Monday, May 16, 2011

A crime against a woman is a crime against all women; a crime against a man is . . . who cares?

Why has rape assumed a place of supreme importance in our culture while nobody, outside of a few of us, gives a damn about false rape claims?  Because every rape is deemed to be an attack on all women, and every false rape claim is deemed to be just something that happens. Let's illustrate.

First: rape.  A columnist for a mainstream daily today effectively blows the lid off the incessant attempts in op-eds to characterize Lara Logan's attack as a crime of gender inequality. Ruth Ann Dailey points out that the attack on Logan was likely grounded more in anti-Semitism than gender. ". . . it was when someone yelled that she was an 'Israeli' and a 'Jew' that the sexual assault turned murderous. The all-male crowd literally tried to pull her apart limb from limb. It's odd that articles and opinion pieces have downplayed the anti-Semitic angle in favor of the sexual one, ignoring the attempted murder in favor of the rape."

You see, Ms. Dailey, Lara Logan isn't just a reporter any more. She's a symbol of the oppression of an entire gender -- she's Lorena Bobbitt, Jessica Lynch, and Crystal Gail Mangum, only with a camera crew.  And it's all a big step back for women.  The cackling banshees who pump out features pieces for mainstream media outlets suggest, without saying it, that women, by virtue of their gender, should be immune from the risks men are expected to face without whining. They would empower women by insisting they are powerless.  But as we've previously explained, it's all a steaming pile of horse maure. Brutal attacks on male reporters are common.  One long-time female war correspondent recounted male colleagues having their sexual organs tortured.  The reason that's not deemed an atrocity is because it's too often associated with a punchline. Another longtime female war reporter explained that while female reporters are at greater risk of being raped, male reporters are at greater risk of being killed.  Yet, it's female reporters who are vulnerable?

Ms. Dailey writes: "But what does our discussion of this complex tragedy say about the condition of U.S. society? . . . [D]oes this discussion, which forces gender politics and only gender politics onto situations that are about far more, reveal that some of us are destructively parochial?"

Worse. It tells us, Ms. Dailey, that the sexual grievance industry is hard at work pumping out gender-divisive, lock-the-doors, hide-the-daughters Chicken Little rape hysteria; that we're supposed to believe misogyny is rampant even though it isn't; and that when the legend becomes fact, old cowboys and feminists alike insist on printing the legend.

Now, contrast how society treats a crime that happened to target a woman with crimes that almost exclusively target men: false rape claims.

At Northwestern University in 2009, a Clery Act alert was sent to the university community about  a female student who, the report said, was sexually assaulted by an African American male, approximately 25 years old, 5-6 – 5-7 inches tall, with a thin but muscular build, wearing a black leather jacket and dark jeans.

The following day, another alert was sent out to reveal that the rape claim was false. Just another day at a major American university. 

Except almost immediately, a debate erupted on campus about the propriety of the first email. The fact that the first email was sent out, and that it unfairly maligned an entire gender, of course, was not a problem to the university community. But mentioning that the supposed rapist was black posed a serious dilemma. The campus paper reported: "Students questioned whether the description of the attacker as an African-American male was prudent. 'All black young men on campus become vulnerable to further suspicion,' [Criminology Prof. Lisa] Frohmann said."

Consider another case: remember the recent false rape claim in New York where a Christian fringe sect "nun" lied about being choked and raped by a black man? After the claim was exposed as a lie, African-American men in the nun's Brooklyn neighborhood expressed anger. They weren't upset that she manufactured a rape lie against a man; they were upset that her imaginary rapist was black.
__________________________

A crime against a woman, no matter how removed from gender, is deemed a manifestation of misogyny and a crime against all women. A lot of feminists think rape should be classified as a hate crime. Culture and Family Institute Director Robert Knight once testified: "Every rape is a crime against all women." (I guess prison rape of men -- which may be more common than rape of women -- isn't "real" rape, but put that aside.)

In contrast, maligning maleness has become so normalized that it doesn't even register with many people that there exists a crime that almost exclusively targets males, a crime that destroys lives with a stunning suddenness and a brutal completeness. False rape claims are not deemed to be a serious problem to anyone, much less an entire gender, until they strike home.  And when it happens -- and I have the emails to prove it -- the accused's loved ones always say the same thing: "I didn't know this happened to men."

You didn't know it happened to men because the features writers at our major news outlets are too busy beatifying Lara Logan and hoisting her on the altar of perpetual female victimhood.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lara Logan is such a poster child for being the spoiled entitled gender-raunch american brat. she had the audacity to go to egypt during the rioting? how delusional and out of touch with reality are women like her? cairo is not nyc. it obviously serves the agenda of the feminist-media-left to spin the story as rape/anti-woman more than it does anti-Semitic.

atlas

slwerner said...

Human-Stupidity.com has taken a stab at the Dominique Strauss-Kahn incident in New York over at In Mala Fide (http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/05/16/is-imf-managing-director-dominique-strauss-kahn-the-victim-of-a-false-rape-charge/#comment-38973)
As far as it being a possible FRA, there’s nothing clear yet.

But, in reading this for an earlier story:
The New York Police Department claims that at about 1 p.m. on Saturday, a hotel maid entered a $3,000-a-night suite at the Sofitel near Times Square, believing that it was empty.”

I was struck by the seeming incongruity arising from subsequent news accounts.

Seems that a check of the electronic record indicates that Dominique Strauss-Kahn checked out of the hotel @ 12:28 PM.

Accordingly, the news accounts have been changed to say that the maid entered the room around noon instead of 1:00 PM.

Now, maybe she was simply confused when she first said it was 1, or maybe her story HAD to be changed to noon so as to avoid the obvious question about how he could rape her in the room after he had left it.
This one certainly needs to be watched closely.

I would guess that the hotel would have security cameras which could be used to track the maids movements through the hotel so as to verify if she went to the room in question at noon, or at 1 – and, to see when Dominique Strauss-Kahn left the room.

Security camera footage has previously revealed many rape claims to have been falsified.

For innocent men, the trade-off between the growing invasion of privacy (via security cams) and the ability to be exonerated of crimes might well prove to be a positive one.

Archivist said...

slw, I mention H.S.'s piece in comment to this one: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-rape-claims-arent-taken-seriously.html

In the absence of more information, the high profile sexual assault claim does offer lessons for FRS: once again, we see a tremendous overreaction -- this time, on a global scale -- to a rape claim based on nothing more than an unnamed woman's allegation.

Anonymous said...

I think this maid case is blatant BS- I am willing to be that if it is BS they won't even arrest the maid much less charge her.

Anonymous said...

A good friend of mine, an elementary school teacher, has said on many occasions that he wished a camera could be installed in his classroom recording everything that happens in the classroom. He says the only way he can lose his job is an accusation of false rape and that it happens far too often amongst male teachers. Even when rape charges are thrown out "for lack of evidence" male teachers in this situation are routinely pressured out of teaching and rarely receive any sympathy or compensation for their suffering.

slwerner said...

[reposting - to the correct thread this time]

Anonymous - ”I am willing to be(t) that if it is BS they won't even arrest the maid much less charge her.”

Since this title of the main piece is A crime against a woman is a crime against all women; a crime against a man is . . . who cares? , I’m going to interject something here that’s been eating at me for a while.

We often wish aloud on this forum for women to be (more consistently) charged for their crimes when they make false allegations. But, what isn’t always clear, and, in fact, openly defies common sense, is that the “crime” that they can be charged with is that of false reporting – in most cases, only a misdemeanor level charge. I’ve often stated that what is needed is a felony level charge that could be applied, such as they have in the UK under the Perversion of Justice statute.

But, what I’d like to focus on herein is the matter of just who is seen as the victim of false reports.

Of course, we would all instinctively view the men who are either named, or who are merely “swept up” in an FRA as being “the victims”. Pierce and Steven have duly made note of how infrequently even the courts acknowledge the harms done to those innocent men.

But, the hard cold reality is that when the charge being leveled is that of making a false report to police, the official “victim” of that particular crime is the police to who the false report was made. It might as well be term “wasting police time/resources”.

Under the laws in most jurisdictions there is on the books no other statutorily defined criminal act that can be charged. There simply is no criminal statute against “causing harm to a person via a false allegation against them”. That is considered Libel (http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander), and places it in the purview of the civil courts.

From a practical standpoint, what this means is that the man falsely accused of rape (no matter how great the harms that come to befall him) is NOT considered the victim of a crime in legally definable terms.

This, IMHO, is a serious over-sight in the laws. It denies the falsely accused of the rights afforded to other crime victims under state statues regarding “victims rights” [in Colorado, the is an amendment to the state constitution known as the “Victims Rights Act”], such as the right to be notified of any impending legal actions against the perpetrator, the right to be consulted on the disposition of the case by prosecutors, victims (financial) assistance and counseling, etc. The man who’s been falsely accused is simply shut-out of the process, and left uncompensated in the least. If police or prosecutors chose not to pursue charges, he has no standing to complain about it. The harm done to him has been classified as not being criminal in nature. His only recourse is through the civil courts (which isn’t an easy road to take).

I’m starting to think that what is needed are legal statues which define a false accusation against a person, either directly, or by inference, as a crime committed against that person, defining that falsely accused person as the named victim.

It would be nice to have a felony charge for false reporting, but it would be far better to have a defined criminal act which officially recognizes the targeted victim as being just that – the victim.

Further, given the fairly unique circumstances of rape charges, I’d like to see laws under which those making allegations of rape are advised of the seriousness of those allegations, the possible consequences to anyone named in such an allegations, and advised of all the steps which might be taken in response to that allegation; and, going a step further, I would like to see them put under oath in making the allegation, so that any lies they tell would be equivalent to perjury in court, making it automatically a felony if it can be proven that they lied under that oath.

Well, that’s just another two cents of mine. Anyone one for some feedback or debate?

Human-Stupidity.com said...

Anonymous: putting the woman accuser under oath is a great idea. Of course, it is offensive to women, because women don't lie and therefore don't need to be put under oath.

The fantastic thing about this would be: she could be held responsible for partial lies: i.e. if she clearly lied about one part, she could not go on insisting that the main issue, the rape is a truth, if she is a convicted perjurer.

See for example the accuser's lies in

Jörg Kachelmann rape trial without evidence