Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Feminists Alleged False Accusations Against False Rape Society

The following was posted on False Rape Society which I prefer not to link to but since he is making specific allegations against feminists and includes me in his allegations I will address those allegations. This is the first half:


A comment popped up on Abyss2Hope by an anonymous person who mischaracterizes what we say and believe. This comment was not written by the blogger, but by some reader. Here is the comment:

"There's a blog called the "False Rape Society" that is so upsetting, so backward, that it makes you want to pull your hair out. Every single thing you say about what the rape appologists [sic] think about rape is absolutely true. I was so tired of hearing about "real" rapes (must be violent, must be caught on tape, must have witnesses). It is distressing that people think this way. Thank you for what you do."

My, oh, my, oh, my.

Whoever said that rape must be "violent"? What feminist ass did they pull that lie from? If a woman says "no," or if a man unreasonably believes she consented, it's rape, period. Whoever said rape must be caught on tape? Or must have witnesses?
FRS says he doesn't deny rapes and that rapes don't have to be "violent" but he wrote on Jan. 12:


Time after time we read of police practices where the male is arrested and only later do police bother to fully investigate and discover the falsehood. [...]

In less than 24 hours, we have posted no fewer than three stories where this point is well illustrated.

There was the alleged "victim" (that's how the accuser is described in the police blotter) who supposedly stopped resisting her husband's demands for sex because she was fearful. She had him arrested even though he denied forcing her to have sex. "Authorities booked the suspect on suspicion of spousal battery and spousal rape. Bail was set at $100,000." In "he said/she said" disputes, she wins.
FRS clearly positions this as a wrongful arrest. So in theory rapes don't have to be violent and don't need witnesses and in theory if a woman says no, it's rape, period. But in practice the theory is nowhere to be found.

The only basis for this positioning is the arrest despite the husband's denial, but a suspect's denial is normal whether the report is true or false so the presence of a denial is meaningless. Those who commit crimes have a strong motivator to lie. By saying she wins, FRS positions the man being booked as if it were the same as a conviction and makes the provably false claim that the police will always arrest a man accused of rape or domestic abuse by a woman.

A report of a man physically assaulting and then raping his wife is not a "he said/she said" dispute as FRS calls it, those are reports of crimes. FRS says he doesn't deny these crimes but here he refuses to refer to them accurately.

People who deny committing crimes are arrested all the time. This is in no way unusual even in cases where it is the alleged victim's word against the alleged criminal's. I followed the link to the crime report FRS found so troubling and noticed another crime report.
Police arrested a 21-year-old woman suspected of mugging a woman in July and stealing her purse. The victim had been at a friend’s house in the 500 block of Bath Street when the suspect grabbed her purse, ripping her dress strap in the process.

Another suspect pushed the victim’s friend to the ground, and the two subjects fled north. When the victim’s friend attempted to pursue them, an unidentified man confronted her with a knife and told her to back off.

The victim’s friend, well versed in jiu-jitsu, didn’t flinch and yelled after one of the suspects, whom she apparently recognized. Police obtained a description of the suspect and a possible first name.

On October 19, police set up a photo lineup and the victim identified a 21-year-old known Westside gang member as the suspect who stole her purse. The victim’s friend was uncooperative with the investigation.

On January 5, officers took the suspect into custody when she appeared for a probation appointment; authorities noted she had been convicted of grand theft with a gang enhancement. The 21-year-old denied involvement in the mugging, but admitted knowing the victim’s friend from junior high school.
If this had been a sexual assault case, I'm sure it too would have been featured by FRS as a wrongful arrest. The fact that the report uses the term victim rather than alleged victim or accuser and it is stated that the suspect grabbed the victim's purse would have been highlighted as an injustice. There is no mention of finding the victim's purse in the suspect's possession so apparently all they have is the victim's testimony.

Then there was the fact that the victim's friend became uncooperative and the police continued with the investigation and made an arrest based on the victim's testimony. I can't imagine that FRS wouldn't have made accusatory speculation about this alleged victim if this had been a sexual assault case.

However, FRS lets all that slide and may not have given any of it a second thought. "No injustice here, folks. Move along."

Here's part of the original story which FRS focused on as a "he said/she said dispute." It contains important details omitted from FRS's summary.

The victim told police that her husband began arguing with her earlier that day because he wanted sex and she declined. [this would be the "no" FRS says he believes in]

The 41-year-old suspect reportedly hit the victim six times to the back of the head and pushed her onto a couch. When she continued to decline his advances, he responded, “Shut the f— up; you’re my wife, you’ll do what I say.” The victim said she became fearful for her safety and stopped resisting. Authorities issued an emergency protective order against the suspect and took him into custody. The 41-year-old admitted to arguing with his wife, but denied hitting her or forcing her to have sex.

So we have a report with lack of consent, overt repeated violence and clear communication from the husband that he knows he doesn't have consent and will take what he wants without consent, but FRS is treating this like a confirmed false allegation.

This contradicts his denial to my commenter. FRS continues.
They have transmogrified me into a rape apologist -- by making up things from whole cloth. This is what passes for enlightened feminist thought in 2010: lies and misandry. And, of course, self-righteousness. Don't forget self-righteousness. Anyone who dares to speak up for innocent persons falsely accused of a terrible crime against women must hate women. To the true believers -- the hard core rape feminists -- I know that what we do here must seem to be misogyny because it doesn't advocate castrating or killing anyone who happens to be accused of rape. But fair-minded people recognize that our goals are far more modest: we do nothing more than advocate that the presumed innocent be treated as if we really did presume their innocence.

But, hey, if they like me, then I'm not doing my job.
FRS may not view himself as a rape apologist because he doesn't excuse any rape he is willing to acknowledge happened, but his position on how the criminal justice system should work openly favors rapists and openly harms rape victims all in the name of protecting the innocent. That's why he isn't trusted by feminists not because he speaks up for innocent persons falsely accused of a terrible crime against women.

He has no credible supporting evidence in the case where he spoke up for a man he positioned as an innocent person falsely accused and no apparent concern about whether he himself has made a false accusation against an assault and rape victim.

He makes a false accusation against me and other feminists by claiming that we advocate for castrating or killing all boys and men who are accused of rape. Since most of his followers aren't going to bother checking the credibility of his accusations some of them may repeat this false accusation as if it were proven fact based on 1 man's word alone.

Then he closes with a claim which gives the false impression that he advocates for nothing more than the legal presumption of innocence. This lie is most obvious when he writes about women who have not been convicted of any crime with the presumption that they are the true criminals.

He has distorted the meaning of the legal status of innocent until proven guilty into a tenet where nobody is allowed to believe rape and domestic violence victims unless or until those who raped or abused them are convicted.

He writes about wrongful charges but I have seen no acknowledgment from him that women have been falsely accused and wrongfully charged with committing a terrible crime against men. I guess women never classify as presumed innocent in FRS's eyes.

He seems to forget that if rape and domestic violence are prevented effectively and if all reports were investigated competently and thoroughly and no true cases were dismissed based on bigotry then a false allegation would be much harder to make and get away with.

"He said/she said" excuses for allowing rapists and abusers to get away with their crimes benefit all who are guilty including actual false accusers.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 9:40 AM   11 comments links to this post

11 Comments:

At January 20, 2010 10:04 PM, Blogger slwerner said...

Not at all – and I think you know this. The pint being made is that the alleged assailant/rapist was arrested on nothing more than the woman's word that he had committed the alleged crimes. There was never any claim that the man in question was actually innocent of the crimes alleged, but rather that he was summarily arrested, and assigned a $100,000 bond simply because his wife claimed he had beaten and raped her.

The False Rape Society (FRS) typically posts stories in which a rape claim has been shown to be false; thus, it is perhaps unfortunate that they chose to bring up this particular story to illustrate the point that women are nearly always believed (no supporting evidence necessary), and men are arrested without any sort of investigation. The post you refer to is rather out of character for the FRS, since it isn't about a situation in which a claim is known to be false – but even more so because it allows a dishonest blogger, like yourself, to “cherry-pick” that post out of so very many others to try to create a false impression, as you have done here.

Now, while there is a likelihood that the man being accused did assault and rape his wife. No one associated with the FRS denies such evil and criminal men exist. Yet, just because there exists a likelihood that a crime has actually occurred, there is no way for officers arriving on the scene to be sure. There is also a possibility that the woman was making a false claim in order to get her husband into serious trouble, for instance, to gain the upper-hand in her plans to divorce him.

In the item you refer to, it is mentioned that (and you quote):

”Time after time we read of police practices where the male is arrested and only later do police bother to fully investigate and discover the falsehood.
In less than 24 hours, we have posted no fewer than three stories where this point is well illustrated.”


I rather suspect you glanced at these other stories, including the one in which, in order to gain the upper-hand in a custody dispute, a woman made a false rape claim against the father of her children. The innocent man was arrested at his job – a move no doubt intended to cause him the maximum embarrassment and ruination of his reputation – based only on the woman's claims. It was only day's later that the woman's lie was investigated and found to be false. That's right, Marcella, woman lie about rape!

My wife has been a prosecutor for many years, and she's certainly no MRA. Yet, even before I'd ever heard of a Men's Rights Movement, she had often lamented about the number of women she (and her, typically feminist, fellow female prosecutors) observed filing clearly fictitious false domestic violence claims against husbands they were in the process of divorcing (although, she never encounter a single domestic rape claim. They are apparently extremely rare.). It was a blatant waste of the prosecutors time with the goal of personal gain and revenge, which angered numerous prosecutors, men and women, alike.

But, of course, I'm not likely to convince you. It's quite likely that your personal hatred of men runs so deep that even evidence of a man's being miles away at the time he's accused of raping a woman would not sway you that the claim was false. But, perhaps, your readers should take the time to actually see for themselves what the <a href="http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com”><b>False Rape Society</b></a> seeks to achieve – rather than simply take your deeply biased word for it.

 
At January 21, 2010 12:40 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

slwerner,

First, your credibility goes in the toilet when you make false accusations against me. I don't hate men and I've never claimed that women don't lie. People (yes men too) lie about being victims of all types of crimes, but in other types of crimes that reality is not used to baselessly disregard other crime reports.

When you mention evidence of an accused man being elsewhere you make the baseless assumption that this evidence is always credible and true. Many guilty defendants in many types of crimes claim to have been elsewhere. Witnesses can commit perjury to give a friend an alibi. This claim of an alibi alone doesn't mean a man has been wrongfully accused. Yet if I don't always believe these claims must be true when a man is accused of rape the only explanation you can come up with is that I have a personal hatred of men. Sloppy.

I in no way cherry picked from FRS to find an example which contradicted FRS's own claim. He frequently presumes women who reported rape and domestic violence to be guilty with no need for charges or a conviction. If the police say a woman filed a false report, she's guilty according to FRS even though this statement is not equal to proving anyone guilty or innocent. He makes this presumption even though women who have been accused of filing false reports and who were charged have been exonerated.

If prosecutors such as your wife can be wrong about a case when the man is innocent they can be wrong when a victim is believed to be lying. The more people repeat the unproven claims you make about the number of false domestic violence claims against husbands during divorces the quicker people will be to jump to this conclusion (very possibly in error) in order to avoid wasting prosecutors time.

How many of those cases you mention did your wife or another prosecutor prove in court? If you are going to make an specific allegation then you need to be willing to back it up with evidence.

Also, as I pointed out it is common for people to be arrested based on the testimony of the person who reported being a victim of a crime. One of the factors in whether to make an immediate arrest is the potential danger and domestic disputes are known to have high potential danger.

People not accused of sex crimes or domestic abuse are also arrested at their workplaces so your example is not proof that this location had any specific meaning.

 
At January 21, 2010 9:13 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

slwerner,

You wrote: "Yet, just because there exists a likelihood that a crime has actually occurred, there is no way for officers arriving on the scene to be sure. There is also a possibility that the woman was making a false claim in order to get her husband into serious trouble, for instance, to gain the upper-hand in her plans to divorce him."

You are practicing baseless speculation about a particular person without any supporting evidence -- something you claim to oppose. Not only are you practicing baseless speculation, you want the police to also make baseless speculations and then to treat those speculations as if they were credible evidence about this particular woman and about all women who report being victims of sexual or domestic violence.

This is called bigotry. And you are all for it.

There is always a possibility that when the police are called and any type of crime is reported that no crime occurred. This is true even when the alleged victim has a gunshot wound. By your standard if the police didn't witness a crime they can never make an immediate arrest. Yet FRS and other MRAs don't focus in on all those other cases where the police made immediate arrests. They are not potential wrongful arrests or if they are those other people wrongfully arrested don't matter enough to protect them from injustice.

 
At January 21, 2010 9:30 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

slwerner,

From your statements about men being arrested you clearly need a refresher on the definition of probable cause.

From lectlaw.com: "When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears."

What you and FRS are demanding either disregards probable cause or you don't think there is any public good in investigating rapes and domestic assaults.

 
At January 21, 2010 10:10 AM, Blogger slwerner said...

Marcella - "You are practicing baseless speculation about a particular person without any supporting evidence -- something you claim to oppose."

Actually, I proposed an alternate theory. I never claimed to have any way of knowing if it were true or not. I was merely grieving an example that there might be something else to be considered. I even gave an example of another FRS post (which, in your “cherry-picking” – yes, you most certainly did - you chose to ignore) regarding a woman specifically using a false rape claim in an attempt to gain the upper-hand in a custody dispute (so, yes, that sort of thing does happen).

But, since you point out my "error" in speculating about another person without any supporting evidence, I did notice that the very next paragraph, supposing something about me (with supporting evidence) read:


"This is called bigotry. And you are all for it."

Brings up another word - hypocrisy.

Marcella - ” - From your statements about men being arrested you clearly need a refresher on the definition of probable cause.”

Yes, I understand probable cause. I even understand the concern about protecting possible victims from further harm. Now, there may be extenuating factors in the story that you did want to share with your readers (a history of domestic violence, etc.), but we are not told of any. Thus, $100,000 bond seems excessive – and suggests(strongly) that the man in questing is being presumed guilty. This (barring other factors) goes way beyond the intent of probable cause.

The bigger point is that, in many cases, women use this to their advantage, knowing that if they make any claim, the Police will feel compelled to act in her interest. Just look at the story you didn’t want to relate to your readers. A woman claimed she was raped, and the accused man was arrested at his place of work.

Marcella (speaking of one of two editors at FRS - ” He frequently presumes women who reported rape and domestic violence to be guilty with no need for charges or a conviction.”

No! flat out, no! As I mention before, most of the stories they cover involve instance where it has become known that the accusations were false (or, at least highly suspicious). This is why I suggested that the one and only example you would chose to try to discredit them was, in fact, “cherry-picked”. And, as to evidence of the accused be elsewhere, far removed for the alleged crime scene; such evidence often involves video recording and witness testimony from numerous others – as in this other recent story, which also seems to have escaped your attention. [No “cherry-picking” – Yeah, right!]

 
At January 21, 2010 10:41 AM, Blogger slwerner said...

Marcella - ”What you and FRS are demanding either disregards probable cause or you don't think there is any public good in investigating rapes and domestic assaults.”

(Forgot to include this.)

This is simply not true.

If you considered more of the stories covered at FRS, it would be apparent that what is called for is through investigations, as opposed to relying solely on the word of an accuser – and le the chips fall where they may, with those who do rape getting the punishments they deserve.

The point is to not “rush to judgment” and summarily arrest any and every guy who happens to be accused. Again, the story you chose to selectively focus on was (admittedly) not a very good example of what FRS stands for.

The FRS position is that, when there is not particular need to arrest the accused, do the investigating first. This is the normal case, even for serious crimes like murder. And, where the evidence doesn’t support the crime having been committed, don’t proceed, Mike Nifong-style, with needlessly ruining the reputations, careers, families, and even the very lives of men (and even some women).

That seems a very reasonable request. Yet, apparently, you take some umbrage with such a view. Why else would you seek to smear the FRS over one single suspect example, when you clearly have every opportunity to investigate much more of what is proffered by the site?

I may be jumping to conclusions, but, it seems to “track” rather well that women (feminists) who cannot find any empathy with the plights of men who are ruined by false rape allegations, do tend to be of the man-hating gender-feminist ilk.

I admit I should have not automatically supposed this of you.

Perhaps I just encountered too many women who dismissively ignore the plights of men, with attitudes suggesting that it is “Okay” that innocent men suffer, supposedly because “men have been raping for thousands of years”. So, if innocent men suffer, they are just the deserving proxies for actual historical

 
At January 21, 2010 11:12 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

slwerner,

An alternate theory is not evidence. It is speculation. Citing another case with different evidence and seeking to have the evidence in that case trump the evidence in all other cases where there is no evidence that the alleged victim is lying is bigotry. You not only practice this yourself you want all investigators and all prosecutors to practice this bigotry as well.

If you do understand probable cause, you are choosing to disregard it. The amount of the bond is not a legal presumption of guilt so please don't expect me to accept this false claim. If this bond is excessive his attorney has the right to challenge it as such. This happens in many types of cases.

When you write, "The bigger point is that, in many cases, women use this to their advantage ..." you are just showing why you are bigoted which is the opposite of disproving that you are bigoted.

You are wrong that FRS doesn't presume women to be guilty. Every reference to women who haven't been convicted which describes them as false accusers rather than as alleged false accusers is a presumption of guilt. This is a concept FRS clearly gets when it becomes known that a man who hasn't been convicted is guilty of rape or domestic violence or the suspect's denials are highly suspicious.

 
At January 21, 2010 12:16 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

slwerner, in response to your 2nd follow up comment:

I have considered more of the stories at FRS and I see consistent anti-woman bigotry and a consistent demand that the criminal justice system operate based on this bigotry.

No thorough investigation is needed to speculate that girls and women who report being victims are cold-blooded liars and should be treated as being non-credible despite there being no evidence that they aren't credible.

Immediate arrests are made in all types of cases which you again ignore in order to spin all immediate arrests of men charged with domestic violence or sexual violence to be wrongful arrests.

You say the police shouldn't summarily arrest any and every guy who happens to be accused which ignores the verifiable fact that the police do not summarily arrest any and every guy who happens to be accused. You read one report of one arrest and use that to support and promote a provably false claim.

You have no evidence that there wasn't a need to immediately arrest the man accused by his wife. Yet you make this claim of fact anyway. This is a "rush to judgment" something you claim to be against.

If I don't agree with your rush to judgment then I allegedly don't support thorough and ethical investigations. That's a false conclusion.

What you see as a disregard for innocent men is instead a backlash against bigotry, false claims and a backlash against specific harmful actions FRS and other MRAs support in the name of protecting the innocent.

Many times people who demand empathy for the plight of men who have been falsely accused, or who claim to be falsely accused, show a total lack of empathy themselves, but that's okay because those they don't empathize with might be false accusers or they are classified as man-hating gender-feminists.

You seem to dismissively ignore the plights of women, with attitudes suggesting that it is "Okay" that innocent women suffer, supposedly because "women have been making false accusations for thousands of years". So, if innocent women suffer, they are just the deserving proxies for actual false accusers.

It is easier for you and others who share your bigotry to dismiss those who disagree with you and do not trust you or your motives or who are angry over false claims you make or support as being man haters.

 
At January 21, 2010 12:52 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

slwerner, you are repeating yourself and you are making more false allegations against me based on something I'm not saying. Actual evidence seems optional when you are the one making an allegation.

You ask in 1 of the comments I won't be letting through, "why are women ever believed when they say they've been raped?" The answer is: For the same reason men are believed when they say they've been the victims of a crime.

Yet you answer that women who report rape are only believed because of baseless assumptions and bigotry.

I don't believe you would want all men crime victims to be treated in the way you want women who are victims of sexual or domestic violence to be treated.

 
At January 23, 2010 4:37 PM, Blogger SKM said...

I'm not sure who slwerner thinks he's fooling. Slwerner, you are underestimating your audience's intelligence--that's a fatal error.

 
At February 05, 2010 10:58 PM, Blogger Rj said...

...furthermore:

There is also a possibility that the woman was making a false claim in order to get her husband into serious trouble, for instance, to gain the upper-hand in her plans to divorce him.

This is completely false. People who work in this industry know that d.v. victims get the opposite of the upper-hand in a divorce case...in fact, they get a back-hand.

But now I see how things operate: MRAs/FRs repeat things over and over and this trickles through society. No evidence required, only belief...funny, because that's what they say about feminists.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home