Last Thursday, we ran a provocative short post here where we took Catherine Comins' infamous quotation about false rape claims -- Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them" -- and we asked if Ms. Comins meant something like this picture.
A good friend emailed me and said: "Wow. That sent chills coursing through my whole body." Others also "got" it. The point was to underscore the potential brutality of a false rape claim.
But some of our readers seemed to be offended and suggested we overreached. One said this: ". . . you tied [the Comins quote] to a picture that is clearly not the type of consequence she was referring to."
Really? That comment has had me shaking my head ever since I saw it because, for the life of me, I can't fathom what "consequence" Ms. Comins might have been referring to that doesn't include something awful -- yes, up to and including a lynching. The more I think about it, the more offensive that comment is.
What, pray tell, do people like Ms. Comins and the misguided person who posted that comment think happens when a man or a boy is falsely accused of rape? Maybe they think it's like this: the police come to the man's door, take off their hats, politely ask if they can come in to ask the man a few questions. The man gets them a cup of coffee, and they all sit down while the police courteously ask if he has raped anyone lately. The man denies it. The police stand up, thank him, shake his hand, and leave.
Sorry to disillusion them. The real world doesn't play out like that. Once unleashed, a rape lie can destroy lives with a stunning, tragic swiftness. And, no, dear readers, these stories aren't confined to the hanging trees in the Old South. They are ripped from the recent news files of FRS.
In the real world, the ordeal typically isn't over in a matter of minutes. It usually stretches for days or weeks, even months or years. Sometimes, it never ends.
First, the police often don't come to the door in the civilized manner of the scenario recounted above. Remember the news report of the poor guy who spent two months in jail after the mother of his daughter falsely accused him of rape? You see, they had consensual sex, but she was angry at him, so not only did she lie to police about the rape, for good measure she told them he was armed and dangerous. So 12-15 police cars came for him. His neighbors must have thought he had been implicated in the World Trade Center attacks. (When the police discovered she was lying, what sort of police response do you suppose they gave that?)
Lots of falsely accused men are dragged out of their places of employment in full view of their bosses and colleagues, no doubt giving their false accusers that extra sexual thrill of knowing they've thoroughly stripped their prey of the last vestiges of their dignity. Some young men are dragged from their bedrooms in their parents' homes half dressed, carted away without any explanation to their terrified parents.
Once the innocents are hauled to the police station, the fun really begins. They are subjected to grueling questioning on and off over the course of hours or days, often by surly law enforcement personnel who couldn't care less that the men or boys they are berating are human beings. They are looking for evidence of a conviction, and if they can convince the male to confess, that makes their jobs all that much easier. Their attitude is often to treat the presumptively innocent male as a vile rapist.
And then there's the physical examination. If an innocent woman or girl were subjected to something akin to the following, do you suppose there'd be an outcry about it? "I was taken to a doctor's waiting room, I was told to completely strip naked. While I was naked the CID agent took pictures of every part of me. The doctor then swabbed my penis 2-3 times, then pulled hair from every part of my body." That was from a first person account on this blog of a soldier recounting his false rape nightmare. It is typical of many stories we've run.
Once locked up, the men or boys too often are subjected to cruel and offensive batteries and verbal assaults by jail personnel and other prisoners.
And, yes, dear readers, sometimes men and boys are wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit. The young ones, who have no experience in the prison system, are too often routinely victimized by the same crime they were wrongly convicted of. Sometimes, they serve decades in prison before they are released. The news is filled with men who've served many years before their innocence can be proven. Think how many others rot away in prison today because the evidence of their innocence was long ago destroyed.
Too often, the awful consequences of a false rape claim are even less predictable. Remember this story we wrote about at Glenn Sacks' blog? Two young lives destroyed -- one of the boys was killed -- because of a girl's rape lie. She, of course, served no jail time. Go read it. It will make you sick.
Or how about this story -- I'll reprint our opening paragraph: "Clifford Martin, 19, is heading to prison for accepting the word of two teenage girls that one of them had been sexually assaulted by another 19-year-old man named Cory Headen. Mr. Martin broke into Mr. Headen's home and beat him to death while he was sleeping."
Remember the serial rape liar whose lie caused one of her young victims to kill himself? Despite that, she was allowed to falsely accuse another young men -- and he was forced to undergo a grueling trial before he was acquitted. The liar? She retains her anonymity, of course.
Or how about mentally unstable man who was charged with rape, then took his own life after the police delayed in telling him he had been falsely accused?
Or the innocent man who suffered months of abuse in his community after being falsely accused of being a paedophile before his heart couldn't take any more?
Or the falsely accused young men who were attacked by thirty inmates? Or the man who was brutally attacked and suffered devastating brain injuries when he was falsely accused or rape? Or the man who was beaten because he was mistaken for a rapist?
I wonder if the misguided person who made the comment about the Comins quote is aware of America's painful history of overreacting to rape claims? It was such a problem at one time that one American President focused on it during his State of the Union Address. The fact is, the public scorn from false rape claims has caused many, many innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their businesses, their spouses, and their friends. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation.
So, when Catherine Comins said that men falsely accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them," it needs to be viewed as a barbaric, hateful, dehumanizing sentiment -- misandry in full bloom. It is not to be excused on the basis that she "wasn't talking about" the truly awful things that follow from false rape claims, because truly awful things typically do follow from false rape claims. To pretend they don't is to trivialize the false rape phenomenon.
Those who would pooh-pooh that Comins' comment is years old and does not represent current mainstream thought need to have cold water splashed on their faces. Sadly, Comins' sentiment is alive and well and it manifests itself in innumerable ways. You see, Comins merely had the audacity to come out and say what our culture practiced then and still practices today. The ugly fact of the matter is, ours is a culture that not only tolerates but tacitly encourages rape lies as the price of battling rape, without regard for the terrible harm to the men and boys falsely accused. And if you don't believe that, go read "Lambs to the Slaughter: The Hofstra False Rape Case."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Great article. One question:
It was such a problem at one time that one American President focused on it during his State of the Union Address.
Which President was this? I have always been trying to find out. I assume it was one of the early 1900s ones, Taft, TRoosevelt. I hope it wasn't WW, because that guy only regurgitated crap :)
-zarko
-zarko
It was Teddy Roosevelt:
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/01/americas-long-and-shameful-legacy-of.html
A false rape accuser sees falsifying a rape as an opportunity.
A false rape accuser sees falsifying a rape as a right.
A false rape accuser believes that there is no such thing as false rape, never has been, never will be.
A false rape accuser believes that she has the right to change her mind at ANY time AFTER consenting.
A false rape accuser believes that she will never be caught in her lie because women don't lie about rape.
A false rape accuser lives in denial.
"The fact is, the public scorn from false rape claims has caused many, many innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their businesses, their spouses, and their friends. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation."
What underlies the harms that befall the falsely accused stem from the collective repulsion and anger of our society for the crime of rape – usually a mental image of a terrified women over-powered by some brute, clearly against her will. There are some very deep-seated reasons why rape is seen as such a heinous crime – especially by the men who are associated with the victims. Without going into greater detail, the reasons why “we” are so alarmed by rape are logical, quite reasonable, and long-standing.
Those reason largely account for why the falsely accused are so often treated with such anger and contempt.
Sadly, the harms that can befall the falsely accused come not directly from the liar (herself), but are basically the conditioned response of those who she “employs” (wittingly or not) to do her bidding and seek her revenge.
Those harms come vie three “vehicles”: Law Enforcement, the Media, and the Public.
As we are all too aware, LE has often terribly mishandled false rape allegations, resulting in a great deal of injustice. I’m not looking to offer any sort of blanket absolution under the guise of their “just doing their jobs”, as their job MUST be to investigate and fully asses the evidence before deciding that there is probable cause to arrest anyone. However, in some situations, the liars will paint a picture of a violent and dangerous monster. In such situations, there is some justification by which LE might be (partially) excused for their actions (which are latter determined to have been unwarranted), in that they acted out of a proper desire to protect the public from further harms. In such situations, the responsibility for the level of response falls back on the accuser who prompted that response via (her) fictions.
Of course, when LE over-steps their proper role, and seeks to avenge the false victim via such prejudicial actions like arresting the real victims in public, at their homes, or at their place of work – and forcing them into the “perp walk” in front of many who know them, rather contacting them in a more private manner or allowing them to self-surrender (with their lawyer with them); then, LE bears the blame for having acted in such a way.
And, if any members of LE act in rogue ways, ignoring known evidence, fabricating evidence, or withholding evidence – then they are criminally liable for those acts.
Next, the media plays a significant role in perpetuating harms upon the falsely accused by publishing their names, and details of the fictitious crimes. We saw this issue hotly debated when the UK considered doing “the right thing” in withholding the names of the accused pending the outcome of investigations/prosecutions.
In turn, it is the exposure (via media and/or LE) to the public that leads to the continuation of harm to the falsely accused based on the way those who are misinformed of alleged criminal activity respond.
[to be continued...]
[continuing...]
In any examination of the harms done to the falsely accused, it should be noted that while any or all of these may fail the falsely accused; it can also be true that the harms can come from without the participation of one or two of them. Cases where the public (or just friends and family) take it upon themselves to respond (including vigilante acts), even where no police report was made, clearly demonstrate that LE and/or media can be by-passed, yet the most serious of injustice can still destroy the falsely accused.
Yet, there is one element that is always present, that always initiates every other response, and leads to every other consequence springing from and FRA – the lie that started the whole thing.
Diametrically opposed to one poster’s opinion of false accusers which holds that ”The women are not the problem in most cases”, the obvious and inescapable reality is that, right at the very start of every FRA, the person who decides to tell the lie is ALWAYS “The Problem”, and always ultimately responsible for all other consequences that flow from their lie. There is simply no intellectually honest way to argue around such a fundamental fact. Even if a false accuser had severe mental issues, and was truly incapable of understanding what they were initiating (my opinion is that such instance are less that 0.1% of all FRA’s), they are still the ones who set things in motion. (Sorry anti-LE guys, excusing the liar is NEVER justified).
As much as being reminded of this reality makes me enraged. Things will work out. When the New World Order takeover attempt gets CRUSHED, all of those who allowed draconian measures to occur will be held responsible. If the NWO leads to anarchy in the streets, I solemnly hope that a maximum amount of those who are police, prosecutors, judges who allowed FRAs to happen are brutally and painfully killed by those who they once oppressed. I'll spare them no pain.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Werner, is it not law enforcements job to protect the innocent, and deter criminals. You suggest The American law enforcement perversion of "not charging false rape accusers" is nearly irrelevant to the now "false rape culture" that has taken root in many American jurisdictions.
So Sir, If its not law enforcements job to deter criminals, then who's is it?? There fathers??
I think this whole "law enforcement" debate that seems to pop up in the comments of every post here ought to be treated in a separate post, and I invite slwerner to contribute one.
Good well thought out post... I appreciate it. It's truly a terrible time to be a (white) male in this country. You're basically looked upon as a child molester, rapist, etc., from the moment someone sets their eyes on you.
I have trouble taking my own daughter to the park because of the looks and yes, sometimes even comments I receive questioning the appropriateness of my relationship.
Anyone with found to be making bogus rape accusations should be sent to jail, period. And as much effort should be made to clear the falsely accused mans' name as was exercised in bringing it down.
"A false rape accuser believes that she has the right to change her mind at ANY time AFTER consenting."
Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, or perhaps it just needs reworking, but I hope you're not suggesting that a woman doesn't have the right to say "no" after you've already begun intercourse. I don't think those kinds of statements do any favors for the men's rights community.
"Sadly, the harms that can befall the falsely accused come not directly from the liar (herself), but are basically the conditioned response of those who she “employs” (wittingly or not) to do her bidding and seek her revenge."
Sadly, the harms that befall the guy getting shot come not directly from the shooter, but from the bullet she "employs" to do her bidding and seek her revenge.
"Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, or perhaps it just needs reworking, but I hope you're not suggesting that a woman doesn't have the right to say "no" after you've already begun intercourse. I don't think those kinds of statements do any favors for the men's rights community."
Hi. I think you are misreading, because I believe they were referring to women changing their mind well after the intercourse is done and over with. As in the many cases where the woman decided she didn't really want to have intercourse the next day or week because she felt ashamed of it or wanting to cover it up.
thanks archivist.
-zarko
As for the whole debate about law enforcement, it is true that some posters here have a tendency to exaggerate the extent to which the bulk of law enforcement are out to destroy innocent men.
But it is equally true that other posters seem to get overly tetchy and defensive whenever it is suggested that law enforcement is a big part of the problem, and I can't help but think that this comes from people who have close personal sympathies or ties to law enforcement who don't like feeling the heat. A lot of the arguments offered for why LE is not the problem are often frankly dishonest, feeble, and a little desperate. For example, one anonymous poster claimed a little while back that LE cannot benefit from false rape claims because LE is also sometimes the victim of false claims. Yeah right. As if no-one is every adversely affected by something they may have contributed to. What a joke.
On a previous thread I linked to a story about a police officer who found out his teenage stepdaughter was sleeping with another boy. The officer went to the boy's house and told him he was being arrested for sexual assault. That's right. There was no false allegation even made to police. The officer simply decided to terrorise an innocent boy with the threat of being charged as a sex offender.
I note Slwerner, that you had no response to that thread or the other arguments I made there.
"Diametrically opposed to one poster’s opinion of false accusers which holds that ”The women are not the problem in most cases”, the obvious and inescapable reality is that, right at the very start of every FRA, the person who decides to tell the lie is ALWAYS “The Problem”, and always ultimately responsible for all other consequences that flow from their lie. There is simply no intellectually honest way to argue around such a fundamental fact."
Slwerner, as I pointed out on the previous thread, this argument ignores the fact that there is a difference between individual wrongdoing and the broader failure of society's collective institutions. If an individual woman makes a false allegation, that is the vindictive act of one individual. If the police or courts or prosecutors are more likely to believe false accusers, that is a collective failure of our society's institutions.
By definition, we cannot perfect human nature or eliminate evil people from society. But we can ensure that our institutions run better. It is a hell of a lot easier to reform institutions than to perfect human nature (how many generations of natural selection will it take to all but eliminate liars from the gene pool?).
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out that institutions are more the problem than individuals, or in holding those who are in positions of public responsibility to higher standards than random individuals lacking a sound moral grounding.
Post a Comment