RADAR ALERT: Beyond Duke: About Half Of All Rape Allegations Are False

"Oh Lordie me..this will keep women who have actually been raped, from coming forward!"

Oh I see, in order to make all women feel comfortable about reporting rape, we should unquestioningly believe the alleged victim, bypass the justice system and the presumption of innocence, and allow tens of thousands of innocent guys' lives to be ruined. Let's legislate comfort for women, in this area too. We must cater to their whims.

-ax

Ax, anytime someone brings up that arguement with me, I just say, "You don't like the idea of being at risk when crying rape? Well I don't like the idea of being at risk of false accusations at any given time."

"Let's legislate comfort for women, in this area too. We must cater to their whims."

To late. In the city I was falsely accused in - which is a small city so bigger centers would have even better - "rape" and child victims do not go to the police station to file claims. Once the allegation comes to police attention - more often then not through a 3rd party like a doctor or counselor - the victim is invited to another building downtown where the police force leases 2 floors specifically for the purpose of making victims comfortable.

The myth goes that victims feel stigmatized going to police stations so they get to go to a building with banks logo on top where they are greeted to conditions resembling a business class hotel for adult victims on one floor or a child's dream play land on the other floor for victims under 16.

The only thing unusual about these floors that would tip anyone off that these are not your ordinary office floors is that when you get off the elevator there is a hallway, two cameras watching you and a door with biometric security that you must be allowed to pass through. Victims must bring ID with them to hold up to the camera for their appointment.

I got the opportunity to deliver some paperwork to this building while I was waiting for trail. It was the nicest looking office space I have ever seen and I have been in some high end office suites.

Comfort is king and no expense shall be spared for victims.

If they can get put up in a place like this, that's another reason to make false accusations..just three words ("he raped me"), and they can stay at the Ritz. An especially good deal for the homeless or destitute ones.

-ax

lie about rape claims they aren't concerned. Plus, victims of childhood abuse by a man or women who've endured sexual abuse again by a man, in modern view deserve a free pass and nothing is to good for them since they suffered such a horrible ordeal.

These places are not shelters. They are police facilities. Just done up to look like a high end business suites - minus beds - or kids fantasy land depending on who the victim is. Women and kids don't get to stay there. They are for interviews, identifications, and statements with police. Just intended to avoid the "trauma" of having to walk into a police station to tell their story. They do have on site trauma counseling and legal advisers though who are not police but funded by tax dollars who can make shelter arrangements though.

Your point is still very valid though. Even though they only get to visit places like that maybe a dozen times while their case works its way through the system, it still does nothing to deter and could in fact encourage false accusations. They have made the experience of filing a rape claim more akin to being named the new branch manager of the bank who's name is atop the office tower then filing a police report. Everyone there caters to the victim and there is no need to visit any other place as the Crown attorney meets you there, the shelter coordinator is there, there is emergency trauma counselors there if recounting your tale of horror is to much etc...

When I had to go there to deliver some papers to the detective in charge of my case I had to wait for them to call me because I was not allowed to be there when there was any victims there because the place is not for those falsely accused. I also had to go to the regular police station first and had to have two uniformed officers escort me to the other facility a couple blocks away because they wouldn't even let me in otherwise.

-although the last paragraph of your post is somewhat confusing, it is nevertheless obvious that the crime of rape has been elevated to such a sky-high status, that it not only abuses the judicial system and the rights of the defendant but apparently also costs the taxpayers big bucks. Too bad they are paying for a discriminatory system, which let's murderous women go free, while at the same time it persecutes men whole-heartedly at the mere suggestion that a rape may have occurred.

--ax

The ultra-hateful feminist pig, Wendy Murphy, has earned a place as regular commentator on CNN Headline News (I saw it just now)..this after it became well-known, that she was guilty of inventing and spreading false information during the Duke case.

-ax

It saddens me to read remarks like "whiney fem-bitch" and "ultra hateful feminist pig".

You don't agree with their agenda- fine. The extra venom makes you look like a reactionary fool who wants to repeal the 19th ammendment.

Not all feminists are manipulative or self-serving, some may just be unaware of blind spots (that you will close their minds to) and some might be on your side if you let them. Me too. Why don't you stop making personal attacks or caricaturing, and give some good words for strong, independent women who have open minds.

"I will be saddened if this book is misused to attack the legitimate issues of the women's movement" -Warren Farrell in the Myth of male power

And I agree with virtually everything he says including your excerpt. But we are not writing a book, we are not politicians, we are just pissed-off MRA's who HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PISSED, and we are free to rant on this board, just as you are free to be an honorary woman and post your opinions here. Perhaps you are threatened by my direct approach of speaking. Too bad. (Besides some of it is tongue-in-cheek, which most of the guys who know me here are aware of).

There are some good feminists like Wendy McElroy. Unfortunately the majority are entitlement princesses at best; but the real ones to worry about are ideological feminist pigs like Kim Gandy, Catherine McKinnon and Carol Gilligan, and others. You should read "Spreading Misandry", or even better, "Legalizing Misandry"; then you will see how much destruction has been wrought by this branch of feminism - how much hate legislation has been created; affirmative action for women in certain areas but none for men where it is needed; the exclusive focus on "girl's crisis" in math and science education, while boys are behind in virtually every other subject, and getting next to nothing in funding and programs (see "The War Against Boys"); the equally exclusive focus on women's health, resulting in no less than McKinnon et. al. having blood on their hands (that's right..that's what I said) regarding the decline of mens health; and too many others to list here.

Since you seem to be a proponent of women's rights, let me ask you this: would you yourself look back and say, "it was wrong for those women protesting in the 60's and 70's, to get angry and call men 'chauvinist pigs' "? Did you raise that objection then? I can hear you saying, "well..that was different" even now.

Would you yourself look back at every successful movement for social change (which is what we MRA's are engaged in), and say what is hate and what isn't, what is going too far when anger is justified; would you question the right to free speech in that context? I think not, seeing as how you seem to have a liberal outlook (and no, I am not a conservative).

One thing you might not be remembering from Farrell's books, is the concept of walking a mile in someone else's moccassins. Ok, here's some moccassins, try 'em on: one of us on this board, might be a dad who has been denied the right to see his kids grow up, and so has a right to be angry. One of us might be someone who had been falsely accused of rape and spent 7 years in jail with his anus being torn up, and so has a right to be angry. One of us might have been beaten, bitten and stabbed by his "intimate" partner over a several-year period, only to be turned away from DV shelters because he is considered a threat to the current tenants there. He too has a right to be angry.

Some people have politically correct anger. I don't. You are free not to read my posts, they all start with "axolotl" so are easy to weed out.

-ax

patrick, nobody is claiming that there aren't legitimate issues facing women, or that all women are closed-minded, hateful sexists. We're claiming that there are legitimate issues facing men as well but instead of the enlightened response women inevitably receive to their complaints we're constantly shamed into silence by feminists and men like yourself. The only people talking about repealing the 19th amendment around here are trolls.

Feminists have their language. We have ours.

The person being referred to as an "ultra hateful feminist pig" IS a sexist pig according to the feminists own definition thereof. She IS a feminist. Her hate IS particularly egregious. Therefore as distasteful as you and I might find the title "ultra hateful feminist pig", it IS accurate in every respect.

Why don't you go pester some man-hating misandrists about the constant stream of insults, ad hominem attacks and venom coming from them for the past 40 or 50 years? We've been putting up with it in silence for decades and while I disagree with the idea of fighting fire with fire in this case, I don't have the slightest regret about how others here refer to misandric hatemongers. We're equally entitled to be as or more angry than feminists ever were. I guarantee you that we're just as worried about what feminists think of us as they are about what we think of them.

Here in 2007, what exactly are the legitimate issues facing women?

Sure, there are problems that primarily hit women, such as breast cancer, but then breast cancer research is funded at a rate higher than any medical problem except AIDS. Likewise, the percentage of women in high-paced positions such as CEO is relatively small, but this is due to choice (and one can easily argue that it is a benefit, not a problem, that fewer women feel compelled to work 80 hours a week).

So what exactly are the legitimate issues facing women?

Just to add to your point, women haven't been seeking CEO positions for very long - the average CEO has been climbing the corporate ladder for 25 years before making it to that level. But women already hold CEO positions in 11% of the US fortune 500 companies. Given the fact that now there are MANY more women in business then there were 25 years ago, it is expected that the number of female CEOs will rise dramatically over the next decade or so.

Like so many things feminists still bitch incessantly about, the victory was won decades ago. It takes time for the fruits of the war to become evident though and feminists are all about instant gratification so if they don't see the benefits instantly it's not good enough for them. CEOs are not born, they have decades of experience to acquire before taking the reigns of a big company. There is no consistency or discrimination against women, it's simply that getting to be the CEO of HP or Pepsico is not as easy as showing up and getting hired at your local MacDonald's.

So the fact that breast cancer is well funded means it isn't an "issue" for women? Fatherhood and prostate cancer "primarily hit" men. Are they "legitimate issues"? If breast cancer isn't a legitimate issue for women, prostate cancer isn't a legitimate issue for men.

Just as there are male-only issues there are female-only issues shawn. They're entitled to lobby for political redress the same way we are. An issue doesn't have to be political to be valid, nor does an issue have to be valid in order to be political. The fact that more of our issues are valid while more of the women's issues are political still doesn't change the fact that some women's issues are valid, even if it does indicate that our cause is somewhat more rooted in justice.

I agree with you that women really are running out of things to complain about (and as a result they're making things up to justify continuous complaining), but there are still things that concern women far more than they concern us. If you want a list, go ask a woman or a feminist. Personally I wouldn't bother - you'd be asking a woman what she wants, which always has and always will be a very bad idea.

Consider Hillary Clinton's deliberate misuse of the wage gap mythology - the fact that something can be so easily exploited by a politician indicates clearly to me that the "something" being exploited is purely political and has no basis in reality.

That fact that many "women's issues" are purely political causes based on faulty statistics or outright myths is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that there are still issues that women are very concerned about. Hence my original comment. But thanks to you I now have to apologize to patrick - some people around here ARE claiming there are no legitimate issues facing women.

RandomMan. I asked a simple question. Today, what exactly are the legitimate issues facing women? You provided a long response, but didn't provide an answer.

What is it that makes something a womens issue? Traffic accidents kill thousands of women each year (about half of breast cancer deaths). Are traffic accidents a womens issue? Most people would say no. But shouldn't women be just as concerned (or half as concerned) about traffic accidents as they are about breast cancer?

Several hundred men die of breast cancer each year (does that make it a mens issue?). If the number of male deaths suddenly increased so that they equaled the number of female deaths, would that mean that breast cancer is no longer a womens issue even though the female impact has not changed?

I'd argue that a womens issue, or a mens issue, is something that unfairly impacts the given group because of their sex. More specifically, it is the response to the event. For example, DV is a mens issue not because men are as likely to be victims as women, but because society ignores male victims simply because they are men.

So what are the legitimate womens issues in the United States today? If it makes you feel better, how has society responded to these issues?

You're not really saying that there are not women's issues, you are saying that society is well aware of pretty much all women's issues and is at least making some kind of effort to address the issue for each and every single one of the almost infinite list of things that women frequently sight as their issues.

But you logic is flawed if you think that an issue is no longer an issue because people have acknowledged its existence and are taking steps to address it. It's still an issue even if it's being addressed.

The war in Iraq is still an issue despite the fact that soldiers are fighting and dying to resolve it. Even when we bring them home it will still be an issue.

Ford and GM both have turn around plans in place and are acting them out as fast as they can but their financial situation is still an issue. Even when they get back to profitability finances will still be an issue because they have to stay profitable and not slip back to the verge of collapse again.

There are women's issues, you can't deny that.

All you are saying is that men's issues are more pressing at this time then women's issues because no one is doing a damn thing about them (MRAs not withstanding).

This site needs a forum, so comments don't get lost under a particular story.

Anyone complaining about female entitlement and misandry need only look a little farther than your own backyard. Most women in the world (the 3rd world especially) have a lot of catching up to do, to be where American women were 100 years ago.

You can also ask how many women hold powerful political offices. (I'm aware of the many levels to that, like how most men have to give up free will to a system to get anywhere inside it.)

Spreading venom and ranting against feminist pigs here, a place dedicated to your opinions, looks bad. I know there's plenty to be mad about, but why not argue reasonably and keep more of an open mind, otherwise you'll get ignored.

I get how men can be mistreated and kicked when they're down with words like patriarchy, I have had it with that too. I could tell stories about abusive women using the system against me when I was a kid, but I'm not going to reply to misandry with misogyny.

I'm not sure you guys mean the same thing by the word "issues". For example, breast cancer is an health issue for women, sure, but they should not make a political issue out of it. Nothing wrong with starting a donation fund for example, but advocating for legislation for special entitlement, is going overboard. After all, every health issue is "unique", just as every crime is unique (and therefore rape should not have the exalted status that it does).

-ax

I don't hate women as a group, I just "hate" certain individual women, for example feminist pigs such as Wendy Murphy and Kim Gandy. The word "hate" is being used in two almost totally different senses here. (Note that the distiction was blurred by early feminists, who maintained that ALL men were chauvinist pigs).

So in light of this, are you asking me to have an "open mind" to the two women mentioned above, for example?? Sorry, everyone draws the line somewhere, and I refuse to accomadate women who hate men as a class, who spread this hatred, and who advocate for corresponding hate legislation. It is not incumbent upon me to empathize with their point of view.

-ax

...just as soon as they are elected to them. Women control the majority of the votes in every single society with universal suffrage. Only a feminist could believe that women are somehow being "discriminated" against when they aren't voted into office. As soon as the majority of voters feel a woman is qualified to hold office (hating men and using feminist myths won't do it as Hillary Clinton is about to discover), she'll be elected. That's how a democracy works.

The fact that women in the third world are not treated according to modern, western, feminized norms means that western men should suffer at the hands of the most privileged class of human beings ever to walk the Earth? How does misandry and the mistreatment of men in the west help women in the third world? It doesn't. But it certainly gives western women a cheap thrill and unearned gender privileges. Western feminists LOVE to hijack the suffering of women far far away (who they will never lift a finger to help) in order to gain more power and privilege for themselves. They also attempt to over-identify with the suffering of various racial minorities (particularly natives). It's blatant hypocrisy and political gamesmanship of the highest order and you're happily engaging in it on their behalf. Yes, I feel terrible that women are mistreated in the third world. No, I'm not going to try and use those women's plights to further my own political agenda at home as you and the feminists are doing.

We should love the ignorant misandrists who hate us? Turn the other cheek and "take it like a man"? I don't think so. Do you patrol the members-only, heavily-censored feminist hate forums insisting that they be polite when they assassinate and malign men? I doubt it.

Try selling your ideas at a NOW meeting. You won't get far with them here. That being said patrick I agree that hate won't do anyone any good and that it just gives our enemies an excuse to engage in more hate, so I will try to minimize the misogyny in my reactions to misandry (I usually do, but sometimes anger gets the better of me).

But there's far, far more to this than simply minimizing hate.

The fact that we're angry is nothing to be ashamed of. Just as we're expected to be silent when we're raped or beaten or sentenced to debtors prisons or separated from our children or when our genitals are mutilated to repress our sexuality and start the process of enslaving us, we're expected to be polite and "man up" when we're abused and insulted. I say NO MORE. I will NOT be silenced by female shaming tactics or the onerous and undeserved obligations of chivalry. Women deserve no more and no less than we do, and I do not care that those who hate me are offended by my choice of words. Men have been denied the right to have and express powerful emotions and needs (political or personal) for far, far too long, and I will NOT listen to you, the government, feminists or anyone else telling me that I should "man up" and be silent or polite about it. Men have been denied their own voice for far too long, and you'll just have to live with the fact that we're still adjusting to having a voice whether women like it or not. For the first time in human history some men are discovering that they are allowed to think of and for themselves, exclusive of the needs of women and children. Ironically, we do owe a very small debt of gratitude to earlier feminism for making this possible. Of course, this new and inconvenient reality deeply troubles many women after thousands of years of manipulating men to suit their needs, but that's just too damned bad.

So stop telling us to be polite. It's going to take time for men to hone their political skills. Your insistence that we abide by the old, female-defined rules of masculinity is an ugly echo of thousands of years of men being told by women what masculinity means, and it's deeply offensive to me on a personal level. I understand that this may not be your motive, but that's what I'm hearing.

Deleted

Warren Farrell is very good about criticising ideas without attacking the people holding them, in his books at least. He talks about equal partnership not throwing out the enemy. It's why he's convincing and certain other people aren't.

For example:

Farrell points out that false rape accusations hurt men, and also families, and the credibility of women who really are victims. Here, there is only talk about evil lying women, none about good women or the place they should have in your scheme of things. No partnership, just "blah blah feminist pigs."

I don't do that. It's why I can have a conversation about male issues between me and 2 female lawyer friends (one of whom is a public defender who deals with bogus accusations sometimes, and another who buys the whole bag of feminism.) They were friends with each other before me, yet the public defender will take my side instead of 2 of them ganging up on me. It stays polite and I get to have my say.

Deleted

"Warren Farrell is very good about criticising ideas without attacking the people holding them, in his books at least. He talks about equal partnership not throwing out the enemy. It's why he's convincing and certain other people aren't."

Ok, that's great for Farrell and his millions of readers, but why do you hold us to his standards? After all, he is an author of best-selling books, whereas we are the low-level activists. Besides, if you found Farrell convincing, why are you at odds with us? You seem to be focusing on the wording we use, and not on the substance of what we say.

Also, you must not have been watching this site for too long - we are not just "blah blah blah feminist pigs". Have you ever checked any of the links on the left-hand side of the page? Have you looked at what RADAR is doing??

Some people do go through life being politically correct and a "nice guy", which is fine, but men have valid reasons to be angry these days, and we are entitled to express our anger. This board does not exist to create friends as such.

-ax

"This board does not exist to create friends as such."

I wish you wouldn't make me (and the rest) look bad for supporting various men's issues.

Farrell's popularity suffered a great deal when he started supporting those. http://archive.salon.com/mwt/mothers/2001/02/06/farrell/index.html

I have not made any ad hominem attacks. Here's a handy definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

To do that I would have to be commenting on Ax's bad breath or Randomman's italian parents or something like that. All I'm talking about is the substance of your arguments- the venom and personal attacks.

I still don't understand why breast cancer is a womens issue and traffic accidents are not. Within a factor of two, they kill the same number of women each year. Shouldn't women be just as concerned about traffic accidents as they are about breast cancer? Shouldn't there be colored ribbons for all the women killed in traffic accidents, so society can show that it cares? But the point isn't to argue about the definition of the word "issues."

Let me ask a better framed question.

Are there any areas today where women, as a group, are not being treated fairly? There are countless areas where men are not being treated fairly. Are there any for women?

I will not argue with you about how we argue. That's a waste of time. Would I like to see less hate in the world and around here? Yes. Do I understand where it comes from and support the absolute right of men to voice their opinions? Yes. Do I care what our opponents political hand-puppets think of our approach? Not really. Do I care what feminists think of it? Not at all. They've been spewing hate for half a century. As ye sow, and all that. As I mentioned, please look up the suffragettes and then get back to me about methods in gender-based political activism.

Incidentally, those of you who think 'we make you look bad' make us look bad which is of course your mission here. You're an apologist for men who are non-compliant enough to be asking for political redress (something women have done for centuries), and we're just as entitled to be in this fight as you are. Of course, I'm guessing that in your opinion only certain men will actually deserve men's rights when the fight is won, and those of us who choose not to follow your precise methodology can get stuffed, right?

Goodbye.

"please look up the suffragettes and then get back to me about methods in gender-based political activism"

Haha, because ranting about "whiny fem-bitches" on the internet is such powerful activism. You need nobody else to make you look bad.

It's too bad that I have yet to find an active site on the internet that can represent men's issues with objective news, and a forum for informed, progressive comments about it. It's the same as Freep. I wouldn't link to here for info in a debate with any female friend of mine.

Do women even exist to you?

You are weak. Losers have been trolling this board for years, it has not made any difference. Goodbye.

-ax

.

You wouldn't link to us because you are not an anti-feminist, nor an MRA. You are just a troll. Patrick huh, do you go by Patty in real life by chance?

Here we have feminists telling us not to hate, now that's rich.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com