The Latest
- Santa Clara County DDA Suspended Amid Duke Lacrosse Echoes [Glenn Sacks]
- Feminism and the Feelings of Men [Men's Activism News]
- Boomerang: False rape claims sometimes come back to hurt the false accusers [False Rape Society]
- Maine Newspaper’s Statement ‘Most Often Children Die at the Hands of Young Men’ Is False [Glenn Sacks]
- Women Who Make Men Rape [Rebuking Feminism]
- Woman lies to keep husband from learning of affair [False Rape Society]
- Undeclared & Unconstitutional Wars [Hawaiian Libertarian]
- India’s Upper House Passes Bill ‘Reserving’ 30% of Seats for Women [Glenn Sacks]
- Little White Rape Lies [False Rape Society]
- Quote of the day: false accusers need to be prosecuted to protect integrity of rape victims and because of the devastating effects of false allegations [False Rape Society]
- « More articles
Santa Clara County DDA Suspended Amid Duke Lacrosse Echoes
| Contributor: | Glenn Sacks [source] | |
| Date: | March 11, 2010 |
Read this article on Glenn's Web site
Topics: Glenn Sacks |
Feminism and the Feelings of Men
| Contributor: | Men's Activism News [source] | |
| Date: | March 11, 2010 |
Full Article here. Excerpt:
'A common complaint by women is that "men are not connected to their feelings"
...So, today I am going to talk about my own feelings as a men regarding feminism, in a language that women are able to understand.
...
As most of my peers, I have dreamed about the day where I would become an adult, and my time will come to have my own beloved wife and adorable children. I could not wait to have my own family. It was something that I perceived as a natural stage in my development as a human being.
...
But as I was growing up, things began to change. The newspapers and the TV were suddenly filled with all kinds of weird stories about poor women being battered and abused by their husbands. The Israeli government started making all kinds of weird laws against men, who were suddenly portrayed as the "Enemies of Society". At some point one would feel the need to apologize for having being born with a penis. Divorce rates were on the rise. Israeli courts began to make all those bad policies against men, imposing impossible child support amounts on them, not allowing them to see their children, etc. False Domestic violence and Rape accusations became the new trend. Worst of all, the perception of family in the Israeli society has changed. Families weakened a great deal, and the trust between men and women deteriorated.
When I grew up, I realized that the Israeli family is not what it used to be. I have known some men whose life has been completely destroyed by the Israeli family courts. Their children were taken away from them, the ex-wife interfered with visitation rights, one of them has even been put on a criminal charges because his ex filled false domestic violence allegations against him. All were financially ruined.
...
On the way, I gradually began to lose trust in the whole governmental systems in my country. The government itself, the police, the courts, the welfare systems, are all feminist secret agents now, imposing their evil agenda. The love I felt to my country began depreciating. How can I love such an evil country, that takes away my most basic right, to have a family of my own?
So this is my story. This is how I lost my dream to have a family of my own, and the country that I loved. So no wonder than I am angry. Feminism has brought a social disaster on us. Feminism is destroying families, and the social fabric as a result. So there you go. I was personally hurt and I am angry, just like any other person in my situation would have been.'
Topics: Men's Activism News | Comments
Boomerang: False rape claims sometimes come back to hurt the false accusers
| Contributor: | False Rape Society [source] | |
| Date: | March 11, 2010 |
Some false accusers are arrested and jailed, and a small percentage are convicted and sent away for a sufficiently lengthy period that they won't forget the ordeal. This, of course, is not to suggest that false accusers in general are charged, convicted, or sentenced properly for their crimes. Not by a long stretch, and that is probably the most important change that needs to be brought about in the false rape milieu.
A more common way of punishing false accusers is the trend of news outlets to report their names, which we, of course, applaud. Again, this is not to suggest that false accusers are identified by news outlets with sufficient frequency. Not by a long stretch. Too many refuse to identify false accusers; some, inexplicably, insist on calling them "victims."
There is another type of harm to false accusers that is very, very rare, but it happens. Some false accusers are beaten and even murdered by the men they tried to destroy. While I am certain some of our readers will experience the momentary, unconscious inclination to applaud such acts of violence, we must reign in our passions lest we lower ourselves to the level of those man-hating monstrosities who applaud the imprisonment of males on the basis of rape accuasations without caring if the rape actually occurred.
While we must never, ever advocate violence against anyone for telling a rape lie, still, we must raise the question that is surely at the forefront of every reader's mind: what did society expect would happen?
When our justice system abandons an entire class of victim so that often the only "justice" or "mercy" they can hope for is their victimizers' recantations, is it at all surprising that a small percentage of victims would want to lash out at their victimizers? When the state refuses to do justice for a group of citizens and insists on treating them as collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape, when the state decides that the victimization of one class of citizens is more worthy of protection than another, is it at all surprising that a few of these forgotten, abandoned, ignored victims will take the law into their own hands to mete out the justice that the system refuses to provide?
Which got me to thinking about a strange case from last year. Mohammed Ali lost his self-control and launched into a frenzied stabbing attack, leaving Yasmina Larbi-Cherif, 22, and her sister Sabrina, 19, dead. He was charged and convicted of murder and was sentenced to prison for life.
But here is Ali's side of the story: Ali had been in an on-off sexual relationship with Yasmina since 2006 and impregnated her twice, but she terminated both pregnancies against his wishes. In February 2008, Ali was arrested after Yasmina made an allegation of rape against him. Ali claimed it was a false accusation. He then spent five months in custody before the case was dropped against him (she didn't want to pursue it).
If, indeed, it was a false claim, for reasons known only to Ali, he resumed his relationship with her. Then one night, Ali claimed he and Yasmina started talking about her pregnancy terminations -- and about the time he spent in prison. According to Ali, Yasmina started laughing. “The more I talked about it she just laughed. I did not know what to do. I just snapped,” he said. According to the news account: "Ali said he then picked up a knife from a sink and stabbed Yasmina in the back. She fell to the floor. He then heard [her sister] Sabrina come into the flat and felt a blow to his head. He then hit Sabrina in the face with his elbow before stabbing her. He said he then dragged both the women’s bodies into the bedroom, stripped them and put them on to the bed."
The judge rejected Ali's story and sentenced him to life in prison.
The thought crosses my mind that Ali's version of the facts might have been just too disturbing, too subversive, for the judge to believe. Regular readers of this blog will understand the rage Ali must have felt if his version of the facts were true.
But I can't help but read this as a cautionary tale. We do not condone violence or vigilante justice for false rape claims. But when women strip men of their liberty, their good names, their finances, and their dignity by falsely accusing them of rape, what more do those men have to live for? Is it a stretch to imagine that some of those men are going to snap and exact a justice that our legal system refuses to provide them?
What is astounding is that there aren't a lot more news stories where this sort of thing happens. The way to prevent it from happening is to start treating the falsely accused with the same respect, the same dignity, that we show to rape victims.
Topics: False Rape Society | Comments
Maine Newspaper’s Statement ‘Most Often Children Die at the Hands of Young Men’ Is False
| Contributor: | Glenn Sacks [source] | |
| Date: | March 11, 2010 |
Read this article on Glenn's Web site
Topics: Glenn Sacks |
Women Who Make Men Rape
| Contributor: | Rebuking Feminism [source] | |
| Date: | March 11, 2010 |
Did you know that over 98 per cent of the men in the United States today have never been convicted of any violent crime or served time in prison? That, even though the U.S. imprisons a higher percentage of its citizens than any other nation, over 98 per cent of our men have never been convicted of rape, child molestation, assault, battery, breaking and entering, or any kind of violence? And almost half of the men who do land in prison are convicted of non-violent crimes (usually drug possession)?
-(A thanks to Robert W.)
Many young men and women have no idea that men are good. I wish no hell like I endured in my Women's Studies class in college on any of my readers though I can say that the experience emboldened my spirit and made me think.
I set out to find the answer, to prove that I as a man am not a monster and that somehow marriage was beneficial to women. (Though marriage was not abolished as early feminists sought to do, they simply changed the laws to no fault divorce, default female child custody and the forceful transference of the the male provider role to women outside of marriage through alimony (woman support) and child support)Essentially the idea was to reduce female liabilities in marriage to zero, displace her liabilities upon the shoulders of the man making marriage obsolete & superfluous at best.
"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed... I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives… This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing. It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."
- Doris Lessing, 2001
So this is for you Doris and those little boys who were unable to defend themselves:
I had no idea that men fought wars to gain territory and resources and that male animals mark off territory and resources as well.. I realized that it was a beautiful thing that all the lines drawn between countries were drawn in the blood of men. I realized that women are the unappreciative benefactors of male male competition and the fruits of male labor and sacrifice. Then I discovered a little more about the male brain and reward circuits we have for doing so!
WOW upon further investigation I found that male chimpanzees conduct warfare as well. I even discovered that ants invade and attack other ant nests. May the most healthy, resourcefully successful and therefore numerically superior ant civilization win! Looking further I realized that many if not most male animals are born with weapons and horns and females were not and they used these weapons as well!
I realized that I was not alone, that I am not a horrible person like my Women's Studies class said I was (Said I was 2). I found that I was different, I was a man and this was ok! I learned that being a man was something that women did not understand and from the words of feminist science they did not accept, like or even hated.
What angered me most was the impending danger I felt to my love of women. Not only did I become emboldened by my need to defend myself but also by my need to defend my view of women. I became afraid of hating women and was not willing to accept this. Men's and Father's Rights was my way out, understanding myself as a man was my saving grace.. I was not so sure the other males in the class were able to save themselves... I wanted to save them to. I didn't know all the answers at the time but I knew that the body of academic knowledge that women thinkers had amassed about me was a lie.. You see, The class was called "The Psychology of Women" and was hosted in the Science wing of my college..
Naturally, thinking I was in a Science class at the time it blew me away that this is what modern science thinks about men.
Naturally, if the feminist saying "All men are potential rapists" was true
that could lead to the saying that "All women are potential prostitutes" as true. I refuse to believe such vitriol. I refuse to view humanity in such a light. I would like to champion my beloved fellow men and and beloved women to stand on a higher moral plain, a higher standard for intellectual discourse and understanding.
Again, this is for you Doris, thank you for defending the honor of men:
"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."
Source: The Canadian Children's Rights Council
http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx
Topics: Rebuking Feminism | Comments
Woman lies to keep husband from learning of affair
| Contributor: | False Rape Society [source] | |
| Date: | March 10, 2010 |
On Feb. 8, Marissa Ann Lovingood reportedly contacted the Murphy Police Department and said she was kidnapped and raped between 11:30 p.m. and midnight Feb. 7, Murphy Police Chief Justin Jacobs said.
Since the report was made, Lovingood allegedly told Murphy police officers she made up the story to keep her husband from learning about an affair she was having with a man from Graham County and explain why she was late getting home. She has been charged with making a false report to a law enforcement agency.
We are shocked and saddened that a woman would make up a rape to cover up an extramarital affair, especially since the abduction of Kristi Cornwell is still being investigated by local authorities.
These kind of knowingly false rape charges make it that much more difficult for real victims of sexual assault to be taken seriously and get the help they need and deserve.
Lovingood also reportedly told officers two teenage boys “raped” her. We can only imagine the lives that could have been ruined had her family sought “mountain” justice. Would two innocent teens walking down the street have paid the ultimate price for her false charges? Considering what happened after a shooting last year in Boiling Springs, you can’t be sure.
These kind of false allegations waste taxpayer money and police resources. It also sends an unnecessary fear through a community and damages the credibility of real rape victims.
We cannot allow making these kind of claims to go unpunished. Anyone who makes a false rape claim should face just as strict a penalty as other sex offenders.
Link: http://cherokeescout.com/articles/2010/03/02/opinions/doc4b8d6f698adf8394780723.txt
Topics: False Rape Society | Comments
Undeclared & Unconstitutional Wars
| Contributor: | Hawaiian Libertarian [source] | |
| Date: | March 10, 2010 |
So I'm in the midst of reading None Dare Call It Conspiracy, the aforementioned book in my last post, and I've come across something in Chapter 6: The Rockefellers and the Reds, that suddenly clicked a missing puzzle piece into place in my own mind.
One of the things I used to struggle with as a pro-War, Dubya voting RepubliNeo-Con, was the fact that even though I used to think the Iraq war was necessary, justified and righteous...I was always puzzled by Bush and the GOP refusing to put forth a motion on the floor of Congress to ask for an official declaration of war, as required by the US Constitution.
Of course, in hindsight, the fact that Dubya didn't bother to adhere to the Constitution is certainly not a big surprise, only now do I finally see the hidden picture within the picture, regarding the reason why our country has engaged in a number of military actions without that Constitutionally mandated declaration by congress: to declare war officially, would mean any American corporations or firms selling arms, and goods that can be used for military purposes, would have to immediately cease doing business with an officially declared enemy or be considered treasonous and subject to the harshest penalties under the law.
Is it starting to make a little more sense now?
From pp. 68-69 of None Dare Call It A Conspiracy (note that this book was published in 1971 - the Vietnam War was still ongoing, hence the present tense references):
On October 7, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson, a man who had appointed a C.F.R. {Council on Foreign Relations} member to virtually every strategic position in his administration, stated:"We intend to press for legislative authority to negotiate trade agreements which could extend most favored-nation tariff treatment to European Communist states. We will reduce export controls on East-West trade with respect to hundreds of on strategic items…"
The New York Times reported one week later on October 13, 1966:"The United States put into effect today one of President Johnson's proposals for stimulating East-West trade by removing restrictions on the export of more than four hundred commodities to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe…Among the categories from which items have been selected for export relaxation are vegetables, cereals, fodder, hides, crude and manufactured rubber, pulp and waste paper, textiles and textile fibers, crude fertilizers, metal ores and scrap, petroleum, gas and derivatives, chemical compounds and products, dyes, medicines, fireworks, detergents, plastic materials, metal products and machinery, and scientific and professional instruments."
Virtually every one of these "non-strategic" items has a direct or indirect use in war.
Later, items such as rifle cleaning compounds, electronic equipment and radar were declared "non-strategic" and cleared for shipment to the Soviet Union. The trick simply is to declare almost everything "non-strategic." A machine gun is still considered strategic and therefore may not be shipped to the Communists, but the tools for making the machine guns and the chemicals to propel the bullets have been declared "non-strategic."
Meanwhile, nearly 50,000 Americans have died in Vietnam. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese receive 85 percent of their war materials from Russia and the Soviet bloc nations. Since their economies are incapable of supporting a war, the Communist arm of the conspiracy needed help from the Finance Capitalist arm. The United States has been financing and equipping both sides of the terrible Vietnamese war, killing our own soldiers by proxy. Again, the landscape painters in the mass media have kept the American public from learning this provable fact.
Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers have been leaders in championing this bloody trade. On January 16, 1967, one of the most incredible articles ever to appear in a newspaper graced the front page of the Establishment's daily, the New York Times. Under the headline "Eaton Joins Rockefellers To Spur Trade With Reds" the article stated: "An alliance of family fortunes linking Wall Street and the Midwest is going to try to build economic bridges between the free world and Communist Europe. The International Basic Economy Corporation, controlled by the Rockefeller brothers, and Tower International, Inc., headed by Cyrus S. Eaton Jr., Cleveland financier, plan to cooperate in promoting trade between the Iron Curtain countries, including the Soviet Union…"
International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) is run by Richard Aldrich, grandson of Federal Reserve plotter Nelson Aldrich, and Rodman Rockefeller• (CFR), Rocky 5 son.
On October 20, 1969, IBEC announced that N M Rothschild & Sons of London had entered into partner ship with the firm.
Cyrus Eaton Jr. is the son of the notoriously pro Soviet Cyrus Eaton, who began his
career as secretary to John D. Rockefeller. It is believed that Eaton's rise to power in finance resulted from backing by his mentor. The agreement between Tower International and IBEC continues an old alliance. Although Eaton's name does not appear on the CFR's membership rolls, the Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953, found that Eaton was a secret member.
Among the "non-strategic" items which the Rockefeller Eaton axis is going to build for the Communists are ten rubber goods plants, including two synthetic rubber plants worth $200 million. Mr. Eaton explains in the Times article: "These people are setting up new automobile plants and know they have got to have tire factories." Under the Nixon Administration which, contrary to campaign promises, has multiplied trade with the Reds tenfold, American concerns are building the world's largest truck factory for the Communists. Trucks are necessary for a nation's war machine and truck factories can be converted to the production of tanks as was done during WWII.
The U. S. will provide the Soviets with both the facilities to build the trucks and the tires (or tank treads) for them to roll on.
In addition, the Rockefellers and Eatons are constructing a $50 million aluminum producing plant for the Reds Aluminum for jet planes is considered "non-strategic under Johnson-Nixon doctrine.
See how this works? Like the venerable USMC General Smedley Butler wrote, War is a Racket.
The US has been involved in 6 official "military engagements" since the last official declaration of War as required by the Constitution...or, as Wikipedia calls them: "Authorized by Congress."
What a neat little trick! So now our American based, military-industrial complex need not worry about "treason" while selling military wares to both the US taxpayer as well as the governments of those countries our congress has "authorized" our military to "engage!"
As a caption from a picture from None Dare Call It A Conspiracy points out:
The Rockefeller and Eaton families have now joined forces to build war production plants behind the Iron Curtain so that the Communists can become a bigger threat to U. S. survival. America spends $70 billion a year ostensibly on defense and then the Rockefellers build aluminum mills for the Communists. Only the absence of a formal declaration of war in Vietnam keeps the Eatons and Rockefellers from being actionable for treason. They have the blood of nearly 50,000 American servicemen on their hands.
Ahh, it's all so clear now.
Topics: Hawaiian Libertarian | Comments
India’s Upper House Passes Bill ‘Reserving’ 30% of Seats for Women
| Contributor: | Glenn Sacks [source] | |
| Date: | March 10, 2010 |
Read this article on Glenn's Web site
Topics: Glenn Sacks |
Little White Rape Lies
| Contributor: | False Rape Society [source] | |
| Date: | March 10, 2010 |
From the French, l'enfant terrible originally referred to a child who embarasses his or her elders by ill-considered speech or behaviour. A fitting label then, for those feminists who interrupt the discourse of those concerned about rape, in order to politicise and ideologise the issue; those who seek not justice and prevention of the crime, but the dissemination of violently anti-male propaganda, conflating 'all men' with a minority of rapists, and advocating for barbaric forms of retribution.
The effect of their words goes far beyond a mere faux pas. The following was written by one such enfant terrible, and can be taken as a 'smoking gun' of sorts; an indication of the kind of world these people are trying to create:
The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of non-consent . . . . As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished (by my calculation.) . . . . Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration.A comment, left by another unruly child on the same piece:
I think the central point that the dudes ‘don’t get’ is that the majority of [advocates of this bizarre proposal] genuinely don’t care if [the] proposal is ‘not fair’ to the hypothetical falsely accused rapist of the post-revolution future.Upon reading this, I temporarily lost the ability to care about women being raped, and I am sure that most others will feel the same. As I encounter more and more hate speech along these lines, as I inevitably will, those places inside me which care about sexual violence against women will gradually die off altogether. So far, they've taken one hell of a beating. The short-term disgust I feel at this vile proposal translates into apathy over the long term, and I have good reason to doubt that I am in any way unique in this regard.
But no matter how indifferent I may become to the plight of sexually abused women, there is one fundamental difference between myself and the bigots cited above. Under no circumstances do I believe that members of the opposite sex should be treated unjustly simply for being members of the opposite sex. One thing which feminists absolutely fail to grasp, and have always absolutely failed to grasp, is that there is a distinction to be made between one's emotions of the moment, and an unerring respect for the principles of justice. Perhaps their underdeveloped minds cannot entertain the dichotomy, or perhaps, living as they do through the flux of feelings, they only experience the former, the latter existing as an intellectual abstraction beyond their reach. Fear not, for I can present a recent example from the UK to illustrate exactly what I mean.
Jon Venables, who in 1993 committed (with accomplice Robert Thompson) the horrific and infamous murder of two-year-old James Bulger, is back in the news. Venables and Thompson, children themselves when they committed the murder, never spent a day in an adult prison; Venables is now facing charges for an undisclosed sexual offence. The more impulsive members of the public are, predictably, baying for his blood, and I have no doubts that if a mob could find him, he would meet a violent end at the hands of vigilante rule.
I am not using Venables as an example because I sympathise with him. On the contrary, I do not; and I would continue in my indifference towards him if he were torn to pieces by a crowd, and this is precisely the point. Despite my own personal feelings, or lack thereof, such action would still be wrong. It would be wrong for reasons articulated by sociologist Max Weber: the state must possess the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, else there can be no question of legitimacy at all. This is a point made as well by legal and political philosopher James Fitzjames Stephen. State-administered justice must stand in place of the private vengeance which would take place if we did not live in society. The dangers of allowing each to exact his or her own vengeance should be obvious: the right to legitimate violence would be bestowed upon each individual, a state of affairs which could no longer be considered 'society' at all. 'Right' in this instance is a misnomer, for rights are ultimately delivered at the point of force. If vigilantism is not forbidden, regardless of how justified it may seem to those cheering on the mob, social order is already lost, and the law has broken down. It becomes irrelevant, making it impossible to prosecute or convict any criminal; we would be in a Hobbesian state of nature, where the only law is that of the jungle. The strongest would rule, at the expense of the weaker, who would have no chance of securing justice or reparations for the transgressions made against them. Such a breakdown of the social order would unleash one thousand John Venables unto the world, all of whom would remain beyond the reach of justice and restraint; on the other hand, without proper legal procedures, misidentifications would result in the violent deaths of innocents. This would be the price of permitting vigilante action.
It is my contention that false rape accusations are vigilante action, of a more insidious sort than that which manifests as excited mobs. False accusations are vigilante piracy, using legal mechanisms which are designed to bring about justice, for the ends of personal vengeance and to deliberately bring about injustice. They are often committed by those women who feel 'wronged' in some way, although the men who are accused are typically innocent of any crime. It is to be expected that feminists will defend a woman's right to run to Big Daddy Government if she should feel the slightest upset, and that a man should pay the price out of all proportion. Plenty of behaviours which impact negatively on others are not, and should not, be crimes. This is apparently a sticking point for feminists, who wish to utilise the state to insure against any discomfort or misfortune whatsoever. But we must be clear: whatever 'wrong' a man may have done, a false accusation is a deeply serious crime, one which wrecks lives, tarnishes justice, perverts law and order, and leads us gradually to the breakdown which will unleash horrors onto the world that it should pain any balanced person to think of; perhaps even the vile proposal cited at the start, where innocent men would be routinely and systematically mutilated and imprisoned on the say-so of any vindictive female (or perhaps one who simply wants an alibi or attention). In keeping with the principles outlined above, although I have no sympathy whatsoever for false rape accusers, nor for those who call for the mutilation of innocent men, and would perhaps even take some amount of solace upon hearing the news that such people had been torn to pieces by an angry mob, this can never be allowed to happen. False rape accusers must be punished – and harshly – through the justice system. But even punishments delivered through the state must be subject to restrictions. Although far from perfect, the justice system has evolved in theory and practice over centuries, and there is much which must be preserved, given its effectiveness at delivering fair outcomes and reparations in other areas. Those who advocate for such brutal punishments as bodily mutilation seek to overturn hundreds of years of progress towards civilisation, and to return to the standards of an age in which women were drowned or burned alive, for being falsely accused of witchcraft. Indeed, the vile proposal above is not without precedent, but belongs to an age of barbarity which humanity has long since surpassed. Furthermore, it would be stupid to assume that legally-sanctioned physical torture would stop there. One should expect to see the return of iron maidens and other torture devices. One should expect that thieves – or indeed, alleged thieves – would have their hands removed in order to prevent them from stealing again. I assume that the person who wrote the cited proposal would not mind at all if she were to wake up one day in her utopia, to be faced with a court order that she is to be fitted with a scold's bridle. Since she endorses this kind of treatment, and her speech is surely troublesome, I can only assume that she would happily accept this as punishment for running her mouth.
But in 2010, I think it is fair to say that vile speech is not a matter for the criminal law. The unruly children, who cannot separate their subjective emotional states from an objective, grounded conception of justice, should simply be humiliated. They should be laughed at, scorned and shunned by all who believe that the law should serve all people, the best that it can, and should take every precaution to never punish one who is innocent. This is a matter more important than punishing the guilty. In the 1760s, the English jurist William Blackstone stated that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." A true principle of justice is this: the law cannot touch a hair on the head of an innocent, and this is more important than seeing any guilty person punished. This is not to say, of course, that the guilty should go unpunished. Every action must be taken to punish the guilty, restricted by the respect due to the liberty of those who have done no wrong. It is ironic, if sickening, that feminism, a movement and an ideology which so frequently touts its commitment to liberty, violates and desecrates the principle of respect for the freedom of innocent men. Who could seriously argue that the vile proposal above is any less authoritarian than the worst of patriarchies?
For those who do not care for justice at all, only for the goodies that their group may get – or for the evils delivered to another group, identified as their enemies – they have proved themselves unworthy of engaging in discourse on these matters. They are les enfants terribles, and will need to learn some manners before the rest of society can take them seriously. The kneejerk response to this is that disallowing unorthodox views at the adults' table is tantamount to restricting the discourse. True though this is, it is entirely justified, on the same grounds that we laugh off those whose contributions to discussions on immigration involve gas chambers and the same kind of sweeping generalisations. The analogy is apt, because to this type of feminist, men are as the Jews were to the Nazis. Nazi, like feminist, is a political identity adopted at will; man, like Jew, is an immutable fact of birth. Like the Nazis, this certain type of feminist wishes to maim or kill every member of that birth group, as though the individual members lack moral agency, and are all automatically guilty. (This begs the question, of course: if no man is a moral agent, how could any individual man be held accountable for any of his own actions? Feminism is metaphysically absurd, an emotional ideology forever in flux.)
To those who would deny this, I suggest that the misandry is so prevalent as to be invisible. The kind of language used – that it would be merely "unfortunate" for innocent men to be permanently mutilated – is echoed by a recent false rape case in which the false accuser, caught on secret video, lamented that it was "unfortunate" for two innocent men to now be sitting in prison on her lie, but that part of the lie was necessary for her to commit vigilante piracy against a third. In both cases, men's lives, their liberties, their identities, are merely instrumental for someone else's greater plan. Nothing indicates cultural misandry and hatred of the male more than this: the instrumentalisation of man, that he does not exist in his own right but for the use of another, and he may be thusly ruined for their sake.
The barbarisation of l'enfants terribles; vigilante piracy and the breakdown of justice; the instrumentalisation of man. This is the future we face when we allow the worst of criminal atrocities to be minimised and trivialised as little white rape lies.
Topics: False Rape Society | Comments
Quote of the day: false accusers need to be prosecuted to protect integrity of rape victims and because of the devastating effects of false allegations
| Contributor: | False Rape Society [source] | |
| Date: | March 10, 2010 |
"We will continue to bring prosecutions for attempting to pervert the course of justice in cases of false allegations of rape. Genuine rape victims need to know that we take their complaints extremely seriously and every attempt will be made to reveal evidence to support them. This case was not only brought to protect the integrity of rape victims but also to demonstrate the devastating effects false allegations can have."
Topics: False Rape Society | Comments
« Previous Articles Subsequent Articles »