FRS will not tolerate any disrespectful comments in response to the following. Victims of rape have expressed support for the mission of our blog, because they recognize that our mission is not inconsistent with theirs. The following was a comment written by someone who tells us she was a rape survivor. She left this under our story about how the New York Post named Greg Kelly's rape accuser. This is a point of view that FRS respects, although we are conflicted about it. Among others who disagree with the reader are Naomi Wolf and Alan Dershowitz, who are not speaking out of vindictiveness. FRS is less sure. We can see utility in the view expressed by the reader -- mutual anonymity for the accused and the accuser.
I would add this: the reader expresses an opinion that many paid victims' advocates do not share in two respects: First, many paid victims' advocates have no concern for falsely accused men -- none; second, paid victims' advocates insist that news about false rape claims keeps women from coming forward. We have often made the point that paid victims' advocates have interests that are not entirely consonant with those of actual rape victims--the former seek to justify their work in ways that do not necessarily advance the interests of the latter.
Here is the comment:
"I absolutely agree that the accused should remain anonymous, as well as the accuser. Just as I hope that any DNA evidence that can be tested now in cases of convicted rapists, which was not available to clear them at conviction, should be tested. The thought of an innocent person in jail is horrifying. The idea of naming rape victims is devastating. I am a survivor of a horrendous rape, a crime that was so devastating, 12 years after I still have never slept a full night, I sleep with every light on. I declined to name my accuser, because I was horrified by the idea of being outed as a victim myself. I was in medical school, how would people trust me to take care of them? In the age of the Internet, a victims status is a google search away. Being raped defines me emotionally spiritually and physically. I could not let it define me professionally, I had to protect people who loved me from knowing everything I went through. I respect your agenda to help the wrongly accused, but advocating for victims to be named makes you seem vindictive, not advocates for justice. It's not the way to protect the survivors of sexual assault, nor the accused. Women falsely reporting rape didn't make it harder to come forward, being forward known as a victim did."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
It's no secret that rape victims despise people that would ridicule and profit from something that ruined the rape victim's life.
Good post Pierce.
I have no problem with what this victim says. I just want equal treatment.
If an accuser is given anonymity, then so should the accused.
If the accused is to be denied anonymity, then so should the accuser.
Once someone is found guilty in a court of law, then of course their identity should no longer be hidden.
Extreme feminists would dismiss your comment, Phantom, by mockingly noting that the two harms are not equivalent. While the harms are not the same, I'd suggest that being falsely accused of rape can sometimes be worse (and you don't need to look to the hanging trees of the Old South for proof, but by all means, look there if you like).
"I respect your agenda to help the wrongly accused, but advocating for victims to be named makes you seem vindictive, not advocates for justice. I respect your agenda to help the wrongly accused, but advocating for victims to be named makes you seem vindictive, not advocates for justice."
I believe that you may have misunderstood the long-standing position put forth here on the FRS, which is that false accuser should be named only after it has been determined that they were NOT actually a victim.
Now, it has been suggested that if there is continued insistence on naming and shaming men who are accused, then if would be “fair” to also name the woman accusing them. But this point is made simply to point out the inequity of naming possibly innocent men simply on the word of an accuser. The hope was that making that suggestion would serve to highlight the hypocrisy of the current practice.
I seriously doubt that either Pierce nor Steven actually wish to have actual victims named (for obvious reasons). That is why they have campaigned for such anonymity being extended also for the accused, rather than focusing on having accusers being named.
All too often the primary intent of a woman making a false allegation is to extract revenge on a man (see the next story for a good example (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2012/02/comment-from-reader-all-too-typical.html). Such revenge is often effectively gained simply by having his name associated with the word “rapist” in the public domain. A criminal case may fall apart, or never even materialize (Greg Kelly), but the accused man can still have his live ruined, and be drained financially by the ordeal. He may have done nothing wrong at all, but he is destroyed, while she skips away with virtually no penalty for the damage her thirst for revenge has brought about.
Let me say that I am truly sorry for what has happened to you. I know full well that actual violent rapes are extremely traumatizing to victims, who may never fully recover. That is why I whole-heartedly join with Pierce and Steven in advocating for actual rapists to be punished to the full extent of the law.
But, to that, there needs to be a balance to protect those who are falsely accused, or, better yet, prevent false allegations from being brought about in the first place.
To that end, NOT splashing a man’s name in the press with a rape allegation before any facts have been established would take away the possibility of gaining quick revenge in cases as I described above. If a woman seeking revenge believed that in order to have him publicly named, fired from his job, ostracized, etc., she would have to wait for a full investigation and the development of supporting evidence, then she would be less inclined to, in a moment of rage, make such an allegation.
As a survivor yourself, I would think that you might well be filled with rage at those women who would callously chose to “piggy-back” their way onto your pain, suffering , and sleepless nights for an entirely disingenuous and self-serving design. They would point to you, and countless women who truly suffered, to proclaim, “Me too!, gimme gimme gimme!”.
Its’ not unlike those charlatans who claimed to be veterans of foreign wars, suffering from PTSD (etc) in order to gain attention and for financial gain. And, perhaps it is even worse. No innocent people get arrested, publicly shamed, and incarcerated by those phony vets.
She alleges that she is a rape survivor yet she doesn'r want false accusers named. Feminists are very good at playing this online game with MRA's all the time so it is no surprise that they would take on the FRS. How many innocent men have been raped and/or CASTRATED themselves because of the rape accusation that hangs over their heads like the Sword of Damecleaus? How many more are going to be fed to the matriarchy before her bloodlust form men is quenched? How many more are going to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness?
"I respect your agenda to help the wrongly accused, but advocating for victims to be named makes you seem vindictive, not advocates for justice. I respect your agenda to help the wrongly accused, but advocating for victims to be named makes you seem vindictive, not advocates for justice."
I believe that you may have misunderstood the long-standing position put forth here on the FRS, which is that false accuser should be named only after it has been determined that they were NOT actually a victim.
Now, it has been suggested that if there is continued insistence on naming and shaming men who are accused, then if would be “fair” to also name the woman accusing them. But this point is made simply to point out the inequity of naming possibly innocent men simply on the word of an accuser. The hope was that making that suggestion would serve to highlight the hypocrisy of the current practice.
I seriously doubt that either Pierce nor Steven actually wish to have actual victims named (for obvious reasons). That is why they have campaigned for such anonymity being extended also for the accused, rather than focusing on having accusers being named.
All too often the primary intent of a woman making a false allegation is to extract revenge on a man (see the next story for a good example (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2012/02/comment-from-reader-all-too-typical.html). Such revenge is often effectively gained simply by having his name associated with the word “rapist” in the public domain. A criminal case may fall apart, or never even materialize (Greg Kelly), but the accused man can still have his live ruined, and be drained financially by the ordeal. He may have done nothing wrong at all, but he is destroyed, while she skips away with virtually no penalty for the damage her thirst for revenge has brought about.
Let me say that I am truly sorry for what has happened to you. I know full well that actual violent rapes are extremely traumatizing to victims, who may never fully recover. That is why I whole-heartedly join with Pierce and Steven in advocating for actual rapists to be punished to the full extent of the law.
But, to that, there needs to be a balance to protect those who are falsely accused, or, better yet, prevent false allegations from being brought about in the first place.
To that end, NOT splashing a man’s name in the press with a rape allegation before any facts have been established would take away the possibility of gaining quick revenge in cases as I described above. If a woman seeking revenge believed that in order to have him publicly named, fired from his job, ostracized, etc., she would have to wait for a full investigation and the development of supporting evidence, then she would be less inclined to, in a moment of rage, make such an allegation.
As a survivor yourself, I would think that you might well be filled with rage at those women who would callously chose to “piggy-back” their way onto your pain, suffering , and sleepless nights for an entirely disingenuous and self-serving design. They would point to you, and countless women who truly suffered, to proclaim, “Me too!, gimme gimme gimme!”.
Its’ not unlike those charlatans who claimed to be veterans of foreign wars, suffering from PTSD (etc) in order to gain attention and for financial gain. And, perhaps it is even worse. No innocent people get arrested, publicly shamed, and incarcerated by those phony vets.
Slwerner, what about instances of acquaintance rape. I'm talking about forced sex -- not drunk sex. Chances are, the rapist is not a first-time offender.
I think the mentality for naming the alleged rapist has to do with other women coming forward who may be able to identify an accused rapist.
I want to thank you for the kind words I read in response to my post. I felt compelled to share my story, to express the immense pain that survivors of rape experience but also to explain that I don't blame all men for that pain, that I don't believe that one man's actions is equal to all men, as I don't think it is fair to equate a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape, to all women, especially to true rape victims.
The idea that there are women who make money as so call victim advocates makes me furious, no one speaks for me, but myself. I find them despicable and nothing more than people who benefit from exploitation of others pain.
TO be clear, I do not believe a woman that is proved to have made a false accusation of rape, should receive the right of privacy. On the contrary, she should be charged. I believe everyone involved should have the right to privacy. To people who disagree with that, there is no gain in shaming a victim, and there are real victims. Just as there are false accusations, and allowing privacy for all is the best way to protect all victims. A man broke into my apartment at 2AM, while I was sleeping happily in my bed, to believe that my name should forever be associated with that one night in my life, that I had no control over is cruel.
I am a woman and a rape survivor, but that does not mean I hate all men, nor does it mean I believe men deserve to be falsely accused of anything. Believing that I should have some rights regarding my rape does not make me some awful feminist. It makes me human.
I read a comment stating I have bloodlust for men, the only person that has bloodlust in my situation is the man who broke into my apartment 12 years ago.
I am not your enemy, the man who raped me is. Without real instances of rape there would be no false accusations.
”I think the mentality for naming the alleged rapist has to do with other women coming forward who may be able to identify an accused rapist.”
I do understand the logical assumption behind this line of reasoning, yet, I’m not convinced that it is the valuable tool for identifying other victims (of an accused rapist) that you (and others) present it as being.
While there may be cases in which it really does work as intended, woman who’ve been date-raped but declined to report it see the man is alleged to have done the same to another women, and they decide to come forward.
But, even if these other women truly were raped by the same man, it is NOT the most reliable evidence to try to take to trial. The “fact” of the previous crimes are not established, and would be indistinguishable from the claims of random women who never even met eh man, but simply want some attention (and victim’s assistance money).
And, that, of course, is the other part of the problem with the assumption that other victims will come forward. There is absolutely nothing preventing women who were never victims from also coming forward to claim that they were.
The only case that those claiming to have been previous victims truly helps to build is the case against the accused in the court of public opinion.
As an example, referring back the recent case involving Greg Kelly, which I believe has been well established as not having been a case of rape (you may disagree), we can suppose that Kelly has have numerous other encounters with other women down through the years.
Since his name and face were publicly associated with the accusation that he raped Maria Di Toro, there was the possibility that that other women might have come forward to also make rape claims against him.
Now, supposing that he had actually date-raped some other women at some other time, the fact that he had done so does not have any bearing on the encounter between he and Di Toro. That he may be very pushy in regards to having sex does not mean that Di Toro was raped. Some women actually like very aggressive sex partners. The prior claims do little more than suggest he isn’t of the best of character – it does not provide evidence that he, beyond reasonable doubt, therefore raped Di Toro.
And, we could also suppose that a woman who was NOT raped by Kelly could have also come forward (seeing a celebrity accused, and assuming there might be some money to be made, for instance) to claim he raped her. This would be false evidence against him and his character. It could have been that Kelly was not actually ever “pushy” with any women (including Di Toro), and never took any advantage over any of them. Yet, a false claim of rape in the past, if it had made it to a jury, might have so prejudiced that jury against him that they could have convicted him of a non-crime based on the mistaken belief that he had previously committed such a crime. Such would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice.
Our’s is not a perfect world, and justice will not always be served. Sadly, this may well mean that women who actually were raped, but never reported it, will have to be discounted should they chose to come forward at a later date (lacking some physical evidence of an actual crime committed against them).
I think the mentality for naming the alleged rapist has to do with other women coming forward who may be able to identify an accused rapist.
But then, as we have shown here as well, that would support the notion that the accuser should be named at the same time, as we have run multiple stories of serial false accusers, who are never named, nor punished, who move on to the next person they falsely accuse.
It's a delicate tightrope on both sides. But if you are going to give anonymity to one, you should give it to both, or to neither.
With very few exceptions (minors), anonymity is not granted for an accuser, in any other type of crime. And if we are going to treat rape as a special class of crime, then it has to be treated as special for all involved, to maintain fairness.
If not, our justice system is a joke.
I have been browsing on-line greater than 3 hours today, but I never found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It is pretty worth sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all web owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you did, the net will be a lot more helpful than ever before.
Bogs Women's Classic Mid Tuscany Rain Boot
Post a Comment