Women Against Rape has commented on the Gail Sherwood verdict. Can you guess what they said? First, let's remind ourselves what happened.
Ms. Sherwood was the serial false accuser who was convicted last week after a six week trial of perverting the course of justice. Ms. Sherwood accused a man with whom she had a minor traffic collission of stalking her, which led to his arrest and detention for 20 hours before he was released without charge. Less than two weeks later, Ms. Sherwood told police she was dragged into the woods by a man with a weapon who then raped her as she returned to her car from walking her dogs. A little more than a month after that, Ms. Sherwood claimed she was hit over the head, taken to a remote spot, and raped.
One time, she was found naked from the waist down with tape over her mouth and with her hands tied behind her. Another time, a police helicopter located her half-naked behind a fence.
Police arrested Sherwood after a covert camera disproved her claim of being kidnapped from her home. She was not dragged from her house against her will. The video showed her calmly leaving by herself. In addition, medics found her scratches were self-inflicted. Prosecutors said she caused the innocent man's arrest as "she felt lonely and needed attention."
As we previously reported, Ms. Sherwood initially admitted making up the harassment and stalking claims after her arrest but then decided to fight the charges of perverting the course of justice at Bristol Crown Court.
So, how does Women Against Rape react to the verdict? A spokesman for Women Against Rape said the following -- and please make sure you are sitting down: "We are shocked at today's verdict. Our belief in her innocence remains unshaken."
And there you have it. A woman says she was raped, and no matter how incredible her tale, no matter that it even insults your intelligence, these rape advocates say she must have been raped. Not "we aren't sure what happened," but "we are shocked at today's verdict."
This raises two questions: is there any circumstance that would cause this organization to disbelieve a woman who says she was raped? And why doesn't this outfit that by saying inane things like this, it is actually hurting women who've been raped by casting suspicion on every single claim, including the legitimate ones -- or is it that they really don't they care?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Women Against Rape clearly stand for one thing and one thing only.
Sufficient donations (state and private) to keep themselves in paid work.
Clearly convicting innocent men, and denying the guilt of guilty women, is just routine.
One of these days, one of these groups in Europe is going to step over the line of Article 4 of the ECHR, then the shit will fly.
phentermine overnight online pharmacypharmacy degree paxil
[url=http://www.bebo.com/buyxanaxonline1]buy xanax online without perscription[/url]
Perhaps they don't really care about the effect of their lying on real rape victims because they don't really believe there are that many.
If someone will assert that a crime was committed when they know it wasn't, and they'll support anyone else who is obviously lying, wouldn't it follow that in their heart of hearts they believe rape to be more of a useful instrument for gain rather than a material concern in real-life? They probably assume most accusations are false, but that the motive for lying is the same as their own. They don't need to care about 'real rape victims' because they don't actually believe there are many to harm.
Anon at 8:56: you are onto something. I grow ever so weary of their twisting reality to further their angry agenda.
As an asided, I found a feminist hate site tonight (and believe me, I rarely read that sort of dung), and it was written in the de rigueur, foul-mouthed, rambling, almost incomprehensible style of those hateful creatures. She actually used the word "dudely," as they are wont to do when they want to mock traditional masculinity. I left a short comment pointing out that use of that word signals that the writer is grade "A" idiot. And so she is.
It is astounding how many man-hating women write on the blogosphere. Yes, I know there are equivalent men's sites -- but at least the men write better.
These are hate groups.
These are hate groups.
The more ??hate?? these venomous women spew out, the more the eunechs that now dominate American pork-ocratic beurocracies bend over backwards to send them more victim dollars.
Hysteria = funding!!
"She actually used the word "dudely," as they are wont to do when they want to mock traditional masculinity."
Dude envy.
'Dude' is clearly a label with positive connotations, but one which is only applied to men.
They are envious of never being able to live up to the title of dude. Which is silly, really, but remember who we're dealing with.
"Yes, I know there are equivalent men's sites"
Are there?
The sites that expose feminism for what it is -- Fidelbogen's, EW's, Snark's, and this one, to name a few -- no sane person could call them "hate" sites. There are a few extreme woman-hating sites that are not part of the mainstream. I have seen a few of these come and go, and they don't last. I would say that most women in this society agree with pretty everything we say here, and that we shouldn't forget that.
"Perhaps they don't really care about the effect of their lying on real rape victims because they don't really believe there are that many."
Imho, feminists are a mix of "true believers" and those who know they are lying. Regardless, there are at least two more plausible explanations.
The first, is that modern feminism is a collectivist ideology. It's not concerned about individual women, including individual women who have been raped. To advance women as a group, their goal is to vilify men at any cost, so being anti-rape is counter-productive to that agenda.
The second, is like Dred Scott. If they let one go, even if it is legitimate, then how many will follow? If they admit that even one rape accusation was false, suspending their supernatural belief that women never lie about rape, then that will open the floodgates -- calling not only the next rape accusation, but their entire ideology into question.
Anon at 7:54: Good points.
I know some of my esteemed fellow bloggers write lengthy essays about feminism. I admire my fellow bloggers, but everything I need to know about feminism is summed up in this paragraph: Any movement that is concerned with the "progress" of only one of two groups will, by necessity, work to tear down the other group. That is feminism's fatal flaw. It is not concerned with gender equity, it is a lobby for one gender. It fails to recognize nuance, and complexity; specifically, that while women have been disadvantaged in some areas of life, men have been disadvantaged in other areas -- and not by a "patriarchy" that men control. Men are disadvantaged by a society that women have helped create and that women control in large part. (One simple example: Women largely don't want to marry men who are not "successful" -- and by "successful," I don't mean good at domestic chores or at child rearing. Women seek out "good providers." This is "the big one" that insures the continuation of strict gender roles and keeps men from "having it all" as women are now able to do, but there are many other examples.) Feminism's refusal to acknowledge women's complicit role in building and maintaining the society we've all created allows feminists to blame "partriarchy," and its supposed principal benefactors, men, for all the wrongs heaped upon anybody. So they say to men, "if you have a problem, go fix it yourselves, like we've done." Hence the Mens Rights movement which -- surprise -- they hate.
I consider any further information about feminism a waste of my time when I should be advocating for the wrongly accused.
"feminism is summed up in this paragraph: Any movement that is concerned with the "progress" of only one of two groups will, by necessity, work to tear down the other group."
Archivist, I must disagree. While some feminists do work on tearing a majority group down, others just work on equality and point out the flaws, inequalities, and prejudice of other groups. Feminist of the past made it possible for me to use birth control, live at my boyfriend's house without getting married, and work at a job without being seen as meat. Even though many of them were man-haters, they gave me a lot of equality.
Very few feminists that I know are man-haters. However, because they are man-haters and so angry, you'll usually hear them complain the most. The feminists I know just work on certain, mostly unspoken or ignored issues, like human trafficking and the sexual abuse of Native Americans.
AixelA, I, too, endorse total equality between the sexes. But I wish you didn't call yourself a "feminist" because that term has become such a loaded one, full of extremely negative, dare I say insulting connotations. Most people I know outside of academia roll their eyes at the very mention of the word because of the angry, man-hating, and heavily lesbian elements. But in response to your post --
First, which "majority" group are referring to? There's only one majority gender group, and its got two "x" chromosomes. I belong to a minority group.
As for the things you reference in your second paragraph, you give "feminists" far too much credit. Much of that occurred due to relaxing sexual mores (thank the progressives in the 60s and 70s, including the so-called "hippies," for that), not feminism. As for work, the primary reasons women were able to enter the workforce to work alongside men are: (1) the exploding economy, which called for more jobs than there were male workers, and (2) the incredible technological innovations that reduced domestic work to a part-time job at best. As women assumed jobs only men previously performed, over time, both men and women came to adjust their views of one another. I and the other men in my law firm do not treat women as equals because we fear some law; we do it because that's what women are -- equals (in contrast, most women still see men primarily as breadwinners and as secondary parents at best -- and that's the way they want it). As for the laws enacted to insure that women aren't treated unfairly at work, men had more to do with those than "feminists." Huge numbers of people who don't want to be associated with the "f" word drove the changes. Why? Because, frankly, a lot of men like me don't want our wives discriminated or harassed on the job, and we realized it was the right thing to do. And feminists didn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade here in the U.S. That was the Nixon Supreme Court. You remember Nixon -- the "scariest" conservative until Ronald Reagan (Reagan, just to remind our European friends who deny it, won the Cold War).
Revolutionary changes in technology, and our exploding economy, allowed us to blur gender lines. Not "feminism." Mainstream feminsim, as practiced by NOW, is too busy trying to screw men out of "shared parenting," and insuring that women who do safe desk jobs that everybody wants get paid as much as men who do physically demanding, dangerous and necessary jobs that few people want.
"And feminists didn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade here in the U.S."
I'm not defending what feminism has become, but that simply isn't true. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion had become legal in many states, and even judges read the papers.
AixelA - "The feminists I know just work on certain, mostly unspoken or ignored issues, like human trafficking and the sexual abuse of Native Americans."
While I would hold that efforts on behalf of these causes is truly admirable, I don't believe that they are uniquely "feminist" causes - much in the same way that seeking the abolition of slavery wasn't a "white" cause.
To my way of thinking, the term feminism is simply to broad to properly characterize the various efforts being made by those who assume it’s mantle.
Like many men who are advocates for men’s rights (MRA), my views on the goals of equity for the genders would also put me solidly in the feminist “camp”. I support and uphold most, if not all, of the laudable goals exposed by those who once called themselves feminists. I have a wife, 2 adult daughters, a mother, a mother in-law, a grandmother, numerous female cousins, and countless women who are my friends/colleagues who I would never wish to see suffer either injustice nor discrimination.
In fact, I’d venture that MOST of us who consider ourselves MRA’s are, by the basic definition, feminists.
And, it’s also true that certain issues affect women more so than men, and it’s quite understandable that women who be the foremost advocates in those areas, like those you mention. But, men (who may not view themselves as feminists) also care and will actively work for justice.
And, just as there are issues which disproportionately affect women, so too are there issues which tend to victimize men more so. The matter of false allegations of rape stand as one prime example. Now, just as women will identify more readily with other women, it will be primarily men who will take up the cause of FRA’s.
But, just as most men will recognize the evil of human trafficking and the sexual abuse (personally, I’d hate to meet the man who wasn’t against any human trafficking or sexual enslavement), one would tend to believe that most women would likewise be against FRA’s.
Sadly, this does not seem to be the case. I realize you think highly of Marcella Chester, and value her efforts on behalf of victimized women. However, I see in her a callous disregard for men who have been victimized via FRA’s. In my opinion, her written comments regarding the issue largely amount to one big “Who Cares?”.
To men, it’s unfortunate, but some women (feminists) DO behave as if the advancement of women must necessarily come at the cost of men – and they seem quite fine with that position. I prefer the term gender-feminist to differentiate them from those feminists whose goal is strictly equity.
On a previous thread, gwallen posted a link to an article regarding a study which found NO disparity in the conviction rate between rape and other crimes which also mentioned the efforts of UK gender-feminists to “rig” the system so as to convict more men of rape – regardless of possible innocence. My comment there, regarding that obvious perversion of justice, was “Shame on anyone who doesn’t care!”
Just as I would say this same thing of any man who turned a blind eye to the issues you’ve concerned yourself with, I’d extend my expressed sentiment to those who likewise would willfully ignore the issue of FRA’s.
Hum??
That link I posted to gwallan's post on Feb 17, 2010 7:05:00 PM, in the The honor due all who battle tyranny on behalf of the falsely accused: "Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passin'." thread, doesn't seem to work as expected.
So, to try that again, it's: Feb 17, 2010 7:05:00 PM.
Hopefully, it will work better this time.
slwerner, excellent, excellent comment. I would part company on how women feel about false rape claims. My experience is that most women think it's terrible. Now, remember, most men and women don't give it much thought, but when they do, they think it's terrible. I don't think they are just saying it -- they don't want to see their loved ones destroyed by an FRA.
And to anon: judges aren't swayed by feminism. If judges were swayed by feminism, they'd convict any male charged with rape. They do not.
"And to anon: judges aren't swayed by feminism. If judges were swayed by feminism, they'd convict any male charged with rape. They do not."
Maybe some would try, but you can't lump all judges together. Clearly, based on their records, there are judges who are more liberal, and others who are more conservative, some who are more biased, and others who are more objective. While it shouldn't happen in principle, it's terribly naive to think judges can't be swayed by politics.
There are also degrees of feminism or different schools of thought within feminism. Roe v. Wade was in 1973. At that time, feminism was often called "women's lib", and still concerned with arguably valid issues such as workplace equality. It was this feminism that worked to pass legislation legalizing abortion. It wasn't until after the 1982 deadline for the ERA passed, the feminist take over of academic administrations and the creation of women's studies, and the 1985 Koss survey, that rape became the core issue of feminism.
Post a Comment