Comment about news story below: A teacher's good name, her entire life, actually, has been destroyed based on nothing more than the say so of a teenager, from what I can tell, before a single scrap of evidence was admitted at trial. She wrote a very supportive note to our site earlier this week and noted, among other things: "This should never happen to anyone again, and I plan to change the law. . . . I am going to turn this terrible incident into something good. Someone who does this to someone should get the same punishment as the defendant would have had if he or she falsely accuses someone."
Her story, sadly, is similar to too many we've told here. The accuser's identity is guarded with all the tenacity that Clark Kent shields Superman's; she, on the other hand, was subjected to a high profile witch hunt. To rub salt ino her wound, the charges were dangled over her head for three years. Three years of a hell most of us can't imagine. This, of course, underscores the point we make frequently about the necessity for anonymity while charges are pending, until there is a conviction. This isn't even to mention the crippling legal fees.
The District Attorney claimed that she had a history of seducing students. If that's so, it's funny, isn't it, that the prosecution dropped the charges when the accuser decided not to cooperate -- sounds like the case was him. A typical he said/she said case, except the genders of the accuser and accused are reversed. For teachers accused of sex crimes, just use the word "grooming" and people assume something must have happened.
Along the way, the teacher had to tolerate at least one news report referring to the accuser as the "victim." See here. So much for journalistic standards of printing -- you know -- facts. As we've written on this site, calling an accuser a "victim" does grave disservice to (1) the presumed innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, they must be guilty if their accusers are, in fact, "victims"; (2) actual rape victims, because this description trivializes rape by including among it's "victims" persons who might only be false accusers; and (3) the readers of the newspaper, who are entitled to accurate reporting but receive something less than that when the paper transform an accuser into a "victim."
Finally, let's briefly mention women and the false rape problem. Presumptively innocent men and boys have a near-monopoly on having their lives destroyed on the basis of a "he said/she said" rape allegation. But some women, almost always teachers, are also victimized. Just as it isn't fair for men, it isn't fair for the women who are subjected to this harsh reality. If it is true that we are living in a matriarchy, then the forces of political correctness that are content to treat presumptively innocent men and boys as collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape realize they must do the same to the woman accused of sex crimes -- they happily throw those women under the bus to make their larger point.
False rape claims primarily destroy men and boys. Most of the email this site has received have been from women -- loved ones of men and boys falsely accused. They suffer greatly. They are outraged that women can do this to men. They are not allied with the false accusers any more than men are allied with rapists. For almost every man and boy destroyed by a rape lie there are other victims, too -- mothers, fathers, wives, children, girlfriends -- and to look at the FRA problem as one solely affecting the man destroyed is the worst kind of childish, self-indulgent myopia, no better than the loony feminists who refuse to believe that men are every bit as outraged -- in fact, likely more outraged -- by rape than women are (their other-worldly theory is that men, as a class, benefit from rape). And, of course, this site hears from rape victims (almost entirely women) who fully support our work because they hate to see innocent men and boys hurt (it might surprise some people that they feel that way), and because rape liars diminish the credibility of every rape victim. Women are crucial to our fight. It is unfortunate that some misguided persons resent the fact that we acknowldge what can't be plausibly denied -- while FRAs are primarily a men's problem, it is not just a "men's problem." Too bad for them.
Donna's story is our story; her fight is our fight. It makes no difference that she's a woman.
Here is the news story:
Kid sex charges dropped, but teacher’s life still ‘ruined’
Charges have been dropped against a former middle school teacher accused of grooming a student for sex, but she said her life remains a living hell.
“I was a teacher who had a decent, good life,” Donna S. Giguere told the Herald yesterday. “My life was ruined three years ago.”
In 2007, Giguere was a Blackstone Middle School teacher arraigned in Worcester District Court on six child sex-assault charges, including the alleged rape of a 13-year-old boy who was her foster child.
Authorities accused the teacher, who was 38, of “grooming” the teen for sex.
Giguere, a mother of five who has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, said her family “lost everything.”
“I couldn’t get a job, we lost our home,” Giguere said, adding $100,000 in legal fees has left her family in debt “up to our eyeballs.”
Prosecutors dropped the case because the alleged victim didn’t want to proceed, said Timothy Connolly, a spokesman for Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early, Jr.
“We got some e-mails that said he didn’t want to go forward,” said Connolly, who does not know the precise whereabouts of the man, now 20. “We were never able to get an address or a solid telephone number from him.”
Connolly said prosecutors last knew the alleged victim was living in Montana.
“Since he’s left (the state), we haven’t had a lot of cooperation,” he said. “It’s been a while since we had contact with him. It’s been several months.”
Giguere claimed prosecutors didn’t have a case against her. But Connolly said his office wouldn’t have dropped the case if the alleged victim cooperated.
“We certainly would have gone forward if we had the victim,” he said. “(This) doesn’t say we don’t believe the crime occurred. We don’t have the victim to go forward.”
Link: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100406kid_sex_charges_dropped_but_teachers_life_still_ruined/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
That poor teacher has been raped harder than a thousand Central park joggers! There is no crime worse than a false accusation enabled by the legal system.
Excellent point, Archivist.
I rarely quote from the emails we receive. I thought it was appropriate to quote from this teacher's note today in light of the complaint by someone on some other site about our inclusion of "women" in the subheading of this blog.
Anon, you are correct. This is worse than rape. Three years of hell, and she'll never be the same.
Great post. I love how in your 1:50 comment you won't even mention that other site. Methinks they picked the wrong person to pick on.
Archivist, good on ya for posting this.
Sometimes women get hosed by the system too, and it is important to show that.
Not because it happened to a woman, but because it may set some women to thinking that their ox may get gored next by their own rape hysteria and finally join us in the fight to calm this the hell down.
Next you'll get called a pansy for daring to suggest that women are victimized by this Napoleonic system too. Wait. Already happened.
Hmmm.
The "pansy" word actually made me laugh out loud. It got me thinking about this post, which was referenced in a post I put up yesterday: SEE HERE
I say this with all modesty aside, if the author of the "pansy" post, or any of the "real men" who comment on Spearhead, or anyone else, thinks he's capable of conjuring up the ferocity, the anger, the sociopathic sarcasm, to write THAT, well, then I certainly haven't seen it. I know I'm biased, but I doubt that there is a stronger advocate for these issues out there. "Vituperative," as one judge called me. Again, all modesty aside.
By the way, the women I "pander" to are women fully and wholly allied with the false rape struggle. Too bad some of our so-called MRAs don't seem to be.
sure, this blog gives voice to falsely accused men and women, but what about transgender and intersex individuals? they are surely offended by their exclusion! could be more PC...
If that's sarcasm, it's lost on me. Are you suggesting, sir, that I am "pc"? Seriously. Are you suggesting that?
Do you have a story about a transsexual being falsely accused? We would be happy to discuss it.
Yeah, I don't want to exclude any group, but may have to change it to "persons" if it gets too long.
or you could just say "Giving Voice to the Falsely Accused" and tacitly include everybody
I agree with anon above me.
Just have it as giving a voice to the falsely accused.
That sounds fine.
"Her story, sadly, is similar to too many we've told here."
Well this pansy certainly feels just as badly for Donna Giguere and her family as he does for the men who've suffered a similar fate.
""This should never happen to anyone again, and I plan to change the law. . . . I am going to turn this terrible incident into something good. Someone who does this to someone should get the same punishment as the defendant would have had if he or she falsely accuses someone.""
---yeahh, OK. Only when it happens TO HER, did she care. Methinks if she knew about this problem before she wouldn't care AT ALL, because it is PRIMARILY men who are affected.
as with other things, if it adversely affects men, women aren't interested. Only when it affects THEM, will they "care."
notice, "this should not happen to anyone AGAIN." Yes because if she knew it was happening before, she would have let it happening again and again, because it was only affecting men at that point.
After observing the distasteful debate today on that other website, prompted by a post that was not just ill-advised but inflammatory, I've decided to keep the "and women" in the subtitle. I could make it more accurate and say "and those rare women falsely accused" or something, but that wouldn't convey the "welcome" I want to get across to women. After reading that awful post, and some of the comments, I feel as if I have a Divine Mission to do what I think is right.
In any event, despite the subtitle, the entire site makes clear that men and boys have a monopoly on victimization for this crime. It just so happens that it also vicimizes some women who have nowhere to turn for support.
My closing words on this subject: I am appalled by some of things I've seen today. My guess is that a lot of women who support the men and boys falsely accused, as well as those rare women falsely accused, appreciated the support of most people at that other site but had to be perplexed by some of the anger toward THEM for things they never did. That't the same attitude too many feminists have toward men, as a class, and at this site, we're better than that. The women I'm referencing are also victims, just as similarly situated males are victims.
What we're doing here isn't pandering to feminists because the women falsely accused and the women who CARE about the men and boys falsely accused are treated as collateral damage by the feminists, too.
With that said, I'm also not going to debate it any further because I've wasted too much time already in awe of that display on the other site. I say this without malice and with all due respect: if some people don't like the fact that we put out a "welcome sign" for women, for the reasons stated in my post -- then this obviously isn't the site for you. There are millions of other sites for you. No hard feelings.
I'm goint to break my rule just this once and then I'm finished on this subject.
". . . as with other things, if it adversely affects men, women aren't interested."
All due respect, individual MEN don't care about this issue until it hits them or a loved one. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't an issue on either gender's front burner until it hits close to home. Some of the most hateful comments I get are from chivalrous men who think what we do here is not just nuts but evil.
I also don't think it's fair, or sensitive, to make negative assumptions about someone who's gone through what she's gone through. I can show you innumerable quotes from falsely accused men to this effect: "I never knew this could happen."
@ Diogenes.
I'm (though I say so myself) well travelled, well educated, quite the man of the world. No flies on me.
And then a funny thing happened, I got falsely accused as part and parcel of a separation / child custody battle, hell, without the FRA there was a big fat zero to throw at me.
And I realised that here was yet another aspect of daily life for many people that simply hadn't touched me before.
I really was not aware just how misandric and perverted the family court system was.
I really was not aware just how "fuck you, guilty until proven innocent" the rape system was.
Nor, it has to be said, we around four dozen close family and friends.
We shouldn't let this sort of thing discourage us, though. Our mission is to channel this raw misogyny that men feel and to turn it into something contructive. Chivalry is a worthless deal and men are tired of getting screwed by these feminist ingrates -- who can blame them? But returning hate for hate isn't the answer.
Instead, we must advocate for the sensible policy changes that will once again make the western world a decent place to live in: a place where no innocent person ever has cause to fear the law and where boys are raised in strong families and have plenty of positive male rolemodels at school.
A more patriarchal world will be a better world for everybody, including women. It works!
Here is my two cents.
I for sure do not hate women. I hate false accusers.
I have nothing against women just the special treatment of them is my problem.
I'm totally against giving women a break when they commit crimes. They should do every bit as much time as a guy would have.
I read the other site and I thought it was really rotten what was said.
I especially feel bad for Pierce and Steve who have created IMO one of the best sites on the internet exposing the lies that no one else has the guts to.
And there are women that are falsely accused and there are women who are against false accusers a million times more than the manginas on tv. And it is such an insult to them to not include them.
I was falsely accused of something (not a rape) when I was in school it could have got me expelled.
It was two GUYS that falsely accused me. My MOM and my friends MOM were who helped me the most.
I like people like CB girl and sonja and some of the other women that post on here. If they against false accusations I think they have a right being here and should be welcome.
I was thinking of that lady that Casey Anthony falsely accused of kidnapping her daughter. Her name was Zenida Gonzales. Now she went through hell over Casey's lies.
It would be different if every guy was totally against false accusers and every woman loved them. But that is not the case at all.
I have no problem with you kicking off the trolls though!
Bottom line I think a lot of women are great allies to the falsely accused and they also suffer from false accusations even when they are not directly accused...look at CB girl for instance.
This is starting to ramble. Thanks so much for creating this site Pierce and Steve!!
"as with other things, if it adversely affects men, women aren't interested. Only when it affects THEM, will they "care.""
Well, if that's true, then it's imperative that we bring to light that women are also falsely accused, and that false accusations against brothers, fathers and husbands tend to destroy the women in their lives too.
"and to look at the FRA problem as one solely affecting the man destroyed is the worst kind of childish, self-indulgent myopia, no better than the loony feminists who refuse to believe that men are every bit as outraged -- in fact, likely more outraged -- by rape than women are (their other-worldly theory is that men, as a class, benefit from rape)."
Pierce, I am afraid that I must disagree with this. You seem to be saying that women are just as upset and outraged by injustices against men as men are by offences against women. While I am sure that women often feel strongly about these things if it happens to a man close to them, I have no doubt that women in general do not have the same gut-level negative reaction to men being hurt that men have towards women being mistreated. Women are simply not evolved to have the same chivalrous protective instincts to men that men have towards women.
The reason feminists love issues like rape, domestic violence etc. is that they know how effective they are in shaming men, as most men are instinctively repulsed by the thought of women being treated this way. That is, they know on some level that the truth is much the opposite of their official narrative that men conspire in creating such things.
And I don't think you can draw an equivalence between the feminist lunacy that most men benefit from rape and are complicit in it happening, and the MRA notion that women benefit from current policies harming men. Men haven't spent decades lobbying for more women to be raped, but many apparently respectable women have lobbied for various 'reforms' designed to make it easier to ruin men's lives based solely on a woman's allegation. So in that sense women in general are arguably more complicit in men's suffering than men are in women's suffering.
The feminist fantasy that men benefit from rape or women's fear of rape is ridiculous when you consider that men suffer as a result of rape due to women being less trusting of them and rape hysteria leading to men being persecuted. But it is not such a stretch to suggest that women in general benefit from having the power to ruin any man they dislike by making a false allegation. Dare I suggest that a lot of women like the fact that men feel worried about the present climate, as they see it as an added incentive for men to behave themselves and go to more effort to please women.
To put it more succinctly: the old feminist saw that 'rape is the means by which men collectively keep women under control' could be more accurately rephrased as 'false allegations of rape, domestic violence, draconian sexual harassment policies, family law bias etc. are the means by which women collectively keep men under control'.
I don't know what site contains the offending comments that are the cause of much discussion here, so I am merely commenting on the thread post without the benefit of knowing the context that may have prompted it.
If what happened is that hostility was directed towards women sympathetic to our cause simply because they are women, I agree that is objectionable and those who choose to indulge in such behavior are part of the problem.
I agree that we need sufficient numbers of women on board with this cause if we are to make progress, but there is more than one way of skinning a cat. I am not sure if it is effective to appeal to women's sense of victimhood by saying 'but women are falsely accused too.'
It seems pointless to deny that this issue is anything other than a men's rights issue. Everyone here knows that the only reason the laws are the way they are is because of the extent to which men have been demonized and portrayed as predators in society over the years.
The fact that a few women get caught up in draconian laws designed to destroy men does not change the fact that the existing system would not exist if it were not for hostility towards men.
Trying to get more women on board by pretending that it is somehow a gender-neutral issue seems pointless and doomed to fail. Any woman would surely know that their chances of being wrongly charged due to a false allegation is very small compared to that of a man, and I am sure this would be low in their list of pre-eminent fears. In political terms, this seems a case of alienating your base for the sake of appealing to people who probably won't support you anyway.
To be sure, the only women who are likely to support our efforts are either women who have had a close family member go through a false allegation, or else women who are simply kind and decent enough to care about the problems men face at the moment. But I doubt that appealing to women through fear that they may fall victim to the same shenanigans men face is going to be that effective.
Why on earth are we wasting time with her? I'm sorry but I felt not one whit or iota of sympathy for her.
In all honesty, had this been a man accused, as happens every other day, would she have been so willing to get up and bleat about planning to "change the law"? I think not.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, now that she's got a taste of what happens to men and boys on an almost regular basis, is she galvanised to want action taken. Her sheer hypocrisy both stupefies and disgusts me.
Oh, and where are the fembots screaming their victimhood over this one?
Roy, I kind of feel the same cynicism at times. That women too often seem to be happy for these things to go on so long as only men are affected, and only change their tune if they get bitten on the ass themselves.
It is a bit like whenever you hear of second wives complaining about money being extorted by the first wife. I always think 'if the shoe was on the other foot and she was the first wife, what are the chances she would do exactly the same?'.
But really it doesn't matter if someone is supporting us due to opportunistic reasons or not. They are still an ally. Any movement that only accepts support from the pure of heart will not get far. What is the saying, 'only the impotent are pure'?
And in all fairness, it is a common human trait to not really understand something until you have experienced it yourself. This is not exclusively confined to females.
She was falsely accused and the falsely accused are sacred. There is nothing else.
On another subject -- here is even more lunacy from Maureen Dowd: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11dowd.html
"To circumscribe women, Saudi Arabia took Islam’s moral codes and orthodoxy to extremes not outlined by Muhammad; the Catholic Church took its moral codes and orthodoxy to extremes not outlined by Jesus. In the New Testament, Jesus is surrounded by strong women and never advocates that any woman — whether she’s his mother or a prostitute — be treated as a second-class citizen."
In other words, her epiphany revealed that the Church molestation scandals were secretly all about -- HER!
*sighs* I am forever asounded at the human ability to go to extremes on issues. Feminism started out as an effort to address imbalances within society, and now some people have taken it to extremes and we're in the mess we're in today. Likewise I see the men's movement being in a similar position. Starting out to address important issues of fairness and justice, but running the risk of becoming just as misguided as some of the rabid feminists that are out there.
Archivist I appauld you for your stance on opening this site to both men and women and support it 100%. False Rape Accusations effects people of both genders, and as such those who suffer from them should receive the support the legal systems of the world denies them.
Once Bitten, thank you.
The last twenty-four hours or so has changed my outlook on many, many issues. It got me to thinking, why did people assume I was part of the men's movement, just because I made myself one of the nation's leading advocates for false rape victims? Would anyone say that the Innocence Project or Prof. Alan Dershowitz or even KC Johnson are men's rights advocates? I doubt it. And can we ever hope to mentioned with them being a part of this movement?
I've been criticized by people, who otherwise like my site, for some of the links I have. Those links are merely an acknowledgment of sites that spread the word about false rape claims. But maybe I need to make sure those sites are not otherwise offensive.
I've also been attacked because of some of the comments on this site. We are all known by the company we keep. I no longer believe in open comments but right now I don't have the time to moderate.
My eyes have been opened to a host of pathologies in the men's movement. The misogyny runs deeper than I had thought. I suspect a lot of men angry at a woman have joined the "movement" to vent. Great. I want no part of it. An example on this thread: generalizing all "women" as insensitive to men's issues is frighteningly childish and hateful. You paint yourself as an idiot when you say things like that. Newsflash: the vast majority of MEN are insensitive to men's issues. I've got the emails to prove it. And the vast majority of women are only sensitive to women's issues if they affect them, personally.
Here's the bottom line, folks: false rape claims target men. Once in a while they target women. And women in large numbers suffer because of FRAs, too. Not to the extent of men, but they suffer. Don't believe me? I guess I really don't care. I am proud that we have put out a "welcome" sign for women, if only to let them know that we don't hate women as too many of you do.
You will be seeing many changes in the site in the days ahead. We are seeking legitimacy. We need to effect policy change. That can't happen by appeasing women-haters, and the Judas Iscariot who went on some other site to rip the only blog dedicated to the falsely accused without first writing to me (that other site, from what I saw yesterday, is more akin to a wrestling free-for-all than a serious site -- no disprespect to its founder, who is intelligent -- but the no-moderation policy there will keep me from going back).
Gee, Jay, you've written to me far less important things. Thanks for the public disrespect yesterday. Guess you're a big wheel in the "men's movement."
And for the women-haters and men who want to emulate the victim fetish of radical feminism: I'm not one of you. We've got serious advocacy to do here, and that leaves no time for feeling sorry for ourselves just because we were born with penises. Nor does it leave time to hate more than one-half of the population of planet earth. Even Hitler didn't hate that many people.
Oh, and Jay Hammers is banned from this site. No one ever accused me of not being petty. It is one of my many character flaws that I remember every slight ever heaped on me. And this was a biggie.
"Archivist said...
The last twenty-four hours or so has changed my outlook on many, many issues. It got me to thinking, why did people assume I was part of the men's movement, just because I made myself one of the nation's leading advocates for false rape victims?"
I can see two reasons why some people might might such an assumption.
One at times this site has posted links to stories that effect the men's movement. For example some posts back there was a story on the emerging field of Men's Studies.
Two in my opinion false rape accusations is one of, if not the most central issue of the men's movement. I would go so far as to say that false rape accusations is as important an issue to the men's movement as the right to vote and equal work opportunities were (and are) to the women's movement.
I know that in the past I've been accused of supporting feminist viewpoints because I believe that women should have the work oppotunatities afforded to men. What these people ignore is the little proviso I tack on to the end, which is yes, open up the work force, and equal work means equal pay, provided of course that those women in the field are capable of doing the job (both physically and mentially). You see I don't think that entry criteria for the workplace should be weakened on the basis of someone's gender. But that's just me :).
Archivist, "misogyny"? Are you kidding me?
a few here basically pointed out what I was trying to say:
women don't care about men as much as men care about women
this imbalance is the crux of the issue.
it's sort of like how there's 10,000s of male feminists, but less than 100 female MRAs.
Once Bitten, exactly right. I believe in equal opportunity, which is a very American thing. Not equal outcomes,which is a hallmark of feminism. Anyone who reads this site knows how I feel about feminists and their useful idiots, chivalrous males.
“We certainly would have gone forward if we had the victim,” he said. “(This) doesn’t say we don’t believe the crime occurred. We don’t have the victim to go forward.”
BULLSHIT. They have the authority to compel "the victim" to testify, so there is never an excuse for this. Any prosecutor who says that she can't force a witness to testify is deliberately smearing an innocent defendent in order to save face.
And that's all those people care about: preserving their egos and the illusion that they're "champions of society."
it's sort of like how there's 10,000s of male feminists, but less than 100 female MRAs.
***
Yeah, that's the truth. It's because men enjoy posing as the heroes of the poor downtrodden womyn.
In all sincerity, there are times on this site and other forums where I notice comments that unfairly villify women in general. I don't always correct them because I don't always have the time to deal with everything, and I kind of figure that women have enough chivalrous protectors and advocates for them that they don't need me rescuing them from comments on a discussion board.
For example, a few days ago there was a discussion about whether 'real women' make false rape allegations and so forth. Some commenters suggested that false rape allegations should be held against women generally. I have no doubt that the vast majority of women would never make a false rape allegation. Impugning women generally based on the actions of a small percentage of women is just as irrational and hateful as the notion that men are collectively responsible for rape.
Whenever I make some comment critical of women in general, I try to take care to make sure I am not generalizing based on the behavior of a minority of women.
The women who know me well, in my immediate family, or those who I work with or know through social groups, will testify that I am probably the most easy-going, down-to-earth, considerate guy they know. They would find it amusing to be informed that I am actually some evil, maladjusted woman-hating extremist. The truth is that I am quite indulgent towards the women in my life, sometimes against my better judgment. Seriously Pierce. You don't know me or what I am about. You have just pigeonholed me based on a few comments on a board that may have been interpreted to be more extreme or objectionable than they are.
I agree that there is a fringe element within the MRM that is based on men pursuing some personal grievance, and is often aggressively misogynistic in a kind of knee-jerk unthinking way. Believe it or not, I do actually find that element just as distasteful as anyone else. Indeed, I have got into arguments with these types in the past on forums like Glenn Sacks.
I don't really care if anyone labels me a misogynist or anything else. I am not after the approval of others. I know who I am and what I am about, and I feel I am a decent, genuine person. I don't feel the need to prove myself. It is all water off a duck's back.
The problem with these types of forums is that it is easy to get the wrong impression based on a few comments.
In our current era, society has gone so far in the direction of glorifying women and demonizing men that there is a compelling need to point out the other side of the story, which is that women are far from perfect in many ways. It is easy to simply see a few comments that are disparaging towards women and then leap to some conclusion about what we are about.
I fully appreciate that the commenters on sites like this are often not telling the whole story. But we are telling a significant part of the story that needs to be told.
BTW: I agree completely that chivalrous men are a big part of the problem. Sometimes I feel that chivalrous or feminist men should be forced to continue living under the current regime, and only men willing to take a stand deserve their freedom.
I have actually know of cases where men with a long history of pro-feminist and/or hyper-chivalrous views have been falsely accused of rape. Frankly, I have zero sympathy for them. You don't get to throw less powerful men under the bus all your life and then expect others to give a flying fuck when it is your turn to get put through the mincer. We all make decisions about what world we wish to live in, and if you make your bed you get to lie in it.
Nick, I don't think you're one of the offenders. I am sure we all get careless sometimes -- me,especially.
Nick said: "The truth is that I am quite indulgent towards the women in my life. . . ."
We are polar opposites. I refuse to treat women any different than I treat men. That means I am the only male I know in my office building who does not stand back and wait for the women to get out first, solely on the basis of gender. It's insulting to me to let them off first, and women can never truly be equal with these innumerable displays of chivalry.
I once verbally took apart a father who told his son going to the prom to "treat her like a lady." And there are innumerable examples of similar things.
Anyway, one of my approaches to this site is, how would an average person who knows nothing about these issues view what is being written. I suspect that if people went to that other site, where a blogger made disparaging remarks about this site, they would think it's loony based on some of the comments and they'd lump us all in that loony stew. And I know, I know -- the loons would say that they don't temper their remarks based on the unwashed public that is so thoroughly anti-men, etc. etc. Great. Everyone's an idiot but for them.
What I find so astounding is the absence of nuance. Those people see everything in black and white, like the feminists. I see gray most everywhere.
Here's the reality: a thing either rings true to people, or it doesn't. To suggest that "women" in general are selfish doesn't ring true to a hell of a lot of people. That's because it's stupid. A lot of women are selfish (rape feminists, etc.), and a lot of women are selfless, but in general, nobody outside the "movement" is buying the generality that women generally are selfish. And I don't want to be part of any movement that does exactly what I hate about the feminists -- negatively generalizes about an entire gender. You know: men are abusers, rapists, pigs, dogs, sex-crazed, liars, etc.
In contrast, I can get people to understand that men are screwed in family law court -- they pay too much, they get too little custody, etc. And I can show that men are screwed when they are falsely accused. And I can convince people that men have always had a monopoly doing the dangerous and courageous things. And that men's diseases are underfunded. And on and on. See, I can be more effective focusing on specific things without overreaching to generalize and sounding like a loon.
Yeah, the last couple days have been eye-opening. I haven't paid enough attention to the folks around me. I am 100 percent convinced that the loon wing of the movement not only isn't going to effect change, it is a drag on those of us who actually have a clue. Anyone interested in change has a choice: they can follow somebody smart like me, or someone who insists women enjoy rape.
Pierce, thankyou for your thoughts and taking the time to clear up any misunderstandings.
Part of the problem with these issues is that whenever someone makes a comment that may be seen as slightly controversial, it is invariably assumed that you are merely acting on some personal grudge or prejudice. The truth is that I try not to do that as much as possible, and instead respond based on a considered view of things.
I have spent many years reading extensively on the issue of differences between the sexes, as well as the available and emerging evidence on evolution, natural selection and evolutionary psychology. While I am not pretending to be an academic expert in the field, I would like to think I am not completely flapping out of my rear end either. Thing is, when I make a comment like 'women don't care about men's wellbeing as much as men care about women's wellbeing', I am not merely venting my hurt because some woman refused to sleep with me the other night or I wasn't breastfed enough. I am actually giving my considered sober assessment after having looked at all the evidence.
I agree with you that people should be treated as individuals, and any discussion of differences between the sexes is a matter of averages rather than absolutes. And general differences between the sexes are not all one way. There are other areas where women tend to naturally have superior abilities over men. The point of all this is not to condemn anyone for how nature made them, but to merely understand why things happen the way they do.
For me, I tend to draw a distinction between the personal and the political. On a personal level, I like a good deal of women and enjoy their company. But in my broader social outlook, I still feel very unhappy and resentful of the too many unfair advantages women have over men. Especially for younger generations of men, this stuff has been rammed down our throats almost from infancy.
I have never seen the personal
Oops. Bad editing there. Perhaps I can blame my female secretary for it!
I have no problem criticizing women, but when MRAs start talking about taking the right to vote from women, or how women should never be allowed to talk unless they're condemning a woman for a false rape accusation, or saying that rape "isn't much of a crime" (not just in comparison to another crime such as false rape accusations, but in general) -- that's just going too far; and I have no less regard for a falsely accused man than for a falsely accused woman.
And I do support the man even if he was a raging chivalrist prior to being falsely accused; a lot of us were different people before the liars got us.
Pierce, I agree that the lunatic fringe of the MRM is doing more harm than good, and they need to be marginalized.
It is also true that any movement that is seen to be promoting antagonism between the sexes is going to immediately alienate a large section of the population. That is one reason why the percentage of women who identify as feminists has been gradually declining. No decent woman wants to be associated with such an ugly hateful movement.
I also suspect that most people don't really care that much about the rights and wrongs of all the things I or others may argue about. They simply don't want another front in the culture wars opened up. They don't overly care who wins or loses. They just don't want the battle.
When I am posting here I tend to assume the audience is primarily hardened activists, so I don't overly worry about the prospect of offending marginal fence-sitters as I assume they are not the audience.
Indeed, I have debated this issue with some women on other forums (like Amy Alkon). That is, women who maintain that false rape allegations are rare. Through charm and careful logical persuasion I have actually managed to convince some of them that false rape allegations are actually more common. Whereas other MRAs who were more hostile and contemptuous were simply alienating them.
Nick, excellent points, all around.
Nick, I just read this.
Re: the 'real women' discussion.
I wasn't meaning to imply that 'all women' should bear the burden of punishment for the false accusations that a minority make.
My point is more complex than that, though I didn't explain it, so I can't blame you for thinking that I meant something else.
There is a view of women, which is very popular, and far too rosy.
It is the view that women are innocent, pure, victims, and so on.
And some women may be, but here is the crucial point - some of them are not.
The more people who recognise that some women are scum, or rather that women can be scum - just as we freely recognise regarding men - the better.
Because anything else, is that chivalrous white knighting, which assumes women are innocent, and telling the truth. We all know the cost this can have to actual innocents.
Now - when you refuse to consider women who make false accusations 'real women', i.e. authentic women, what happens?
The category of 'women' is protected, and it is allowed to remain pure, uncorruptible, etc., because the women who have shown themselves to be scum, and have victimised others, are no longer in that category.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
The collective entity 'women' is too broad to make judgements about, if we're being serious. Yet culturally, we do - we make very positive judgements about 'women' collectively. UNDULY, AND UNFAIRLY.
And, to dismiss those women who do terrible things, from the category of women, only serves to protect women's undue and unfair positive reputation - which leads people to believe that they would never lie about rape, for instance.
Women who lie about rape most certainly are women. Don't be afraid to accept that women aren't like they appear in Disney movies. That is a mistake which costs men far more than it costs women.
Snark, I appreciate the intent behind my claims about 'real women' may not be readily apparent. So I will try to explain more fully where I am coming from and what I am trying to achieve with this.
As Dale Carnegie outlines in How to Win Friends and Influence People, it is much more effective to motivate people using positive reinforcement than negative reinforcement. It is useful to consider this when dealing with women in your life. That is, we can make an example of good female behavior instead of just trashing the female gender. Or as Carnegie says, give someone a good reputation to live up to and they will feel compelled to do so.
How often do you hear some woman or perhaps a feminist say something like 'a real man would do this', or 'if you were a gentleman you would do this' or something similar? And you know what? This is about 1000% more effective as a shaming tactic than if she had said 'all men are pigs' or something like that. Basically she is saying 'I will only acknowledge you as a real man if you do what I want. If not, you are a piece of shit'. If you give someone a standard to live up to, that works a hell of a lot better than making it clear nothing is expected. And there is no bigger insult than to say you no longer even deserve to be considered a man.
My philosophy is that if women get to decide what a 'real man' is, then we have as much right to decide what a 'real woman' is. And I make it clear that I only have time for real women. I have begun applying this philosophy in my personal life, especially with women I work with or deal with regularly. If a woman is attractive, kind, nurturing and friendly I make an effort to be considerate and gentlemanly in my conduct. If she is not sufficiently like that, I try to ignore her as much as possible. Only women who meet my standards of what a real woman is are acknowledged as women. Given that women usually like male attention, this works a lot better than if I was to just sit around complaining about how crappy women have become.
The problem with saying that real women make false rape allegations is that, in a sense, you are encouraging or legitimising women doing such things. It is almost as if you are saying ‘oh well, she was just a typical woman feeling a little irritable or hormonal. Maybe a bad time of the month. So she just made a false rape claim. Hey, it’s just what chicks do, don’t you know!’. Whereas if you make it clear that decent real women never dream of doing such a thing, and that only a sick, disgusting, freak would do that, this is more likely to deter a woman from making a false allegation due to regret or to get sympathy or whatever. Her womanhood is at stake, and I for one only offer comfort to real women, not some grotesque freak of nature.
How about this for a public advertising campaign slogan to draw attention to the problem of false accusations: 'Real Women Don't Make False Rape Claims'.
Then the subtext: real women are left to pick up the pieces when innocent men's lives are ruined by false allegations. This could be accompanied by a photo of (say) a young wife or mother (chosen specifically for her attractiveness and ability to look sweet and vulnerable), fighting back tears as she learns of the fate of her husband or son or brother. To cap it off, there should be just a hint of cleavage showing in order to capture the viewer's attention and appeal to damsel-in-distress titillation.
Damn it. I knew I should have chosen a career in advertising!
Snark, just to clear up the original point that was in dispute.
In the thread in question I recall you saying something like 'real women make false rape accusations and this must be taken into account when considering women as a whole'. If this is not quite accurate, I apologize. The problem with this is that it seems to suggest that women in general should somehow be impugned by false rape allegations. The reality is that I have no doubt the large majority of women would never make a false rape allegation (although all it takes is a small percentage of women to make such allegations in order to reek havoc).
The problem is that it is not fair to impugn a group more generally based on the behavior of the most objectionable minority of that group. The vast majority of women who would not make a false claim are no more responsible for the behavior of false accusers than men are collectively responsible for the actions of rapists.
However, on a more general level I kind of understand what you may be getting at insofar as when you add up all the positives and negatives of various things women do false rape allegations have to be taken into account when determining the overall impact of women for good or bad. If you believe all women are real women, everything a woman does individually has some impact on that.
Snark, just to sum up the issue somewhat more succinctly. I do not use the category 'real women' in order to give all women a free pass. Quite the opposite. I use it as a standard that women have to live up to in order to be acknowledged, personally, sexually, socially etc.
It is also useful to draw a distinction between 'women' and 'real women'. Women includes all women, even those who are indeed vile scum. 'Real women' includes only those women who have taken the highest calling and cultivate the best feminine attributes while minimizing the less attractive ones. Kind of like a top-shelf vintage wine.
"How often do you hear some woman or perhaps a feminist say something like 'a real man would do this', or 'if you were a gentleman you would do this' or something similar?"
This is nothing but control and should be rejected outright. Unlike you have stated, women do not decide what constitutes a 'real man'.
Quite frankly ... ANY 'real man' talk from ANYONE is so completely pathetic that I don't even bother to humour or even acknowledge it.
A man is a man.
There is no greater authenticity on offer.
The 'real man' one is contrasted to is a mere prop. The bigoted woman in question is not in favour of the ideal 'real man' so much as she is AGAINST you, because she wants you to do something which makes her life easier at your expense.
As I say, it must be rejected outright.
"And there is no bigger insult than to say you no longer even deserve to be considered a man."
How is that an insult? It's like saying you no longer deserve to be considered white. But look at yourself, you still have pale skin.
As if someone can decide, on a whim, those essential and immutable facts about you.
It is all about control. Reject it outright.
"The problem is that it is not fair to impugn a group more generally based on the behavior of the most objectionable minority of that group. The vast majority of women who would not make a false claim are no more responsible for the behavior of false accusers than men are collectively responsible for the actions of rapists."
This was exactly my point.
Do you trust a man you just met with your life savings?
I sure hope not.
That's because we acknowledge that some men do bad things. Our concept of 'men' ranges from the great and the benevolent to the violent and the criminal scum.
Our concept of 'women' ranges from victim to innocent. Wow, what a range. I'd like our concept of 'women' to range from great to criminal. Why? Because it's true. And because anything less perpetuates cultural assumptions of pure womanhood.
I fundamentally do not understand the 'real man' / 'real woman' phrases.
'Real' means 'authentic', or 'actually existing'.
'Man' and 'woman' are not socially constructed. A man is an adult human being with XY chromosomes and male genitalia. A woman is an adult human being with XX chromosomes and female genitalia.
You being an authentic, actually existing, male human being, is an indisputable statement of fact.
Any subjective value applied to these facts, as though they can be muted at will, by SOMEONE ELSE nonetheless, is complete nonsense. It's just vacuous.
I don't object to certain standards of behaviour, this is the most basic goal of civilisation. None of us would be here if we thought women should not have certain standards to live up to, e.g. not committing crimes which destroy innocent men.
Apparently that's too much to ask of some women and their defenders.
And yes, those women are authentic, existing, adult female human beings.
Post a Comment