To properly understand the false rape epidemic, it is well to listen to the persons in the trenches who confront false rape claims more than anyone, law enforcement officials. A 20-year veteran detective sergeant in a suburban police department writes about his experiences, and he recently had this to say about false claims of sexual assault:
Police frequently investigate reports that turn out to be false. False police reports are generally motivated by a desire to escape responsibility for one's actions, a need for attention, or vindictiveness.
Most of the fake reports I've seen have been claims of sexual assault and robbery or theft. The robbery and theft reports were made to account for money spent on gambling, women, drugs or booze (in that order). I'm not talking about people making a false report to conceal a crime that they committed--I'm talking about people making a false report as part of an elaborate excuse for their own weakness.
I've seen false allegations of sexual assault made out of shame or religious conflict--"I'm a good girl, I couldn't possibly have had 9 Jager bombs and a few Long Island ice teas and gone home with a stranger, I must have been raped!" I've seen sexual assault allegations made to get attention from parents and boyfriends. We've also investigated more than a few cases that involved people who made reports because they needed treatment for an STD or physical injuries they'd sustained during consensual sex, and were too embarrassed to go to the family doctor.
Most of the time, people who make these false reports don't get prosecuted. In some cases it's an obvious mental health issue, and to prosecute would seem like piling on to an already deeply troubled person. It helps if we catch the lie early enough that we don't have to spend time and energy investigating it. If the investigation expands, generates media attention, and creates public alarm, it's more likely the false reporter will be charged.
A good example would be the case of Audrey Seiler. In 2004 Seiler, a University of Wisconsin student in Madison, claimed she was abducted at knifepoint. The investigation cost the Madison Police Department nearly $100,000.
Link: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/arresting-tales/2010/05/gary-hunninghake-false-police-reports-and-desperate-people.html
FRS COMMENT: The loose criteria mentioned by the officer for whether or not to charge the crime of false reporting nowhere mentions the single most significant factor: whether an innocent person was harmed by the the lie. Was an innocent man or boy targeted, or arrested?
In addition, the comment about "piling on" is perplexing. Would a police officer say that about the perpetrator of a crime that almost exclusively hurts women? The answer is "no." And that is irrefutable.
We've noted on this blog repeatedly that law enforcement officials generally do a wonderful job of weeding out the vast majority of false rape claims before they become an issue. But it would greatly help end the false rape epidemic if police stopped viewing themselves as chivalrous protectors of frail women. Only when false rape claims are treated as what they are -- serious crimes -- will the epidemic cease being an epidemic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
113 comments:
The link to the Fort Wayne, IN Journal Gazette has some interesting reporting:
Police say rapes and sexual assaults are among their most common fabricated reports. Teens might lie about non-consensual sexual activity to justify a pregnancy. Adults might lie about sexual activity to hide an affair, [Fort Wayne police Capt. Paul] Shrawder said.
It seems that law enforcement has a very different perspective on the "women don't lie about rape" argument. A perspective bolstered by facts, experience and lots of wasted tax payer dollars.
Archivist, your lawyer-y insight would be greatly appreciated regarding this bit:
“If a person reports a rape, how do you prove it’s false?” [Allen County Prosecutor Karen] Richards said, adding that these cases are often most difficult to prosecute [...] because they are often a case of he said, she said.
“So many crimes are committed without any witness except the person that reports the crime,” Richards said. “Just because Person A says one thing and Person B says another thing, doesn’t mean it’s a false report.”
So we get this:
In the case of the woman who said she was attacked by a man after leaving work, her story did not match the evidence police found, according to [Allen County police Sgt. Steve] Stone. But police also did not have enough evidence to present charges for prosecution of the woman.
So it seems that even if penalties for false reporting are increased prosecution would still be infeasible in many cases. Does this change if an innocent person is victimized by serving jail time or has their reputation/job/marriage destroyed? Is civil action against the accuser more appropriate or even an option in these situations?
OT: An HTML tag for blockquotes would be very helpful if it is possible to allow or implement. Thanks!
The basic issue here is a proper understanding of the role of the police. Under most legal systems, the police largely represent and are ultimately controlled by the executive branch of government. They are, for the most part, the government's front line in social control, and are every bit as susceptible to the ideologies and vested interests of those in power as any other branch of government. Secondly, the police represent the prosecution in the criminal law system and normally act on behalf of those alleging crime, not those accused.
Some people seem to have a notion that the police exist as some sort of independent, justice-of-the-peace, mediating between citizens in an even-handed fashion. That is not really their role or mandate.
To say that the police very often don't care much about the plight or rights of innocent men is not to gratuitously bash police. It is simply to recognize that that is not really their role, either legally or constitutionally. And I'm sure most police officers don't see it as their role. They believe it is up to defence lawyers and the courts to protect the innocent and falsely accused. Their job is to simply decide if their is a chance of making any case stick.
Police officers have never been renowned for being a bunch of bleeding heart, civil libertarians. And as I say, that is not really their job. And if you are that way inclined, you probably wouldn't consider joining the police force as a career option.
Police forces are ultimately a necessary evil rather than a positive good in society. If society was sufficiently civilized we could ideally do away with police forces altogether. While police are needed to maintain order, police forces will become tyrants if given too much power and insufficient oversight. As such, the police do need to be kept in their place.
Apologies for the typo: "their" should be "there".
I don't give a flying fuck if the false report was filed by a mentally ill woman or if sending her to prison would be "piling on." If you live as an adult in this society then you are accountable; no bullshit, no excuses.
Pro-liar prosecutors have no excuse whatsoever for enabling these criminals. We need to increase the punishment for filing false reports and also raise our ethical standards so that the nifongs join them behind bars.
Women have asked for and received "Uber protection" at the expense of men/boys basic equal protection.
Equal protection under the law means, Equal protection under the law..but perverts have misinterpreted this constitutional phrase to mean whatever the perverts want it to mean.
Around the Block Column
A Staten Island Advance column by Jeff HarrellFrom the Print Edition, Real-time news »
For Port Richmond man, bogus rape charge dropped, but the damage persists
By Jeff Harrell
May 16, 2010, 8:05AM
Staten Island Advance/Steve Zaffarano"Hopefully I can get a job back...I have to go on. But it's tough because the allegations were so ugly," said Adrian Angevin.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. - An innocent man's nightmare is over.
It's time for Adrian Angevin to get back to doing what he does best -- working with developmentally disabled adults.
"Hopefully I can get a job back," Adrian, 36, says. "With the economy the way it is, I have to go on. But it's tough because the allegations were so ugly."
Ugly? Those charges concocted by a 16-year-old girl who claimed Adrian tried to rape her in the Staten Island Mall's parking lot were brutal.
"I'd been working for eight years, taking care of my two sons, and supporting my daughter who lives in Florida," Adrian says of his old job at the Lifespire adult residence in New Springville.
A Lifespire staffer told me the Port Richmond resident was "a good guy" who never had any problems there until he "disappeared" in November.
"We didn't know what happened to him," the staffer said. "We heard he went to California."
They heard wrong.
Since Lifespire provides care to mentally-challenged adults, the attempted rape charge flew in the face of the company's code of ethics. When the charges came to light, Lifespire reps -- including Adrian's supervisor Joanne McClein -- sat down with his union delegate and agreed to let him resign.
"My [boss] told me that I either had to resign or they would fire me because of the allegations," Adrian recalls. "I didn't know what to do, so I resigned."
The teen girl who lobbed a bomb on Adrian's job told Det. William Wasson and Assistant District Attorney Anthony Katchen she fought off a man who threw a coat over her head and attacked her in the Mall's lot on May 19 last year.
Then she fingered Adrian as her attacker, the man who had stared at her, licked his lips and mouthed nasties on the S44 bus to Port Richmond High School a few dozen times between September 2008 and May 19, 2009.
Adrian admitted riding the S44 to and from work and his home near Port Richmond High School. But there were canyons in the girls' story.
That night she told responding Officer Nayron Garcia she was "followed by an unknown person, who was screaming at her," but never said a word about having a coat thrown over her head or being grabbed, as she later told Wasson.
"Officer Garcia told me ... he would have recorded those details on the complaint report," Katchen wrote in his report.
She also said she used her student Metrocard to pay for the bus. But there was no record of a student Metrocard issued to the girl for the September 2008 school term.
And she bragged of "good" attendance at Port Richmond High School.
But the Department of Education said the girl wasn't enrolled at Port Richmond High School during the 2008-2009 school year.
cont...The girl said she recognized Adrian on a bus she rode with a student Metrocard she didn't have on her way to a school she didn't attend.
So Katchen canned the case. Why waste another second preparing a she-said-he-said trial for a she-said who really didn't know what she was saying?
"Proof that the contact was criminal or sexual in nature rests solely on the testimony of [the girl], whose credibility has been severely undermined by the relevant documentary evidence," Katchen wrote in his recommendation for dismissal.
When a judge tossed the case recently nobody was less surprised than Adrian's attorney Mario Gallucci. "I have said from day one that my client was not guilty of these charges," Gallucci said.
Just don't look for any follow-up perjury charges anytime soon. A cop friend cited an unwritten rule that you don't lock up a rape victim even if they're lying because you don't want to scare future rape victims from coming forward.
All that's left is for Adrian to try to forget three months of getting brewed, stewed and crucified by a jailhouse bunch that treats accused rapists like the stuff they kick off the soles of their bathroom flip-flops, innocent until proven guilty their behind.
"That, right there, was a nightmare," says Adrian, who could have faced the same hell for a max 15 years had he been convicted.
Now he faces job interviewers asking, "Mr. Angevin, what have you been doing lately?"
"I have been incarcerated, sir."
"Why?"
"A girl accused me of attempted rape, but ..."
"Thank you ... Next..."
Some might not even waste a thank you, innocent until proven guilty their behind.
"Hopefully, I can get back to work," Adrian says. "I don't see why I can't."
Me neither.
twitter.com/siadvance -- facebook.com/statenislandadvance
"So it seems that even if penalties for false reporting are increased prosecution would still be infeasible in many cases."
That is true. However, it is not a reason not to increase penalties, or not prosecute when there is enough evidence.
Blind Justice? Attractive Get Breaks with Juries
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/17/national/main6492046.shtml
--BB
"I'm a good girl, I couldn't possibly have had 9 Jager bombs and a few Long Island ice teas and gone home with a stranger, I must have been raped!"
She would have been absolutely correct. Do not have sex with a drunk. In addition to that, there's nothing "consensual" about sex that results in physical injury. Your 20-year veteran detective is off the mark.
"In addition to that, there's nothing "consensual" about sex that results in physical injury."
Ever hear of rough sex? Apparently not ... somebody rather more schooled than you would know that women often REQUEST it.
"Your 20-year veteran detective is off the mark."
A 20 year veteran detective is surely no match for a silly little girl who knows so little about the world that she has never encountered 'rough sex'.
Get back to class, sweetie pie ...
It's common knowledge that some couples are into rough sex, which is altogether different than when a woman is inflicted with severe physical damage, requiring treatment.
'Severe physical damage' is not the same as 'physical injury'.
The very MEANING of the statement changes drastically depending on which you apply.
Choose your words more carefully. Big Brotherman is watching you.
(Assuming you were the same Anon.)
If you believe all women have encountered rough sex, that tells me a lot about you. Is that what you think women want?
"If you believe all women have encountered rough sex, that tells me a lot about you. Is that what you think women want?"
Note, everyone - classic feminist slur technique.
You scroll up and find where I claimed to believe that all women have encountered rough sex.
You won't find it.
I am letting this comment stand, because it shows how grotesque these people are.
Here is my quote!
"Ever hear of rough sex? Apparently not ... somebody rather more schooled than you would know that women often REQUEST it."
Feminist response:
"If you believe all women have encountered rough sex, that tells me a lot about you."
Isn't it interesting how 'often' becomes 'all'?
That's what we call stereotyping, gentlemen and ladies. Personally, I believe that Not All Women Are Like That.
Read the article. Paraphrasing, the veteran detective mentioned physical injury severe enough to require medical treatment.
"Read the article. Paraphrasing, the veteran detective mentioned physical injury severe enough to require medical treatment."
But the comment mentioning 'physical injury' was not in response to the article as a whole. It was a response SPECIFICALLY to the quoted part:
"I'm a good girl, I couldn't possibly have had 9 Jager bombs and a few Long Island ice teas and gone home with a stranger, I must have been raped!"
By the way, injury requiring medical treatment can occur by accident during sex, just as it can occur during anything else.
Certain angles are rather risky.
A friend of mine, for instance, had to go to the hospital because of an injury he sustained to his penis because of a certain position he and his girlfriend had 'engaged in'.
Tell me, WAS HE RAPED?
Feminist logic says yes. But then, feminist logic is an oxymoron.
Yes, you said that I'm a silly little girl who knows so little about the world that I have never encountered 'rough sex'.
Doesn't that imply that I'll inevitably encounter rough sex when I'm "old enough"? Hopefully most men don't subscribe to your brand of sex.
Ah! Note a second slur, people.
She is deliberately misreading my use of the term 'encountered'.
While I clearly intended this in the sense of one having encountered knowledge of rough sex,
She is deliberately misinterpreting, as if to imply that I meant all women will literally, personally, physically encounter rough sex.
I rather obviously meant the first, since the context of the sentence was her lack of AWARENESS that rough sex takes place and is OFTEN requested by women.
"Hopefully most men don't subscribe to your brand of sex."
My 'brand' of sex? LOL!
What a clumsy thing to say.
"We've also investigated more than a few cases that involved people who made reports because they needed treatment for an STD or physical injuries they'd sustained during consensual sex, and were too embarrassed to go to the family doctor"
More than a few cases requiring medical treatment. Oh, so you attribute all these to "accidents"?
According to the women who reported these "accidents" were accused of false accusations?
"silly little girl" is certainly not a slur is it. Enough of this inanity and hatred of women.
"By the way, injury requiring medical treatment can occur by accident during sex, just as it can occur during anything else."
So, true! It reminds me of a quote from Monty Python:
"Woman: I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep falling off!"
There is no accounting for some of these gender feminists. Tsk tsk.
Here you go, Anonymous feminist who objected to my 'brand of sex'.
This is just for you.
( From Glenn Sacks blog)
A famous 'rough sex' false accusation:
In 1997, sportscaster Marv Albert was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a woman with whom he had had a 10-year sexual relationship. Albert sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against men who had left her, as Albert, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. Albert's offer of proof was denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he chose to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault.
As a woman, I don't ascribe to anonymous' brand of inuendo and veiled accusations.
As a 'nice girl' I am fully aware there are plenty of women who are not 'nice' at all.
"She would have been absolutely correct. Do not have sex with a drunk."
Drunk people have sex with each other all the time, yet no one ever suggests that it's rape if a man is drunk. As a society, we hold people accountable for their drunken behavior, such as deciding to drive a car. Except when in comes to women having sex, then she is not responsible for her own decision? Drunk women can be very sexually aggressive, because in addition to the same CNS effects it has on men, alcohol increases testosterone levels in women.
Then there was a case a month or so ago, where a woman falsely accused a man of rape because he refused to have sex with her because she was drunk.
"....there was a case a month or so ago, where a woman falsely accused a man of rape because he refused to have sex with her because she was drunk"
Cite the case, the suspense is killing me.
Regarding the Marv Albert case you dug up from the 1997 archives, he had no proof that his injured victim was lying.
""silly little girl" is certainly not a slur is it"
Actually, it is. And imho, with all due respect, Chef Snark should not have said that, regardless of whether or not it's true. Because name-calling and personal attacks aren't any sort of point. Further, people might misinterpret it as an attack against women in general, rather than an attack against a particular woman, who seems to have the mind of a child.
"Cite the case, the suspense is killing me."
It was posted here, so it can be found by scrolling back through the older entries. Regardless, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that rejection is a common motive for false rape accusations.
"Further, people might misinterpret it as an attack against women in general, rather than an attack against a particular woman, who seems to have the mind of a child."
Those people would have to be pretty hysterical to generalise my personal comment to all women.
If they're that hysterical, then there's not much I can say (or would like to say) to reassure them. My posting here at FRS is enough to convince such people that I'm the big bad wolf.
Anonymous (number ? of ??) - ""Cite the case, the suspense is killing me."
College woman falsely accused innocent man of rape for no reason
SLWerner's search-fu is strong!
1:37 you just couldn't resist adding another slur could you lol
SLwerner I see. She's a nut case. No wonder he felt uncomfortable and left.
"Those people would have to be pretty hysterical to generalise my personal comment to all women."
Regardless, why feed into it? Although, I think such a generalization has some validity in regards to names for women that are derogatory or may be viewed as offensively diminutive. Allow me to make an analogy. Let's say you were arguing with someone who was black, and called that person a "silly negro" or some racial slur. Don't you think that could be interpreted as racist or possibly indicative of your view of blacks in general?
So if you must call people names for some inexplicable reason, perhaps it would be better if they were gender-neutral. Otherwise, it risks offending the female supporters of this site.
"1:37 you just couldn't resist adding another slur could you lol"
There is no slur at 1:37.
oh very clever of you, Anon 2:11, that way the transparency of the slur will go unnoticed, like in this subtle implication:
"...particular women, who seem to have the mind of children"
"Allow me to make an analogy. Let's say you were arguing with someone who was black, and called that person a "silly negro" or some racial slur. Don't you think that could be interpreted as racist or possibly indicative of your view of blacks in general?"
Yeah, except, sorry but 'girl' is not a term comparable to 'negro'. Is it?
Because otherwise, people wouldn't just say "don't say that, it's as bad as saying 'negro'!" They'd say "don't say that, it's as bad as saying 'girl'!"
But ... they don't. Sorry women, you have never been enslaved as a class, and so you don't get an N-word, and even if you did, it wouldn't be 'girl'.
To interpret me calling one individual woman a 'silly girl' as a slur against all women is to fall victim to feminist thinking, where one equals the whole and selfish actions are justified on the basis of 'doing it for ALL women!' Sorry, I don't buy it. What you are asking me to do is to not insult or take to task individual women, because this might give the impression that I'm insulting or taking ALL women to task.
You're using PC language to stop me taking individual, deficient women to task. Pretty sneaky!
And also profoundly silly. Are you taking ALL MEN to task with this argument you're making against me?
Those of us who aren't raving lunatics don't have to define people by their demographics. We can, you know, see them as individuals.
Anonymous - ”SLwerner I see. She's a nut case. No wonder he felt uncomfortable and left.”
???
I’m confused by your comment – and, I must say, a bit concerned as to your motive for making it.
Let’s go back to the original article, where we find:
”Mark Keane, prosecuting, explained how Cassie had been out drinking with friends on the evening of 17 October – ending up at a local nightclub. He said: "She was very drunk and at about 3am, she walked off with a man, and they got a taxi to her address."
Mr Keane said the pair "chatted, listened to music, and started kissing" but the man "felt uncomfortable" and arranged a lift home, leaving at about 3:45am.”
I see nothing about her being a nut case (no more so than the typical women who’s had too much to drink). From every indication we are given, his concern was that she was too drunk. He did what we are constantly being told a man ought to do. He chose NOT to have sex with her, because she was drunk. And, it was his refusal of sex with her that made her upset enough to accuse him of rape.
If you look back at the anonymously posted comment @ May 19, 2010 10:53:00 AM,
To the quote from the article:
"I'm a good girl, I couldn't possibly have had 9 Jager bombs and a few Long Island ice teas and gone home with a stranger, I must have been raped!",
that poster proclaimed:
”She would have been absolutely correct. Do not have sex with a drunk.”
Yet, as we see from the earlier story, even following that supposed guideline does not ensure a man that he will not be accused.
Which brings me to this:
Are you the same poster who made that ”Do not have sex with a drunk” comment? And, are you stating that the women in the earlier story was a nut case to cover for the apparent incongruity between these two things? In other words, are you simply concerned that if the women from the earlier story is not marginalized as a nut case, then the whole ”Do not have sex with a drunk” loses it’s credibility as woman – sane women – are in no way honor-bound to respect that a man has been so thoughtful, and might still repay him with an FRA anyway?
May 19, 2010 2:25:00 PM
Chef Snark, you so completely misinterpreted what I wrote that I feel it would be pointless to argue about it.
Btw, I'm neither feminist, politically correct, nor a woman. Not that it's relevant. Which is a part of my point. Take people to task for what they say, not who you think they are.
Lame try Snark since you never refer to men as hysterical or silly. Also sounds like you're admitting that the FRS has a few raving lunatics.
SLwerner, don't be so paranoid. I am agreeing with you. The guy did exactly as he should have when he felt uncomfortable -- he left. Sorry I threw in the word 'nut'.
Anonymous - "SLwerner, don't be so paranoid."
I was just "checking". Sorry if I come off as one of those raving lunatics.
"Lame try Snark since you never refer to men as hysterical or silly"
Or 'women', as a collective entity.
It is this inability to grasp the difference between the individual and the collective that I think is causing problems for you here.
SLwerner I'd never throw you into the raving lunatic category. You are a gentle lunatic with some class ;)
May 19, 2010 2:43:00 PM
and
May 19, 2010 2:44:00 PM
are two different people.
All right, the raving lunatic comment was out of line.
I did not explain what I meant by it - it was thrown in there as shorthand for things I've discussed before.
At the time, I was thinking of that school of thought in feminism which states that men TODAY should 'pay' for the crimes committed by their ancestors against women.
Yes, feminists have specifically argued this - that innocent men should be persecuted to redress some historical balance.
That's what I had in mind, when thinking of those people who judge others by their group memberships, rather than by their individual actions, and wish to punish accordingly.
THEY are most certainly raving lunatics.
The way I put it sounds like I was attacking a lot more people than that. I wasn't intending to.
to redress some historical IMbalance. *
Anonymous - "May 19, 2010 2:43:00 PM
and
May 19, 2010 2:44:00 PM
are two different people."
Thus, once again, I'm suggesting that a simple designator be used by our anonymous posters to "sign" their posts, the way CBGirl does. Even a lone character would suffice.
I concur with Anon 3:24, who must be my id or super ego.
Snark all is forgiven. Sometimes even 'I' make ridiculous comments. Rare though.
"Those people would have to be pretty hysterical to generalise my personal comment to all women."
Regardless, why feed into it? Although, I think such a generalization has some validity in regards to names for women that are derogatory or may be viewed as offensively diminutive. Allow me to make an analogy. Let's say you were arguing with someone who was black, and called that person a "silly negro" or some racial slur. Don't you think that could be interpreted as racist or possibly indicative of your view of blacks in general?
***
Because we all know that the problems of white women are right up there with slavery and Jim Crow and having a 33% unemployment right. (Sarcasm)
"Because we all know that the problems of white women are right up there with slavery and Jim Crow and having a 33% unemployment right."
Reading is comprehension.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not women are or ever were oppressed as a group. It's simply about not offending women, or anyone else who would support this site, with unnecessary name-calling.
As our hosts have frequently pointed out, this site is not only for the falsely accused, but for their wives and mothers. And they have received numerous emails in support from such women. Whether or not you agree with it, the reality is that many people, regardless of their identity or political views, are offended by derogatory names for women and other groups. So I would rather not see those who would otherwise support us put off because some commenter couldn't resist calling some feminist troll a "bitch", "cunt", "whore", etc. as we've seen all too often on this blog. It's not that complicated.
That's politically correct bullshit.
The last thing we need to do is to start walking on eggshells around feminist trolls, or around women who identify more with those who shares their sexual plumbing than with those who share their ideas.
Step #1 is stop being polite.
If we never complete step #1 then we'll never make it to step #2.
I concur with the last two comments.
Sorry, but FRS's very mission is 'offensive' to women as a whole, if you are to believe feminists.
I would understand your point more if I or someone else had actually insulted all women.
My very weak insult was directed towards one particular woman.
I find it very telling that the instance of challenging ONE woman is met with accusations of how this is unfair to ALL women.
As I said before ... it's not a paradigm I'm willing to entertain. I am absolutely free to insult whichever individual I please, without requiring permission from their demographic!
"So I would rather not see those who would otherwise support us put off because some commenter couldn't resist calling some feminist troll a "bitch", "cunt", "whore", etc. as we've seen all too often on this blog."
I'm not going to say that this has never happened, but it's not really frequent enough to be of concern.
And if that is how the falsely accused and their outraged supporters wish to respond to those who come here posting hateful messages - re-victimising the victims through false rape apologia - then I feel they are within their rights here.
Perhaps you believe that women are easily offended by such language? It is my impression that they are often more hardy on this than you might think, going so far as to use those precise words themselves in reference to other women that they don't like.
You may be sincere, but this sounds a lot like concern troll trying to create divisions and diversions.
I am not Anon 4:26. Feminists would not mind offensive language directed towards them if they were allowed to counter with equally offensive language without being deleted.
That said, offensive language is inexcusable imho.
"Feminists would not mind offensive language directed towards them if they were allowed to counter with equally offensive language without being deleted."
This isn't a feminist safe space.
Nor is it a place where we are particularly concerned about giving feminists equal air time.
I'm confused -- why the fuck would we care what feminists do or don't appreciate? It's not as if they allow us to post on their blogs.
Snark, if in future you just refer to such posters as a 'silly homo sapien', it might clear up all the kerfuffle and bring a lot more female supporters on board.
"Snark, if in future you just refer to such posters as a 'silly homo sapien',"
Oh real nice, Nick. Why'd you have to go bringing up homos?
Now we'll have to defend ourselves from the feminists AND the GLBT groups.
I'm hoping to see those groups split apart, since two-thirds of gays are men who really don't have anything in common with these upper middle-class white women from New York.
There are many women supporters of this site.
To put it in terms you may be more comfortable with, think of those white civil rights protesters who marched, were clubbed, jailed and bitten by dogs to support the civil rights of blacks, only to hear a black person refer to a detractor as a 'honky'or white devil, or whatever else.
Whadda you gonna do? Call that white person a honky and white devil too?
Most women aren't Jane Fonda, ya know.
When you hear those same black people you supported mock and scorn white people as 'silly' or 'stupid' or the much worse barrage that erupts here from time to time, are you repeating to yourself "Not ME. That doesn't mean ME."
Anonymous said...
I'm hoping to see those groups split apart, since two-thirds of gays are men who really don't have anything in common with these upper middle-class white women from New York.
May 19, 2010 9:54:00 PM
Yes, but they WANT to. Therein lies the rub.
Historically, women have been very tolerant and accepting of gay men.
Women like feminine men who 'understand' and emulate them, unlike men, who don't tolerate or accept masculine women, no matter how manly they try to be, which leaves both gays and lesbians pro female.
That's my take on it, anyway.
To put it in terms you may be more comfortable with, think of those white civil rights protesters who marched, were clubbed, jailed and bitten by dogs to support the civil rights of blacks, only to hear a black person refer to a detractor as a 'honky'or white devil, or whatever else.
Whadda you gonna do? Call that white person a honky and white devil too?
***
That depends on which honky white devil we're talking about. If it's someone like Arpaio, sure.
Again, 'girl' is not a term comparable to 'honkey' or 'white devil'.
But I am sure that the women of the board thank you, the official Anonymous FRS White Knight.
"I'm confused -- why the fuck would we care what feminists do or don't appreciate?"
It's not about what feminists appreciate.
"Sorry, but FRS's very mission is 'offensive' to women as a whole, if you are to believe feminists."
Since when do you believe feminists?
"I find it very telling that the instance of challenging ONE woman is met with accusations of how this is unfair to ALL women."
No one said it was unfair to all women. It just makes us look like bigots.
"Perhaps you believe that women are easily offended by such language?"
I know that many are, regardless of their political views.
"You may be sincere, but this sounds a lot like concern troll trying to create divisions and diversions."
Well, your position seems to be that be you would rather risk losing support for the falsely accused, just so you can call people stupid names over the internet. How is that in any way helpful? It's at best ad hominem, and at worst offensive.
@ Anon
Snark is fine, speaking as one of the FRAccused, fuck everyone who wants to ignore the 8,000 lb gorilla in the room (FRA's) and waste bandwidth whining about offending people with skin thinner than a cigarette paper.
Chef Snark said...
Again, 'girl' is not a term comparable to 'honkey' or 'white devil'.
But I am sure that the women of the board thank you, the official Anonymous FRS White Knight.
May 20, 2010 3:44:00 AM
Those are exaggerated examples - making derogatory remarks about "white people" while claiming "except those who support me" rings hollow.
Sorry, Snark. I'm not a white knight. I'm one of the female supporters of this forum. I dont' really address my remarks to other women on this board, nor do I represent them. I speak for myself, although I don't doubt others may feel the same way.
AFOR, it's not a matter of paper thin skin.
If I were to make a comment like that to a man I disagreed with on this board, even while I am assuring YOU of my support and respect for all mankind - it would ring pretty hollow.
Go ahead and call me names now. I can still support this cause without supporting you personally.
AFOR, it's not a matter of paper thin skin.
If I were to make a comment like that to a man I disagreed with on this board, even while I am assuring YOU of my support and respect for all mankind - it would ring pretty hollow.
Go ahead and call me names now. I can still support this cause without supporting you personally.
You are totally, utterly, completely, 100% wrong.
You either support a cause, such as freedom of speech, universally, or not at all.
You can't make exceptions, none, never, not a single one.
Habeas Corpus either applies to terrorists, actual sexual abusers of children, and organ traffickers, or it doesn't exist.
You make ANY EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to any universal application, you open the door for me to say "fuck justice" and mete out my own rough justice.
You're making exceptions, why should anyone else be held to a higher standard?
"You either support a cause, such as freedom of speech, universally, or not at all.
You can't make exceptions, none, never, not a single one."
This blog has a comments policy, and comments are deleted on a regular basis.
"why should anyone else be held to a higher standard?"
Except no one is saying that.
This seems so unbelievably childish, that we have people arguing in favor of name-calling.
Whether you support the cause or not, what makes you think you're entitled to come in here and lecture us on the language we choose to use? Fuck you, dog's asshole licker.
Just kidding -- you're really a cuntfaced douche nozzle. See also: herpes breath.
AfOR's statement concluded the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Here it is again in case anyone forgot:
"Snark is fine, speaking as one of the FRAccused, fuck everyone who wants to ignore the 8,000 lb gorilla in the room (FRA's) and waste bandwidth whining about offending people with skin thinner than a cigarette paper."
"This seems so unbelievably childish, that we have people arguing in favor of name-calling"
If you'll remember, Glenn Sacks did not permit profanity or name-calling on his site, and rarely were comments deleted. Healthy and interesting debates were often generated by visiting feminists. Glenn's readers as a whole were an intelligent bunch.
Except that "fuck everyone" is hardly a valid argument.
Regardless, if you are not going to delete comments such as May 20, 2010 11:51:00 AM, and, as moderator, persist in making similar comments yourself, then the following needs to be amended:
"We do not tolerate comments that are insulting to the persons who comment or post here. Nor do we tolerate offensive comments, including but not limited to comments that are racist or that negatively characterize, attack, or degrade the characteristics of an entire gender."
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/comments-policy.html
Further, derogatory names for women do "negatively characterize, attack, or degrade the characteristics of an entire gender." And if you are going to state a comments policy, then you should not only follow, but set an example above, that policy.
Bullshit.
I am a False Rape Accused, I have very real and very obvious reasons, while my case is on-going, to remain anonymous.
As you can see, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT ME FROM IDENTIFYING MYSELF TO OTHER READERS.
Those of you who CHOOSE to remain "anonymous" choose to cede ALL rights here, including the right to be treated as an individual.
Snark is right, many "anonymous" posts stink of false flag / feminists.
YOU CHOOSE TO HIDE AMONGST THEM and NOT DIFFERENTIATE YOURSELF FROM THEM.
Tough shit.
Except that calling you a cuntfaced douche-nozzle isn't characterizing an entire gender. You keep resorting to the worn-out feminist tactic of monolithing and demonolithing women at will. That doesn't fly here.
Also: we know a concern troll when we see one.
Also also: this isn't Glenn Sacks, who no longer allows blog comments.
At this point I think we can safely conclude that this is one of the feminist trolls from Glenn Sacks, probably either GG or Jeana.
Still able to waste our time, which is what they live for.
Although there was another woman on Glenn Sacks, who claimed to be pro-MRA until she didn't get the attention that she wanted, and who then would scream "I USED TO SUPPORT YOU! BUT NOW YOU'VE RUINED THAT. I HOPE IT WAS WORTH IT!"
"Those of you who CHOOSE to remain "anonymous" choose to cede ALL rights here, including the right to be treated as an individual."
Bullshit.
"Also: we know a concern troll when we see one."
Apparently not.
"At this point I think we can safely conclude that this is one of the feminist trolls from Glenn Sacks, probably either GG or Jeana."
This is just ridiculous and unbelievably stupid. You can safely conclude something false based on no evidence? It's exactly that sort of thinking why this blog exists in the first place.
Wait -- you're comparing us to false rape accusers and nifongs, because we strongly suspect that you're a feminist doing a concern troll routine? Really? And in case you were unaware of this, it so those issues that created a need for this blog, not your fuddy-duddyism over bad words or us being "unfair" to feminist trolls.
Maybe you aren't a feminist concern troll; maybe you're just a lamer who is so oversensitive to what he imagines amounts to bullying that he thinks he can tell the rest of us how to act. If that's the case then my advice to you is: grow up.
We're here to talk about big boy issues, not sparing trolls from any perceived slight.
I think she is probably a concern troll who is simply here to try to police this blog and sow doubts.
As for Glenn Sacks comment policies. The amount of comments and debate on his site steadily declined, largely because he was too accommodating to the feminists and a lot of the livelier posters there either left or were kicked off.
About 18 months ago I had some email exchanges with him, where I suggested that his approach may be killing off the quality of debate on his forum. It seems my prediction has come to pass.
BTW: I don't really want to have a go at Glenn Sacks, as I'm sure he is a good man and has done a lot of good work in progressing our cause.
And I realize that I can sometimes be somewhat abrasive and confrontational, so any fallings-out I may have had may well be my fault. I am mellowing somewhat in my old age though.
It is just that I think his judgment may have been off in some of these matters. And while I don't wish to blow my own trumpet the whole time, I think my judgment and strategic thinking about these things is usually sound.
Miss Anon does raise an important point though. Are those suspected of being concern trolls entitled to the presumption-of-innocence and due process like everyone else?
There have been a lot of cases in times past where women accused of being concern trolls had a lynch mob waiting outside their door to dispense vigilante justice.
Don't get me wrong guys. Concern trolling is a heinous crime, and those found guilty of it should rot in jail for a long time. But we need to make sure that due process is upheld, and those accused of concern trolling are deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
[sarcasm off]
Hey, I just uncovered this news item about an innocent woman convicted and jailed for concern trolling.
Years after, forensic evidence was uncovered that showed her heart was made of pure gold and her tears were genuine, not crocodile tears.
Yet the police and the DA deliberately suppressed this evidence, such is the clamour to get convictions at all costs.
It has really got to the point where it is all too easy for malicious men to ruin the lives of innocent women by simply crying "concern troll".
"Wait -- you're comparing us to false rape accusers and nifongs, because we strongly suspect that you're a feminist doing a concern troll routine?"
Not only are "safely conclude" and "suspect" entirely different, but your suspicion is utterly baseless and patently absurd. You just have nothing better to say. I find it more than amusing that the only arguments for ad hominem have been ad hominem. Unless you can demonstrate an actual benefit of puerile name-calling, then you do not have a point.
"then my advice to you is: grow up.
We're here to talk about big boy issues, not sparing trolls from any perceived slight."
Then perhaps you should take your own advice and stop acting like a child. This issue is not about sparing trolls. Go ahead, attack what they say. If you are here to talk about serious issues, then you should be able talk about them seriously. But your stooping to their level is an embarrassment to the rest of us. Yet, you would rather risk losing support for the falsely accused, just so you can call people stupid names over the internet. It's like you're in grade school.
Seriously, "cuntfaced douche-nozzle"? I haven't said anything that juvenile in over 35 years.
"Yet, you would rather risk losing support for the falsely accused, just so you can call people stupid names over the internet. It's like you're in grade school."
Shut up, pooface buttnose!
I think if you look at the faces posted on the FRS facebook site, you will find many, many women's faces there - either singly, or supporting their man.
I know what you're saying here. If you call one black man a 'n*&&#r, it's certainly doesn't mean you disrespect ALL black people. Just the one.
Right?
All blacks have such paper thin skin if they object.
After all - you just call the one person that word, not the whole freekin' cry baby bunch.
Ahhhh, yes. I 'just' called her a silly girl. Remember when calling a black man a 'boy' was offending their cigarette paper thin skinned?
Notice it's RARE for black men to post here?
Wonder why?
Because they are convinced false rape acusations are part of the white MEN law enforcement alliance - not the "gender raunch alliance" you silly white boys claim.
White men are responsible for allowing their oppression. White men are never falsely accused. Check the DNA exonerations. They have a point.
I am just one of several anonymous posters here that think the insults and name calling needs to stop.
As any adult knows, name calling exposes your own inner demons.
"Ahhhh, yes. I 'just' called her a silly girl. Remember when calling a black man a 'boy' was offending their cigarette paper thin skinned?"
Once MORE, the situation of women is not at all comparable to the historic situation of black people.
You appear to think that any criticism of anyone is a criticism against their entire demographic.
What's more, your claim that no black men post here is utterly baseless - but it's nice of you to ascribe motivation on their behalf. Unless there is some black male anti-FRA anti-FRS website describing exactly why they apparently don't post here, you have no grounds whatsoever to state that black men think this is a white men's site.
The very assertion is fucking ludicrous.
I'm growing tired of this - I'm going to tell you, right now, to just shut the fuck up. Not another word. You are boring the hell out of me and everyone else. No, I'm not going to wash my mouth out with soap, so stop whinging about it already.
I know what you're saying here. If you call one black man a 'n*&&#r, it's certainly doesn't mean you disrespect ALL black people. Just the one.
Right?
All blacks have such paper thin skin if they object.
****
Somehow I'm not surprised that the concern troll would equate a white woman's huffiness with slavery. In your mind that probably makes perfect sense.
And in case you haven't noticed, we don't use those words to describe black men, and we have refuted racists when they've come in here selling their vile ideology, and we have reported about black men being falsely accused with the same zeal we cover any other story. Skin color makes no difference to an MRA.
There is no comparison whatsoever between a feminist troll's huffiness and indignation over slavery. None whatsoever.
Oh -- and you're an anus-eyed dildo-licker, who farts uncontrollably.
At this point, I should bring up a relevant fact: every message board and blog that is around for any length of times ends up with a faction of whiners, just like the one(s) we're seeing here.
They always spew the same old sky is falling routine: "We don't like the way you're running the blog, we don't like the rules, CHANGE THEM OR WE'RE LEAVING!"
But they never, ever leave. They just keep whining for years and years and years.
Successful blogs are the ones that continue to applying the rules as they've always been applied, without changing to please the whiners.
As Archivist so nobly put it "this is a just cause".
Just causes really don't need to resort to name calling.
When you're right, you're right. The facts speak the truth.
When you are not right, you resort to blunderbuss and name calling.
I'm as capable of name calling as the next person, but I don't need to.
I'm right.
We don't "have to." We want to.
Figure that one out, poop-nozzle!
Incidentally, the word "blunderbuss" doesn't mean what you think it means. The definitions are:
blun·der·buss /ˈblÊŒndÉ™rËŒbÊŒs/ Show Spelled[bluhn-der-buhs] Show IPA
–noun
1.a short musket of wide bore with expanded muzzle to scatter shot, bullets, or slugs at close range.
2.an insensitive, blundering person.
Neither of which works in your sentence, but don't let that stop you.
Maybe we should call you that, although I'd modify it to:
2a. an overly sensitive, blundering person.
You wonder why known FRA victims such as the Duke Lacrosse guys don't 'speak out'?
What self respecting man would want to align himself with people who behave like this?
Because unlike you, some people give a shit about the falsely accused. And you do not speak for the victims of the Duke hoax, who have indeed spoken up.
Stop pretending to be anything but a priggish, hypocritical troll.
Anon: "Because unlike you, some people give a shit about the falsely accused."
I care deeply about the falsely acccused. I've suffered deeply because of a false accusation.
I don't have to support the ugly name calling or woman bashing to prove it.
" And you do not speak for the victims of the Duke hoax, who have indeed spoken up."
I have never heard the Duke LaCrosse players woman bashing or calling women ugly, obscene names.
"Stop pretending to be anything but a priggish, hypocritical troll."
Priggish? Behaving like a self respecting, decent human being is 'priggish' to you?
The deal is, YOU do more to hurt this cause than help it with such obscene and juvenile behavior.
I'm here because I HAVE to be. It's the support of those who don't have to be involved - the HUGE majority of people who don't live with a false accusation - that is needed.
A person who is in the right does not have to resort to name calling or attacking an entire gender to get the point across. The truth speaks for itself. The facts are the facts.
In other words, you are NOT one of the falsely accused; you are someone who "has suffered terribly" because of somebody ELSE being falsely accused, and now you presumptuously come to this blog and lecture those who WERE falsely accused about their choice of words.
YOU are the one who does more harm than good to OUR movement (not YOURS, OURS). This feigned "sensitivity" and political correctness is 50% of the problem.
It has been explained to you numerous times now that calling false rape accusers names isn't "attacking an entire gender." That is feminist drivel.
Do not presume to tell us what we can or can't say. If that is your idea of supporting us then maybe you should go save the whales.
I'll add that you obviously have never gone to court or had any real experience in politics if you think that "facts are facts!" and that appeals to emotion do not win contests. Many of us have gone to jail in spite of overwhelming evidence because of the melodramatic behavior of a skilled liar.
We must never accept a double standard in which the falsely accused and MRAs are expected to behave like proper little Sunday school students while feminists are permitted to go on a vulgar rampage. Profanity and truth have always gone together in this here country! (He says as he bites off the end of a cigar and spits it out and then drives his spurs into his horse's side.)
I have been to court. I have lost my home, spent life savings and borrowed from every living relative in an unseccessful attempt to defend an innocent person.
So don't tell me "how it is". I live with "how it is".
Everyday of my life.
I wouldn't think of directing friends and suppporters here with the juvenile antics and utterly vile name calling that goes on.
You can claim "it's justified" all you want.
It's not.
Which is not at all the same as having it done to YOU.
We do not need to "justify" our use of language to a troll. Sorry, but you've lost that argument.
You have nothing to offer in support of your moralistic prattle other than "This is how I feel, so it must be true!" Obviously a strong emotional reaction is an important component of winning any political debates.
If you do not have emotion on your side then more often than not, you lose. Why should we hamstring ourselves by limiting how we refer to false rape accusers and their enablers?
Anonymous said...
Which is not at all the same as having it done to YOU.
*********
Are you seriously out of your mind?
What is this? One the one hand, there is the complaint of no aknowledgement or understanding of the pain and horror for those falsely accused, then you dismiss a loved one who fully shared that pain and horror with "it wasn't done to you"?
It certainly WAS "done" to me. His pain was MY pain. His shame was MY shame. His good name is MY good name.
I might be the person closest to him affected by it, but this has deeply hurt all his family, relatives, friends and just those who know and believed in him.
I realize not everyone has that sort of support system, but #1 you are WAYYYYYY off base here and #2 you have no business alienating supporters of those who do.
****************
We do not need to "justify" our use of language to a troll. Sorry, but you've lost that argument.
************************
I dont know who "we" or "our" is. Are you, Anonymous Person, representative of this entire group?
This is a group of people wrongly accused of the most horrible crime in our current society. Worse than murder apparently.
"Wrongly Accused" means you aren't the bad guy.
It means you're the 'good guy'.
Denigrating women and using the worst gutter names for women I have personally ever encountered to proclaim your innocence isn't a good strategy.
I write legislators, blogs, and speak to many people in person about the prevalence of false accusations and the injustice system. I am often asked for a good site to study more of the topic.
I no longer recommend this site simply because it degrades into petty name calling and open hostility too much to be respected.
As I said before - ANYONE can curse and name call, there are plenty of sites that fill that need.
There are currently no other sites that strive to be a mainstream source representing innocent men.
*********************************
"You have nothing to offer in support of your moralistic prattle other than "This is how I feel, so it must be true!" Obviously a strong emotional reaction is an important component of winning any political debates."
**************************
I'm sorry if being "moralistic" offends you.
I am "moralistic" about a lot of things - falsely accusing an innocent person being #1.
Getting others to share my moral outrage is difficult when being cursed and disrespected is part of the deal.
******************************
If you do not have emotion on your side then more often than not, you lose. Why should we hamstring ourselves by limiting how we refer to false rape accusers and their enablers?
*****************************
I do have emotion on my side. I have righteous indignation and moral outrage.
I also have respect for those who may want to join this cause because it is just and righteous.
Why alienate those people, or even the others falsely accused, who do not resort to disrespect and obsenities?
The flame throwers and women haters can still feel welcome in a site that maintains a moral standard, but what truly good guy wants to be part of a sewer mouth fest?
If that makes me a "troll", then I'm proud to be a troll.
It certainly WAS "done" to me. His pain was MY pain. His shame was MY shame. His good name is MY good name.
****
Bullshit. Just knowing somebody who is falsely accused is nothing like having it done to you. His pain was infinitely greater than yours.
Oh wait -- I'm actually buying your song and dance? Maybe that's my first mistake.
Anyhow, feel free to fuck off. You said that you no longer recommend this blog because of the dirty swears; that tells us everything we need to know about your so-called commitment to innocent men.
By the way -- I hate to say it, but isn't it just like one of these broads to imagine that "his pain was my pain?" Pah-lease.
No matter the circumstances, it's always you, You, YOU, and you even think you have the right to come here and boss us around and lecture us about our potty mouths, as if we were your children.
Lady, fuck you and your "support."
Gee. If you REALLY love me you'll put up with my abuse.
Thanks but no thanks.
There are a lot more people who have it a lot worse than you do who don't resort to such abuse.
You need to find some therapy, and find it fast.
You are toxic.
Post a Comment