There is so much about this article -- about Germaine Greer's loony idea to have a Web site where women can name their "rapists" -- that is flat-out wrong. Including the assertion in the headline of this post. Including this assertion: "Women and children tend not to lie about these matters."
(In fact, rape is lied about more frequently than other serious crimes, and no one can say definitively that women and children "tend not to lie" about rape.)
So why am I not having a conniption over this piece?
Because unlike the vast majority of similar articles written from a decidedly feminist perspective, this one affords proper deference to the presumptively innocent accused of rape. Here's what the author says:
"Picture . . . the young woman or man (fewer men than women are victims of rape, but it does happen) crossed in love, or merely miffed at the way a member of the opposite sex has looked at them or spoken to them.
"How tempting might it be, late at night, with a drink or six on board, to log on to a website like the one Germaine Greer imagines and pour out your fury with an accusation of sexual assault or rape? A man’s reputation could be destroyed with no criminal inquiry, and no testing of evidence in court.
. . . .
"But going to a police station and facing real human beings who will question you about what you say happened, and carry out forensic tests, is a very different matter from turning on the computer in your own home and typing out whatever you like — knowing that there’ll be no comeback on you, and nothing but trouble for the person who’s incited your anger."
The author does, impliedly, trivialize the scope of the false rape problem by suggesting it is relatively rare. But she does not trivialize the harm to men and boys who are falsely accused. She recognizes the injustice of naming and shaming without due process.
In short, she is a feminist who doesn't blithely assert that women don't lie about rape, so what are the men worried about?
The purpose of this site isn't to prove, a la some Oppression Olympics, that false rape accusations are a "more" serious problem than rape. That's like comparing cancers. I have my own opinion well known to our readers, based on what I've studied, but that's kind of beside the point. The purpose of this site is to help raise awareness that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the presumptively innocent, who too often are falsely accused, need protections that society simply isn't giving them.
And that's because the persons who've dominated the public discourse about rape for the past 30 years have insisted that women don't lie about rape, so what are the men worried about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
FYI
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dqn70/girl_thinks_accusing_man_of_rape_sending_to_her/
The author does, however, falsely imply that any "comeback on you" for making a false accusation of rape will be significant.
I don't care either because it will dilute the trustworthyness of claims if rape. It will lose it's meaning. The best analogy I can give is cry wolf. Soon nobody will believe any broads cry of rape. That's there problem. They done it too themselves.
"At the age of 19, I barely knew I’d been the victim of a crime. I would not have dreamed that anyone would believe me; and I would have been far too ashamed to share my experience with my closest friend, let alone a complete stranger."
I still don't believe this sort of bullshit. How could she have not known she was a victim of a crime?
"The court experience was overhauled, too. In the bad old days, a judge was required to give a jury what was known as the ‘Corroboration Warning’.
In a case where the outcome generally rests on forensics and the word of the complainant against that of the accused, the judge would warn: ‘Women and children have a tendency to lie about these matters.’
That warning, rightly, has gone."
Imho, they should bring it back.
""But going to a police station and facing real human beings who will question you about what you say happened, and carry out forensic tests, is a very different matter..."
Yet, documented on this site are dozens (my guess is that it's well over 100) of examples of women who've undergone this very supposed ordeal - only to end up with their false allegation exposed.
In deed, I've often wondered why women, who (in retrospect) were obviously lying would subject themselves to such measures. Yet, we know quite well that they will, and do. Perhaps they believe that if they are willing to do so, it will convince everyone of their veracity (and, perhaps, require nothing more of them to perpetuate their hoax). I would further guess that most who do so firmly believe that the SANE nurse will "rubber-stamp" their allegation as confirmed. This is also likely why we end up with so many rape kits "shelved" after collection. Once they realize that the nurses conclusion of "definitely rape" is not going to be the end of the "probing" [sorry, but that pun was intended], a good number of them back-off, likely knowing that DNA evidence will not support their claims.
Apparently, it's little or no deterrent to undergo a SANE exam for those bent on "selling" their lie.
Anonymous said...
"At the age of 19, I barely knew I’d been the victim of a crime. I would not have dreamed that anyone would believe me; and I would have been far too ashamed to share my experience with my closest friend, let alone a complete stranger."
I still don't believe this sort of bullshit. How could she have not known she was a victim of a crime?
"The court experience was overhauled, too. In the bad old days, a judge was required to give a jury what was known as the ‘Corroboration Warning’.
In a case where the outcome generally rests on forensics and the word of the complainant against that of the accused, the judge would warn: ‘Women and children have a tendency to lie about these matters.’
That warning, rightly, has gone."
Imho, they should bring it back.
Only an honorable judge would see to it that it came back. What do present day judges know about honor?
They sold their honor when they listened to, and believed those who DO NOT HAVE HONOR!
Slw, what if there's no forensic evidence, yet plenty of corrobation --- would you still be against naming the rapist?
"At the age of 19, I barely knew I’d been the victim of a crime. I would not have dreamed that anyone would believe me; and I would have been far too ashamed to share my experience with my closest friend, let alone a complete stranger."
I believe this reaction is all too common for victims of rape.
"At the age of 19, I barely knew I was a criminal."
Doesn't stand up to scrutiny, does it?
So clearly the inverse doesn't either.
The lying bitch is just another je regret rien type.
Anonymous - ”Slw, what if there's no forensic evidence, yet plenty of corrobation --- would you still be against naming the rapist?”
Ooh looky! A “loaded” and rather open-ended question.
Okay, I’ll take the bait.
Given that you chose to use the term rapist, and since the only persons that this term properly applies to are those who have been convicted or who have plead to the charge of rape.
Thus, the answer is a very straightforward NO, I have no problem with naming the rapist in such case.
Oh course, it’s plainly obvious that you are deliberately misapplying the term rapist in place of the proper term alleged rapist. While it is necessary to specifically name the defendant in court proceedings, there is no need, nor practical purpose (in most every case) for Law Enforcement to publicly name that person. This is especially true during the investigation process. The primary outcome of naming an alleged rapist is to subject him (or her) to public shame, ridicule, condemnation, and even violence. The oft-purported goal of having “other victims” come forward is quite specious in that there are typically no other “victims” (even in the case of genuine rapes) who would be able to know by either name or appearance that he also raped them (real rapists generally taking heavy precautions to conceal their identities as well as to avoid leaving evidence). Also, do so provides the opportunity for other non-victims (disgruntled ex’s, attention seeking strangers, or even a gender-feminist who’d be happy to “help” get a man convicted – regardless of possible innocence) to falsely claim that they are also his “victims”.
I hope that answers the question (even if it wasn’t exactly the one you asked.
If that happens, the first person I'll "name" is Greer herself.
Hey, prove that she didn't rape me!
Slw, what if there's no forensic evidence, yet plenty of corrobation
I want to know exactly what you mean by corroboration. As slwerner pointed out, that question is so open ended, you could drive an aircraft carrier through it. Please elaborate.
I don't disagree that false rape accusations are RELATIVELY rare. Millions and millions of women exist in this country, yet we "only" see a case or two a day.
So do I feel placated?
Once or twice a year -at most - a child is abducted by a stranger with horrifying consequences.
Do we take the same ho-hum, don't worry about it cause it's "rare" attitude? Or are we admittedly a nation of helicopter moms raising obese hot house children out of fear they will be kidnapped?
I personally know at least two victims of false accusations, one with mild consequences, one with diasterous consequences. Most people know or have heard valid accounts of someone who was falsely accused.
I don't know any child kidnap victims, or anyone personally involved in such a case. I can only conclude false rape accusations are less rare than child abductions.
The effects of a false rape accusation are indeed so devastating and ruinous that the out cry over a false accusation is of biblical proportion.
Phooh phoohing men for "over dramatizing" false rape accusations is like admonishing the mothers of toddlers for not letting them run the streets unsupervised, since the danger is so "rare". Parents go to jail or have their children taken from them for not taking the rare as hen's teeth threat seriously.
FRAs ARE downplayed and not taken seriously enough comparatively speaking.
Slw, what if there's no forensic evidence, yet plenty of corrobation --- would you still be against naming the rapist?
I would. There's plenty of time to do that after conviction. Before conviction, hell no.
"I still don't believe this sort of bullshit. How could she have not known she was a victim of a crime?"
Let me put this in terms that you, as males, might relate to.
This past August my 30 something nephew admitted to me he had been molested by a coach when he was 12.
By "molested" I mean the adult coach sucked him off.
He has kept this a secret all these years because, A) the coach had him convinced he wanted to and B) he secretly feared he would be considered homosexual if he told anyone about it.
This is how "pedophile Priests" have gotten away with their behavior. This was a massive number of boys being raped and molested for unknown numbers of years...yet no one spoke up all that time.
There are predatory males out there. There are dumb women, innocent women, gullible women who, like the adult victims of these priests, later realized they were not "asking for it". That they didn't "cause it". That once their shame or embarrassment abated they realized that indeed, they had been raped.
I should add here, before I get slammed for defending "bullshit" notions, that Priests have also been falsely accused.
That does not make it all "bullshit" claims, however.
If I speculate that there are countless Pedophile Priest victims who have never come forward, and never will, will anyone call me an hysteric?
If I speculate that those victims would rather take that secret to their graves than admit it happened, even though it was NOT their fault, make me a Catholic church hater?
No.
I'm not trying to stir up a flap, but I am not going along with "bullshit" either.
Girls make false rape accusations all the time, but law enforcement has been told to keep a lid on it. Its this institutional "lid on it" misinformation campaign that leaves society to believe that women and girls NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER,lie about rape, when in fact lying about rape in some parts of the country is now an epidemic.
By feeding into womens rape and domestic violence hysteria, law enforcement offices get to "bloat their budgets" with federal pork dollars. It is in fact American law enforcement that are now being paid to discriminate against American males, which is in fact unconstitutional, but with American males in the state of "broken patriarchy", the only people that can "Unite" are perverts.
There are dumb women, innocent women, gullible women who, like the adult victims of these priests, later realized they were not "asking for it".
So, you are saying that these adults are just not adult enough to understand what happened, and that they are on par with 12 year olds? Glad to see all that empowerment going to waste. Those kids had something happen to them by people in a position of trust, who, they were more than likely told, they should listen to, and do what those people said.
If that is what you are comparing adult women to, then it's a fallacious argument. You are seriously trying to say, that in todays society of "Rape culture", "Take back the Night" rallies, and mandatory events like THIS, that a woman wouldn't know she'd been raped? Seriously? Sorry, don't buy it.
As this site demonstrates, rather clearly, women in western society know EXACTLY what options they have, and just how seriously they will be taken.
Just a thought:
Funny, isn't it, that they think a site like the one proposed, would "shame" rapists, when we supposedly live in a "rape culture", which tolerates rape.
How these people's heads don't explode from the cognitive dissonance, I'll never know.
Anonymous @7:58:00 AM...
There are as many boys molested by women as by men. I would add that boys are half of the child victims overall and that the younger the boy the more likely his abuser is to be female.
Molestation of kids is not a male-only activity as you seem to be implying.
"So, you are saying that these adults are just not adult enough to understand what happened, and that they are on par with 12 year olds?"
YES (in yesterday's society, which the 8:14 is referring to)
@8:14 Excellent
S - ”By feeding into womens rape and domestic violence hysteria, law enforcement offices get to "bloat their budgets" with federal pork dollars. It is in fact American law enforcement that are now being paid to discriminate against American males”
[hum? What is the html tag for exasperation?]
Once again, another post of this easily refuted inanity, and the rest of us have to sit back a watch as the credibility of the FRS suffers. It’s as if our collective IQ has just been knocked down a couple of pegs.
Still, I would hope that those of you just casually glancing at this site and this story will not judge the rest of us, nor the very important work of this site regard the very important issue of false rape allegation (and their attendant harms) by these misguided and irrelevant posts a just a few of our number.
Considerable efforts have been made to try to get these posters to examine the evidence and see that they have been mislead into their beliefs.
I would point out that Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus presented a massive amount of evidence to demonstrate the validity of what is come to be known as Copernican heliocentrism. Yet, many learned men refused to examine or even consider the existence of his evidence. Many went to the graves clinging to the belief that the Earth was flat. To this day, we still call those who seem to refuse to examine facts and evidence as “Flat Earthers”
We see it from the feminst side of the issues. The most obvious of the low-hanging fruit to pick on is the repeated belief that false rape reports are extremely rare, and the oft-cited lie that they are only about 2% of all rape claims. Ample evidence exists to counter this shallow-minded theories, and even the illegitimate genesis of the 2% claim it is well known. Still they persist in their own “Flat Earth” fantasy.
Sadly, those of us who are deeply concern about the issue of false rape allegations have amongst our ranks our own ‘Flat Earthers”. Despite being should ample evidence otherwise they continue to cling to their own delusional beliefs that the primary problem with regard to the issue of FRA”s and all the harms that follow is not the women who make the claims, but rather Law Enforcement.
They continue to make the same oft-debunked claims regarding conspiratorial alliances, federal pay-offs to local LE as an inducement and reward for encouraging false rape allegations, so as to ”bloat their budgets”. Further they imagine that LE specifically spends most of their collective time targeting innocent men for prosecution on the false rape allegations that they’ve encouraged women to make, and none of them have any interest in finding the truth of that matter.
Yes, it seems rather silly when one steps back and takes an objective look at the available evidence. Which is why I implore readers to not judge this site by those posters, and to give this site objective consideration. Please consider the actual evidence presented herein of both the pervasiveness and the damages done by false rape allegations, and please take this real issue to heart.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
"I believe this reaction is all too common for victims of rape."
Yeah sure, and maybe I've been murdered, and some kid who can see dead people needs to tell me.
"There are predatory males out there."
There are also predatory females out there.
"There are dumb women"
Which you've clearly demonstrated.
Oct 14, 2010 8:19:00 AM
Enough already.
There is no evidence that the police make money from false rape accusations. Quite the contrary, false rape accusations cost them time and money -- time and money that could be used to investigate actual rapes.
Oct 14, 2010 8:43:00 AM
That's a very good point!
Steven: " ... they think a site like the one proposed, would "shame" rapists, when we supposedly live in a "rape culture", which tolerates rape."
Our culture does not tolerate rape. The rape culture is a direct result of men, particularly at a certain age, urging their peers to rape women. But these same individuals do not define it as rape. When's the last time you heard a college man admitting to rape?
By the way, I cannot think of anything more satisfying or therapeutic than to name, blame, shame and condemn one's rapist, as Germaine Greer has suggested.
Back to rape culture. I believe women also contribute to this pervasive situation.
Now I'll flip it over --- men proved innocent of a false accusation should also be able to name, blame, shame and condemn their false accuser.
Steven -- "I want to know exactly what you mean by corroboration. As slwerner pointed out, that question is so open ended, you could drive an aircraft carrier through it. Please elaborate."
It has been stated here many times that no man should be arrested or convicted without corroboration.
So how does the FRS define corroboration?
If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. I'm not going to play this game. It has been stated too many times, by both Pierce and I, for you to play dumb at this point, as to what that means. YOU at this point, need to provide YOUR definition.
The rape culture is a direct result of men, particularly at a certain age, urging their peers to rape women. But these same individuals do not define it as rape. When's the last time you heard a college man admitting to rape?
There is no rape culture. Never has been. If there was, no man, or woman, would ever be falsely accused, and no man (I have yet to see it happen to a woman) would be sent to prison, beaten or killed over a false allegation.
And please, dazzle us with what they call it, since you seem to have all of the insider knowledge. I wait with baited breath.
No games being played here.
Once again, how does the FRS define corroboration in the case of rape?
"By the way, I cannot think of anything more satisfying or therapeutic than to name, blame, shame and condemn one's rapist, as Germaine Greer has suggested."
Yes, well, it's not about that. Your rights end where another's start. This society centers the nedds and the wants and the whims of women quite enough already, it's called chivalry, and feminists are on record as opposed to chivalry, except thwn they are exploiting it.
So ruining some innocent man's life, very often exposing him to vigilante violence, as this site has documented, is not justified no matte how good it makes some woman feel. And that is have been obvioous to anyone other than a moral cripple
Anonymous - "Once again, how does the FRS define corroboration in the case of rape?"
While I cannot speak for FRS, nor anyone else here, I'd suggest that it would be nearly impossible to come up with a single over-arching definition of what constitutes corroboration.
I think we can all agree on some rather obvious examples - which might even be a somewhat lengthy list - but, it's going to be those "gray area" examples which will be most telling. Forensic evidence of sexual activity where a suspect denies any such activity might be an example of such.
As for my own personal view, I would consider such things as an immediate (or shortly after the fact) "outcry" to a third party as a sufficient indicator of the probability as to the veracity of the claim so as to warrant going forward with the case (but not making a suspects name public [I'm assuming that your goal is to try to "pin" us down as to when we believe anonymity should no longer apply. (just one of many possible examples, for the sake of brevity).
As to things which may not be as valuable as corroborating evidence as some might hold could well be cut, scratches, and torn clothing - as we have seen examples of each of these being fabricated in order to bolster a claim which ultimately turned out to be false.
Similarly forensic evidence of sexual activity where the suspect acknowledges such, but claims consensuality, does not necessarily provide corroboration that the sex was actually rape.
That's just a few quick examples across the spectrum.
Now, I believe it would be in order for you to provide some insight into your own position WRT what constitutes corroboration.
Then I'm assuming you agree that to publicly name, shame and condemn a convicted rapist is acceptable? Same goes for a false accuser? These are not trick questions.
(that was meant for 9:29)
Anonymous - "Then I'm assuming you agree that to publicly name, shame and condemn a convicted rapist is acceptable? Same goes for a false accuser?"
As to MY position, yes on both.
I'd go one step further, and allow that those who confess (to police or prosecutors)) to either crime should be eligible to be named for public scorn.
No need to wait for convictions - especially seeing as how false accusers are often not even charged after admitting to having fabricated their claims.
Slw I'll get to that tomorrow.
Anonymous - "Slw I'll get to that tomorrow.
"
But, but...I was going to hold my breathe waiting for you to answer.
gwallan said...
Anonymous @7:58:00 AM...
Molestation of kids is not a male-only activity as you seem to be implying.
I made no such implication.
I used the male molester as an example because if a woman had molested my nephew in the same way, rather than being deeply ashamed, self blaming and keeping it secret, he would have been laughing and bragging about it to his friends.
....which, now that you mention it, is EXACTLY an example of a person not knowing they were raped, isn't it?
Anonymous said...
"At the age of 19, I barely knew I’d been the victim of a crime. I would not have dreamed that anyone would believe me; and I would have been far too ashamed to share my experience with my closest friend, let alone a complete stranger."
I still don't believe this sort of bullshit. How could she have not known she was a victim of a crime?
It's too bad she doesn't explain. Maybe she doesn't explain because of the reasons given.
Anyone here ever try to discuss your FRA with a "regular" crowd?
I don't care HOW innocent you were, there will be those laughing and mocking any reasoning or explainations as "bullshit".
Which is why I don't like seeing it being done here.
If that makes me "dumb", then so be it.
"I would not have dreamed that anyone would believe me; and I would have been far too ashamed to share my experience with my closest friend, let alone a complete stranger"
"I don't care HOW innocent you were, there will be those laughing and mocking any reasoning or explainations as "bullshit".
Which is why I don't like seeing it being done here.
If that makes me "dumb", then so be it."
Perhaps "mendacious" is a better word, in that you want to pretend that you can't understand the difference between others believing the victim and the victim knowing a crime occurred.
The notion that a grown woman wouldn't know that being forced to have sex against her will is a crime is completely absurd.
Anon,
Out of curiosity, are you ever going to give us your definition of corroboration? Or are you going to continue to evade the question?
Slw, you said it would be nearly impossible to come up with a single over-arching definition of what constitutes corroboration.
A bit later in your post you mentioned outcry to a third party, scratches/torn clothing.
I'm sure LE looks for this type corroboration in all rape cases. What still weighs on my mind is "why has it been stated on this site that we need to bring back corroboration" (as if it existed in the past, but is no longer applied). What does that mean?
Take the case of the Michigan State basketball players a few years ago who allegedly raped a girl in their dorm. Even though ONE of the alleged rapists corroborated the victim's story, no charges were filed. Go figure.
Now it's MY turn to hold my breath and turn blue.
Slw, you seem a bit paranoid on the subject of anonymity. I have my thought on that too, although I'm sure it's been talked about here a lot.
Anonymous - ”What still weighs on my mind is "why has it been stated on this site that we need to bring back corroboration" (as if it existed in the past, but is no longer applied). What does that mean?”
What this means that that LE must stop relying on nothing more than the word of the accuser to justify arresting suspects, and publicly naming them. In case you’ve somehow missed the past couple of years worth of stories covered on this site, THAT is exactly what has happened in a significant number of cases. The all for corroboration simply asks that police first begin investigating the case, and see if there is something more than the woman’s word that would justify moving forward with the case.
As I’ve tried to point out in other threads, in quite a few recent cases, the police have done this. They investigated the allegation, searching for evidence; and, when they found none, they either determined the allegation unfounded, or they re-interviewed the accuser, gaining her confession to fabricating her claim.
Do you have a problem with the fact that they didn’t identify some poor guy who could possibly fit the profile, arrest him, badger him for a confession, and release his name to the press so as to expose him to public ridicule and loss of job, friends, etc? Because, that’s what we’re looking to avoid having happen in future cases.
”Now it's MY turn to hold my breath and turn blue.”
Well, technically, since you never gave your views on what you’d consider corroboration, the breath-holding while waiting for an response is still in my court.
”Slw, you seem a bit paranoid on the subject of anonymity. I have my thought on that too, although I'm sure it's been talked about here a lot.”
I’m certainly very, very concerned. Have you read the stories of what has happen to some men and boy’s who’ve been falsely accused. Not only are some destroyed financially and socially, some have been killed and others have been driven to suicide.
SO, Yeah, you bet I see anonymity as being very important. Why do you disagree? (assuming you’ll answer a question one of these days)
SO, Yeah, you bet I see anonymity as being very important. Why do you disagree? (assuming you’ll answer a question one of these days)
I, at this point, slwerner, am going to just stop responding at this point. I can only assume, this was done for trolling purposes. We see this a lot, as you know, from people who would like to see us run around in circles, and keep the discussions off track. Sorry to do this, but instead of wasting more time, I'm shutting down the comments on this thread.
Anon,
If you decide you wish to answer any of the questions that have been asked of you, email me at our address.
Post a Comment