Tuesday, April 27, 2010

'Only later did it dawn upon me how unfair it is that good men must slink through life concerned about being falsely accused'

I wanted to pass along a note I received from a friend -- a male:

"I thought you might find this of mild interest because it points up one of your blog's themes.  It's a very small thing, and when it happened, it seemed so natural that I gave it no thought. But now that I think about it, it says a lot (too much) about where we are as a culture.

"My company was contacted by a high school senior -- a girl -- who is working on a project. She asked if she could interview a particular middle-aged man who works for me, who is an expert in the field she's writing about.  My immediate reaction was that if this interview was to occur face-to-face, for my employee's own protection, he would need a witness, preferably a female employee of the company.  My female assistant agreed with me, and another woman who works for us volunteered to sit in.  When we told the employee about the girl's request, he was squeamish about meeting her at all and suggested a phone interview so that, he said, 'no one can accuse me of anything.'  I should add that this man is a perfectly well-adjusted father who has raised a fine son, and that he has a stellar track record of community service. He is a long-time elder in his church, and has never been accused of anything, that I know of. 

"Of course, the sole reason we were all concerned about his being falsely accused was because he is male. We would not have had this concern if he was a she. 

"Only later did it dawn upon me how unfair it is that good men must slink through life concerned about being falsely accused.  Isn't it sad that everyone in my office had the same reaction? And isn't it even more sad that we didn't think there was anything unusual about that reaction?  It's become standard operating procedure."

116 comments:

Archivist said...

See, my friend is learning.

I would have had the same reaction his people had. But I would have realized how unfair it was at the time.

AfOR said...

Sorry Archivist, to my mind your friend is part of the problem.

"My Company"

So the company and staff attitudes, as always, come from the top down.

If this guy really gave a shit he'd sack all the women concerned, and then sack himself.

As CEO he IS THE MAN WHO EMPOWERED THIS FEMINAZI ATTITUDE AT HIS COMPANY

The male employee in question is quite clearly, from his demonstrated attitude, a severe victim of systematic sexual harassment at his workplace.

AfOR said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268988/Girl-14-arrested-murder-paedophile-Robert-Daley.html

A girl of 14 has been charged over the suspected 'vigilante' murder of a man she had accused of a sex assault.

Robert Daley, 45, was stabbed to death just days after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge him over an alleged attack on the teenager.

Neighbours found him sprawled in a pool of blood in the doorway of his flat in south London on Friday evening.

He was able to give his first name to police and paramedics, but died minutes later.

Police arrested an 18-year-old man over the murder on Saturday before detaining the 14-year-old girl late on Sunday. She was still being held last night.

Sources confirmed that the female suspect is the same girl who had previously accused Daley of raping her.

Her allegations prompted an investigation by a Metropolitan Police child protection team but the CPS, which examined an evidence file, concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him over the alleged attack.

The decision is said to have infuriated the girl, who insisted she was telling the truth and wanted him to face court.

Last night a neighbour of the victim described the horrifying moment when he saw Daley close to death.

Barry Boreland, who lived next door in the block of flats in Brixton, South London, said: 'The door was open and I saw lying on his back in the landing, his head furthest from the door.

'His legs were flopped out and there was blood everywhere. He was still conscious and managed to tell the police his first name.

'His girlfriend was there and gave his surname. It was a shocking sight and very upsetting.

'He was a decent neighbour who had never caused us any problems.'

Other friends were astonished to discover that he had been accused of rape.

Mr Daley, who is believed to have a daughter from a previous relationship, had worked as builder and plasterer, but had not been employed for several years because he suffered from epilepsy.

Nicholas Walker, who had known him for ten years from the popular Duke of Edinburgh pub near his home, described him as a 'gentle giant.'

He said: 'Robert was a quiet, polite man. He is the last person I would ever thought that something like this would happen to.

'He never caused trouble. I saw him riding his mountain bike near his home a couple of hours before his death and he didn't look like he had a care in the world. It is all a terrible shock.'

Another friend, David Eden, 55, said: 'He was a bit of a ladies man. He and a friend would go to nightclubs together and fancied themselves a bit with women.

'But there was nothing malicious or nasty about him. He was very genuine and good natured. I can't believe there was anything in the allegations. It wasn't like him at all.'

The CPS confirmed that Mr Daley was investigated over rape allegations but a decision not to prosecute him because of insufficient evidence was made on April 13.

A post-mortem examination held on Saturday (24 April) gave cause of death as resulting from stab wounds to the chest.

Scotland Yard confirmed a teenage girl had been arrested in connection with the attack.

An 18-year-old man who was initially arrested in connection with the death has bailed to return in May.

AfOR said...

To sum up, the man is dead, so the paper feels free to call him a paedophile, even though the only "evidence" to support this is in fact the hearsay allegation of said 14 year old girl.

So when plod find no evidence to charge the guy for the allegations made by the 14 year old girl, she recruits an 18 year old male to stab him to death.

plod, correctly, arrest her for this, but the dead man is still labelled a paedophile, despite all the neighbours saying he was a nice guy, and despite living with a girlfriend.

This is an FRA gone bad if ever I saw one.

Archivist said...

AfOR is on a roll today. As I say, I would have felt the same way this guy felt -- unfortunately, men need to protect themselves. I did not read the note to say that the women were concerned for the girl. The concern was to keep the man from being exposed to a false rape claim. This is the reality we are living with today.

Anonymous said...

UK: Jack Tweed cleared of raping 19-year-old

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1268915/Jack-Tweed-cleared-rape-15-minutes.html

AfOR said...

hmm, so only a female witness can give a man an adequate alibi for a false rape accusation.

and females acting in this way are protecting / empowering males?

and yet females are responsible for the *vast* majority of false rape accusations.

so females are simultaneously predators and guardians, and males are just herd beasts / prey.

you see where I am going with this....

what's a poor boy to do except submit to living under the authoritah of the matriarchy?

Frankly a CCTV system in the meeting room would provide a more reliable alibi... some random company female being present isn't going to protect the male from being accused by the female student at any subsequent time, see earlier FRS stories about FRA's subsequent to being involved in road accidents with women.

The FACTS in this case, and any lawyer will easily persuade a jury of this, are;

1/ the male employee in question was very worried about future problems.

2/ the female employees did not have enough faith in the male employees integrity

3/ the boss of the company did not have enough faith in the male employees integrity

4/ the real victim here is the male employee

5/ nobody made any effort to reassign his status as anything other than victim, all that was on offer was victim status plus alibi from unimpeachable female

this male employee is no fool, he is quite aware that his boss, and his female co-workers, all adopt the initial mindset that "man = rapist".

a genuinely innocent man would have done what I would have done a year ago, in my ignorance, and said "sure, come on in, sit down" to the student, and would have looked uncomprehendingly at anyone suggesting anything otherwise.

fact is I am no longer ignorant, and the fact is that I will no longer automatically act innocent.

I will now act in a way that is externally indistinguishable from a man who is intent on rape, and first procuring a great alibi.

that's a fact, jack, and that is the REAL price of this rape hysteria... I already got to this place some years ago with kids thanks to the paedogeddon hysteria.

story in the news about 25 people walking past a guy dying in a pool of his own blood in the states.

see me? I'll walk past a woman or a child dying in a pool of their own blood, careful not to tread in it or get any DNA contamination of any kind, which includes contact with anyone who does go near the body.

I never NEEDED the police or the community, I could stand on my own two feet, so frankly it's a no-lose situation for me, losing something I never needed doesn't hurt.

women and kids, now they were the ones that NEEDED the good will of the police or the community.

I'm down to kith and kin, and brotherhood, such as any FRA victim, the rest of the planet can bite my shiny metal ass, as bender said.

welcome to the laws of unintended consequences, ladies and children, you're another step closer to standing alone and naked in the jungle, as another bunch of guys who were never predators but who got labelled as such decide enough is enough.

AfOR said...

it was said in Court in the Jack Tweed trial that the FRA only made the accusation AFTER her friends called her a slut for having a threesome with Tweed and his mate.

Anonymous said...

U.S law enforcement is "cashing in" on huge federal dollars to harrass and discriminate against men/boys.
I will say that some police jurisdictions in heavilly "Gender feiminist" dominated areas of the North East, are much more "perverted" in this area than law enforcement in say the bible belt.

slwerner said...

AfOR - "it was said in Court in the Jack Tweed trial that the FRA only made the accusation AFTER her friends called her a slut for having a threesome with Tweed and his mate."

The regrets about sex after friends disapprove is, as far as I can tell, a significant contributor to he-said/she-said type allegations.

Investigators ought to be trained to ask accusers if they'd spoken to friends after the incident, but before reporting. If they have, then it should raise flags, and prompt interviews with those friends. And, if their accounts don't match and hold up to scrutiny, the heat should be turned up on the accuser with the direct question of her friends having influenced her determination the encounter was rape.

I reminded of the recent story about the Brown student who's snotty rich friends disapproved of her befriending the lower socio-economic class scholarship athlete, ultimately leading to his mere presence in the dorm building (where he too lived) resulting in his being accused of raping her.

There seems to be no truly reliable way to know just how prevalent such peer-pressure FRA's are, but I'd imagine they number are rather significant.

slwerner said...

"Of course, the sole reason we were all concerned about his being falsely accused was because he is male. We would not have had this concern if he was a she."

In my organization we have some rather strict policies regarding interactions between (older) men and (younger) women.

Personally, I've had lots of interaction with numerous graduate students doing collaborative work on their thesis projects and post-docs doing collaborative NSA-grant research. Increasingly over the years, these "plum" opportunities have been going to young women.

It's often difficult, or at least highly inconvenient to ensure one keeps with the (protective) protocol. I know I've often been careless. Fortunately, the hard sciences tend to attract more stable women, determined to prove themselves (rather than use law suits, blackmail, etc. to get ahead).

Thus, this story serves as a stark reminder to me that I need to be more careful. Since I'm not looking to "hook-up" with women, and since I have a solid reputation and am well established in my position, I've allowed myself to feel that I'm more-or-less immune from the potential for FRA's.

Yet, I've spent hours working with some of these young women, with no other "witnesses" around. In retrospect, I've carelessly left myself exposed, often in violation of the rules in place for my protection. I keep telling others to buy themselves recording devices (audio, at the least), but, despite the fact that I've repeatedly "shopped" them, I've yet to obtain one for myself [something I will be remedying today].

We can all take a lesson from the perfectly well-adjusted father with a stellar track record who is wise enough to never-the-less avoid any potential pitfalls - even those that come about via the requests of others, and seem innocent enough.

It's a sad state of affairs, but, all men need to plan to protect themselves from the threat of FRA's, no matter how remote the threat may seem. It's just as woman must be vigilant to avoid putting themselves in a position where they might be raped.

False rape accusers may be as rare as rapists, but one can never be sure who that statistically rare person may be.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "U.S law enforcement is "cashing in" on huge federal dollars to harrass and discriminate against men/boys.
I will say that some police jurisdictions in heavilly "Gender feiminist" dominated areas of the North East, are much more "perverted" in this area than law enforcement in say the bible belt."


A challenge for you:

I did a simple search of "VAWA grants" plus the names of counties near me (I've previously posted the links and results showing how little was granted, and that NONE went to LE in my area), and found it quite easy to get a listing of ALL grants of VAWA money by county.

Since in my neck of the woods the amount of VAWA money to LE was, to say the least, completely "underwhelming"; perhaps you can do the same for your county, detailing for us all the amounts, purposes, an links to the grants there. Then, you might contrast that to the local budget for LE in your county.

I'd like to be able to see what you believe constitutes this supposed great financial inducement to LE to encourage and enable FRA's for fun and profit?

AfOR said...

@ slwerner

Oh, if only false rape accusers were as rare as rapists...

by my guesstimation here in the UK there are at least 100 false rape accusers for every rapist.

Just today a woman told me, to my face, that in her opinion, given all the false rape accusations and the life ruining effects of them, rape should be reduced in criminal severity until it is on a par with a common street mugging.

The pendulum is swinging back.

Women are stood in its path.

So sad, too bad.

AfOR said...

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/2581_digital-recorder_vn-5500pc_dns_22385.htm

should be about 50 bucks, 100mm x 40mm x 20 mm

# 512 MB memory capacity and up to 221 hours’ recording
# Hi-Speed USB connection (Mass Storage Device)
# High sound quality: WMA file format
# 5 folders for file storage, 200 messages per folder
# Easy to use: large LCD, operation by one large central button
# Versatile: choose from three recording options (HQ/SP/LP)
# Mass storage device with integrated loudspeaker

AfOR said...

personally I bought the 6500 model, 1 gig of memory and has voice activation which is very good.

USB connection to computer so just drag and drop files.

one day soon it will either save my ass, or bury someone else's when they are proven to be lying.

slwerner said...

AfOR - "http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/2581_digital-recorder_vn-5500pc_dns_22385.htm"

And it comes with Dragon NaturallySpeaking (which I do use) so it can even be a useful tool for purposes other than personal protection.

Looks like a good choice to consider. Thanks

AfOR said...

Just make sure you buy the model with "PC" at the end, those are the ones with USB drag and drop PC connections.

I would also recommend stumping up the extra for the 6500, not so much for the extra 512 mb onboard, but for the Voice Activation Recording, very very useful.

Bob said...

AfOR said..."by my guesstimation here in the UK there are at least 100 false rape accusers for every rapist."

I've said for years that it would be surprising if even 8% of rape reports had any factual basis at all. Less than one in a hundred may be even more accurate.

There are serial false rape accusers in every city and town. Unfortunately the blue gun thugs make so much federal money persecuting men that they sometimes prosecute even while knowing that their serial false rape accuser is lying again.

A man isn't safe within 500 yards of the nearest female.

Axel said...

It is much easier to tell a lie about rape than it is to rape. Far more people would be willing to do the former than the latter, for a variety of reasons.

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately the blue gun thugs make so much federal money persecuting men"

Enough already.

Anonymous said...

"It is much easier to tell a lie about rape than it is to rape. Far more people would be willing to do the former than the latter, for a variety of reasons."

There is also much greater punishment for the former.

slwerner said...

Bob - "Unfortunately the blue gun thugs make so much federal money persecuting men"

In their heart-of-hearts, there are many rape-hysteric gender-feminists who just know, absolutely, for-sure, that there's a study out there that absolutely, once-and-for-all irrefutably demonstrates that only 2% of all rape allegations are false.

And, they'll keep throwing that stat around until someone asks them to find and post a link to that magical study. After that, the best they seem to be able to muster is a bunch of shaming language and insults for having been asked to do the impossible.

In that spirit of thought, I'd like you to post links to the documentation clearly showing how local LE profits via federal money for prosecuting men on rape charges.

Assuming your claim is more reliable than the 2% canard, I'm sure you'll have something to show.

Rosalee said...

"... this man is a perfectly well-adjusted father who has raised a fine son, and that he has a stellar track record of community service. He is a long-time elder in his church, and has never been accused of anything, that I know of.

Very stable attributes, but remember, folks, a rapist can have the same stellar profile until he is caught.

The author of this story sounds a little off kilter. If a meeting had been properly set up on company grounds with open doors, why would the man fear a false rape accusation? Maybe the author can explain the meeting scenario.

afor thinks the "pendulum is swinging back". How far back would you like to see the pendulum swing ... the ideal point where you would like to see it rest?

Anonymous said...

You're full of shit, "Rosalee." Of course a rapist is going to have a criminal backgrounds, since almost all rapes are committed by common criminals.

It doesn't matter what kind of a man you are; we are all vulnerable to false accusations and convictions. Any woman -- a prostitute, a compulsive liar, etc -- can nifong any man at any time, and it isn't even necessary to have sex with her. Some of the victims who have been exonerated by the Innocence Project even had fifteen witnesses in a bar say that they couldn't have been guilty of their crimes! Were they "innocent until proven guilty?" Only in the imaginations of those who are gullible enough to think this is still a free country.

Archivist said...

Rosalee, I feel the same way as the man refereneced in the note, so I must be off-kilter, too. For men, an "innocent" meeting isn't worth having our lives destroyed in a manner that, all due respect, women wouldn't necessarily understand.

Men know that they are improperly viewed as potential predators to women in an infinite number of settings, more or less "scary" in varying degrees, and they also know that lots of even seemingly stable women decide, for any number of reasons, to take advantage of that stereotype (which, by the way, YOU'VE repeated in your comment, Rosalee -- thank you very much!) that the men's lives aren't as important as the necessity for telling a rape lie.

I say this respectfully: your comment is tinged with misandry, and you really should question your assumptionsn.

Anonymous said...

If you are falsely accused, do you know how your jury will think? Just like the poster above, "Rosalee": looking for any excuse to believe the liar, no matter what. Just like the people who are going around making up even more lies about Ben Roethlisberger; lies that contradict the "victim's" statements! It is human nature to make things up when you really want to believe something, and Americans always want to believe that a rape occurred.

Archivist said...

". . . afor thinks the "pendulum is swinging back". How far back would you like to see the pendulum swing ... the ideal point where you would like to see it rest?"

How about it swings back to the point where we're not tyrannizing innocent men and boys, the way they did in Salem witch hunts, simply to insure that rapists are "brought to justice."

Anonymous said...

I don't see it swinging back, though. If there has been progress it's been very slight.

What I see is people holding rape accusers to an even lower standard as they are exposed to more and more bullshit cases, like Ben R. and David C. Where is the public outrage that Copperfield was falsely accused?

Archivist said...

I need to take issue with this:

Axel said: "It is much easier to tell a lie about rape than it is to rape. Far more people would be willing to do the former than the latter, for a variety of reasons."

Anonymous said this: "There is also much greater punishment for the former."

And Anonymous is full of shit. All due respect.

Anonymous said...

It needs to "swing back" so far that it is impossible for an innocent man to be convicted or even charged with rape. In a free country no innocent person ever needs to fear a liar or the state.

Anonymous said...

Did that anon actually say that there is a harsher penalty for lying about a rape than for committing one? Ha!

Archivist said...

2:18: I'll give chivalrous news commentator Bill O'Reilly credit: we previously reported that he went for bat for Copperfield, as did his blond legal analyst.

Roethlisberger is a difficult one to defend because he was serving alcohol to minors. Without that, I don't think the NFL would have suspended him.

AfOR said...

It is swinging back in the UK, slowly, but very, very, definitely.

the local rag two days ago ran a front page story about a FRA, linked here, and commented on by posters from here.

now today there was an editorial calling for all rape accused to be anonymous until / unless convicted, and the FRA's to face much stiffer penalties.

we are getting there, slowly.

like I said, the pendulum isn't going to stop when things get back to normal, by then it will be moving fastest and with the most momentum...

.... but what do I care, I'm not a woman, so I care as much as the average woman has cared for the past generation or two for the plight of men.

Anonymous said...

Archivist: Ben Roethisberger was not charged with serving alcohol to minors. If he had done that I'm sure he would have been charged.

Chef Snark said...

"Anonymous said this: "There is also much greater punishment for the former."

And Anonymous is full of shit. All due respect."

Eh, I think this was probably a genuine mistake. Even the most ideological of feminists knows that there is much greater punishment, and likelihood of punishment, for rape.

False accusers are mollycoddled and called PAW even after their lies are found out, for God's sake!

Anonymous said...

Man classified Tier 3 says he is not a threat



by F.T. Norton
ftnorton@nevadaappeal.comShare on Facebook Email Print Comment Recommend


ENLARGE William Sears stands in his home Friday, holding a letter from the state that informed him he was upgraded to a Tier 3 sex offender. Sears, who is partially blind, said he thought the letter was telling him his tier level was reduced 26 years after he was convicted as a teenager of battery with intent to commit sexual assault. “I never stepped out of bounds or anything. I don't know why they raised me up to a Tier 3.”
JEN SCHMIDT/NEVADA APPEAL

A Carson City man said he was stunned Friday to read a newspaper article stating he was recently designated as a Tier 3 sex offender — deemed by the state as the most likely to reoffend.

Anonymous said...

Man classified Tier 3 cont...

“You figure after 26 years, (the tier level) would go down, not up,” said William Sears, 46. “I never stepped out of bounds or anything. I don't know why they raised me up to a Tier 3.”

In 1984 as a teen, Sears was convicted of battery with intent to commit sexual assault. Sears denies the incident was sexual in nature. He said he was at a high school party when he was 17 and stumbled into the wrong apartment where he “backhanded a woman and fought with her husband.”

He said he awoke the next morning in the drunk tank and asked deputies what happened.

After sitting in jail for “eight months and 25 days,” Sears said he pleaded to a reduced charge and the judge sentenced him to probation. For the past two decades he's lived in Carson City, he said, never again accused of a sex-related offense.

But after the Nevada Legislature passed new laws concerning sex offenders in 2007, each offender's case is reviewed yearly.

During a review of Sears' case this year, officials found he had a conviction in 1995 of brandishing a weapon and a domestic battery conviction in 2001, said Carson City Sheriff's Detective Bob Motamenpour.

The two additional offenses changed Sears' classification, he said.

In early March Sears received a letter that told him he had been reclassified as a Tier 3. The letter informed him he had until March 22 to file an appeal, but he missed the deadline, said Motamenpour.

Sears said he didn't know what the letter said because he's blind in one eye and had difficulty reading.

“I thought it said they were reducing my tier level,” said Sears, a father of six.

His sister Aileen Aiello was angry over the change in his status.

“How is he a high-risk sex offender when there was no sex involved?” she asked. “It's making like he's a God-awful person and he's not.

“I want the public to know he's not out here doing all this.”

Aiello said Sears was so ashamed by the article, prompted by Motamenpour's duty to notify the public if a Tier 3 offender lives in the community, he missed a doctor's appointment on Friday where he could have received help with his vision.

“He didn't want to leave the house,” she said.

Motamenpour said this wasn't the first time Sears failed to meet a deadline set by the state.

“After the change of the law the state re-evaluates these folks. It's all up to the state and they decided he needs to be in a different tier,” said Motamenpour.

Currently, Sears is the only person in the city with a Tier 3 designation.

“I expect we'll have some more as the reclassifications continue,” said Motamenp-our.

Anonymous said...

On Big Ben allegedly serving alcohol to minors the part I never understood is that she had a FAKE ID and was at 3 different BARS with BIG Ben.

So how was he supposed to know she was underage?

And of course she is in no trouble for underage drinking or making a false ID.

Some of my buddies growing up lost their licensees for underage drinking.

Archivist said...

Chef, you might be correct, but the standard feminist line is that virtually no rapists are punished at all.

On Roethlisberger: why she wasn't charged is simply astounding. I suppose they fear being viewed as vindictive since they knew that there'd probably be a lot of anger for not charging Ben for rape.

Chef Snark said...

Archivist,

Did you get my email response?

Anonymous said...

""Anonymous said this: "There is also much greater punishment for the former."

And Anonymous is full of shit. All due respect."

Eh, I think this was probably a genuine mistake."

Sorry, it was.

Anonymous said...

Law Enforcement and the judicial system are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in what they can prove. It doesn't matter what the character of the person is, how nice they are, what community service they are involved in -- It's all about the evidence (or the suppression of it in the case of rape shield laws, VAWA, and other draconian, feminist, legal standards). The only way to preserve one's freedom is through making oneself as immune as possible from false accusations by taking protective actions. In this case: Meet with the girl, but do the whole interview on camera and with a witness -- if it needs a female witness, ok. Is it fair, absolutely not.

The need for hard evidence, however, gives a man no other choice if he wants to preserve his freedom and opportunities.

Rosalee said...

"It needs to "swing back" so far that it is impossible for an innocent man to be convicted or even charged with rape."

The word "impossible" is unrealistic because there has always been (and will be) instances where both false accusers and rapists slip through the cracks.

"How about it swings back to the point where we're not tyrannizing innocent men and boys"

What did the pendulum look like before we began tyrannizing men and boys?

Anonymous said...

GG is that you?

Chef Snark said...

"What did the pendulum look like before we began tyrannizing men and boys?"

State power never in history has tyrannised women and girls in peacetime.

People have ALWAYS sided with women and girls, even before feminism.

See: lynching of black men in 19th and early 20th century America. What do you suppose prompted that?

Chef Snark said...

Feminists like Rosalee would have you believe that women lived through a five thousand year Holocaust prior to the 1960s.

In reality, they were protected and provided for.

Any abuse that women suffered at the hands of men in peacetime - and I do not deny that it happened - was a matter of individual male transgressors.

On the contrary, men today are victimised by the awesome power of the state itself. Not one woman, or one man: the state, which holds the monopoly on the use of violence. Your entire SOCIETY, turned against you and baying for your blood. THAT is far, far more scary than anything women, as a class, have had to deal with at ANY point in history. Women have tended to be worshipped, not persecuted.

Chef Snark said...

The real issue getting under the skin of feminists like Rosalee is that women may be forced to renounce their privileged-princess status, and be treated as human beings and as citizens: with all the responsibilities that that entails - including the appropriate punishments for transgressing against others.

AfOR said...

it's not the punishments they fear snark, it is the end of the free meal ticket that they fear, quite rightly too.

on a level playing field they will lose every time, unless a man chooses to protect them

back to early roman law and the man as legal head of the household and everyone else as chattels.

Archivist said...

The reason men are learning to be wary is that the women we fear are Trojan Horses who are most adept at hiding what they really are. They come to us as girlfriends, taxi cab passengers, women we meet in bars, classmates -- and even girls looking to interview us -- but never as false accusers. We only learn what they are when it is too late. They lie to us, and make us lower our guard, and then -- they destroy us, for reasons known only to them.

And as we're led away, they look back and smirk, letting us know that this was a sort of twisted payback for the perceived historical oppression of all women, by all men. Whatever injustice they heap upon us, you see, can never compare with the mythical oppression the men of old visited on the women of antiquity, an oppression that we must pay for by being falsely accused, arrested, charged, detained, tried, wrongly convicted, imprisoned, and raped ourselves.

The problem, of course, is that the oppression they complain of is nothing more than oppression in the air. It never really happened.

Anonymous said...

...."they destroy us, for reasons known only to them".

Power
Control
Greed
Revenge
Attention
Misandry

Rosalee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"It needs to "swing back" so far that it is impossible for an innocent man to be convicted or even charged with rape."

The word "impossible" is unrealistic because there has always been (and will be) instances where both false accusers and rapists slip through the cracks.
***

It is absolutely ridiculous to compare some rapists being acquitted to the way false rape accusers are routinely not charged for their crimes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Where is the public outrage that Crystal Mangum continues to be given a free pass for her lies?

Anonymous said...

The problem, of course, is that the oppression they complain of is nothing more than oppression in the air. It never really happened.
****

The past "oppression" of women doing housework all day while men ran off to have fun on the front lines of some meaningless war or slaving away in a meatpacking plant happened because of economic necessity: housework and cooking used to take many hours longer than they do now, in the age of modern appliances. Women had to have many more children back then, also, because of high child death rates.

For most women, life used to suck, throughout most of human history.

And here's the part the feminist charlatans leave out: for most men, life used to suck, thoughout most of human history.

Chef Snark said...

It is always gratifying to come here and see

"This post has been removed by a blog administrator."

safe in the knowledge that whatever some nasty, irrelevant feminist had to say, I don't have to read it.

Chef Snark said...

"The reason men are learning to be wary is that the women we fear are Trojan Horses who are most adept at hiding what they really are. They come to us as girlfriends, taxi cab passengers, women we meet in bars, classmates -- and even girls looking to interview us -- but never as false accusers. We only learn what they are when it is too late. They lie to us, and make us lower our guard, and then -- they destroy us, for reasons known only to them.

And as we're led away, they look back and smirk, letting us know that this was a sort of twisted payback for the perceived historical oppression of all women, by all men. Whatever injustice they heap upon us, you see, can never compare with the mythical oppression the men of old visited on the women of antiquity, an oppression that we must pay for by being falsely accused, arrested, charged, detained, tried, wrongly convicted, imprisoned, and raped ourselves.

The problem, of course, is that the oppression they complain of is nothing more than oppression in the air. It never really happened."

This comment is so good, it should be turned into a post.

Rosalee said...

"And here's the part the feminist charlatans leave out: for most men, life used to suck, thoughout most of human history"

That's a valid statement. Throughout history, men have never had it easy. Men are expected to weather financial burdens and protect their familites. That alone is a huge responsibility. If he doesn't measure up, he's considered a loser. Women have never been critically judged in that area.

Not sure if I agree that oppression of women is a myth. How does the FRS define oppresion of women?

Anonymous said...

Slwerner, I'm sure you mean well with yer insistance that there is no such thing as law enforcemnent "Cashing In" on the manufacture and distribution of faulty and inflamatory anti-male statistics. But you you are incorrect.
U.S. law enforcement is in fact now engageing the manufacture and distribution of faulty and inflamatory misinformation, and is in fact "cashing in" on these manufactured statistics.
My conclusions will be self evident if and when U.S law enforcement offices are subpeonead to court to answer for their perversions against our constitution.
Were gonna have to agree to disagree here.

Anonymous said...

The gender / Raunch feminists are like the pigs in the book "Animal farm"
"Here all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

Anonymous said...

"How does the FRS define oppresion of women?"

Can't speak for the FRS, but I would define "oppression of women" as women being treated worse than men.

And that would be in an objective, measurable way, not a quickly cobbled together belief.

ie, if women had shorter life-spans and suicided more often than men then there's a case for oppression, these being the two strongest indicators of well-being and position in society.

I think China is the only country on the planet where women suicide more than men (slightly), but they still live longer.

So it's men who are being oppressed. Always have been.

Rosalee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rosalee said...

Anonymous, your descriptiion of the "oppression of women" is nothing more than "men are treated worse than women". Can you be more specific? I can't grab hold of anything that vague.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, your descriptiion of the "oppression of women" is nothing more than "men are treated worse than women". Can you be more specific? I can't grab hold of anything that vague."

There's nothing vague about shorter life-spans and higher suicide rates. These are common indicators, along with educational achievement and criminal offending, and are routinely forwarded as evidence of oppression of minorities.

For other manifestations of oppression, you need only refer to the subject of this post: men are oppressed by a culture that assumes the worst of them and accords the word of women a higher value. Also, crimes committed by men against women are elevated to being the very worst of crimes, but crimes women commit against men are often not taken seriously as crimes at all.

Anonymous said...

My Chambers dictionary definition of "oppress" includes the following meanings:

to treat with tyrannical cruelty or injustice; to load with heavy burdens

Again, objective measures matter more than how loudly one can complain.

As for tyrannical cruelty, large graves of people murdered en masse are nearly all of men.

As for injustice, what is the ratio of men to women freed by the Innocence Project? Why do we accept 90+% of prisoners being male as "normal"? How many photos have you seen with women hanging by their necks before a lynch mob?

I needn't elaborate on "to load with heavy burdens". It's why men don't live as long.

Anonymous said...

And finally, many men have fought and died for the betterment of theirs and other's lives.

Women, not so much. Do you know of a single feminist that died for the cause? If so, can you name more than 10? (I leave you all of history to go looking for them).

Rosalee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rosalee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gwallan said...

@Rosalee...

Regarding oppression throughout human history I'd recommend Gendercide by Adam Jones. Oppression has tended to be class, religion or race based.

I would put it to you that the ultimate indicator of oppression would be death. In this vein if either gender could claim to be more oppressed than the other it would certainly not be women.

The author of this story sounds a little off kilter. If a meeting had been properly set up on company grounds with open doors, why would the man fear a false rape accusation? Maybe the author can explain the meeting scenario.

Off kilter?

Couple of years ago I worked for an organisation which provided accredited training for trade and craft educators. They ran three and five day programs in which a full half day was spent on ways of protecting oneself from allegations of sexual misconduct.

The author of that module was a woman who had been a school principal for decades and who, like me, was disgusted it was even necessary.

Far from being"off kilter" the defensive approach detailed above has become a neccessary part of the training provided to our teachers.

Archivist said...

This troll-driven discussion doesn't advance our mission here, and there are plenty of blogs for her to spew her misandry.

Anonymous said...

"-- or maybe I should ask that question in a different way -- why do 'feminists' believe that women were oppressed?"

For the same reason feminists see nothing wrong with 90+% of prisoners being men, and why they don't think shorter male life-spans and suicide rates are that important.

They do not empathize with men.

The only problems they can see are their own - no matter how trivial, no matter how insignificant. As soon as one of their objections is addressed, they move on to another one.

All they can see is an endless parade of their own problems, and they are not the same as men's problems (which they can't see). Hence their world-view of being oppressed, in spite of all the social statistics that say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I can't think of a better example of oppression than a system in which one class of people -- women -- is encouraged to make accusations against another class -- men -- with nearly total immunity, even if the accuser is later proven to have been lying; even if she has a long history of lying. Meanwhile the first class citizen (the woman) is almost always believed, not the second class citizen (the man).

But there are all kinds of examples of women being preferred by the legal system, ranging from productive choice to parental rights to who gets the house after a divorce.

Anonymous said...

I'll give Rosalee a little credit, because at least she acknowledges that the feminist argument about historic oppression is deeply flawed, and ignores the plight of men throughout history.

Rosalee said...

Personally I have my own reasons for why feminists believe that women were oppressed, but I disagree with their language. Women have never been 'oppressed'. If any of you care about my opinion, just ask. This is not a confrontation.

E. Steven Berkimer said...

Then please, feel free to share your opinion. Of course, be prepared to defend that opinion, as we do have some pretty sharp individuals here.

And Feminists chose thier language with precision. Because all they have ever been interested in is equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Everything they have done, has been to the end of having the power and control.

Nick S said...

"hmm, so only a female witness can give a man an adequate alibi for a false rape accusation." - AfOR

That is correct. A woman's testimony automatically over-rides a man's testimony. And one female witness is worth more than even two male witnesses.

You don't seem to understand that women were put on this planet to act as God's police force in enforcing correct morality. They cannot help but do anything other than what is pure and right.

And men are supposed to be the more privileged gender. Funny, but I always thought one of the most reliable indicators of whether a particular group is privileged or disadvantaged in a society is whether the testimony of a member of that group takes precedence over that of others.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - ”U.S. law enforcement is in fact now engageing the manufacture and distribution of faulty and inflamatory misinformation, and is in fact "cashing in" on these manufactured statistics.
My conclusions will be self evident if and when U.S law enforcement offices are subpeonead to court to answer for their perversions against our constitution.”


Gotta say, I'm rather disappointed here. I really thought you'd do better than some tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist “all will be revealed in time” sort of response.

I'm guessing that you followed my suggestion, and searched out VAWA grants to LE in your area and discovered that what I've been trying to tell you was true. Sadly, it seems since the documented evidence went against your fears, you've retreated to this idea that it's all happening in secret, hidden from the public.

But, since you now know that the VAWA isn't openly handing out money to LE so that they can encourage FRA's to get rich; let me go ahead and give you my impression of what LE so often (way too often) get's it soooo wrong WRT FRA's.

It's a matter of deeply ingrained HUMAN NATURE. Some believe it to be largely cultural, but I surmise that there is a substantial genetic influence involved – if men weren't “hardwired” to protect women, the human race would never have gotten very far.
And, a not inconsequential part of protecting women comes for a parallel desire to believe the best about them. Those who chose to go into LE are far more likely than the general population to have noticeable “white-knighting” tendencies, making them even more prone to take the word of a woman who seems to be in distress. And, unless they manage to learn to better understand the true nature of women (selfish and manipulating – also deeply ingrained survival traits), they will become deeply entrenched in “Chivalry”.
Officer and detectives who seem Hell-bent on “nailing” the guy a woman accuses are not be directed to do so by evil agents of the federal government, intent on persecuting all men. Rather, they are allowing themselves to be driven by their more base instincts to protect (and avenge) women (and likely a misguided belief that this will get them laid more).

[continued]

slwerner said...

[continuing]

Believe me, I'm not condoning this sort of behavior in LE. It needs to be trained out of the lot of them.

A lot of veteran detectives can tell any number of stories about women claiming to have been raped that turned out to be false. Many can also tell of instance in which, when the women first made her claim, they responded with some tough questions that caused her to admit that she hadn't been raped, but was simply upset and wanted them to “do something”, and claiming to have been raped seemed like a sure-fire way to motivate the police.

There's no good accounting of just how many claims of rape are disposed of before pen ever hits report form; but, you can bet that a significant portion of LE is well aware of FRA's- many having learned through hard experience that not all women can be trusted in all situation.

It's a terrible thing that LE so bungled your case, and refused to consider critical evidence. But, they weren't acting as agents of some grand conspiracy against men; they were just white-knighting mangina chumps, who likely realized they'd been wrong, but didn't want to see the poor “troubled” woman get into any trouble. They didn't refuse to consider evidence via directive from the anti-male overlord in charge of the money-for-FRA scam; but simply because they felt a strange compulsion to “protect” her from the consequences of her own crime.

Lot's of cops and even prosecutors and judges have lost their jobs, their careers, and even their freedoms because they made ill-advised choices to cover-up the misdeeds of a woman who charmed them or made them feel protective of her.

Law Enforcement errors primarily due to three primary factors: lack of training/experience, plain old laziness, and some amount of rogue behaviors. There simply isn't any grand over-arching conspiracy to get them to railroad innocent men for VAWA money (as you discovered when you checked into it).

Besides, if you step back and think about it; if there was some conspiracy to target men for persecution, why would the government be giving secret money to (mostly) men who are in charge in LE, making them rich?

Also, I hope that you will consider that by putting the cart before the horse, and balming LE for FRA's, you are, in effect, giving the real culprits, the women who chose to make them, a free pass.

Anonymous said...

And here's another bias, and a very important one: statistical fallacy.

In other words, "Nine out of ten guys accused of rape are guilty, so it's safe to start with the assumption that this guy is guilty." All the while disregarding aspects of a case that may set it apart, such as a prior history of false accusations on the part of the "victim," no physical evidence, contradictory statements, falsified written evidence, etc.

This belief on the part of cops, judges, and common citizens that it is very rare for anybody to be falsely arrested and therefore it's okay to presume guilt colors everything that happens in the legal system, and that's even without feminist bias.

And many people simply don't care if innocent people go to jail -- that's supposed to be okay, as long as we make sure the guilty get what's coming to them.

Nick S said...

"And Feminists chose thier language with precision. Because all they have ever been interested in is equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity." - Steven

But feminists only believe in equality of outcome to the extent this favors women, not men. They are quite happy to preserve or even exacerbate vast inequalities so long as they favor women.

If they truly believed in equality of outcome they would have to support policies such as devoting more resources to men's health than women's until male and female life expectancy became more equal. Feminists would sooner burn in hell than support such measures.

It has been said before that all egalitarians are frauds. That may be a little harsh, but as a general rule it is wise to consider that most people don't support genuine equality nearly as much as they may claim to.

Every totalitarian movement has its favorite cant phrases to shut up those who try to expose their true nature. For feminists, the favorite cant phrase is "equality". If you disagree with them they invariably say "ah, but the dictionary says that feminism just means that women should have equal rights as men. If you disagree, you are against equality. Yah, boo, hiss." And this works, up to a point, because a lot of people aren't all that bright and can't figure out that things are not that simple and there may be more to it than that.

Anonymous said...

They also scream "misogynist!" and "rape apologist!"

scott said...

The law enforcement community is charged with "protecting the innocent".
By enabling (or simply not detering) women and girls from ruining men/boys lives with false rape accussations, the police are in fact neglecting what they are being paid to do.."Protect the innocent".

Anonymous said...

scott: I'm just curious. Where did you get this idea that the cops are there to protect the innocent?
I believe there have been lawsuits where citizens have sued the cops for not protecting them and they've not been able to prevail in the suit against the cops for "failure to protect"
Sure, cops who blatantly ignore someone who needs protection may be fired by their dept. on rare occasions but they actually have no duty to protect a citizen.

Nick S said...

"Also, I hope that you will consider that by putting the cart before the horse, and balming LE for FRA's, you are, in effect, giving the real culprits, the women who chose to make them, a free pass." - slwerner

Unfortunately, this last sentence detracts somewhat from what was otherwise a thoughtful and considered response. What you are offering is a completely false choice that no-one has to make (that we either blame false accusers or blame law enforcement). Well, how about we hold everyone accountable for their misdeeds? We don't need to choose between only blaming one party entirely and giving another a free pass.

Also, the argument ignores the fact that there will always be people willing to lie for baser motives or self-interest. But the system should not be structured to empower liars so much. It is easier to change the system than to perfect human nature.

I agree that police tend to believe women and target men partly because police forces have a large share of chivalrous men. But it is also partly because there is political pressure on the police to believe women. At the end of the day, police forces are under the control of the executive government. They are merely another branch of the machinery of government, every bit as susceptible to the vested interests and ideologies of those in power. They are not some independent body removed from the political process in the way that, say, the judiciary is supposed to be.

Anonymous said...

This point is worth emphasizing, though: FALSE RAPE ACCUSERS ARE MONSTERS WHO MUST BE PUNISHED HARSHLY.

I put that in all caps because a lot of people -- even among those who advocate for the falsely accused-- don't grasp this fundamental truth. As a result the liars are allowed to benefit from their crimes.

The perfect example is the Duke Lacrosse case. Although the firestorm that fell on Michael Nifong was fully deserved, the real perp -- Crystal Mangum, who now faces attempted murder, arson, and identity theft charges in an unrelated matter -- was given an unconditional free pass by the legal system and by most of the media, which even went so far at times as to describe her as "the fourth victim," even as she continued to smear the victims.

You can't clean up this mess by dumping it all in the laps of prosecutors, who will always get away with exactly as much as the system allows them to, no more and no less. To stop this you have to get the frauds themselves off of the streets.

Anonymous said...

Anon above me.

I totally agree they must be severely punished.

And with crystal mangum some "news" networks like cnn have STILL never even NAMED her...even after the attempted murder and arson charges.

With so many people getting their info from these scum in the media who LOVE false accusers it's no wonder this country is going straight down the toilet.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't make sense that LE is profiting from FRAs when LE is frequently the target of FRAs themselves.

Nick S said...

Anon @ 8:46,

Truly a feeble point if ever there was one. The reductio ad absurdum of your reasoning is that since just about any group or profession can find its members subject to false allegations, no group or occupation is in any way complicit in the problem.

I guess, by your reasoning, if a politician is falsely accused of rape this must mean politicians are in no way responsible for passing stupid laws eroding the rights of the accused.

While law enforcement no doubt suffers when subject to false allegations, law enforcement still benefits from every other false allegation in the sense that every crime report keeps them in a job. If it's a choice between taking a hit 1% of the time, and staying in business the other 99% of the time, you do the math, Anon.

Anonymous said...

The only VAWA information I could find on our county was from 2005. Between 9k-382k was granted to our tiny county with 25% to LE, 25% to prosecution, 25% to non-profits.

I imagine it is more now since we have so many 'violent criminals' living here and a brand new corrupt government.

Any tips on searching for current information would be greatly appreciated.

slwerner said...

Nick S - "Unfortunately, this last sentence detracts somewhat from what was otherwise a thoughtful and considered response. What you are offering is a completely false choice that no-one has to make (that we either blame false accusers or blame law enforcement). Well, how about we hold everyone accountable for their misdeeds? We don't need to choose between only blaming one party entirely and giving another a free pass."

I've never suggested a free pass for LE. But, what this one anonymous post consistently does is blame ONLY LE. His post seem to suggest that if only LE wasn't looking to "cash in" by encouraging FRA's, there wouldn't be any FRA's

Not only does this very clearly NOT blame the actual accusers, it also willfully ignores the great many cases where LE has uncovered the FRA (how many FRA's have been conclusively exposed by anyone outside LE? Pretty small number, eh?).

This one anonymous poster has a deeply personal angst with local police, and tends to project his frustration with those local police onto all police - not only nation-wide, but internationally.

If, as he has often suggested, VAWA money is the motive behind LE encouraging FRA and making up false statistics, why then is the very same thing going on in the UK, where there is no VAWA money available to LE?

As I quipped in my earlier post, this wild-eyed suggestion that LE and the government are behind creating FRA's is truly a matter of putting the cart before the horse.

One simply cannot continue to ignore the role of the false accusers in this issue. Which, sadly, is what our anonymous poster does.

Witness the number of posted stories about LE uncovering an FRA, and even charging the perpetrator; and see how his post will invariably be about how "it's the corruption of LE by VAWA that leads to FRA's". One cannot help but notice how often those posts are a complete misfit with the story at hand.

Does he really believe that every single choice by a woman to file an FRA can be traced back to a police profit motive? Sure seems as though he does.

slwerner said...

anonymous - "The only VAWA information I could find on our county was from 2005. Between 9k-382k was granted to our tiny county with 25% to LE, 25% to prosecution, 25% to non-profits."

Perhaps Colorado is more open about such matters, but here, every single grant is listed, along with it's intended purpose.

Perhaps you'd post the name of your state & county, or even the link where you got the limited information that you did?

I'd be happy to have a look.

Anonymous said...

My state is North Carolina. Thanks Slwerner.

slwerner said...

Seems NC may not publish VAWA grants awarded via web page. Might I suggest a request for a detailed listing be sent to:


North Carolina
Contact: Primary
Misty Arnold
VAWA Administrator
1201 Front Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
tel: 919-733-4564
fax: 919-733-4625
email: marnold@ncgccd.org


Suggest this page (my county - 1 lone VAWA grant to non- LE) as an example.

A very poorly organized listing of 2009 VAWA grants is here. But, there is no break-out of LE vs. non-LE grants - and one could spend weeks trying to dig through that morass. Still, glancing through the top-level listing on that page, one can see that most of the money seems destined for activities not related to LE (note the "coalition" term to denote non-governmental agencies receiving no-strings-attached money).

Anonymous said...

Regardless, the small amount of VAWA money that goes to LE is for training purposes, and is spent on that training. Nor are statistics a criteria to receive such training. So saying that law enforcement is "cashing in" on "manufacturing false statistics" is complete bullshit.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "So saying that law enforcement is "cashing in" on "manufacturing false statistics" is complete bullshit."

What I find most troubling about the approach of the poster who keeps making those claims is that he is NOT focusing on the mistakes and misdeeds of specific officers or agencies, but rather is seeking to paint all of LE with the large "corruption" brush.

It's getting to the point that it's starting to seem that he blames most of the entire problem of FRA's on LE. He never points a finger at accusers - not even the ones in the story about which he is posting. He doesn't even explain what police did wrong, if any thing at all.

I starting to think that his sloganeering is resembling a throwback to some 1968 "Off The Pigs!"

To say that his approach in non-nonsensical is in no way to exonerate those in LE who do, for whatever reason, fail to do their due diligence WRT an allegation of rape. My view is that individuals, and individual actions need to be singled out for scrutiny and condemnation as appropriate; or for praise, when such is warranted.

The simple fact is that LE is composed of literally millions of individuals. To try to imagine them as one amorphous blob, directed in a naked attack on men, through the vehicle of false rape allegations is just getting to be farcical. And, continuing in that approach is serving to make us all look like a bunch of tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorists.

Anonymous said...

Slwerner, I'lle break it down in the most simpleton terms as possible.
When law enforcement changed their protocol for dealing with accussations of Rape...their changes have "enabled" and explosion of false rape accusations.
Law enforcement is now doing it's best job to "keep it from the public" (because gender feminist quack scholars told them too), but its now raining so many false rape accussations that many cases are seeping through.

Anonymous said...

slwerner, Thanks for the links, I have started to sift through them.

The man who keeps blaming LE may have the same kind of LE in our county. Total corruption, total disregard of the law themselves. Backwoods kindof good ole boy crap that happens here on a daily basis.

One day I will be able to post a link to a newspaper article exposing them of their corruption.

I don't think it's all of them but a bad apple spoils the bunch.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "When law enforcement changed their protocol for dealing with accussations of Rape...their changes have "enabled" and explosion of false rape accusations."

Way to shift the goal-posts.

I've never said that the way LE handles sex assault allegations hasn't made it more likely that FRA's might be made. It might, or it might not. There is no conclusive evidence either way. Kanin’s study was published in 1994, and included data from even earlier than that. And, since that time, those changes in protocol you allude to have become even more substantial. This correlation between those changes and some explosion of FRA’s doesn’t seem to have any data to support it. How do we know that women aren’t making FRA’s at the same rate that they always have? Seems the only thing we do know is that more FRA are being exposed and reported on than ever before. Is that because there are more of them, or just that LE is now doing a better job of exposing them?

The substantive changes involve A) not dismissing women’s claims out of hand, and B) rape shield laws which might allow for innocent men to be rail-roaded.

But, how you see any of this being linked to manufacturing false statistics and getting VAWA money (you do remember that this has been your primary claim, don't you?) and the perversion of LE thereby remains unexplained.

Women have been making false rape claims for millennia. They've never had to ask for LE’s permission to do so. They just had to choose to do so. Back in the good old days before LE changed protocols, a women claiming she’d been raped could get a man lynched (and this was NOT exclusive to black men, BTW). Was that really “better”? A less perverted way, perhaps?

Even when the police might have been quicker to dismiss a woman’s claims (pre 80’s), she was never prevented from making them. All that’s changed in this area is that now most all claims will be investigated. How exactly is this a perversion? Isn’t that what LE is supposed to do when someone claims a crime has occurred?

Ever see those “Police blotter” from newspapers? They’re filled with all sorts of rather odd claims by people. Yet, in most cases, you’ll also see that the police dutifully checked into the situation anyway.

Perhaps you imagine that police are somehow supposed to just “know” when a claim being made is false? Or should they just ignore all sex-crime claims?

And, when it comes to legal changes that make rape prosecutions easier, yes, those changes will also allow some FRA’s to slip through. But these legal changes come primarily from either the appellate courts of legislatures. There is no “kick-back” to LE for following the rules imposed on them from above. And, not all rape allegations are false. Rape Shield Laws have definitely gone too far, but the basic concept was, at one time, quite sound. Reform of laws is what’s needed, not a blind smearing of all of LE. Police need to be encouraged and trained to do proper unbiased investigations, and to hold off on making arrests until evidence actually supports doing so. But, LE doesn’t get money for arresting men, that’s just a mistake that’s too often made in haste

So, getting back to your assertions that money is driving LE to encourage FRA’s and to manufacture false stats, do you have anything to document instance where this is happening – or is it just more of the grand conspiracy, hidden from the public, that will magically be exposed once all of LE is put on trial for their crimes (and summarily executed, I suppose – given your apparent hatred for all of LE)?

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "The man who keeps blaming LE may have the same kind of LE in our county. Total corruption, total disregard of the law themselves. Backwoods kindof good ole boy crap that happens here on a daily basis.

One day I will be able to post a link to a newspaper article exposing them of their corruption. "


It's not that there aren't corrupt PD's - there certainly are. But, the minuscule amounts of money that a local PD might be able to get from VAWA would pale compared to the much larger revenue streams that can be had in other ways (a cut of the drug trade, for instance). This whole idea that PD's would encourage FRA's so that they could pad statistics so that they could then apply for VAWA grants, is a preposterous Rube Goldberg-esque notion.

I forget the exact percentage, but if I recall correctly, sexually-related crimes are less than 10% of all alleged crimes committed against women (the focus of VAWA). Thus, inflating FRA’s seems a poor way to go about an already dubious way to get a small amount of money.


In a corrupt “good ole boy” town, it’s much more likely that the crimes of “friends” would be swept under the rug than it is that police would work to manufacture additional “crimes” - especially FRA’s. Good ole boys have never struck me as particularly “feminist” in their leanings. And, it’s so much easier to plant drugs or weapons on someone.

Anonymous said...

They're doing it because a gullible, tabloid-drunk public wants them to do it. The priorities are:

1. Lock up anything that has a penis and could be evil
2.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8237. Protect innocent men and punish false accusers.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "They're doing it because a gullible, tabloid-drunk public wants them to do it. The priorities are:

1. Lock up anything that has a penis and could be evil
2..................................
8237. Protect innocent men and punish false accusers."


***Spoiler Alert***

The next two posts at FRS detail not only instances of women being caught by police in their lying, but also include links to another FRA story (again, sniffed out by police), and the story of a woman being sent to prison for sex assaults on children.

What do you suppose happened in those 4 instances? Did they run out of penis to arrest? Did they take care of each and everyone of their 8236 other higher-priority duties first?

Well?

Anonymous said...

Oh, four false rape accusers were actually arrested? Wow, I'm really impressed. And here I thought our legal system was a cesspool of misandry -- silly me!

There are probably thousands of innocent men in prison as we speak, convicted based on nothing more than the word of a liar.

Nick S said...

"If, as he has often suggested, VAWA money is the motive behind LE encouraging FRA and making up false statistics, why then is the very same thing going on in the UK, where there is no VAWA money available to LE?"

I have never suggested anything of the kind. Either you have me confused with another poster or you are just making things up.

I trust that an apology will be forthcoming or I will be taking the matter further with the blog administrators.

Nick S said...

I don't doubt for a moment that there are many cases where police do a good job of finding out false accusers and disposing of cases.

But I don't feel overly grateful that police are doing the job half the time that they really ought to be doing 100% of the time. There are still far too many weak or spurious cases that go too far. But hey, I guess I am just naturally ungracious.

I also have no doubt that there is no direct financial kickback via VAWA or other programs for prosecuting based on false accusations. But the reality is that the police do benefit to some degree from the perception that crime, including sexual assaults, are more prevalent than they are. The more the public fears crime, the greater the support for increased police funding and powers.

To deny that law enforcement is a vested interest like any other is either naive or disingenuous.

Nick S said...

BTW: I would have thought that given the purpose of this site is to expose the harm done by false accusations, commenters here would be a little more careful about getting their facts straight and not throwing around false accusations that other commenters have done or advocated things extreme or objectionable.

We all know the harm done when hysteria and hearsay replaces facts.

slwerner said...

Nick S - "I have never suggested anything of the kind. Either you have me confused with another poster or you are just making things up.
I trust that an apology will be forthcoming or I will be taking the matter further with the blog administrators."


Nick,
I was specifically referring to the anonymous poster who repeated makes boiler-plate posts claiming the perversion of LE by VAWA money (and other variants thereof). And, yes, he has claimed this many times, on numerous threads.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that I was referring to anything you said.

But I do apologize for any confusion that I might have caused you.

EKatz said...

Your entire SOCIETY, turned against you and baying for your blood. THAT is far, far more scary than anything women, as a class, have had to deal with at ANY point in history. Women have tended to be worshipped, not persecuted.

I'm not writing this to deny the suffering of men in history, or the current injustices in our legal system against men, but in regards to the particular point above, you are overstating the case to a great degree. Even leaving aside history for a moment, let's look around the world today - for instance at places where honor killings of women and girls are permitted or justified based on the flimsiest premises, where rape victims are punished for being raped, where pre-pubescent and teenage girls are forced to marry men three or four times their age... all with the permission of the state, which has denied them rights and recourse. (Men in those societies also face their own restrictions and penalties, and may also be killed to satisfy clan or family 'honor', but to say that women as a class have never faced oppression anywhere... even in our world today you can see that's not the case.

Another interesting point about this is that a lot of western feminists have turned a blind eye to these practices in order to be politically correct and "multiculturally sensitive".)

Anonymous said...

EKatz: okay, that's a fair point, and fairly expressed.

Anonymous said...

ekatz

You watch too much cnn.

What you never hear on the news is how many guys are killed in comparison.

I had to point this out to my Mom. She likes to sit around and watch nancy grace.

Well all nancy grace ever has on is young females getting killed.

So my Mom was upset thinking that there is this epidemic of little girls getting killed.

So I went and printed out the fbi murder statistics.

Little girls are far and away the safest segment of the human population. They get killed less than half as much as little boys.

And if you compare little girls to adult Men the murder ratio is OVER 30 to 1.

But all you ever hear on the news is about females.


I don't mean to be a jerk about this. But after I had a guy shot and killed near my house and there was just about zero coverage of it in the news. I got a little sick of hearing about females murders when they deliberately IGNORE males deaths.

EKatz said...

You watch too much cnn.

Incorrect. I don't watch any T.V. news.

You're also missing the point of my post. I was responding specifically to a point made by another commenter who stated that women as a class have never been oppressed by the apparatus of any state and its legal system. So I pointed out places in the world where this is not the case.

I did not say that fewer men get killed than women generally (# of murders wasn't even the topic of my post). Or that reporting in the western media isn't biased in favor of stories highlighting the murder of girls over the murder of boys (though out of multicultural sensitivity and moral relativism, they are less likely to report on murder stemming from non-western cultural beliefs and practices.)

Nick S said...

Slwerner,

I'm sorry. It appears I got the wrong end of the stick.

I got confused when I read a post of yours further up where I was quoted. I assumed that since I was the only one quoted it must be that I was being discussed in the rest of the post (I thought it was a discussion with another poster rather than directed to me). Now that I have reread it more carefully I see where you are coming from.

It is a pity, because I was getting high on the narcotic of self-righteous victimhood over being falsely accused. And now I have to slink off with my tail between my legs! This is no fun at all!

Nick S said...

Slwerner, it is indeed true that there seems to be a couple of posters who do nothing but post the same dubious talking point on every thread, regardless of its relevance to the topic.

Anonymous said...

yer attempts to shame me into keeping quiet about the perversions of our law enforcement who are NOW enableing false rape accussers is near futile.
With all due respect sir for all the concerned parties here, i beleive we are all on the same side, I just beleive that those that are responsible for keeping law and order are pissing all over our constitution, and "empowering" folks who have lost their moral authority to hold such "empowerment".

Anonymous said...

It is a pity, because I was getting high on the narcotic of self-righteous victimhood over being falsely accused. And now I have to slink off with my tail between my legs! This is no fun at all!
****

"I wish I was back in court so I could kick their asses again!" Been there, done that!

slwerner said...

anonymous - "yer attempts to shame me into keeping quiet about the perversions of our law enforcement who are NOW enableing false rape accussers is near futile."

Pop quiz: What do Crystal Gail Mangum, Danmell Ndonye, Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, the women who cried rape to get faster ER service, the women who cried rape to avoid a DUI, the women who cried rape in custody dispute, the Wiccan who cried rape when found with the body of the man she’d just murdered, and hosts of other women who’ve cried rape when they were caught, or about to be caught in illicit sexual activities have in common?

Answer: They all made their completely self-serving in the heat of the moment, without any encouragement from the police to do so, and without a moments thought as to how things would pan-out down the road. Not one of them considered the role Rape Shield Laws might come to help their lies at the time. Many of them never intend for their claims to make it the Police in the first place.

Every last one of them made their fallacious claims in order to get an immediate reaction and/or sympathy. None of them seemed to have it in for men in general, wishing to see innocent men imprisoned. They were just looking for a quick “out” from the situation they found themselves in.

Whether or not the police in any given case handled the situation correctly , and uncovered the truth is secondary to the fact that the woman’s lie started the ball rolling. The Police did NOT play any role in encouraging these FRA’s. The police only get involved after the fact.

This is the same as it’s been since Potiphar’s Wife accused Joseph. Same as it was when (white) women were getting (black, and even some white) men lynched just by crying rape. Women have their own highly localized, self-serving goals in false accusations. They have never needed any assistance nor encouragement from authorities to make their claims – and they never will.

The things that you need to come to grips with are:

There is no alliance between the gender-feminist sexual grievance industry and LE. They may cooperate at times, and in some situations; but, it’s typically much more a matter of the SGI bullying LE than a true desire on the part of LE to target and imprison men.

The amount of VAWA money given to LE is a relative drop in the bucket (as you discovered when you went searching for evidence to prove me wrong) and comes with so many strings attached, making it an entirely stupid proposition to make an effort to “enhance” sexual assault stats in order to try to get some of it (any act of violence against a woman counts as a data point – a sexual assault is not necessary, anyway).

Rape, and sexual assaults are but one small portion of the crimes LE deals with. When it comes to the public perception, gangs, guns, drugs, and even prostitution will always trump (a quick look at budgets will show how overwhelming the disparity is). If police are looking to profiteer from corruption, they are much more likely to look into the big bucks from involvement with any of those four areas of criminal activity. There’s just no money to be made from rape.

And, finally, and by far most importantly…the primary reason the FRA’s exist is because of the women who make them! There is now way around this one. Much as you may hate LE, if not for false accusers, they’d never get a chance to bungle a case nor railroad an innocent man.

You can continue to rant on about alliances, secret money transfers to encourage FRA’s, and the grand plot by government to use FRA’s to destroy the male gender. I cannot stop you. Such an effort would be futile - nearly so much as your effort to convince everyone that the police and government are behind FRA’s at the behest of the gender-feminist SGI.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not the police in any given case handled the situation correctly , and uncovered the truth is secondary to the fact that the woman’s lie started the ball rolling. The Police did NOT play any role in encouraging these FRA’s. The police only get involved after the fact.
****

That is perfectly true. Not even Michael Nifong started the ball rolling -- the fraud got that started with her lies. He just kept it going, and ruined himself in the process.

It's always sad when some people in law enforcement throw their careers away by continuing to back a worthless piece of trash like Mangum, but that happens sometimes. At other times the police continue investigating and ultimately expose the liar for the con artist she is.

Anonymous said...

Sir, you are suggetsing some kind of grand conspiracy...I'm suggesting there is some perversion that has rooted itself in..(yes, god help us) some government funded organisations..
This perversion will not be corrected until these organisations are called on the carpet.
You can blame the infantile child/women all you like, but yer chasing air bubbles. The perversion started taking root around 30 years ago when law enforcement "perverted their protocol" to no longer charge women and girls when they falselly acusses someone of rape.
These false rape stories we hear here are the very small percentage of overall false rape acussations; and the ones that make it through the gender/Raunch media curtain.
Rape hysteria has "EMPOWERED" the gender/Raunch community; take a look at who's participating in the Rape/klan marches on campusses, and you will see who's being "Empowered", it is in fact the Gender/Raunch community.
The gender/Raunch community is using Rape hysteria to "empower" themselves in order to force their "adgenda."

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "The perversion started taking root around 30 years ago when law enforcement "perverted their protocol" to no longer charge women and girls when they falselly acusses someone of rape."

No longer!?!? What are you talking about? Women and girls have never, until fairly recently, be held accountable for making false charges. You are familiar with the Salem Witch Trials, are you not? Even after sanity returned, and it was realized that the girls had been lying to get revenge on those who had "crossed" them, what punishment were they given?

How about those women who accused black men, and got them handed? Punishments? Nada.

In fact, since you seem to think that it's only been in the past thirty years that false accuser have not been punished, perhaps you'll post some information about how, how often, and under what laws woman making false allegations were punished before the perversion of LE that you hold primarily responsible for FRA's.

Also, I just have to ask...do you really believe that if we were to do away with law enforcement that women would NOT make FRA's?

Personally, I'd think that without LE intervening and investigating, holding jury trials, etc., that the vigilante justice that would take over would encourage even more women to make false allegations, safe from any chance of their being exposed or their intended targets exonerated by a jury of his peers. Even more men would be subject to lynchings as woman would again face NO repercussions for lies that can get a man killed.

I think your blind, irrational hatred of LE is severely effecting your judgment on this issue.