We have carefully followed the arguments opposing anonymity, and have easily refuted every one. Every single one. The rationales posited in support of anonymity are so unavailing, that they actually underscore the correctness of the arguments favoring anonymity.
It is both astounding and sadly hateful that members of the sexual grievance industry feel the need to engage in a sort of twisted Oppression Olympics, where it is politically incorrect to lend any support for the falsely accused because, to them, the gender wars are a zero sum game -- helping men means hurting women. It would be akin to persons who fight cancer opposing any aid for the victims of heart attacks. When it comes to false rape claims, we are instructed to stand by and cavalierly watch as men and boys are killed, or kill themselves after having been falsely accused. We must blithely look the other way as they are beaten, spat upon, and chased through the town, often being forced to live elsewhere. We must stoically tolerate it when they lose their wives, their girlfriends, the love and support of their families, their jobs, their businesses, their life's savings, and their sanity over a false rape claim. We must insist it is perfectly acceptable when a falsely accused man's name is splashed all over the news so that any time, for the rest of his life, anyone -- from lovers to prospective employers -- "Googles" his name, they will learn of the awful accusation.
At the core of the sexual grievance industry's objection to anonymity, I suspect, is something that goes far, far beyond a concern for the victims of rape. At its core, I think, is something downright evil: the insistence that no support be given to falsely accused men is a sort of cruel payback against an entire gender for perceived sins of the "patriarchy." The fact that the innocent suffer with the guilty is simply too bad for the innocent. And here's the painful part: they just don't care.
Seriously. Read it again, and again, and again: they do not care.
This is the reason the sexual grievance industry opposes our efforts here and refuses to extend any -- and I do mean "any" -- support for the falsely accused.
They don't care.
By any measure, that is morally grotesque.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
At its core, I think, is something downright evil: the insistence that no support be given to falsely accused men is a sort of cruel payback against an entire gender for perceived sins of the "patriarchy."
Bingo!!!
Whether one looks at the issue broadly, or breaks it down on a case-by-case basis, what remains entirely consistent is the fact that giving support to those falsely accused takes nothing away from any other victims of crimes (real rape, for instance). Yet, time and time again we see gender-feminists flat-out refusing to do so.
From the likes of Georgia Girl, we used to get the position of, "we can focus on false rape accusations after all rape (of women by men, of course) has been eradicated".
From others it's the tired old lie of, "False reports are so rare that we needn't be concerned about their consequences"; or the equally tired lie about "addressing (i.e. naming, shaming, and punishing false accusers, and perhaps helping their victims) will deter real rape victims from coming forward".
Yet, not one of these "arguments" against supporting the victims of FRA's stands up to any scrutiny.
It's been a while since I last proffered my own little "pet" theory that some women recognize that the existence of FRA's, as well as false allegations of domestic violence, and the damage they have done to men gives individual women a significant "power" over individual men (and, by extension, their gender, as a class, over man, as a class); and thus, certain of these women actually prefer that there be a number of false allegations (even if they are ultimately proven false) simply to serve as a reminder to men that a woman can easily have her high-consequences revenge them at their whim.
For the deeply devote gender-feminist, any thing that gives women power over men is a "good thing".
victim power is no more than petty vengance
I would take it even one step further than their ambivalence. The sexual grievance industry is filled with people who have a deep rooted hostility toward all men. They have deliberately espoused a system over the last few decades that puts at risk any and all men who might be accused for whatever reason of having their lives destroyed. They revel in their success!
Here is an excellent video by
johntheother on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uOWCm772DI
I believe it is more about the "Empowerment" that the Gender / Raunch community as a whole get from rape hysteria, than it is about any sort of payback.
You see, by attacking hetero-sexual men in any way they can...they De-facto, leave themselves as the alternative to all the Rapes and beatings of women. By using faulty and inflamatroy missinformation to attack hetero males,..they are bordering "Hate speech", laws.
But see no one dares to say anything challenging them for they fear being labelled a "Bigot".
So in effect, the Gender / Raunch community can attack hetero-males with faulty and inflamatory missinformation, and pervert our legal system to further their adgendas, but if you dare to challenge their missinformation campaign...you are a bigot.
ANON says....
The sexual grievance industry is filled with people who have a deep rooted hostility toward all men.
I say, No they don't have hostility toward all men...only the men who are not homo-sexual. Homosexual males thrive amongst the missinformation, and faulty and inflamatory hate speech.
Mens / fathers/ rights will get no-where by not addressing the real enemy..which is the American Gender / Raunch community. May god help us all!!
The real reason anonymity is opposed: publicly naming men accused of rape is a form of payback against an entire gender
Now you should understand what I anonymous ,aka RAGE, have said and, the radical quotes I have posted concerning famous radical feminists; the precursers' of modern day feminism.
TheZetaMale said...
victim power is no more than petty vengance
Jul 14, 2010 11:02:00 AM
Not that of victims of false accusations. As I have stated before; " hell has no rage as that of the falsely accused who have had their vlives ruined/destroyed by false accusations.
Anonymous named RAGE.
Now HERE'S an interesting one, Archivist.
A woman texts another woman serving on a jury of a different case ... with fabrications about the defendant.
" The first said: 'Hi it's Danielle from court. Are you doing the kid's case?'
The woman replied: 'I can't talk to you.'
But Robinson, a single mother of a five-month-old boy, followed it up with gossip she heard outside court in a shop.
The message said: '...he's been in prison before and is a paedo and when he broke into the pub he took all the kids underwear xx.'
The accusations were totally unsubstantiated and later found to be a pure fabrication.
She appeared in court yesterday after admitting a charge of contempt of court."
"Defending barrister Paul Genney said the other juror was personable and outgoing and during the course of their service in Hull the two became friends.
He said they still were when Robinson over heard gossip in a shop and out of naivety and excitement sent it to the other juror.
He said: 'This was a young immature lady delighted to be on a jury, not someone who set out to deliberate engage in jury tampering.
'It was a stupid thing to do rather than a wicked thing to do. She is very immature.'"
Uh, no. When you text complete fabrications of that nature, about a defendant, to a juror in his case, that is not a 'stupid', 'immature' thing to do.
It is fucking EVIL.
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294570/Teens-misguided-texted-gossip-juror-wrecks-trials.html
Here's another ... transexuals everywhere given the green light to commit crimes. They will not be sent to prison because the experience will be 'too appalling' for the paw dears.
"Laura Voyce, 20, who used to be called Luke, was convicted of 14 counts of downloading indecent images of children.
Some of the images on her laptop were graded at the second most sickening level of abuse."
"Voyce, who is biologically still a man but legally a woman, was sentenced to a nine-month jail term.
But Judge Lesley Newton chose to suspend the sentence after saying time in a prison would be an 'appalling experience' for the sex offender."
Uh right, and prison ISN'T an appalling experience for normal men? As if sexual abuse of normal men isn't rampant in prisons? Why do we rush to protect everybody except men?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294620/Transsexual-downloaded-child-porn-escapes-jail-judge-says-appalling-experience-her.html
I think that these feminists believe that false rape accusations are pretty damned good way of keeping (innocent) men in line.
If you have to worry about being falsely accused, so the reasoning goes, you'll be a lot nicer to women.
"If you have to worry about being falsely accused, so the reasoning goes, you'll be a lot nicer to women."
Except in practice it doesn't work that way. Perceiving their oppression, men come to despise feminists, and sometimes women. With so many ways that they systematically fuck us over, and with no way for men to be safe from women, men might take the position that they are liable to be destroyed WHATEVER they do so they might as well make their true feelings known.
"men might take the position that they are liable to be destroyed WHATEVER they do so they might as well make their true feelings known."
Nope, men just learn that some snakes bite, so treat all snakes as potentially poisonous.
AfOR, any progress on your case? Please email.
But if you treat all snakes as potentially poisonous then you'll never trust a snake enough to have one wrapped around you like Alice Cooper.
And for all my complaints about the modern women, I do like my particular women. :)
done
The way to end this is to get even with the people who caused.
i.e. My life is ruined by a false accusation. I give up on life and punish feminists. If there were some payback or retailiation, this bs would stop fast.
These people are cowards, they wouldn't do this if their victims fought back
Thanks, AfOR. That's what I wanted to know. Keep us posted. I can't wait until it's all over and you can write about it.
AfOR, are things looking up for you? I hope so ...
The way to end this is to get even with the people who caused.
***
Yes -- through the legal system.
But retaliating through illegitimate means would only make matters worse.
@ Jul 14, 2010 6:11:00 PM
It ain't over till it's over, and it's just the end of the beginning so far...
thx
Isn't this what I've been saying all along? Very long. Arguing with these feminists or just femaleists is a waste of time. You're not going to convice these females with rational arguments. It's all about power and we must just impose on them the rulesof fair play and justice. By force if necessary. I only hope that men wake up to this fact and not waste their lives with futile arguments about justice. Females do not have a natural sense of justice.
10:55: Please don't come here disguised as an MRA, dropping hints about how we need to use violence in order to discredit us.
Am I being paranoid? Maybe, but I read the comment about violence on the other thread and I'm very, very suspicious when somebody comes in here and starts advocating the use of force.
Sir, this is all about justice; there is nothing futile about it.
"Females do not have a natural sense of justice" is also sexist stereotyping that we don't need to get into. Women can be fair or unfair; it depends on the individual.
"Nope, men just learn that some snakes bite, so treat all snakes as potentially poisonous."
Absolutely. It's funny how my awareness has changed in the past year after being falsely accused. I see through all the flirtation and game playing going on around me and avoid women like the plague. I can't tell you how many times I've taken the stairs after the elevator door opens and there is a lone woman on it; or going to the gym late in the evening to avoid crowds and women generally only to bolt out of the sauna or steam room when a woman (or group of women) enters. Am I afraid of women? No. Do I love my freedom? Yes. So, as AfOR said, I treat all women like I would a poisonous snake. In a world where men and women are not equal, and women have more rights and privileges bestowed upon them at the expense of men -- where innocent men are silenced by guns and gavels: I would be alone rather than suffer a snake. Once is enough.
Good Article on "The Importance of Anonymity"
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20importance%20of%20Anonymity.htm
and
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp54.pdf
Anon @ 11.08- Do you know the difference between force and violence? You're not too bright are you.
Women can be fair or unfair; it depends on the individual.
Nonsense, and you're apparently some little boy with no experience or the world. Either that or you're just an idiot.
What is the difference between force and violence? Enlighten me, Master Yoda.
Just don't imagine that you're fooling anybody that you're anything but a feminist troll out to discredit this blog.
Anonymous said...
"If you have to worry about being falsely accused, so the reasoning goes, you'll be a lot nicer to women."
Except in practice it doesn't work that way. Perceiving their oppression, men come to despise feminists, and sometimes women. With so many ways that they systematically fuck us over, and with no way for men to be safe from women, men might take the position that they are liable to be destroyed WHATEVER they do so they might as well make their true feelings known.
Jul 14, 2010 3:56:00 PM
A man like that, who has also lost everything he had to lose, has every right to let his feelings be known.
"What is the difference between force and violence? Enlighten me, Master Yoda."
Different Anon, and there isn't any truly, but that doesn't mean that all forms of force/violence are equal.
Force/violence to uphold a system of blackmail and retributive punishment against a gender is less legitimate, in my opinion, than would be a system which used force/violence to deter that kind of nastiness.
If we ever succeed in making FRAs a severely punishable crime, what do you think that will be upheld by? Force, obviously. That is what power is.
Obviously there is no difference -- so why are you giving me a silly lecture about how the government uses force? I was already aware of that, just like I'm aware of how to tie my shoes.
I was asking the troll who was dropping subtle pro-violence hints what he imagined the difference to be, since he obviously doesn't know how to crack open a dictionary.
Anon @ 4.00- what is your highest level of education? Perhaps you're some feminist troll trying to divert the thread? It's an old and common tactic and no one here falls for it anymore.
How I wish we had a "troll meter" for comments. Comments that are not liked by the majority of regular commentators could be subject to deletion. It would allow us to save our breath (or fingers rather) for valid and serious discussions of the issues.
I'm still looking forward to falserapesociety.com/org/net/info when Archivist and ESB choose to move from Blogger and have access to a more robust set of tools.
4:43: oh no, I'm not the troll. The trolls are the morons who come in here making violent comments in an attempt to get MRAs to agree with them. It's a very well-established tactic that was used to discredit civil rights groups during the 60's: delegitimize the speech so that you have an excuse for suppressing it.
I'm also tired of ignoramuses saying utterly stupid things that any preschooler would laugh at, such as saying that there is a difference between force and violence, and then being lectured when I call them on their idiocy.
We aren't going to win this with stupid, people.
You still haven't answered what your highest level of education is honey. Perhaps your parents should have FORCED you to stay in school.
Too bad I don't care about childish insults that come from an obvious ignoramus, who shares Michael Nifong's lack of interest in facts.
As for what paper I have hanging on the wall -- who cares? The Duke 88 had loads of paper certificates that purported that they were highly educated, credible people. Their ignorant behavior disproved it.
"I'm also tired of ignoramuses saying utterly stupid things that any preschooler would laugh at, such as saying that there is a difference between force and violence, and then being lectured when I call them on their idiocy."
You know very well that it was two different people responding to you. You also know very well that the second was not 'lecturing' you. You sound like an unruly teenager when you say such things. The second respondent was clarifying what the first was trying to say, which had apparently passed you by. You are suspected as the troll, not either of the two who responded to you.
As for what paper I have hanging on the wall -- who cares?
Well, at the very least it tells me whether you're able to understand some basic things and also if you're able to argue rationally.
Bringing in the Duke case is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with what I said about using force. I'm afraid that your mind is full of mush honey.
So now you need a college degree to argue rationally? That makes no sense, *honey*.
Actually, nothing you've said so far makes sense. You're just spouting a lot of pretentious, self-indulgent nonsense.
"You're just spouting a lot of pretentious, self-indulgent nonsense."
Troll identified ...........
Loading ban-missile .........
Locking onto target .........
The whole issue comes back to this statement -
"It's all about power and we must just impose on them the rulesof fair play and justice. By force if necessary."
The commenter who took issue with it acknowledges that states enforce justice using violence (and becomes angered when one carefully explains it, though s/he appeared not to understand), and wilfully / intentionally takes the statement out of context by implying that its author advocates vigilantism.
It's a troll, plain and simple ...
But "we" must not use force. The phrase "by force, if necessary" implies vigilantism, not the state.
Why else would you say "if necessary" if you're talking about enforcing the law normally?
As I mentioned previously, this is a standard tactic used to subvert a politically unpopular group: infiltrate, advocate extremism, alienate the moderate elements until the group looks like a bunch of criminals. And then you attack.
The government did this all the time to protest groups during the Vietnam era. We can't be so naive as to imagine that feminist activists or even law enforcement won't attempt to do the same to us now.
and wilfully / intentionally takes the statement out of context by implying that its author advocates vigilantism.
That's what females do and how they argue which is why I said that they must be forced to comply with the law and rules of evidence. A female's accusation is not evidence.
Just as parents foce kids to do their homework or force them to go to bed at a certain time, we must force the childlike females into obeying the man made laws and our rules concerning morality.
Sorry, but I'm not down with treating women like children. The feminists do that for their own purposes -- no thanks.
Why not just treat "childlike females" as responsible actors who are accountable for their behavior?
Why not just treat "childlike females" as responsible actors who are accountable for their behavior?
Because throughout all of history they never were and men saw that they basically had the emotional, thought process, and perception of children which is why females were never permitted to vote, serve on juries or be in any position of real authority (except over children) or hold public office etc etc Anything they say and any testimony they give in court must be taken with a large grain of salt the same as a child's.Grown unmarried females were under the control of their father or family and married females under their husband.This new idea that females are somehow rational adults and are as responsible as adult men is a radical departure from a 100k years of observation and experience.This is probably why females and children have always been treated more lightly by the law.But on the other hand, they were always kept on a tighter rein so they could not get themselves into trouble. If you think that females are just going to suddenly become responsible adults then you're dreaming.Like children, the more freedom you give them the worse they become.Over the past generation we've made is easier and painless to report rape but now we have a situation where 95% of accusations are false.
95% of rape accusations are probably not false, although false accusations are a common and very severe problem.
As for women in history, a number of important women have indeed held positions of great power. Was Margaret Thatcher a child, for example? I think that your views are cartoonishly exaggerated.
It's typical of the female mind to not be able to understand a generalisation. While the intelligent male is able to see and understand certain general principals and rules, the female will always point out the one exception. The reason they do this is quite transparent, they always like to think of themselves as the one exception to the general rules and observations concerning female behaviour.If you say to a female that all dogs bark, she'll mention the one dog she once knew who never barked as if this was some valid or rational argument to prove that you're wrong lol
Aw hell, you're just a dumb bigot. No point in talking sense to the likes of you.
I hate to admit this but sometimes the feminist stereotype of the knuckle-dragging male is true. Luckily for them, you're here to prove it.
I wish you luck in your eternal quest to project your low self-image onto the women who are unfortunate enough to have you in their lives. I've got good news: there are plenty of misandrist women who are the perfect for you -- you'll have no problem finding a fellow missing link to mate with.
Post a Comment