by Connie Chastain*
Not long after I started writing essays for the False Rape Society blog, I was challenged by a discussion group acquaintence. The subject was a rape story making news at the time, and one of the group members coyly asked me, "So, is this an example of your false rape claims?"
My reply was, "Well, did he do it? If he did, it isn't an example of a false rape accusation, is it?"
At the time, the accused's guilt or innocence was unknown, as the story had broken right after the alleged rape had been reported. My challenger's assumption was that I would classify the accusation as false until the accused was proved guilty.
I thought about explaning the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of American justice, to this person, but I suspected she wouldn't be receptive. Though not radical or militant, she was a self-identified feminist, politically and culturally liberal. Something told me my attempt to explain would amount to wasted words.
But I've had occasion to remember her clueless attitude many times since then. One thing feminists and their satellites like my discussion group acquaintance apparently can't understand (or choose not to understand) is that deeming the accused innocent until proven guilty is not the same thing as claiming that the accuser is making a false claim.
Yet that is exactly the mindset of many people, mostly women but not exclusively, who have come under the influence of gender feminism that pervades our society. It is the inevitable result of the claims of "rape culture" -- the components and characteristics of which are whatever feminists say they are.
This mindset demands that accusers automatically be identified and thought of as victims; and that the accused be considered guilty until proven innocent (and maybe after he's been proved innocent). It is a mindset that views men as guilty even before they do anything wrong. We see it time and time again in feminist blogs, comment threads and quotes in news reports.
So I didn't bother explaining it to my discussion group acquaintence. I'm certain she understands perfectly that deeming the accused innocent until proven guilty is not at all the same thing as claiming that the accusation is false -- just as "rape-culture" feminists know it. They just don't care. They have an agenda to push, and they're not going to let trivialities like truth, justice and innocence stand in their way.
*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Good post.
"It is a mindset that views men as guilty even before they do anything wrong."
It's part of a larger attitude and an ideological belief system of many western women (declared feminist or not) that motivates men to have as little to do with women as possible. Many of those same women can't understand why increasing numbers of men refuse to 'man-up' to marry, live with, or even date women with modern western values.
Who would have thought that the most dangerous and bitter enemies of Western Law would be many of America's own daughters? Those same women would have a gender-based police-state.
Atlas
Suppose there was a traffic light that was green 85% of the time, and red only 15% of the time. When you came to it, would you drive right through without bothering to look first?
Of course you wouldn't, and that's why we are all supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty: even if most people who are charged with a crime are guilty, it is much, much, MUCH more important to protect the minority who are innocent than it is to ensure that the guilty are punished. Just as it is more important to stop when the traffic light is red.
Better safe than sorry, in other words. This is common sense, and common decency.
But try explaining that to those morons!
[part 1 of 2]
”This mindset demands that accusers automatically be identified and thought of as victims; and that the accused be considered guilty until proven innocent (and maybe after he's been proved innocent). It is a mindset that views men as guilty even before they do anything wrong.”
This is quite apparent in the current situation regarding Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Not only are many judging him guilty without benefit of investigation nor trial, but his (supposed) previous antics are being presumed to be as evidence of his guilt.
Now, if the stories are true, the guy seems as likely as anyone to have tried to “have his way” with some lowly hotel maid (allegedly, he’s been rough with prostitutes – although I’m not sure how anyone would know, nor that any prostitute who’s claiming that he was could be trusted in the first place).
If he is guilty, let him be punished accordingly. But, his guilt or innocence is not a matter of vote by the ill-informed masses. Nor by the heavily biased media.
Of course, I do hope that he didn’t do what has been alleged and that there is clear and convincing evidence to that effect. It’s not because I care one bit for him nor his politics, but because if this guy, apparent chauvinist pig that he is, can be shown to be innocent, it will give us a HUGE example to show the world why it is that the presumption of innocence must be give to all, and why it is the police who must investigate, not the media (digging up evidence of past acts is no proof in the current case – but just try to get a journalist to acknowledge that).
In looking back at other high-profile FRA cases, I know that I’ve been initially duped by the press accounts into believing that a serious rape had occurred.
When news of the Duke incident first hit the news, I’ll admit that I was taken in, and believed that a rape had occurred. Did I have a bias regarding wealthy white (fraternity) guys, and their (collective) notorious behaviors that tainted my judgment? Absolutely!
When the news of the Hofstra incident hit the news, I’ll admit that I was taken in, and believed that a rape had occurred. Did I have a bias regarding non-white inner-city guys, and their (collective) notorious behaviors that tainted my judgment? Absolutely!
[to be continued…]
[part 2 of 2]
Yet, as the news began to unfold in each of those cases, I quickly came to realize that there was an (increasing) likelihood that the allegation wasn’t true. And, of course, it’s well known that each was, in fact, a hoax perpetrated on us all – police, press, and public.
If the collective behaviors of the two types of men in each of those instance, which served to make their culpability seem more likely (not just to me, but to most observers) were NOT accurate predictors of their guilt, then how should, nay, MUST we look at men collectively (99%+ of whom will never rape a woman) when assessing the probability of the “average Joe” being guilty of raping some women just because she says so?
To repeat Connie’s observations of the presumption of guilt many (especially feminist women) will heap upon any man accused:
”It is a mindset that views men as guilty even before they do anything wrong. We see it time and time again in feminist blogs, comment threads and quotes in news reports.”
And, just as there are biased views of inner-city NAMs and of Fraternity boys, there are biases of rich old men that would presume that they are used to demanding and getting their way (sexually) with lower-status women. But just because many people have such prejudices does not equate to guilt for individuals of any “class”.
The most obvious example one might use to challenge the presumption of guilt of a man accused of rape would be, IMHO, to point out that according to the DOJ’s UCR, black men are statistically more likely to commit a crime than are other men, and to ask if a given black man (insert the name of any prominent black male, up to and including the POTUS) can be assumed to be a criminal (because, after all, he’s black)? Then, simply (and, of course, smugly) point out that assuming a man is guilty just because he’s male is no different than assuming a man to be a criminal simply because he’s black. [I’ve actually done this one, and completely shut down and publicly embarrassed an uppity liberal (SWPL-type) guy. I must admit, it was great fun.]
^^^^^^
****Slow continual clapping****
We believed the Duke False Rape Accuser simply because the police and the DA assured us repeatedly and strongly that there was a rape. Keep in mind that they played up the injuries on Mangum to such a stunning degree.
From Cpl David Addison:
"You are looking at one victim brutally raped."
"The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community."
“That brutal assault, that brutal rape that occurred within that house, cannot be explained by anyone,”
He emphasized the seriousness of the accusations -- first-degree rape, kidnapping, assault by strangulation and robbery.
THAT's why we believed that one. It was good, now we know better.
I think Slwner is an amazing person. I also believe he is unbiased and extremely fair.
slwerner, re: your comments about black men and crime -- I realize that Pierce is right about the majority of actual rapists coming from the inner cities, and it isn't because of race, but largely because of fatherlessness. At the same time, even black men can be falsely accused, as the Hofstra case illustrates, and falsely convicted and imprisoned.
I have lot of respect for the Innocence Project, which seeks to have wrongful convictions and imprisonments overturned with DNA evidence. The crime that sent many of the men to prison was rape, and most who have been exonerated by this group are black.
Just goes to show, you can't judge by group affiliation (men, black men, college men, French politicians, whatever). The presumption of innocence has to prevail for all, regardless of what feminists want.
The problem with gender- feminists insistence that society "Always believe the women" when she says she has been raped...Is That so many are now lying about being raped.
Connie you are a gift to the truth, and to men and boys who have been falsely accused. Thank you for taking the time to write for us here.
Connie - "...it isn't because of race, but largely because of fatherlessness."
I actually aware of this. I've heard that, when corrected for fatherless, the rates of criminality are roughly equal for both black and white men.
My choice of "the black man as criminal" meme was really two-fold. It's widely understood, and, the guy I was "debating" is one of those "closet racist" SWPL types who make such a big deal about everyone else's (supposed) racist tendencies to cover and compensate for their own.
In the specific instance I used that line of reasoning with him, I used the name of a black man we both knew, who had been implicated in some financial misdoings that turned out only his business partner was guilty of. I happened to know that while the man in question was still under suspicion, that this guy had let slip a remark to the effect of "you know those black people...".
I was deliberately taking advantage of what I knew would be a stumbling block for him if I asked, "You won't think ____ was a criminal just because he's black, would you?" (the guy turned beat-red).
That's when I dropped in, "well, that's no different that supposing a man is guilty just because he's a man".
I guess you'd have had to have been there to appreciate the full effect of that one.
I had hoped it would be an at analogy for why it is critical that EVERYONE be given the presumption of innocence (as a matter of law, regardless of individual opinions that we might form of their guilt or innocence) [personally, I'm starting to think that DSK might be guilty. My own guess is that he might have mistaken the maid for a prostitute sent to his room (he seems to be "that" kind of guy). But, as the law intends, he will have to be shown to be guilty via evidence before I will feel certain one way or the other].
I certainly didn't intend for anyone to think that I was inferring that black men are criminals/rapists (even if black men are statistically more likely to rape, rapist are still a very small percentage of their over-all numbers).
If I have offended anyone by using that example, I do apologize.
slwerner, no need to apologize. I wasn't trying to correct you, I understood what you were saying. You just started me thinking, and I wrote where my thoughts led.
Anon 10:13, thank you. I was raised around some of the finest men anyone would ever want to know; no amount of femininst carping will ever make me see them as patriarchal oppressors.
slwerner- I can see that you're not really a very sophisticated man of the world.
You're so afraid of someone accusing you of being a racist or something that you completely ignore the facts and prevaricate.Although rape is very rare the rates are still higher among certain groups than of others for whatever reason you choose. White on black rape is >10 per year and that could mean 0 because that's just a category.
Now, as far as the maid and maids in general, many are or have been in the sex selling business but you don't know this because you apparently lead a sheltered life behind your keyboard.
Many waitresses and barmaids are Hos too as well as actresses and models.
Post a Comment