The "experts" have chimed in on the so-called difficulties with charging the Hofstra false accuser. Jim Cohen, a criminal law professor at Fordham University said: "There should be some sanction for the consequences she caused. On the other hand, if they charge this woman, then someone similarly situated in the future might decide to stick with her story rather than coming clean."
Now, think about what you just said, Jim. What incentive would any would-be false accuser have not to lie if we refuse to charge false accusers because future false accusers might stick with their story? See? There's never an incentive to stop -- because there's no punishment. And, yes, I understand that we rely heavily on recantations to expose false rape claims, and that's why I've proposed a sliding scale to provide for lesser penalties for recantations that occur early on and before any any innocent man or boy has been charged.
_____________________________________
And, of course, no article on false rape would be complete without quoting someone from the sexual grievance industry, who typically have zero concern for the falsely accused: "Lois Schwaeber, director of legal services for the Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said cases where people make false reports of rape hurt all legitimate rape victims seeking justice. But she said prosecuting someone who has made a false report will discourage real rape victims from coming forward as well."
Typical gynocentric bullshit. There is a special place in the darkest corner of hell for people who think like Lois Schwaeber. In her twisted, misandric world, the "real" victims of false rape claims are not the innocent men and boys who are falsely accused. The "real" victims are the future, unknown, hypothetical, phantom, possible, could-be, even unborn rape victims who might be, possibly will be, may be dissuaded by such lies from coming forward to report rape.
And worse, she says we must not charge false rape accusers because it "will" discourage real rape victims.
Thank you, Ms. Schwaeber. You've reminded everyone why we need this blog. According to you, we must ignore a crime that has scarred four innocent lives in the name of fighting another crime.
Since when did we start combating serious criminality by ignoring other serious criminality?
Since when did it become appropriate to elevate the victimization of one group of citizens over that of another?
Why, oh, why, dear women of America, do you allow your sons to be treated as collateral damage in the war on rape?
It is this vile indifference to an entire class of citizens that prompted the need for this blog. The crime of making a false rape report has wrongly become gender-politicized and so embroiled in the radical feminist sexual assault milieu that it has been improperly removed from the public discourse about rape. By any measure, denigrating the experience of the falsely accused by treating their victimization with crass indifference and as unworthy of our discussion, much less our protection, is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
They idiots who parrot that lie about "rape victims won't come forward" never provide any evidence to substantiate that claim. They just repeat the same old garbage ad nauseum. And it really doesn't matter anyway, since it is the responsibility of rape victims to come forward, and not the place of prosecutors to screw over the victims of other crimes as an enticement.
And no prosecutor ever makes that argument in relation to any other type of fraud. Is anybody afraid to file an insurance claim because criminals are convicted of insurance fraud? Those who make this cowardly argument are pro-liar and that's all they are.
As for the other argument, you have to remember a few things:
1/ In this case sticking to her story wouldn't have worked, because there was recorded evidence.
2/ False rape accusers are usually compulsive liars, and compulsive liars have a really, really, really difficult time sticking to their stories -- as long as the authorities are no longer willing to enable and cover up for them, they will usually screw up pretty badly.
3/ If a woman is filing a false rape accusation, there is almost certainly something in her past that will show a pattern of lying and attention whoring; and even if she sticks to one story, if the police investigate they should find plenty of evidence to discredit her.
The problems caused by refusing to prosecute this despicable breed of criminals are infinitely worse than any caused by prosecuting. The moral thing to do really is the right thing to do.
Why, oh, why, dear women of America, do you allow your sons to be treated as collateral damage in the war on rape?
I think the answer to this is obvious. And there are plenty of examples right here on this blog who have shown they don't care how many men get destroyed. Some are so consumed by their anger and hatred that they celebrate it.
I would also ask why the men of America not just allow it, but champion it.
Remember the Duluth wheel? Much of the abuse is blaming / denying / minimizing. Notice that when it comes to male victims of false rape allegations and domestic violence, that is all the feminist-minded people do.
Blame the accused.
Deny false allegaitons even exist.
Minimize the suffering of the falsely accused.
So much for equality.
Actually, prosecuting someone who you can prove was not telling the truth or admits was lying is much, much different than listening to both sides in a rape accusation and deciding that you believe the guy and not the girl and then toss the girl in jail. What is dangerous to me is punishing a female because you don't believe her. That would stop most rape victims from coming forward. If you have proof of a lie, then that's a totally different scenario.
"What is dangerous to me is punishing a female because you don't believe her."
How does that differ from rape trials where a guy is convicted just because you don't believe him? And he gets a much, much heftier sentence. Aren't you feminists in favor of trying men and boys for rape based on he said/she said scenarios? Why is this any different?
"That would stop most rape victims from coming forward."
False accusers are subject to the same criminal burden of proof as men accuased of rape: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry, I don't see what the problem here is. Are you advocating for an even greater burden of proof to convict women???
Victimising the criminal.
Criminalising the victim.
Kill the messenger.
AfOR
"On the other hand, if they charge this woman, then someone similarly situated in the future might decide to stick with her story rather than coming clean." _ Prof. Jim Cohen"
Strange!?
I don't recall that charging people suspected of murder ever had any effect on those murders who still choose to confess. Gee, I can't recall that anyone has EVER noted that charging people with crimes has made others who were inclined to confess (usually, like Danmell Ndonye, when faced with compelling evidence) any less likely to confess.
The point of punishing the liars is to dissuade OTHER potential liars from doing likewise, despite the possible consequence of having someone not confess - like that was likely to happen without evidence, anyway.
Here, Danmell Ndonye wasn't going to confess - but for video tape evidence. In another case, a man is STILL in prison in NJ, because his false accuser didn't confess until he'd been in prison for years - and her false allegation came a time when virtually NO false accusers were being punished at all. The lack of punishment for lying didn't dissuade her from helping to put an entirely innocent man in prison, now did it?
This line about possibly making some false accuesers less inclined to confess is utter crap! If you want to encourage such confessions, create a "sliding scale" of punishment whereby those who confess earlier, and cause less harm and less expenditure get less severe sanctions than those who are found out later.
If a woman is intent on lying, and seeing a man sent to prison, only the possibility of facing stiff punishment herself will ever discourage her from moving forward with her plans.
Here, Danmell Ndonye wasn't going to confess - but for video tape evidence.
Isn't it amazing how the rape-lie apologists can confuse the issue.
Just as we have this hypothetic huge number of unreported rapes, along with the equally hypothetic deterrent effect that punishing liars would have on other possible "real rape victims", we have a hypothetical situation where a woman's conscience suddenly begins to bother her and she admits to lying, but might be forced by fear of punishment into sticking by her lie.
Does anyone know of any research on how many times this has happened spontaneously? By this I mean a woman who admitting to lying without having evidence shoved in her face that would prove she was lying?
Are these people chasing something that doesn't exist?
To understand the psychology of most women, on a deep level, read this:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
There is a difference. A judge choosing not to believe a female and so charging her with false rape should never be allowed to happen. It would make no sense. I remember reading about a judge who fined a female $150,000 because he said he didn't care what the rape kit showed and she could have gotten her bruises by falling down in her house or something like that. He chose to believe the guy and punished the girl.
And with the very low conviction rate regarding rape, who in their right mind would want to bring forth an allegation if losing meant jail for the female?
$150,000 fine for making it up? Bullshit.
Stop lying, you man-hater.
Jeana's blooger profile says her favourite book is....
wait for it...
How to opress men in ten easy steps.
AfOR
It's really irritating how she lies and goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with an intelligent discussion of the issues, for example claiming that if any liar is ever prosecuted that would mean that judges could just arbitrarily convict women of perjury without trial.
And it's hard to see any purpose in discussing anything with her, since she openly supports false rape accusations in any case where a woman would otherwise be inconvenienced. She a pest!
I remember reading about a judge who fined a female $150,000 because he said he didn't care what the rape kit showed and she could have gotten her bruises by falling down in her house or something like that. He chose to believe the guy and punished the girl.
Citation? Proof? Wait, asking for proof of an assertion is "abuse", I know.
You are a liar, Jeana. Liars lie. None of us are in a position to fine you anything, but we are certainly in a position to dismiss anything you say as complete nonsense.
"A judge choosing not to believe a female and so charging her with false rape should never be allowed to happen."
Guys, trust me, I didn't invent Jeana just to increase traffic.
A judge choosing not to believe a GUY and sending him away for 25 is perfectly acceptable to the sceeching banshees of radical feminism. Hence, the reason we can't talk to them, and the reason the vast majority of women flee from the "f" word -- I don't mean "fuck," although that describes them, too -- "feminist."
As for the "low" conviction rate, that's based on the alleged rapes. Since up to half and likely far more rape claims are lies, the conviction rate for rape of legitimate claims is astoundingly high.
And it's hard to see any purpose in discussing anything with her, since she openly supports false rape accusations in any case where a woman would otherwise be inconvenienced. She a pest!
The purpose is to gain practice in dealing with creatures like this. A large part of their psychology is simply to wear you down. No one is ever convinced on the net to change their beliefs or personality - the real audience here is the lurkers who can learn how to deal with similar situations when they are confronted with them.
One way to deal with a proven liar is simply to pay no attention to the content of their lies, but just keep pointing out that they are lies.
Gentlemen,
As I referenced in the link, in my earlier comment above, it is futile to attempt to reason with or appeal to the moral decency of a woman. There is none.
Nothing will improve, for men, until women are stripped of ALL rights and all power. If all men would agree upon and unite around that simple concept our lives would improve immeasurably.
I remember reading about a judge who fined a female $150,000 because he said he didn't care what the rape kit showed and she could have gotten her bruises by falling down in her house or something like that. He chose to believe the guy and punished the girl.
I've said it before, and I'll likely have to say it again...prove it. Since you remember it, you should have absolutely no problem with providing some sort of support for this claim jeana.
I know you have a son. I really hope, for his sake, that he is never on the receiving end of a false rape accusation. I get the feeling that you would just tell him too bad, your accuser will always get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Nothing will improve, for men, until women are stripped of ALL rights and all power. If all men would agree upon and unite around that simple concept our lives would improve immeasurably.
*******
ZTP: I don't question your sincerity, but I completely disagree. If that ever happened the most likely result would be a fascist government that respected nobody's rights. That wouldn't be good for men at all.
The main weapon of feminists and other totalitarians is the government, and the only way to restrain the government is by strongly emphasizing rights. In this country we are all supposed to get a fair trial, we are all supposed to be presumed innocent, we are all supposed to be free from being maliciously exploitated by assholes in power who want to get their names in the papers -- but we're not, because our society has come to the twisted conclusion that it is more important to punish the guilty than to protect the innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To end this nightmare, we must fully restore individual rights, and restore the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. The two pillars of a just society are the individual and the family. The government's encroachment in both areas has been disastrous.
We can solve this mess by making false accusations impossible and by eliminating incentives for divorce and single-motherhood, such as ridiculously high child support judgments combined with debtor's prison. We need to stop subsidizing feminist extremists and eliminate female privilege.
Do all of that and men, women and children will all be better off. But taking legitimate rights away from women and kicking them out of jobs that they genuinely do well would be counterproductive.
I know you have a son. I really hope, for his sake, that he is never on the receiving end of a false rape accusation. I get the feeling that you would just tell him too bad, your accuser will always get the benefit of the doubt from me.
She claims to have a son. Yet, she not only condones lying she consistently spouts lies here. Not everything which gets said on the net is necessarily true - for example, I am 9 feet tall and a stunningly attractive shade of chartreuse.
If this particular bit isn't a lie, I feel a bit sorry for her husband (but not too much because I doubt it was a shotgun wedding) and I feel exceedingly sorry for her son. I'm just glad I had a sane woman for a mother - not all boys are so fortunate.
anon@Sep 22, 2009 1:19:00 PM:
Compare U.S. society (safety, intact families, social pathologies, literacy rate, murder rate, male freedom, etc...) 1909 vs. 2009. What a difference a few decades of "empowering" and "freeing" women makes. The U.S. government circa 1909 was hardly fascistic. It simply didn't have the sweeping political powers it obtained AFTER women's suffrage. Fast forward to 2009. We are inexorably grinding, slowly but surely, towards a police state. This with full democratic participation by everyone you are implicitly advocating.
What you're proposing, fully restore individual rights [for all people], works great on paper (like communism), but fails miserably in practice.
As soon as a Constitutional Republic (which is what the USA was) universalizes voting rights its all down hill from there. The founders realized to check state tyranny required the restriction of voting rights to people with 3 attributes: (1) high testosterone; (2) high intellect; (3) high moral character. People with those qualities are best able to fight and neutralize despotism and demagoguery. They are not squeamish about dragging moral lepers and degenerates out of state houses off to the gallows. By degenerating into a democracy the voting pool has been flooded with people without those qualities, as always occurs when voting rights become universal. Ineffectual, weak, parasitical, opportunistic, unprincipled are a few of the adjectives that come to mind to describe the voting masses, at large. It's a difficult, but manageable, fight to go up against the State when millions of nitwits are not trying or are politically unable to sabotage you. When the State empowers the unwashed Ignorati, good men are fighting not only the State but a swarm of retarded locusts (the Idiocracy).
Women have championed every Constitution (liberty)-destroying piece of legislation passed since their 19th Amendment voting powers were enacted.
Giving women power leads to larger and more intrusive government. It's a FACT. Read all about it here:
How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/60.Lott_.Suffrage.complete-25633.pdf
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
ZTP: I don't question your sincerity, but I completely disagree. If that ever happened the most likely result would be a fascist government that respected nobody's rights. That wouldn't be good for men at all.
The main weapon of feminists and other totalitarians is the government,
We need to stop subsidizing feminist extremists and eliminate female privilege.
BRAVO!!!!!
I cringe every time I see someone call for "taking away" women's rights, in the same way I am sure sincere advocates for women who are raped cringe when a false accusation like this one surfaces. It sadly legitimizes feminism, and undoes everything I and a lot of men have done over the years to try to de-legitimize it.
Much of this sad and seemingly unnecessary polarization of men and women hides the fact that in many cases it is men who are using the excuse of "women's rights" to gain advantage over other men. Mike Nifong was a political opportunist who used a politically expedient case to try to gain political power.
I think the real question is how to get out of the zero sum thinking where both sides seem to regard any gain by the other side as a loss for their own. In my own case, I would be far more willing to listen to and take seriously women's claims of rape if I were not somehow lumped in with the guilty ones by phrases like "rape culture."
When it comes to sex, men's and women's perceptions and priorities are different. It's natural and universal to want to get one's own way, but trying to do so all of the time will destroy any possible foundation for continuing relationships.
In a practical sense, this means that sometimes men are going to have to do without the sex they want, and sometimes women are going to have to understand and accept that they cannot expect to have men continue to meet women's needs in a relationship if women are allowed to categorically deny, refute, and withhold what men need.
If you read stories about sexless marriages where it is the man who does not want to have anything do with his wife physically any more, it is clear that it is a terribly painful and demeaning position to be in. Taking the default position that it women's right to put men in this position while men are bound by social custom and law to continue to meet women's needs is just as exploitive as women accuse men of being.
The best way forward is to re-introduce a male standpoint into the dialogue and dispense forever with this whole "10,000 years of oppression" nonsense. If women would simply start viewing men as human beings and become willing to compromise on a few issues, fewer men would take the position that ztp states.
But, it is somewhat understandable that in the face of women's refusal to do this, ztp's stand seems like the only solution.
Anon at 1:40: you've hit the nail on the head.
Rape is no longer a crime, it's a mantra. It's become so damned politicized that the actual crime of rape, or the crime of making a false rape report, have become lost in an angry cacophony of battling ideologies. Rape has become a code word, shorthand for male oppression.
The trouble is, concepts like "rape culture" and "male oppression" are so vague that men don't know what the hell the feminists are talking about when they use them.
A lot of men become aroused by porn who would never, ever, ever rape a woman, and its been proven that men who use porn are less likely to rape. Yet viewing porn is lumped in with the "rape culture" nonsense, and men are shamed for subjugating women with their eyes.
Garden variety of sexual relations, where men ask women to have sex, are often twisted into coercive enounters where "real" consent is not possible because of a purported power differential between the two (male privilege and all), and this, too, is lumped in with the "rape culture."
Trouble is, none of it has anything to do with rape. But that doesn't matter, and it's not likely to change. Rape has been tossed into a fucked-up stew of alleged female oppression, and it's impossible to separate it from the rest of the shit the feminists are cooking.
You anon's aren't too quick are you:
#1
Revoke women's suffrage and universal voting.
#2
Rollback the U.S. government to within Constitutional powers. The size and power of the Federal government would shrink 75%.
#3
Liberty and sanity at last.
Note:
#2 is IMPOSSIBLE unless #1 is done first. You talk about individual rights, but you have no idea what is required to obtain that situation.
But, it is somewhat understandable that in the face of women's refusal to do this, ztp's stand seems like the only solution.
That stand is the ONLY solution because women are sociopaths. It's a congenital condition on the female's part from birth. Review the traits of a sociopath listed at http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html and tell me those don't describe most of the women you have ever met. Heck even women think most women are a bunch of lying, conniving snakes. You want to engage in dialogue with that? WTF.
Until men pull their heads out of their large intestines and acknowledge the TRUE NATURE of women nothing will ever improve for men.
You anon's aren't too quick are you:
#1
Revoke women's suffrage and universal voting.
Talk about not being "quick." So, you're just going to wave your magic wand and the past 200+ years of social development are going to magically disappear? By what means or method do you plan to accomplish this "revocation"?
Our so-called "democratically elected representatives" will have a hard time doing away with the frachise which gives them their jobs. And, it is beyond any stretch of the imagination to think that a majority of voters will simply relinquish those rights for the "common good."
No, the only way to accomplish what you are suggesting is a seizure of power by an elite and powerful few which establishes an instant oligarchy. That may sound fine to those who expect to be among the elite and powerful few, but it sounds like it would suck for everyone else.
Pointing to the past and saying the future cannot possibly be different is a trap. In 1900, someone could have pointed at thousands of years of attempted flight by man and conclude that such would never be possible. But, 69 years later not only were people flying every day, men were setting foot on the moon.
If people are going to continue to play a zero sum game, they have to recognize the possibility that their group might be the one to end up with zero.
You might as well be suggesting reinstating slavery. It is alien to the social value system currently operating. It can't be done except at the point of a gun, at which point anyone trying to do it loses all moral legitimacy and also runs the risk of losing out to the faction with more and bigger guns.
If I cannot have a woman who is a true equal, and true helpmate, in my life, then I am far happier without one at all. I neither need nor want an immature, emotionally capricious, child.
If men were to take a "parental" role toward women, I think holding them accountable and forcing them to grow up and take responsibility for themselves and their actions is the far better option.
And, men's unwillingness and inability to do this, demonstrates that they are highly unlikely to do any better in any other sort of social organization.
The reason women's groups are being given advantage after advantage is not because some dopey politician thinks it's fair. The reason is that women's groups actively lobby for this crap, men don't seem to care very much, and politicians want to be reelected.
The first step is to unite men. To do that requires men to acknowledge reality. Until men understand and acknowledge the truth about women (i.e., females will never negotiate in good faith with men) nothing will improve. Once men accomplish this seemingly insurmountable hurtle (at least from the feedback here) then anything is possible. ANY existing power structure will quickly collapse once men decide to shrug. Like Atlas men are the ones holding things up, while being skullfucked by the System and women.
I’m not a liar. I don’t need to be. I read it on something on Feministing a while ago. I think it was about a guy whose family had money, like Days Inn or something like that. And something like the judge knew his family. But I tried to look it up and can’t. I’m not going to waste any additional time, since even if I found the story, you would all still ignore it.
My point, again, related to people’s disbelief that throwing females in jail if their rape case was not believed would make females not want to report. That is common sense. Even you people should get that. False accusers who admit or are proven to be lying will not, in my opinion, have an effect on females reporting. Being treated poorly, being disbelieved, and especially, being thrown in jail, WILL make us not report. Duh.
I’m not a liar. I don’t need to be. I read it on something on Feministing a while ago.
No, you don't need to be a liar - believing anything you read on that den of nutcases just makes you a fool.
Various points for ZPT:
The government certainly has grown far beyond its constitutional mandate, and eliminating women's sufferage wouldn't roll it back since only the Supreme Court has that authority -- and it never will. But a lot of the bad things we discuss here are happening on the state level.
You are probably right in claiming that women are more risk-averse than men, and therefore more likely to support social spending, and perhaps less likely to rush into war. The latter is probably a good thing. And women voting didn't stop Ronald Reagan and two Bushes from being elected. If conservatives come to power and then break their promises to cut spending, complain to them.
In spite of (because of?) the growth of government, the US economy has performed very, very well since 1909. It also performed very well prior to that, although recessions were far more fierce. But the idea that the economy is going down the tubes is ridiculous.
What you said about all women being sociopaths is also pretty absurd, since far more of them would commit crimes if that were true. Women are probably not more deceitful than men on the whole, although they have more opportunities to make false accusations -- a man can't falsely accuse a woman of raping him.
In short, you're making sweeping generalizations based on biology, and at the same time wrapping everything into a neat package in which the growth of government is to blame for everything. But biology isn't the problem and these larger economic issues are largely irrelevent to men's rights. And many conservative politicians who have won with overwhelming male support have made the problems worse with their "get tough!" bullshit.
The first step is to unite men. To do that requires men to acknowledge reality.
******
Agreed on both points, but you aren't talking about uniting all men. You're talking about barring some of them from voting and depriving at least some of them -- the homosexuals -- of liberty. (I think that's what you meant, anyway.)
But our goals are probably similar: a less tyrannical government and a male-friendly society.
Until men understand and acknowledge the truth about women (i.e., females will never negotiate in good faith with men) nothing will improve. Once men accomplish this seemingly insurmountable hurtle (at least from the feedback here) then anything is possible.
Men are every bit as incapable of uniting in the manner you suggest as you believe women are incapable of negotiating in good faith. Men will sell out other men in a heartbeat in order to curry favor with women. The whole "bell curve" idea has proven very true in my own life - I have met some good and fine men, and some scumbags far below the level of human garbage. But, the women I have known have tended to all cluster in a sort of bland middle - neither actually good nor bad, just sorta there, ordinary human beings, in other words.
For my own part, I don't need any massive social changes or for everyone else in the world to change what they are doing in order to live a satisfying life. I guess that is why I do have personal power and all those people who demand that the world change to their specifications before they can be happy, don't.
Jeana,
The problem with you idea, is that if false accusers are more harshly punished, and fewer false accusations are levelled, then those who do file rape reports will be more believable.
If someone files a fradulent insurance claim and are put in jail, it doesn't mean that people are going to stop filing claims.
I challenge you to prove that punishing false accusers will keep those who HAVE been raped from coming forward. Take as much time as you want. We'll wait.
I’m not going to waste any additional time, since even if I found the story, you would all still ignore it.
What a complete cop out. You are so dishonest, it's ridiculous.
It is because of this tactic, that no one buys anything you say. You might be better served to stay over at feministing, since they take anything said as truth without any kind of proof. We don't play that game here. Support what you say, or say nothing. Opinion is one thing, but if you are going to make statements of fact, then back them up.
"A judge choosing not to believe a female and so charging her with false rape should never be allowed to happen."
It never does happen. Judges don't charge offenses other than court related ones - contempt, etc.
Charges for false reporting would (and should) be filed by prosecutors. This is basic civics.
Which is why the BS you proffered earlier was so obviously wrong (why is it that you always "seem to remember reading somewhere..."?).
A judge would not determine if charges were to be files in a rape case, nor a false rape allegation case. He might rule that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial, but even that would be subject to review by a superior court.
Judges can have people arrested in cases of contempt, but they must follow established guidelines for imposition of fines. if they were allowed to do what ever they wished, judges who had a particular dislike for a given attorney could simply fine that attorney $150,000 for the slightest hint of contempt.
Hell, for that matter, they could charge anyone with any crime they even so much as suspect that the person may have committed.
But, that never happens, because even judges have rules of conduct and are subject to being over-ruled - not to mention impeachment or removal from the bench by voters.
You've simply got to try to make your BS more believable. Maybe a basic course in government through your local community college would help. Oh, and never believe anything one of your fellow feminists claims on Feministing - that's just an idiotic thing to do. It's all a bunch of women, so lying comes as naturally as it does easily for them.
"My point, again, related to people’s disbelief that throwing females in jail if their rape case was not believed would make females not want to report."
Then you've got nothing to worry about because they proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is very, very difficult to come by. False reporting of rape has to be the least prosecuted serious crime on the criminal books.
The government certainly has grown far beyond its constitutional mandate, and eliminating women's sufferage wouldn't roll it back since only the Supreme Court has that authority -- and it never will. But a lot of the bad things we discuss here are happening on the state level.
The Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government. It is as corrupted as the other 2 branches. No suprise. The corrupt executive branch nominates and the corrupt legislative branch confirms. They are not going to appoint people of integrity (i.e., respect the U.S. Constitution) to the bench. It all started with FDR threatening to pack the Supreme Court with his stooges to ram his New Deal legislation through. Up to that point the Supreme Court was remarkable in enforcing the U.S. Constitution. Afterwards, they become as corrupt as the other 2 branches. If men reclaim sole voting power the Supreme Court justices, being the thumb-to-the-wind opportunists they are, will bend to the voting will of the new voting bloc. Afterwards it becomes a simple matter of restoring men of justice and integrity to the SCOTUS via the normal appointment process.
You are probably right in claiming that women are more risk-averse than men, and therefore more likely to support social spending, and perhaps less likely to rush into war. The latter is probably a good thing. And women voting didn't stop Ronald Reagan and two Bushes from being elected. If conservatives come to power and then break their promises to cut spending, complain to them.
There hasn't been a true conservative Republican in the presidency since Calvin Coolidge. You have to shrink the size of government to be a conservative. Reagan and the Bushes grew the size of government. All things being equal women will vote for the more masculine, socially-dominant, smooth-talking male. If he comes across as an a-hole he gets bonus points. Same criteria women use when choosing men in bars. That's why they chose Reagan over Carter, Reagan over Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry, and Obama over McCain. Then that male president has to provide social goodies to women if he wants to be reelected. Certainly the Congress does.
In spite of (because of?) the growth of government, the US economy has performed very, very well since 1909. It also performed very well prior to that, although recessions were far more fierce. But the idea that the economy is going down the tubes is ridiculous.
Never said "the economy is going down the tubes". Our social structure (e.g., intact families, children on drugs, social pathologies, etc...) is. Our economic strength is entirely due to our position as a global military and economic empire. But we're rotting from the inside out, just like the Roman Empire.
What you said about all women being sociopaths is also pretty absurd, since far more of them would commit crimes if that were true. Women are probably not more deceitful than men on the whole, although they have more opportunities to make false accusations -- a man can't falsely accuse a woman of raping him.
The whole point of being a sociopath is being slippery as an eel. When women are actually caught and processed for commiting a 'crime' they are rarely prosecuted for them and serve mere fractions of prison time compared to men (for the very same crimes). Plus there are things that women do that were illegal now that are now quite legal. For example, abortion, adultry.
In short, you're making sweeping generalizations based on biology, and at the same time wrapping everything into a neat package in which the growth of government is to blame for everything. But biology isn't the problem and these larger economic issues are largely irrelevent to men's rights. And many conservative politicians who have won with overwhelming male support have made the problems worse with their "get tough!" bullshit.
Everything stems from biology. To deny women approach life differently from men is to deny life and reality itself. The growth of government is not the cause, it is the symptom. Remove the causal element and the State will subside it its power. The number of TRUE conservative politicians there are today can be counted on one hand. True conservative politicians don't launch wars of foreign occupation. True conservative politicians don't create whole new Federal departments. True conservative politicians don't refer to the U.S. Constitution as a "god damned piece of paper".
Agreed on both points, but you aren't talking about uniting all men. You're talking about barring some of them from voting and depriving at least some of them -- the homosexuals -- of liberty. (I think that's what you meant, anyway.)
But our goals are probably similar: a less tyrannical government and a male-friendly society.
Does the U.S. Constitution grant the Federal government the power to regulate (or ban) homosexuality? No.
"Then you've got nothing to worry about because they proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is very, very difficult to come by."
If I'm reading her correctly, the J-troll would have us believe that if a woman's rape claim is taken to trial, and the judge doesn't believe her, then he (the judge, and not the JURY), can simply unilaterally have her sent to jail?
Will have to add that to her idiotic claims that defense attorneys are given complete access to alleged victims medical and counseling records, and that a womans complete sexual history is alway fair-game in rape trials.
When she is so obviously wrong on things that most people know about, how does she think anyone will ever believe anything she claims she read about somewhere.
Oh, yeah, she did try to bring up one example of weak rape shield laws - from an old case in AUSTRALIA (she may not actually be aware that Australia isn't a part of the United States, so I'll give her partial credit for trying real hard).
"Revoke women's suffrage and universal voting."; "There hasn't been a true conservative Republican in the presidency since Calvin Coolidge."; "Our economic strength is entirely due to our position as a global military and economic empire."
Oops! Pardon me. I was looking for the False Rape Society web site. I must have typed something in wrong.
Men are every bit as incapable of uniting in the manner you suggest as you believe women are incapable of negotiating in good faith. Men will sell out other men in a heartbeat in order to curry favor with women. The whole "bell curve" idea has proven very true in my own life - I have met some good and fine men, and some scumbags far below the level of human garbage. But, the women I have known have tended to all cluster in a sort of bland middle - neither actually good nor bad, just sorta there, ordinary human beings, in other words.
Men are incapable of uniting? Please explain to me professional athletic teams, slave rebellions, labor unions, and every military regiment that has ever walked the face of the Earth. Men without a purpose in life will sell out each other. Players (male sluts) in bars and nightclubs are examples of this every night. Men with a purpose will not. That's why men can trust other men (under certain conditions), but women will never trust other women (whatever they vocally claim to the contrary). Men at the lower end of the bell curve (IQ, moral, ethical) can be made to follow along. Else they risk major ostracism. This happens all the time, for example, when a nation enters a war for national survival.
For my own part, I don't need any massive social changes or for everyone else in the world to change what they are doing in order to live a satisfying life. I guess that is why I do have personal power and all those people who demand that the world change to their specifications before they can be happy, don't.
Yes, you can live in your microcosm and remain quite content. But for those sick of the B.S. this message is for them.
Archivist,
“I challenge you to prove that punishing false accusers will keep those who HAVE been raped from coming forward.”
When did I ever say that? Did you not read what I wrote? I said they should be punished and that it wouldn’t affect real rape victims.
ZTP,
As long as you’re going to take all rights away from us sociopathic women for our own good, can I at least have first dibs on my role in your futuristic MRA fantasy world?
#1 I’d like to be a concubine. But only if I can wear a sexy slave girl outfit. That is a must.
#2 If concubine is already filled, how about someone who makes hors d’oeuvres? To serve my master for afternoon tea (even though this is crazed futuristic man-world, it still can be civilized, right?)
#3 Nanny for the children of my master.
Please give me due consideration. I don’t want to wind up as Piss-Girl or something like that. That would suck.
J-troll, in response to this challenge:
“I challenge you to prove that punishing false accusers will keep those who HAVE been raped from coming forward.”, replies -
"When did I ever say that? Did you not read what I wrote? I said they should be punished and that it wouldn’t affect real rape victims."
Are you the same person who wrote this: "What is dangerous to me is punishing a female because you don't believe her. That would stop most rape victims from coming forward."?
As long as you’re going to take all rights away from us sociopathic women for our own good, can I at least have first dibs on my role in your futuristic MRA fantasy world?
#1 I’d like to be a concubine. But only if I can wear a sexy slave girl outfit. That is a must.
#2 If concubine is already filled, how about someone who makes hors d’oeuvres? To serve my master for afternoon tea (even though this is crazed futuristic man-world, it still can be civilized, right?)
#3 Nanny for the children of my master.
Please give me due consideration. I don’t want to wind up as Piss-Girl or something like that. That would suck.
Those are acceptable. IF you please me.
If you are hot you can be part of my harem. Every man will have his own harem. Warning: insolence will be met with the lash. If you are not hot you become a slave girl. Greasing the skids of the stone blocks for the MRA Temple under construction. Be careful, lest you get your rags get caught under one of the moving stone blocks.
The wisdom of the Founders:
The right of women to vote was not recognized by the United States until 1920, more than 144 years after the Declaration of Independence. And that's not because no one earlier had thought of it!
1777 -- Women lose the right to vote in New York...
1780 -- Women lose the right to vote in Massachusetts...
1784 -- Women lose the right to vote in New Hampshire...
1787 -- Women in all states except New Jersey lose the right to vote.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/abigail.htm
Yoi! What is happening to my site?
Everything stems from biology. To deny women approach life differently from men is to deny life and reality itself. The growth of government is not the cause, it is the symptom. Remove the causal element and the State will subside it its power. The number of TRUE conservative politicians there are today can be counted on one hand. True conservative politicians don't launch wars of foreign occupation. True conservative politicians don't create whole new Federal departments. True conservative politicians don't refer to the U.S. Constitution as a "god damned piece of paper".
*******
Not everything stems from biology. Sometimes economic and other factors are involved. And Karl Marx was a man, you know.
The growth of federal authority has been an ongoing process since the beginning, going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. It didn't start with women voting, and ending women's sufferage wouldn't magically restore the federal government to the original Jeffersonian vision.
And even if you did severely limit the federal government, we would still have these horrible state governments to deal with. Most of our issues don't even involve the federal government.
Speaking of the federal government, I would love for federal prosecutors to begin picking up the slack and go after these false rape accusers. We obviously can't rely on local prosecutors to do anything but play dumb when one of their little set-up artists blows up a case.
Another thing to remember is that women vote in other countries, but no other country is as misandrist as America.
You are literally 20 times more likely to be charged with rape in the US than in Japan, for example, and the divorce rate is much higher here. So let's remember that America is much worse than other democracies when it comes to men's issues, even though these other countries also have a lot of social spending.
The growth of federal authority has been an ongoing process since the beginning, going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. It didn't start with women voting, and ending women's sufferage wouldn't magically restore the federal government to the original Jeffersonian vision.
And even if you did severely limit the federal government, we would still have these horrible state governments to deal with. Most of our issues don't even involve the federal government.
And local governments. This Hofstra case was at the county level. I'm pretty sure the Duke rape-hoax was also local.
I think the real change to populism came with Andrew Jackson. Until then, most of the leaders of the country had come from the same sort of hereditary elite that characterized Europe.
http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/bio/public/jackson.htm
The difference, slwerner, is charging an admitted or proven liar vs. charging someone who lost a rape case because of lack of evidence or some stupid sexist reason. I don’t know how else to say it. Maybe in your minds, any woman who is not believed by a jury (because it wasn’t caught on tape) is a false rape accuser and so should go to jail. Is that what you’re trying to say?
"Maybe in your minds, any woman who is not believed by a jury (because it wasn’t caught on tape) is a false rape accuser and so should go to jail. Is that what you’re trying to say?"
NO, NO, NO. ABSOLUTELY, EMPHATICALLY NOT. There are such things as misunderstandings. We are talking about PROVEN LIARS. Women who claim they never met him and it turns out to be a lie. Women who claim they fled the "rape" scene when a camera catches them holding hands and laughing on the way out of the house, etc. It has to leave no reasonable doubt.
"Maybe in your minds, any woman who is not believed by a jury (because it wasn’t caught on tape) is a false rape accuser and so should go to jail. Is that what you’re trying to say?"
BS!
All I pointed out was that YOU were the idiot who seemed to think that if a man were acquitted at trial, the judge could then send his accuser to jail (no trial needed).
In reality - and I'm in complete agreement - the only ones who ever get charged are those who are shown to have made up the false claim altogether - not those involved in he-said, she-said disagreements over sex vs rape.
On top of the idiotic notions you've thrown out here in the past, clearly demonstrating your advanced ignorance regarding medical privacy and rape shield laws, now you suggest that women will go to jail if their allegations do not sway a jury!?
Is this just dishonesty, or truly ignorance on your part?
The difference, slwerner, is charging an admitted or proven liar vs. charging someone who lost a rape case because of lack of evidence or some stupid sexist reason.
Well, Danmell Ndonye, certainly fills that bill - the video of the incident proves that she lied. And, the only reason she "recanted" her lie (a really foul distortion of language there - caught in a lie and admitting it is not the same as having an attack of conscience that caused her to volunteer the truth) was due to the evidence that the young men had enough forethought to get and keep. There is no "stupid sexist reason" unless you consider insisting on the truth rather than lies being necessary to put a man in prison for 25 years to be a "stupid sexist reason" - you know, one of those ways we men see the world in "black and white" the way you women see it "in color", like maintaining that there is an actual difference between the truth and a lie.
Is this just dishonesty, or truly ignorance on your part?
I tend to believe willfull distortion. (if this is truly due to diminished mental capacity, it is a weird sort of argument for ztp's position.)
The difference, slwerner, is charging an admitted or proven liar vs. charging someone who lost a rape case because of lack of evidence or some stupid sexist reason. I don’t know how else to say it. Maybe in your minds, any woman who is not believed by a jury (because it wasn’t caught on tape) is a false rape accuser and so should go to jail. Is that what you’re trying to say?
**************
No, and you know perfectly well that isn't what he's saying; as usual you refuse to participate intelligently and instead argue with your own moronic straw men, because those are the only arguments that you can win.
There often is overwhelming evidence of the guilt of false accusers, so these repeated claims on your part that any woman on the losing end of a rape case is doomed is a completely red herring. Don't worry, Jeana, your precious false rape accusers are in no danger. If this latest liar goes to jail she'll become the exception that proves the rule.
On another subject -- did anybody notice that "reconnectyourrelationship.com" google ad to the right? LOL!
Maybe not entirely appropriate for a blog about false rape accusations.
"NO, NO, NO. ABSOLUTELY, EMPHATICALLY NOT. There are such things as misunderstandings. We are talking about PROVEN LIARS. Women who claim they never met him and it turns out to be a lie. Women who claim they fled the "rape" scene when a camera catches them holding hands and laughing on the way out of the house, etc. It has to leave no reasonable doubt."
Pierce, there is no way someone like Jeana, who has spent so much time at Glenn Sacks' site, hasn't already heard this distinction at least 1,000 times.
It's a really common feature of our feminist foes to repeatedly present the same false belief, no matter how often they have presented it in the past and been given the same answer. Just why they do this is probably more worthy of consideration than the particular details of their empty words.
The simplest explanation is that they suffer from a kind of long-term memory ailment.
But I'm more inclined to think they do it to upset people, and enjoy watching the anger they stir up - a bit like kids who like to poke sticks at a tied-up dog.
Then again it's useful to steer conversation away from whatever course it may have taken on its own accord.
And there's always the possibility that someone may say something extremely unwise in anger - and you can bet THAT will be remembered forever.
Rather than respond to the words Jeana and her like use, it may be more instructive to study what she says, look for patterns and think about what she achieves by these exchanges.
It could well be that even she is unaware of the process at work, and is a quite involuntary agent in a set of behaviors of which she is the unwitting dupe - I find it hard to believe that so many women behave this way totally consciously.
This capacity for duplicity is probably related to the purpose of your site, and needs to be understood before it can be effectively addressed.
"And there's always the possibility that someone may say something extremely unwise in anger - and you can bet THAT will be remembered forever.
I tend to think that is the most likely answer. As an "Agent Provocateur", she can very effectively hide behind the Feminine Mystique playing simultaneously the "dumb girl" and then the victim when she successfully manipulates some guy into popping off out of frustration, says something really angry and she can feign being hurt by it.
Men really do need to stop seeing people like this as "having hearts in the right place but just ignorant and deluded" and realize that their actions are intentional and calculated.
That is why it is so important to keep one's cool in dealing with her ilk - just keep calmly pointing our her lies and manipulations. No on ever convinces a net-person of the error of their views - we need to be concious of other eyes upon us learning and evaluating the arguments presented. Most men will see through her BS, and if women are taken in by it, then they probably already believed we were pigs anyway and didn't need any convincing.
Keep up the good work and keep going mate. We need men like you out there printing the truth!
slwerner, thanks for your 3.54 post. you beat me to the punch.
"And with the very low conviction rate regarding rape, who in their right mind would want to bring forth an allegation if losing meant jail for the female?"
The reason the conviction rate is "low" is because of women making false accusations of rape in order to say, GET ABORTIONS,jeana.
Remember that fact. It will save you a lot of "righteous indignation" later.
"There is no "stupid sexist reason" unless you consider insisting on the truth rather than lies being necessary to put a man in prison for 25 years to be a "stupid sexist reason" - you know, one of those ways we men see the world in "black and white" the way you women see it "in color", like maintaining that there is an actual difference between the truth and a lie."
Fucking NAILED it. Good job on catching that,Anon.
We can't let them get away with asserting that asking for evidence of a crime against a woman is sexist. It is factually untrue, as men are asked for evidence when they claim they have been sexually assaulted and it will ultimately undermine the justice system we have,replacing it with a fascist star chamber.
"This woman claims she's been raped."
"Is the accused male?"
"Yep."
"He's guilty,castrate him."
That's the system jeana and many other feminists want.
"This woman claims she's been raped."
"Is the accused male?"
"Yep."
"He's guilty,castrate him."
That's the system jeana and many other feminists want."
It goes much further than this - presumption of guilt for men in rape cases and immunity from false rape accusations for women are just a small part of the feminist agenda. They have opened other fronts as well, including:
1) lesser charges for women who kill their spouses than for men who do the same
2) introduction of mitigating circumstances (such as DV) when women kill, and at the same time ending any mitigating circumstances for men who kill (eg provocation)
3) Freeing prostitutes of any legal culpability, and transferring the penalties to the man who purchases sex
4) Introduction of infanticide laws so that women who murder their children are subject to different (and much lighter) penalties than other murderers
5) Banning of men from standing for public office ('temporarily', of course - to correct some 'inequality')
6) Exempting women from culpability in domestic violence situations, no matter how obviously she may be the principal agent
7) Specific male-assaults-female penalties that are so draconian that men are effectively denied the right to defend themselves
I've probably missed others, but you get the idea.
It should be fairly obvious that the Feminist aim is to exempt women from obligation and accountability in all facets of life - hence the very name 'Feminism'. It is an attempt to equate the feminine with the legitimate, and the masculine with the criminal. Ideas like justice, evidence and innocence are incongruent with this world-view, and are slowly disappearing as cornerstones to the way we think, at the same time that men are being side-lined.
That's why getting false rape accusation recognized as a serious crime with serious penalties is so viscerally opposed by feminists. If such a thing were to happen, it would be the first significant check to the feminist takeover by stealth of the legal system, and could open the door to yet more unwelcome discussion and revision.
They will oppose any penalties to Ndonye with every fiber of their being, knowing very well that the whole feminist principal of immunity for women would be set back severely by any law that principally addressed female behavior.
Fantastic post, Anon @6:21. Nailed it all right down the line.
NO, NO, NO. ABSOLUTELY, EMPHATICALLY NOT. There are such things as misunderstandings. We are talking about PROVEN LIARS. Women who claim they never met him and it turns out to be a lie. Women who claim they fled the "rape" scene when a camera catches them holding hands and laughing on the way out of the house, etc. It has to leave no reasonable doubt.
Pierce, isn’t that EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING ALL ALONG? Yes, it was. And I said it over and over. And YOU didn’t get it. Look at what you wrote at Sep 22, 2009 9:48:00 AM and at Sep 22, 2009 12:33:00 PM.
And then I have to keep listening to you and the others moaning about how I am deliberately lying, trying to “stir up anger”, whatever.
You people need to pay attention. Or do you just like to pretend I say certain things so you can complain?
I said you were deliberately lying? Where?
Quit trying to change the context of what I said. You quote what I said, but not what I was responding to. Here the dumb comment of yours I was responding to:
"Maybe in your minds, any woman who is not believed by a jury (because it wasn’t caught on tape) is a false rape accuser and so should go to jail. Is that what you’re trying to say?"
THAT'S what you said, Jeana. I disagreed with it. Why are you trying to make me look like asshole?
Wow!
I don’t believe I was talking about YOU. Did I mention you? No. Everyone here is “anonymous” practically. Anonymous and Pierce are who I was talking about.
But since you bring it up, on Sep 22, 2009 3:03:00 PM you did also totally misinterpret what I said as somehow not wanting false rape accusers to be punished. I didn’t make a “dumb comment”, it was a clarifying question based on what I hear you guys saying. So chill out.
About a year ago my boyfriend & I were arguing mostly because of my mistake…but he called the police and basically the police told me he accused me of all sorts of things that were somewhat untrue (ie. I grabbed a knife to get him to listen to me, but was shaking and put it back…he told the police (or at least that’s what he says)exactly that, the police said I tried to attack him with it. We had been fighting and I was pretty bruised up everywhere on my body (I am a petite woman,he is 6ft tall) – so he was not bruised much at all. The officer told me I would be spending years in jail unless something other than what I said (which was originally the truth)was untrue...and on multiple occasions the officer said "it sounds like something else happened,and if you told us what else happened you would get out of this trouble you are in". I got scared & I lied that he tried to rape me, but did not want to press charges,which I didn’t do (I never pressed charges) and all charges against me were dropped (and he never got any charges). I have felt terrible about this for a year now and feel like a monster. My boyfriend contacted me and wants to give me a chance and also wants to clear his name, which I absolutely think is the right thing to do. Will this get me in legal trouble? Any advice is helpful.
Post a Comment