For several months we have witnessed a spike in the number and intensity of the comments about the role of "law enforcement" in fomenting a false rape culture. We have stood by and watched as the comments derailed one post after another with this debate, which is often unrelated to the post where the debate erupts. Some of the comments have been reasonable and intelligent; however, too often they degenerate into sweeping, blanket criticisms of law enforcement, posited without nuance, and intended to provoke a debate with one particular commentator.
I would love to continue doing this blog, and doing what I consider to be important work in exploring the false rape phenomenon, like this. But based on what I am seeing, the most interested segment of our audience seems to be focused on a single issue that I think misses the big picture. I have no interest in focusing on the issue that this group seems intent on constantly debating.
Trust me: I can post a story about an innocent guy being murdered by vigilantes because of a false rape claim, and the comments would end up being about law enforcement.
Maybe this blog has done all it can do in spreading the message, and maybe our audience has become desensitized to the horrors of false rape claims. I understand. And this is not a threat. I don't have a compulsive need to continue doing this blog, and I am incredibly busy with other things. I always found the time to do this, even when I was traveling, when I thought it was helping to spread the word. But right now, I have to be honest: I feel like I'm wasting my time here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Wow!
This is not good.
Enough said archivist, i will cease my targeting of American law enforcement for the greater good of the blog. I hope you continue to raise awareness of false rape accusations. (s)
Just a comment: the folks who think law enforcement is given a pass here ought to reread the Hofstra piece he cites. Right near the front of it: "But the Hofstra case is a somber warning that the witch-hunt hysteria fomented by those self-anointed rape avengers of yesteryear is alive and well in our news media, in our law enforcement apparatuses, indeed, in society at large."
That's pretty hard-hitting.
For my part (and it's been a big part of it), I'd like to apologize to Pierce and Steven. I will avoid participating in any further debate about LE, and will limit my remarks to my opinion of their performance (positive or negative) in particular stories being discussed.
In order to help get things back on track, might I suggest that we might discuss the implications of this recent item:
False Rape Accusations Have Racial Implications
I think it's a combination of people picking on a group that has a large degree of responsibility, but going beyond the call of duty
This is YOUR blog and YOUR work. It's probably one of the most important blogs ever. You cannot leave!
People will be stupid :(
-zarko
This blogg is very importnant.
I too will cease my targeting of LE, and raise awareness of FRA.
Please keep up this very important work.
Although I virtually never post here, I read your blog every day, and I would wager a lot of others do too. I appreciate the way you dissect news stories, inform us of up-and-coming legislation, and present fairly unbiased arguments. Also, in some situations your rhetoric is quite admirable, and worthy of emulation by public speakers (phrases like "the more important war on rape" come to mind).
In a lot of ways, your blog is one of the best blogs concerning MRA issues because you focus on a single issue and keep hammering at it. Without a steady stream of such stories, awareness and activism on the issue would certainly decline.
Whatever you do, please never remove the blog. I go back and reread posts every now and then, and have some videos on FRA's I want to get around to making.
Also: have you watched the youtube video series on FRAs by Manwomanmyth? Watching them may give you a great opportunity to discuss his ideas and arguments. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EWAZn-GxQ8
- Gogo (the guy who made the FRS vid)
Apologies for the double-post.
Why not simply add something to the comment policy that prohibits these sorts of off-topic diversions? To make things easier, turn moderation on and approve each comment manually. That'll make it easier to stop this sort of thing from happening.
I would also advise you to not judge your audience solely by the commenters, who comprise maybe one to five percent of your readership. I don't think I've ever commented here before, but I read FRS regularly and promote interesting posts here over at my blog. I and many others appreciate what you're doing, even if we aren't as vocal as others about it.
Thanks for commenting Ferdinand!
Had no idea the guy from In Mala Fide himself read this blog.
I of course agree with the other commenters, though I've rarely commented here, I read it often. I'm the guy that I guess keyed you all into that Baltimore Sun stuff a few months ago.
I like to think that this blog does make a tremendous difference. Please keep doing it, or at the very minimum keep the blog up and its contents archived. This was something you could be proud of doing and I feel its made a small but yet noticeable difference in the world at large already. I think you are more important than you know, and that letting this blog be derailed by a problem that is at best a subset of the larger FRA problem would be sad.
Clarence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EWAZn-GxQ8
This is a must see.
Will we be allowed to post stuff like this if we keep our opinion to ourself?
Victims’ group warned to adopt truthful name
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/10/25/victims-group-warned-to-adopt-truthful-name/
By Josh Richman
Monday, October 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm in campaign finance.
A victim advocacy group’s independent expenditure committee drew a written warning from the state’s campaign finance watchdog this month for failing to adopt a name that reflects its main funding source: the state prison guards’ union.
In an Oct. 5 letter to the treasurer of the Crime Victims United Independent Expenditure Committee, Gary Winuk – chief of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s enforcement division – said the FPPC found that the committee “has not been using the correct name.
“Specifically, the (Fair Political Practices) Act provides that a committee’s failing to use a name that fully discloses the committee’s sponsors is a violation,” Winuk wrote. “In your response to our letter requiring an explanation of why California Correctional Peace Officers Association (‘CCPOA’), which provides 87.5% of the contributions to CVUIE, was not included in CVUIE’s name, you stated in a letter that, while CCPOA provides funding to CVUIE, a nonprofit, Crime Victims United, solely makes the decisions regarding the committee’s expenditures.”
Winuk went on to write that if a committee’s two sponsors can’t be considered part of “an industry or other identifiable group,” then the committee must use both sponsors’ names in its own name.
“Because crime victims and correctional peace officers cannot be accurately characterized by calling both groups ‘crime victims,’ the two sponsors are not part of the same group,” he wrote, and so “the committee must include the full name of both sponsors in the committee’s name.”
This sort of thing would come into play if the committee airs an advertisement attacking or supporting a candidate; the ad would have to carry the committee’s name, but that name is supposed to reflect the bankroll behind it. The CCPOA has an IE committee of its own, and so if it’s paying another committee’s bills, the public is supposed to know that.
Because CVUIE responded quickly to the FPPC’s inquiry with an explanation of why it had chosen the name, the FPPC issued only a warning letter; future failure to comply with the law could bring fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Winuk wrote.
Will we be allowed to post stuff like this if we keep our opinion to ourself?
Victims’ group warned to adopt truthful name
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/10/25/victims-group-warned-to-adopt-truthful-name/
By Josh Richman
Monday, October 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm in campaign finance.
A victim advocacy group’s independent expenditure committee drew a written warning from the state’s campaign finance watchdog this month for failing to adopt a name that reflects its main funding source: the state prison guards’ union.
In an Oct. 5 letter to the treasurer of the Crime Victims United Independent Expenditure Committee, Gary Winuk – chief of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s enforcement division – said the FPPC found that the committee “has not been using the correct name.
“Specifically, the (Fair Political Practices) Act provides that a committee’s failing to use a name that fully discloses the committee’s sponsors is a violation,” Winuk wrote. “In your response to our letter requiring an explanation of why California Correctional Peace Officers Association (‘CCPOA’), which provides 87.5% of the contributions to CVUIE, was not included in CVUIE’s name, you stated in a letter that, while CCPOA provides funding to CVUIE, a nonprofit, Crime Victims United, solely makes the decisions regarding the committee’s expenditures.”
Winuk went on to write that if a committee’s two sponsors can’t be considered part of “an industry or other identifiable group,” then the committee must use both sponsors’ names in its own name.
“Because crime victims and correctional peace officers cannot be accurately characterized by calling both groups ‘crime victims,’ the two sponsors are not part of the same group,” he wrote, and so “the committee must include the full name of both sponsors in the committee’s name.”
This sort of thing would come into play if the committee airs an advertisement attacking or supporting a candidate; the ad would have to carry the committee’s name, but that name is supposed to reflect the bankroll behind it. The CCPOA has an IE committee of its own, and so if it’s paying another committee’s bills, the public is supposed to know that.
Because CVUIE responded quickly to the FPPC’s inquiry with an explanation of why it had chosen the name, the FPPC issued only a warning letter; future failure to comply with the law could bring fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Winuk wrote.
Will we be allowed to post stuff like this if we keep our opinion to ourself?
Victims’ group warned to adopt truthful name
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/10/25/victims-group-warned-to-adopt-truthful-name/
By Josh Richman
Monday, October 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm in campaign finance.
A victim advocacy group’s independent expenditure committee drew a written warning from the state’s campaign finance watchdog this month for failing to adopt a name that reflects its main funding source: the state prison guards’ union.
In an Oct. 5 letter to the treasurer of the Crime Victims United Independent Expenditure Committee, Gary Winuk – chief of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s enforcement division – said the FPPC found that the committee “has not been using the correct name.
“Specifically, the (Fair Political Practices) Act provides that a committee’s failing to use a name that fully discloses the committee’s sponsors is a violation,” Winuk wrote. “In your response to our letter requiring an explanation of why California Correctional Peace Officers Association (‘CCPOA’), which provides 87.5% of the contributions to CVUIE, was not included in CVUIE’s name, you stated in a letter that, while CCPOA provides funding to CVUIE, a nonprofit, Crime Victims United, solely makes the decisions regarding the committee’s expenditures.”
Winuk went on to write that if a committee’s two sponsors can’t be considered part of “an industry or other identifiable group,” then the committee must use both sponsors’ names in its own name.
“Because crime victims and correctional peace officers cannot be accurately characterized by calling both groups ‘crime victims,’ the two sponsors are not part of the same group,” he wrote, and so “the committee must include the full name of both sponsors in the committee’s name.”
This sort of thing would come into play if the committee airs an advertisement attacking or supporting a candidate; the ad would have to carry the committee’s name, but that name is supposed to reflect the bankroll behind it. The CCPOA has an IE committee of its own, and so if it’s paying another committee’s bills, the public is supposed to know that.
Because CVUIE responded quickly to the FPPC’s inquiry with an explanation of why it had chosen the name, the FPPC issued only a warning letter; future failure to comply with the law could bring fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Winuk wrote.
Will we be allowed to post stuff like this if we keep our opinion to ourself?
Victims’ group warned to adopt truthful name
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/10/25/victims-group-warned-to-adopt-truthful-name/
By Josh Richman
Monday, October 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm in campaign finance.
A victim advocacy group’s independent expenditure committee drew a written warning from the state’s campaign finance watchdog this month for failing to adopt a name that reflects its main funding source: the state prison guards’ union.
In an Oct. 5 letter to the treasurer of the Crime Victims United Independent Expenditure Committee, Gary Winuk – chief of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s enforcement division – said the FPPC found that the committee “has not been using the correct name.
“Specifically, the (Fair Political Practices) Act provides that a committee’s failing to use a name that fully discloses the committee’s sponsors is a violation,” Winuk wrote. “In your response to our letter requiring an explanation of why California Correctional Peace Officers Association (‘CCPOA’), which provides 87.5% of the contributions to CVUIE, was not included in CVUIE’s name, you stated in a letter that, while CCPOA provides funding to CVUIE, a nonprofit, Crime Victims United, solely makes the decisions regarding the committee’s expenditures.”
Winuk went on to write that if a committee’s two sponsors can’t be considered part of “an industry or other identifiable group,” then the committee must use both sponsors’ names in its own name.
“Because crime victims and correctional peace officers cannot be accurately characterized by calling both groups ‘crime victims,’ the two sponsors are not part of the same group,” he wrote, and so “the committee must include the full name of both sponsors in the committee’s name.”
This sort of thing would come into play if the committee airs an advertisement attacking or supporting a candidate; the ad would have to carry the committee’s name, but that name is supposed to reflect the bankroll behind it. The CCPOA has an IE committee of its own, and so if it’s paying another committee’s bills, the public is supposed to know that.
Because CVUIE responded quickly to the FPPC’s inquiry with an explanation of why it had chosen the name, the FPPC issued only a warning letter; future failure to comply with the law could bring fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Winuk wrote.
You're not wasting your time,the feminists HATE this site, and one mangina has even put you on his "enemies list" (ooooooh, spooky). Why? Because as long as your website is around they can't pretend that "false rape claims are like, totally, super-duper rare, for real".
Like many others, I spend a lot of time reading this site,but rarely comment.
There are so many men who are being helped by this site and they don't even KNOW it. Who knows how many women have re-thought making a false rape accusation after viewing your site (for whatever reason)?
Seriously bro, don't let the LE debate ruin all this challenging,necessary, and ultimately fruitful work.
If anyone wants to debate LE issues they can start a blog of their own.
I too read this blog everyday although I rarely post. I would suggest to the publishers of this blog that they too keep the bigger picture in mind regarding the value and importance of this site.
Continuing to address important social issues in a manner (honesty, objectivity) that most prove to be unwilling to address if far more important than a small inner-circle of readers who at times appears to be exercising their own personal biases against Law Enforcement.
Folks, this is where the TRUTH begins, in sites such as these as it is one the few media formats willing to address the prevelance of false rape claims. This is where a movement starts, with honest discussions generating a ground-swell of passionate and informed citizens determined shed a light on the ills of our society.
The publishers have made their point regarding the propensity of the few to exact their agenda against law enforcement. The information provided from this site is too important to throw away because of it.
For those who incessantly begrudge law enforcement in relation to false rape claims, think about what you are doing and saying.
More over, law enforcement deserves far more credit than criticizm collectively as many false rape reports are discovered through their investigations.
The phenomenon of false rape is a societal issue, not a law enforcement issue. The actions of some law enforcement agencies in certain cases is but only a very small part of a very large and complex problem.
Lastly, it bears careful consideration what constant criticism of law enforcement (even when it is unecessary and unrelated to a particular story)accomplishes in the grand scheme of things.
This particular form of bias, in my opinion, is not far removed from the social bias and stigma attached to any person accused of rape and the social bias layed upon those willing to deviate from the status quo who report on the reality of rape (not all of it being true).
To the publishers of this blog; persevere, it is well worth it and greatly appreciated.
Working, day to day, with the "false rape continuum" is a grinding, exhausting, soul destroying experience.
It isn't helped when people who are almost on the same wavelength are sometimes slightly out of tune and you get harmonic dissonance.
HOWEVER
As a falsely accused man, who, in his ignorance knew absolutely NOTHING about false rapes prior to being accused, stumbling across this website was the single greatest thing that happened to me, in the darkest days in the week after my arrest, this website gave me hope.
I'm not out of the woods yet, and the FRA has cost me my home, my family, my income, and I am a mere shadow of the man I was, however, I would gladly share what I have with those who created this website / blog, and my fellow accused.
The comments section does not tell the site / blog creators about that.
I know I am not alone in these feelings.
This site / blog may be a pain in the ass for the owner, it may not generate 1 cent for the owner, but the good it does is incalculable.
If this site / blog doesn't get you into heaven, a lot of FRA are going to have harsh words with St Peter one day.
There are few finer things that men can do for their fellow men, than have been done here.
Steven / Pierce et al should be aware of that.
All,
Thank you for your support, and kind words. The thing we are trying to prevent, is this becoming a place that is viewed as nothing more than a hatefest of Law Enforcement. Yes they can and do get it wrong. But they also get it right. As we have stated many times, if they didn't get it right, we wouldn't exist. If commenters wish to comment on a specific bad action that police have taken in a post, and some thoughts on how to fix/change that type of bad action.... by all means, do so.
What Pierce and I are having an issue with currently, is the blanket condemnation of LE. Do they deserve to be called out on bad behavior? You bet. But they need to be recognized for the good work they do as well, and that hasn't been happening.
And it has been detracting from the purpose of this site. Advocacy for a group that is ignored, belittled or just viewed as unimportant.
@Ferdinand,
Thank you for your comment. We have considered moderation, but are hesitant to do so, for matters of time. And, we do value our contributor's comments, and are loathe to moderate.
@Brandon Webb,
Thank you, and well said.
Steve speaks for both of us, of course. I wanted to add that I, too, appreciate all the support. SLW, please don't take the blame for this -- you were merely responding to things.
Let me make one thing clear: I meant what I said. Maybe this blog's constant beating of the false rape tom-tom, day in, day out, with one story after the next, has left all of us a little desensitized to the problem to the point that it's become the routine, the ordinary, and maybe we're all giving it the ho hum treatment even while the feminist press insists false rape claims are a "myth." And maybe we're at the point where we'd rather change the subject.
Believe me, I understand. And I don't take it personal.
Yes, I'd love to light a fire under people about the false rape problem -- I've got a great subject I am going to be highlighting tomorrow that should do it -- but if it doesn't happen, that's OK, too.
I only have so much time to devote to several important things, this being one of them right now, and I will know when it's time to move onto "the next thing." My gut is telling me that's going to be shortly as far as this blog is concerned.
Archivist - "SLW, please don't take the blame for this -- you were merely responding to things."
Yet, in that I did chose to respond instead of ignoring it, I know that I helped to perpetuate it. It was ill-thought on my part. I knew that it was derailing threads, yet it seems my ego got the best of me (and now I have to listen to my wife telling me, "I told you so"; as she had been admonishing me about my incessant arguing on-line (here, and elsewhere)).
I have no desire to "duck" my responsibilities. I was wrong, and I need to change the way I do things. I need to focus on (re)building consensus with those I've been debating (some times unpleasantly) with. I've already extended an olive branch to Arod99k in one of the subsequent threads, understanding that among his concerns is the disparate impact on Latinos and other minority groups.
I do hope that we can all strive to do better, and to be more cohesive; and, to hopefully convince you to continue this valuable forum and it's important work.
I case I haven't said it enough, or often enough, thank you for doing this.
No, thank you, slw.
And Arod and AfOR and Scott and Nick and any number of other regular commentators are important members of our little electronic family here, too. I thank them, also.
Do not stop this blog!
It is faaaar more important to too many people to be quit just because a few are going off-topic(or even INTENTIONALLY trying to torpedo this site!).
We need you, Pierce et al.
Also-
I have no doubt that the man-haters of the world would LOVE to see this blog die just as it gains momentum!
Please, please don't be the guy who quits just as the snowball starts to roll.
This has been a God-send to me and several others who thought we were suffering alone.
Please don't destroy this community. For some here this is all we have left...
I'm sorry-But I beg to differ. Being falsely accused myself, I was given a first-hand look at how law enforcement performed. Despite her obviously blatant lies and deceit, they continually pursued the case and would skirt the real issues. I will never trust the police, courts, judges, or anybody involved with law enforcement again.
Archivist,
Please do not stop this blog. I believe that many anonymous posts are placed here purposely with the intent to discredit it as a "Whacko MRA" site.
This site is needed to spread the word of the existence of false rape accusations that happen everywhere on a daily basis.
Bless both of you.
RM
If you do some day decide to put an end to this blog, would you consider just handing over the blog to someone else (the founder of The Liberty Papers, a libertarian blog, no longer blogs at the site he founded but the site continues to live on because others have been given the reigns; whether it's better or worse for it is up to the readers to decide)? This site is a great resource; where else can we read about victims and perpetrators of false rape accusations in a single place?
Thanks, Archivist, for shining such a bright light on this issue. You cannot be blamed for wishing to move on and likely the groundwork laid here at FRS will continue to be fruitful in many ways. All the best!
* * * * *
To the trolls that wreaked such havoc here: go fuck yourselves.
Pierce, for my part I would also like to apologize for playing a part in continuing this dispute. The truth is that I can be contrary and combative at times, and I really need to learn to pick my battles more carefully than I sometimes do.
Based on some of the discussions we have had recently here between yourself, Steven, Slwerner, and other regulars, it now appears that maybe the differences over this issue are not as great and intractable as I had thought anyway.
And it is quite understandable that we cannot allow this discussion about law enforcement to completely dominate the agenda, to the point where it drowns out the many other issues that are part of the equation. Law enforcement is only one piece of the puzzle. It is not the whole story. And, contrary to the views of some commenters here, law enforcement did not create the rape feminism propaganda agenda. Even though I still maintain they have some interest in pushing the barrow once it has been set in motion by other interests.
But again, I do apologize for any part I have played in creating excessive division and rancour over this issue. It is hard to excuse anything that might cause anyone to take their eye of the ball, given the importance of this cause and what we are up against.
This discussion kind of reminds me of a similar dispute we had earlier this year over whether misogyny is a problem within the MRM, and whether this site was becoming too dominated by hostile generalizations about women.
Because the nature of the issues we deal with generate a lot of anger, hurt and confusion, it is inevitable that people will lose their way or become poorly focused at times. But it is a credit to you Pierce that you always seem to be able to pull people back onto the more constructive path forward. It is good that someone can display leadership and rally the troops.
In years to come, I have little doubt that people will look back on sites like this as the start of a major new era of civil rights reforms. I like to think it is a bit like being on the ground floor elevator of something big.
I used to post here every once in awhile, but not so much any more. Aside from exercising common sense when it comes to staying on topic, I think ppl are missing something else:
SERIOUS SUGGESTION, how about we discuss the PROSECUTORS and the JUDGES who allow for such things as, charges being pressed in the first place when it should be thrown out, bail set to high, prosecutors who REFUSE to charge false rape accusers etc. ppl, your thoughts???
As my post detailing the multitude of constitutional abuses by LE was not seen fit for posting I will simply echo Shaun's sentiments.
"I will never trust the police, courts, judges, or anybody involved with law enforcement again. "
-recluse-
recluse,
When did you submit that? I've been monitoring the spam folder, as well as the comments queue and nothing showed.
SERIOUS SUGGESTION, how about we discuss the PROSECUTORS and the JUDGES who allow for such things as, charges being pressed in the first place when it should be thrown out, bail set to high, prosecutors who REFUSE to charge false rape accusers etc. ppl, your thoughts???
I may get some disagreement from Pierce, but my first thought, is that the ARDC should NOT be the people to determine if prosecutorial misconduct has occurred, when a complaint is filed. Having worked for 2 different law firms, I don't think lawyers should police lawyers. Just as politicians shouldn't police politicians, and police shouldn't police police (sorry about that). The only difficulty, is determining who would do the policing.
I do agree that we need to do away with things like quotas for police and prosecutors. That type of system, it seems to me, is ripe for abuse, as it is about numbers, not justice.
A large part of this, should be the ability of the individual to protect themselves, and to take a serious look at anonymity for complainants and those accused in ALL crimes, and names being released at either the charged stage, or conviction stage (the reason I list both, is that there ARE serial criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) out there, where being able to find other victims of that individual could depend on publication.
That would be where I would start.
This discussion kind of reminds me of a similar dispute we had earlier this year over whether misogyny is a problem within the MRM, and whether this site was becoming too dominated by hostile generalizations about women.
Nick,
I would say that there is likely LESS misogyny in the MRM, than there is misandry in the feminist sphere, and in U.S. society in general. To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't more misogyny, considering what a lot of men have had happen to them in divorce court, with false allegations, etc.
The amount of anger we see here, which is certainly understandable, is a good example.
Post a Comment