-giving-anonymity-men-charged-rape-accusers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280795/Lawyer-suing-firm-3-5m-sex-discrimination-claims-natural-men-rape-beat-women.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280783/Lessons-rape-porn-pupils-aged-11.html
the feminazi tide is turning
Social Worker - "Some feminist sites have actually advocated for anonymity for neither party in reaction to this. The idea being to remove the shame of rape by not hiding those who were."
While some feminists sites may well prefer a policy of naming everyone involved with an alleged rape, the fact is, it is far, far more damaging for a man accused of rape to be named than it is to a woman claiming to be raped.
While many women would feel terribly humiliated if they were named as the victim of rape, it is interesting to note that a number of women who fabricate rape claims do so specifically for the attention they believe they will receive. Of course, these women are seeking attention for those who’s job it is to care for women who’ve been raped; or from friends and family members (or, in some cases, like one recent example, an ex) who will be likely to give her “positive” attention.
Yet, even outside the realm of those who would normally provide such positive care and attention, society as a whole also tends to give sympathy and support to women who they believe have been raped. Women are unlikely to ever lose jobs based on it being learned that they’ve been raped (or, at least claim to have been). In fact, it’s likely they will be given greater deference by both their employer and their coworkers. Contrast that with the scorn for accused men from coworkers if they are lucky enough to be allowed to keep their jobs.
I’ve never heard of on single rape victim whose been harassed by neighbors nor had the words “rape victim” paints on their doors or scratched into their vehicles. I’ve also yet to hear of one single rape victim being attacked and beaten (even killed) the way some falsely accused men have been.
Now, I’m not meaning to attack you, as I get the impression that you are against “naming” from your remark that: ”This way everyone is protected through the court process.” (presuming you to be speaking of the non-naming policy). Instead, my concern is with the notion that the accused should continue to be named, even at the expense of the alleged victims being named as well.
My sense of the true intent of those who do advocate for naming is that they believe that little additional harm will come to victims, and would prefer to have the accused named and shamed. Now, some may see this as a way to get-back at perps, but I fear others are simply concerned with maintaining the power that the mere threat of and FRA has over men.
And that's what it's all about. Feminist pigs want to keep false rape accusations in the toolbox -- the reasoning is that women everywhere benefit from having that nuclear weapon as leverage.
North Korea developed the bomb for the same reason: even if it's never used, it's a bargaining chip. They want men to be vulnerable to false accusations.
Anonymous - ”I’m sure you will endear feminists everywhere to join your cause. First-time viewers will be flattered by the many positive statements you’ve made about your ‘dear little sisters’, and trust me, they will be grateful to you for telling them how they think and feel.”
New to reading? English not your primary language?
Did you miss the title?
Here it is again:
An open letter to feminists opposing anonymity for men accused of rape
Since you seem to have some difficulties with comprehension, let me point out the important part: to feminists opposing anonymity for men
What this means is that the remarks were being direct to those who have stated their opposition to men being granted anonymity on par with their accusers.
It’s unfortunate that such a simple and obvious fact so easily escaped you; causing you to embarrass yourself as you did. My condolences.
I continue to be astonished by the number of people who never learned how to read.
Get hook on phonics, anti-male dude!
I am referring, of course, to the quoted misandrist.
I am a rape advocate, a therapist for children and adults who have been sexually abused and raped, and I absolutely stand with you on this issue.
Some feminist sites have actually advocated for anonymity for neither party in reaction to this. The idea being to remove the shame of rape by not hiding those who were.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about it as it removes the personal choice. This way everyone is protected through the court process.
****
You are to be congratulated for taking this position.
www.femicratic.com:
'all men are potential rapists'
There are two popular misconceptions about rape, which MRAs should struggle to overcome.
The first is that old feminist classic: "All men are potential rapists!"
The other is that all or most rapists are serial rapists -- a special category of criminal.
Both are equally false. Rapists are almost always common criminals who are involved in a wide range of illegal activity -- men who obey the law (the vast majority) are not at risk of committing a sex crime. However, it also makes little sense to target convicted rapists with extremely harsh sentences for a first offense, since recidivism rates for rape are extremely low -- in fact, they are only 3%! (In contrast, convicted rapists are 46% likely to be convicted of a crime other than rape following release.)
The implications are obvious: everybody should be very, very skeptical when rape accusations are made against a man with no criminal history, and sentences for first-time offenders should be considerably lower than for repeat offenders. And at any rate, punishing the rapists themselves has little impact on the rape rate -- to reduce rape you have to deal with crime in general.
And obviously, those classified as having no criminal history and as being first-time offenders are those who are most likely to be innocent! It makes no sense to apply any standard lower than "innocent until proven guilty."
" Rapists are almost always common criminals who are involved in a wide range of illegal activity -- men who obey the law (the vast majority) are not at risk of committing a sex crime"
What an absurdity. It's so obvious that you never attended college or lived on campus. There are plenty of Phillip Markoffs around. Unfortunately, most will never be caught, much less convicted.
" Rapists are almost always common criminals who are involved in a wide range of illegal activity -- men who obey the law (the vast majority) are not at risk of committing a sex crime"
What an absurdity. It's so obvious that you never attended college or lived on campus. There are plenty of Phillip Markoffs around. Unfortunately, most will never be caught, much less convicted.
It's an absurdity -- except to those who are functionally literate, and able to comprehend basic statistics. Even important victim's groups acknowledge that as a fact, but feminist morons on the internet often do not.
There are not plenty of serial rapists haunting college campuses. Sorry, but the paranoia is unjustified.
"Most will never be caught" is another feminist lie. As usual, they return again and again to the myth of a vast pool of unreported rapes, which is based on these bogus crime victim surveyes that always yield grossly inflated stats. (For example, one such survey "proved" that 30% of women in the US army are raped!)
Similarly, if you call people up at random, roughly one third will claim to have seen a ghost or UFO.
Oh -- and good luck with that stutter. You're like that character in "Goodfellas" who says everything twice.
I'm pretty sure that you're the nerd who claimed on the other thread that "If rape is 60% lower, then the new penalties for rape must be working!"
That doesn't exactly jive with your claim that rapists are almost never caught, does it? And if rapists really are almost never caught, there's no point to railroading innocent defendents, since you won't make a dent in the number of rapes no matter what you do.
On the other hand, extremely harsh penalties against false rape accusers make perfect sense -- they are a very targetable class of criminal, since they need the cooperation of authorities to carry out their crimes. Like a virus taking over human cells, they can't commit their frauds just on their own.
Rapists can only be successfully targeted by dealing with crime in a very broad way, but false rape accusers really are serial offenders and a special class of criminal that needs to be dealt with.
" Rapists are almost always common criminals who are involved in a wide range of illegal activity -- men who obey the law (the vast majority) are not at risk of committing a sex crime"
What an absurdity. It's so obvious that you never attended college or lived on campus. There are plenty of Phillip Markoffs around. Unfortunately, most will never be caught, much less convicted.
***
Uhhh-- you did know that Phillip Markoff has been charged with many crimes, including armed robbery and murder? His example in no way supports your childish ravings.
Stupid person is just stupid.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100523new_trial_date_to_be_set_in_craigslist_killing/srvc=home&position=recent
"But men and the women who care about them must declare war on this cult of hatred."
Damn straight.
This is FUCKING WAR.
And they do not get to weasal their way out of it by SHAPESHIFTING into something less responsible for the destruction they have wrought.
May 24, 2010 3:10:00 PM
Enough already.
On the subject of 3:10,
"There are two popular misconceptions about rape, which MRAs should struggle to overcome.
The first is that old feminist classic: "All men are potential rapists!""
This is ... rather odd.
I don't think MRAs will need to struggle to overcome this particular canard ...
"My sense of the true intent of those who do advocate for naming is that they believe that little additional harm will come to victims, and would prefer to have the accused named and shamed. Now, some may see this as a way to get-back at perps, but I fear others are simply concerned with maintaining the power that the mere threat of and FRA has over men."
While that could be true, the simplest argument for naming both is that it would be the same for both. And you are right that less harm would come to the alleged victim, but naming her as well wouldn't be as ridiculously one-sided as only naming the accused.
Regardless, I don't think either law, either forcing the press to name both or prohibiting the press from naming the accused, is possible in the U.S.
I also wonder what will happen in England the next time a celebrity is accused of rape.
Why, thank you,slwerner and Anon @ 2:41pm.
Providing protection to both until things are sorted out doesn't seem an odd or far stretch to me and I am confused as to why the "sisters" I share this field with are so against it.
And, slwerner, I do not feel at all attacked. I was reflecting the idea from feminist sites, not my own.
Sadly, the reverse of being attacked, I have to say I've been treated far better here in many ways than on some OTHER sites I frequent, for sharing my views. Not that I want to be more attacked here. Well, you know what I'm saying...
Social worker: we appreciate that! Even when things get heated over here, it's good to remember that *those other* blogs are usually far nastier and less tolerant of opposing views.
The first is that old feminist classic: "All men are potential rapists!""
This is ... rather odd.
I don't think MRAs will need to struggle to overcome this particular canard ...
***
You sure would think so, wouldn't it? But you know, it's amazing what people will believe.
The other night I was reading the comments section underneath an article about one of those crime victims surveys, that claimed to *prove* that 30% of women in the US military had been raped while serving.
That's right: 30%.
There were a couple of MRA types disputing these figures, but the vast majority of commenters either had no problem believing those numbers, or rationalized them away by saying dumb things like, "So what if it isn't really 30%? Even if it's only 15% that means that tons of women are being raped. If it's even one then it's too many!"
The attitude is that only women feel pain, so it's okay to defame men as a class if the result is paying more attention to women's cries of rape -- whether they're true or not.
Get this straight: if I endear myself to the kind of feminists who don't care about the falsely accused, I am not doing my job. I am all for advocating for rape victims, but that doesn't mean tossing the falsely accused onto a scrapheap of indifference. All of us should try to help all victims, and stop the inane gender wars.
Executive Producer Sean Penn proudly presents "Witch Hunt," a gripping indictment of the United States justice system told through the lens of one small town. It's John Stoll's story, but it's also the story of dozens of other men and women who found themselves ensnared in a spiral of fear, ignorance and hysteria. These people are Americans, working class moms and dads, who were rounded up with little or no evidence, charged and convicted of almost unimaginable crimes. All sexual. All crimes against children. Years, sometimes decades later, they would find freedom again, but their lives and the lives of their children would be changed forever. This film shows viewers what the real crime in this case is, not molestation, but the crime of coercion. Viewers hear from the child witnesses who were forced to lie on the witness stand as they describe scary sessions with sheriff's deputies in which they were told -- not asked -- about sexual experiences that happened to them. Their coerced testimony led to dozens of convictions. Many times their own parents were the ones they put behind bars.
Soon after the trials, the children started to crack. They told adults of the lies they'd been forced to tell on the stand and hoped it would make a difference. It didn't and the convicted continued to sit in prison. As the allegations grew more outlandish, California's Attorney General wrote a scathing report on the court misconduct, but instead of being buried by criticism, Kern County District Attorney Ed Jagels thrived, doing what he did best-- putting people away. He boasted one of the highest conviction rates in the country. This strategy served him well. Jagels is still in office today. Through new interviews, archival footage, and unflinching narration by Mr. Penn, the filmmakers construct an intimate film that illustrates a universal point; when power is allowed to exist without oversight from the press, the community or law enforcement, the rights of everyday citizens can be lost for decades. National film critic Marshall Fine says, "This is a chilling story about American law-enforcement run amok and untethered. It's particularly timely in the wake of revelations about the way the Bush administration has trampled American civil rights. A movie that can't help but move you - to tears and to action
Sounds great! I can't wait to see that one. I hope that prick is kicked out of office because of this film.
Kicked out of office?
He should be in prison for life without parole.
Yes, he should be.
Arod wrote-Jagels is still in office today
Why hasn't this maggot been liquidated? Forget trying to prosecute them. Just kill them all.
This is one of the reasons that I have no respect for working class men. They simply don't have the mental toughness or know how to deal directly with some moron who was oppressing them.
SteveUK: I mentioned this before but when I was a boy you couldn't even charge a boy under 14 in England with rape.
A 10 year old boy hasn't even reached the age of puberty yet and it's unlikely that he would even be capable of raping anyone.
Why hasn't this maggot been liquidated? Forget trying to prosecute them. Just kill them all.
***
Because we are civilized, even if they are not. Calling for violence is foolish and irresponsible.
OT- Has anybody seen this? This is a wonderful article, smacking down a whining feminist lunatic who compares media coverage of Miss America to "gender terrorism." Apparently Amanda and the other girlfrendz are up in arms over it.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/05/19/the-feminist-version-of-gender-terrorism/
Also -- I find this absolutely amazing, but there is even a groundswell of support for this at FEMINISTINGFUCKINGDOTCOM! No shit.
The article itself is completely misandrist and biased, but read the comments -- wow, nearly half of them actually favor this! (Some of them have read stories about women being falsely accused!)
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/05/anonymity_for_r
(And these are American fucking feminists! It's a miracle!)
Society will eventually ask itself who is being "Empowered" by faulty and inflamatory Rape missinformation, and agitation propaganda??
I can tell you who i see getting "Empwered", and it is the Gender/Raunch campus community
Anon @ 7:33: I had misread your point. I thought you meant, MRAs need to overcome belief in the "all men are rapists" canard THEMSELVES. As if some MRAs believe it.
I see now, that you meant MRAs must struggle against the meme. You are quite right.
I see now, that you meant MRAs must struggle against the meme. You are quite right.
***
That was indeed my meaning.
ANGER OVER THE SERIAL RAPE LIAR WHO DROVE AN INNOCENT MAN TO KILL HIMSELF
5-25-2010 United Kingdom:
A LYING woman whose false allegation of rape drove one man to suicide made the same allegation against another man and almost led him to take his own life too.
The consequences of the woman’s false allegations emerged when the second man was cleared by a jury of rape in just 45 minutes after a £30,000 trial.
But despite being exposed in court as a serial liar the 21-year-old woman will never be identified. Legal sources also said it was unlikely she would be prosecuted for perjury.
Innocent medical student Olumide Fadayomi, 27, was dragged through months of legal hell before the trial at Sheffield Crown Court saw his name cleared.
The jury were unaware of the woman’s history when they found him not guilty. Several broke down in tears after learning of the impact her deceit had on a previous man 18 months earlier.
They heard Judge Patrick Robertshaw attack the Crown Prosecution Service for pursuing a case “that should never have come to court” simply because the woman demanded it.
Judge Robertshaw said: “The evidence did not, and was never going to, prove rape. The prime overriding consideration in the CPS’s decision had been merely that the complainant wished the case to go ahead.
“It was little short of a craven abdication of responsibility for making an independent and fair-minded assessment of the case. It is quite astonishing these decisions are made by those who simply do not have experience of what happens in Crown Court because they never come into Crown Court. They sit behind desks and make decisions that result in this sort of trial.”
The judge revealed how 18 months earlier the same woman had made an allegation of rape against a young man who ended up committing suicide.
He said the case never reached court because it was “lacking in credibility”.
After being cleared last Friday Mr Fadayomi from Nigeria said yesterday: “My life has been hell for the last seven months. I thought about taking my own life. I’ve not been able to sleep properly since all this happened. My life has just been on hold.” The court heard that after failing to have the first man she accused of rape brought to court, the woman set about framing Mr Fadayomi, a stranger she met and seduced in a nightclub.
She boasted to friends: “I’ve got evidence this time.”
Mr Fadayomi told the jury the woman had agreed to consensual sex and he had no idea it was a rape trap.
The new government intends to re-introduce anonymity for alleged rapists until conviction.
Lawyer Nick Freeman, who successfully defended Emmerdale actor Lewis Linford against a false sex allegation, said judges must also be given the ability to waive the anonymity of women who make false accusations.
He said: “Women can make whatever allegations they like knowing the man will suffer the ignominy of having his name dragged through the mud while nobody will ever know who she is, no matter what lies she tells.”
But Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said: “If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying.” ..Source.. Paul Jeeves
Read More of Article...
Article Summary only...
I'm gonna put this out there on the ledge FOR DISCUSSION. Hopefully I won't get my hand shot off...
I am opposed to both parties being named before any investigation has been conducted. In many circumstances it could make it EASIER for victims to come forward.
Not all accusations that don't go forward are false accusations. Some non-malicious accusations simply don't meet prosecutable parameters.
If a woman was too drunk or drugged to identify who, what, when, and where, if he was able to put on a condom - there isn't going to be a prosecution.
Should she accuse, it does not mean she is a lying whore false accuser. It means he is one of the 99 guilty that will go free since guilt cannot be proven.
As difficult as that is to accept,the same Constitutional rights that 'protected' him will one day protect you the victim, or someone you love. Hopefully.
That woman should be able to report rape without fear of reprisal or harsh punishment even though it did not meet the standard of law.
She will go away bitter and angry, feeling the law favors men until the day those same Constitutional laws protect her in the same way (long shot, of course).
Had the accusation be made public, the accused will be putting on quite a show of being "pissed off" announcing to all he was falsely accused by a lying whore.
For the victim, instead of beginning a discussion of how we can gut and dismantle the Cosntitution to convict this scumbag, which is current thinking, a discussion of how to protect yourself from situations where this can happen, how to defend yourself in a non life threatening situation ( If he doesn't comprehend "no" means "no" you can bite, you can kick, you can poke him in the eye, you are not helpless).
Should she accuse, it does not mean she is a lying whore false accuser. It means he is one of the 99 guilty that will go free since guilt cannot be proven.
****
One of the 99 -- what? Is that supposed to be a percentage?
And I don't know what you mean about "guilt cannot be proven," since men are convicted all the time in the United States based on nothing but the woman's testimony. It would be difficult to have a standard of proof lower than that.
To be clear, by "all the time" I mean "in a large number of cases." A good number of men are indeed acquitted in he said/she said rape cases, although plenty are not.
The "99" came from "better 99 go free than one innocent man be found guilty".
I used facts from an actual rape case.
"Im sorry, we believe you are telling the truth, but...there just isn't enough evidence."
That isn't the way the system works in this country. They'd put a monkey on the stand if they could train it to point and chirp the word "rape!"
Anonymity for the alleged perpetrator seems fair on the surface until you have a serial rapist like Andrew Luster, whose crimes affected many women (not just one). Without other girls coming forward he may have eluded justice.
In this situation, anonymity is not wise, but I don't see any loopholes to skirt around the new UK law.
Serial rapists are very, very rare.
By opposing anonymity, you are talking about sacrificing the rights of literally tens of thousands of men in the name of protecting a handful of women, who probably will prevail in court, anyway.
Let's not forget that real rapes leave real physical evidence.
Real rapes leave evidence? If a rape leaves no bruising, no cutting, or any other visible evidence, then it cannot possibly be a 'real' rape?
Serial rapists in certain environments are not that rare. When one of these rapists are 'caught', you don't know that he has not raped in the past.
Back to the Luster case, he had drugged and raped dozens of women (the videos found in his home prove it), but only 3 came forward.
So let's say you have 10 serial rapists, who in total, have raped 30 women. Do you still think it's not important to name an accused perp?
Like I said, I don't see any loopholes in the new UK law to get around this issue.
So let's say you have 10 serial rapists, who in total, have raped 30 women. Do you still think it's not important to name an accused perp?
***
Absolutely not. Those 30 women do not balance out the thousands of innocent men whose lives are tarnished by false rape accusations. And any 3 men who have been falsely accused of rape suffered far more than the 30 women who were drugged and raped. There is no comparison.
The victims of false rape accusations are treated like garbage for the rest of their lives. That is on a whole different level from being raped once.
Real rapes leave evidence? If a rape leaves no bruising, no cutting, or any other visible evidence, then it cannot possibly be a 'real' rape?
****
It *can* be, but still, real rapes normally leave real evidence. It's time that we ended the fantasy that they don't -- that just enables false accusations and diminishes the real rape victims.
"...any 3 men who have been falsely accused of rape suffered far more than the 30 women who were drugged and raped."
So are you saying that if 100 women are drugged and raped by 10 serial rapists, it's not a big deal because "one" innocent man's distress is far more important than the lives of 30 women?
Are YOU saying it's no big deal if thousands of men's lives are destroyed by false rape accusers, dragged through the mud even before they get a fair trial?
And no, I did not say it was "no big deal," and if there was videotaped evidence then obviously there is no need to rely on extra accusers crawling out of the woodwork.
As usual, human beings only feel pain if they are attached to a vagina; men are supposed to just throw themselves under a bus, even when they are the real victims.
It is the view of this blog, and of every civilized person in the world, that the state must never intentiionally or negligently convict an innocent man. We adhere to the Blackstone formulation and have written about it previously -- go look it up.
For those who think it's justifiable to snare the innocent with the guilty to fight the war on rape, the solution is simple: lock up every penis-bearing human being. Of course, the same "remedy" could be employed to end false rape claims: lock up all the women. Such idiocy is the logical conclusion to your inane "reasoning."
Well said, Archivist.
And the gorilla in the room that we never talk about is the RESPONSIBILITY that these rape victims have, when the CHOOSE not to report a rape. They are ADULTS and they have a DUTY. If they choose to put the community at risk then that is their fault, not the fault of innocent men who are being targetted by false rape con artists.
"Serial rapists are very, very rare."
Serial rapists are rare only because rapists are rare.
I agree that we need to stop treating women as infants. The feminists have made treating women as infants into an art form. If a woman has been raped, and a rapist is on the loose, it is in everyone's interest to have that rapist caught. Period. End of story. Unfortunately, the feminists cling to supposed underreporting as their ace in the hole to explain why, for example, the college rape center is the quietest place on earth. Underreporting is so politicized that some serious scholars have recently said we can't even say if it is a fact.
The more and more I study these issues, the more I see that feminists do rape victims a grave disservice by caring more about the "issue" of rape than about real victims. Real victims don't like rape liars. Too bad the feminists who preach gender divisive bullshit couldn't care less about that. I could do a much better job counseling rape victims than many of these charlatans. I don't mean all of them, of course, but the field is littered with manhating women who simply never met a rape claim they didn't believe. Which means, of course, that the very utterance of "rape" is sufficient to paint some hapless man or boy as a "rapist" in their eyes. I can see no common ground with those people, and I invite rape victims to join with us in our mission in even greater numbers so that women's credibility will be enhanced when they have legitimate need to cry rape.
And we're supposed to believe that American women -- the most brash, outspoken "Bridezillas" on the planet -- are so meak and mild that they wouldn't even report being raped! They'll complain about everything else under the sun but not that.
The bullshit is as thick as a brick.
"Serial rapists are very, very rare."
Serial rapists are rare only because rapists are rare.
***
Not so. Almost all rapists are common criminals.
a said...
Anonymity for the alleged perpetrator seems fair on the surface until you have a serial rapist like Andrew Luster, whose crimes affected many women (not just one). Without other girls coming forward he may have eluded justice.
In this situation, anonymity is not wise, but I don't see any loopholes to skirt around the new UK law.
May 25, 2010 3:47:00 PM
OK, first off I am writing this in complete and entire sympathy to rape victims.
That being said - A F T E R investigation and A F T E R conviction of the accused crime it is common protocol to let the world know about it.
Andrew Luster's other victims can certainly could read about it and come forward for their day in court.
I am not well versed in the legal system to see what is objectionable here, and if you have a valid viewpoint I'd like to hear it.
OTOH, when the accused is publicly exposed before trial, it is not uncommon for other FALSE accusers to come forward to bolster the claim.
I give you Michael Jackson, the McMartin Preschool, Wenatchee witch hunt, and all the other teachers and daycare workers who's publicized FALSE accusations whipped up frenzied parents and profiteers to come forward with bogus accusations, Tonya Craft being the latest, just a few weeks ago in Georgia.
Do you not see the problem here?
Much as it would be nice to have another accuser backing up one's true claim, each and every accusation MUST stand on it's own merit.
If numerous people happen to make accusations at the same time, so be it. It happens. Hurrah for the home team, but start a fishing expedition/witch hunt for victims to assure a favorable outcome is evil and wrong.
If you can't get a conviction on the merits of each and every case, you don't deserve one.
Anonymous said...
That isn't the way the system works in this country. They'd put a monkey on the stand if they could train it to point and chirp the word "rape!"
May 25, 2010 3:11:00 PM
That simply isn't true.
The vast majority of people posting on this forum were not convicted and spent time in prison.
If the accused has money, influence and power, it is highly unlikely he will be convicted without STRONG and overwhelming evidence.
If the accused does not have those things the outcome is not nearly so rosy.
There's a lot more going on than girls vs. boys.
That simply isn't true.
The vast majority of people posting on this forum were not convicted and spent time in prison.
***
Well duh. If we were in prison we wouldn't be allowed to post on this blog. That in no way proves that lots and lots of men aren't falsely convicted.
***
If the accused has money, influence and power, it is highly unlikely he will be convicted without STRONG and overwhelming evidence.
If the accused does not have those things the outcome is not nearly so rosy.
***
Another 'duh.' Money buys justice? Really?
***
There's a lot more going on than girls vs. boys.
***
Yes there is; there's also the state vs. boys, and the culture of nifongism vs. boys, and the decline of American civil liberties vs. boys, and general loss of respect for the truth vs boys.
What exactly is your point?
Duh?
......Duh?
Are all the men sent to prison STILL in prison, er what? ...duh?
There's not ONE man out walking around who was falsely accused and convicted, out of prison and willing to advocate?
My 'point' is YOU don't know enough about what goes on in the legal system to make such foolish statements.
I don't either, but I know enough to know your 'monkey' statement simply is not true, except in cases of child accusations.
In those cases, yes. The monkey doesn't even have to say 'rape'. Men have been convicted when they were out of the country.
That's a proven fact.
Prove YOUR point. I don't believe it.
That's okay, because I don't give a dog's fart in a wind tunnel what you believe.
When you get fifteen minutes of court time then come back here flapping your gums about how much you know about the legal system, asshole.
Are all the men sent to prison STILL in prison, er what? ...duh?
There's not ONE man out walking around who was falsely accused and convicted, out of prison and willing to advocate?
***
Idiots like you should just be banned. If you want to smoke crack, do it on your own time; don't come to this blog and make infantile comments like this, putting your own unbelievably stupid words in our mouths. Nobody said a fucking thing about nobody ever getting out of prison after a conviction.
"Not so. Almost all rapists are common criminals."
Yes, we know, because of one report you didn't even bother to read. I wonder what should be done about commenters, like you and the "law enforcement alliance" guy, who keep repeating the same crazy nonsense over and over again, no matter how many times people take the time to try to explain to you how you are wrong. It certainly isn't helpful. And it makes me wonder if internet can be installed in a shopping cart.
"Underreporting is so politicized that some serious scholars have recently said we can't even say if it is a fact."
No doubt that it's been terribly politicized, but in the strict sense all crimes are under-reported. While I do not know which studies you are referring, a much better way of putting it is that we can't say for a fact exactly how much under-reporting occurs or whether it is especially significant.
What we do know is that feminist claims of being able to know and an exact number are false, and the numbers they do claim are based on faulty methods.
Yet, based on the all the information we have, it's entirely plausible that there could be both significant under-reporting and significant over-reporting. The obvious difference is that over-reporting generates reports which can be counted.
You're really riding the short bus if you think that's based on "one report." This has been explained to you repeatedly now.
Complaining of "the same crazy nonsense" is to deny the well-established recidivism rates for convicted rapists, which are a mere 3% (for committing another rape).
I'm sorry, but what you just said really is incredibly stupid. There is nothing controversial about these figures.
Also, I resent being compared to Gender/Raunch robo man, especially by a mental midget who never posts anything in support of his absurd claims.
Most rapists are common criminals. That is a fact, not an opinion. I have presented DoJ statistics over and over again in support of this position. You haven't presented anything but a mouth attached to a motor.
I hate to beat the dead horse about this, but I really find it incredible that this idiot can sit there and deny that convicted rapists are literally fifteen times more likely to be convicted of a crime other than rape after release, and that this means that the vast majority of rapists are common criminals (meaning "routinely committing other crimes.").
That really is pathetic; ignorance worthy of a rad fem.
I'm done with you; you aren't worth any more of my time.
May 28, 2010 3:35:00 PM
May 28, 2010 3:38:00 PM
May 28, 2010 3:48:00 PM
Comments with obvious name-calling should not be approved when this is the stated policy: "We do not tolerate comments that are insulting to the persons who comment or post here."
"Most rapists are common criminals. That is a fact, not an opinion. I have presented DoJ statistics over and over again in support of this position."
No, the only statistics you posted, all from the same one report, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, NCJ 193427, do not support your position and show that convicted rapists are, within three years of release, 420% as likely to be arrested for rape as non-rapist prisoners, and 12,000% as likely as the general population.
You really need to learn how to do math, dude.
"You really need to learn how to do math, dude."
From Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, NCJ 193427, page 10, "a rapist's odds are 4.2 times a non-rapist's odds of being rearrested for rape".
Which doesn't amount to much.
The chances of a convicted rapist ever being convicted of another rape are only 3% (the arrest rate is only 5%).
The chances of any convicted felon being convicted of a rape after release are 1.2%.
It's the difference between very, very unlikely and very, very, very unlikely.
Compare that to the 67% chance of a convicted felon being arrested for another crime within three years of release, and a convicted rapist's 46% chance of being arrested for any crime. That's a 46% of the convicted rapist being arrested for commiting a crime in general, vs. a 3% chance of being convicted of another rape at any time following release.
Serial rapists are very, very rare.
And if you look at date rapists in particular, the recidivism rates are practically non-existent. Stranger rapists are far more likely to be involved in other crimes.
This raises very serious questions about feminist-driven policies that focus very heavily on the offenders who are least likely to re-offend (if they offended in the first place!).
And none of this even takes into consideration the grim reality of false rape accusations.
Post a Comment