"And people are sure to suggest that Leckle sue these women, but first, is it likely that extortionist lowlifes like these have any money? And for an apparently very decent guy like this, is there really any way he can get back what he lost? "

They could be required by a consent decree to make a recantation and an apology and post it to Youtube.

Some judges have imposed shaming punshments on offenders. Maybe a judge could sentence them to having LIAR tattooed on their cheeks.

I'm on board but what it the burden of proof for false allegations vs him getting lucky? Is the fact that he was found not guilty sufficient to prove that she lied?

Any legal eagles out there? Does he not have a claim against the government?

These two women did not prosecute him, the government did. If he has been declared innocent, surely the government has a responsibility to compensate him for damages suffered?

- i am, but am unfamiliar with canadian law.

I'm really sick of hearing cases like this. Amy posts one every few months or so, but it happens way WAY more than that. Stories like this drove me to go into law.

All this does, aside from financially and emotionally ruin a person false accused (and, it can be man or woman, though women tend to do it significantly more often than men), it keeps men from talking to women. My own policy is to avoid private conversations with women in the workplace. I've got other friends who follow the same general rule.

if anyone cares to know why the rate of marriage is decreasing in this country, I attribute it to the unpredictability of doing anything with a woman; one can't know how batshit crazy they're going to be. Indeed, men are going their own way. It's just a simple matter of self-preservation.

"Indeed, men are going their own way. It's just a simple matter of self-preservation."

Yeah, I hear you --- after my last crazy girlfriend threatened to call the police on me for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever (totally out of the blue and just after she had earlier been friendly to me), I've now all but given up on women - they're honestly just not worth the trouble (and frankly, I'm much happier now, just doing my own thing). She would have had nothing legitimate to tell the police, so I had to assume she was gearing up to cook up something completely phony.

Worst is that half the people I told automatically assumed I did something wrong and looked at me like I was guilty and said "surely I must've done 'something'" - nope, sorry, I'm about the most harmless guy you'll ever meet.

Others told me "just ignore her, she won't do it". But she made a threat, and when someone threatens you, you *have to* take it seriously if you're unsure. She could've done great harm to my business if she'd gone ahead and cooked up some phony charges and had me arrested (never mind the fear and problems of spending time in a third-world jail).

Before this, it would've been difficult for me to believe that women (even those you thought you trusted) might do things like that. Now it's easy for me to believe.

How insensitive of the supporters of this man! Don't forget, he MIGHT have been guilty (since he's a man, and all), so putting him through the wringer might deter other monsters just waiting for a chance to pounce on a poor woman. It also might raise his own consciousness level of women's plight. I learned this from Prof. Camin (sp.?), who famously suggested that men falsely accused of rape might benefit from the experience.

See what a well-studied feminist I am? ;)

fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

It's sad because once your trust is betrayed, you can never really get it back. Sometimes the people against you have themselves been betrayed, and are lashing out blindly. They don't realize how that contiues the original wrong. More's the pity.

There is a notoriously high incidence of false rape claims. You'll see numbers ranging from 25%-50% of original claims. Recantation of rape claims is also high, approaching 50%. These numbers come from both law enforcement and academic research. It's thought that up to 20% of claims taken to trial are false. These proportions are much higher than those of other capital crimes.

It's surprising that this fellow's co-workers weren't familiar with this phenomenon - though he does acknowledge that the ER nurses were.

Feminists will argue that the allowance of false claims is necessary. That the stigmatization of false claims would cause women with valid claims to not report these crimes. But Feminists also promote the false claim that only 2% of claims are false, which suggests that they're simply interested in endorsing false claims, not supporting women with valid claims.

"Indeed, men are going their own way. It's just a simple matter of self-preservation."

This case is HORRIBLE, but I don't see it as being a polarizing case of men vs women. The accusers were manipulative and emotionally disturbed people who saw an opportunity to abuse the legal system for their own benefit. Selfish, greedy, manipulative, disturbed, immoral people are always going to try to take advantage of the law and of the basic goodwill/honesty of other people. Laws need to be changed to prevent this behavior (whyyy were these women let off scot-free???) but that type of attitude is always going to exist, and women don't have monopoly on this type of behavior.

Additionally, while the direct victim of this travesty was a man, the indirect victims are actual female rape victims. Get enough bogus cases like this in the courts, and legitimate victims are going to be lumped in with the liars crying wolf-which is sad and unfair.

I'm not particularly familiar with the legal system, but it seems to me that the accusers could have at least been charged for perjury?

You'll see numbers ranging from 25%-50% of original claims. Recantation of rape claims is also high, approaching 50%. These numbers come from both law enforcement and academic research. It's thought that up to 20% of claims taken to trial are false.

My problem with punishing false accuser is what constituents proof of a false accusation legally. If her simply recanting would justify penalties equal to rape charge then no one would ever recant. Crazy people will still do crazy things but will have more reason not to back off.

But Feminists also promote the false claim that only 2% of claims are false

"This case is HORRIBLE, but I don't see it as being a polarizing case of men vs women. The accusers were manipulative and emotionally disturbed people who saw an opportunity to abuse the legal system for their own benefit. "

Shannon, the issue is not with these women really, it is with a legal system that is so reluctant to punish them. Since the legal system not only does not punish them, but rewards them by doing thier dirty work for them, it encourages this kind of thing.

Under these conditions, it's perfectly reasonable for men to go their own way, since the stakes aere so high and there is no way of knowing when this will happen. It has nothing to do with woman-bashing - in fact it's unfair to tar all women with this brush - but so what? It's a lot worse to go to jail for years over nothing.

"and women don't have monopoly on this type of behavior."

actually they do. Any woman can run up to me on the street with a couple of cops, and say "he did it." and I will be detained immediately as a threat. The opposite isn't true, infact I would likely be laughed at. Once you are in jail, then you have to prove you way out of it, and if you are unlucky your employer can find out, and you will be under suspicion there.

Should I stress that this happens a lot?
"http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=114890"

I post here usually under the name wolfboy69. I am one of the contributors at www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com, and sadly, this story is not a rare thing.

Vlad, There are 3 studies that debunk the 2% canard:

Kanin (40-50% false), McDowell (60%), and the more recent study from India (18%).

The 2% stat was initially stated in a book(Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will), and feminists have been using it ever since.

Modern feminists have been controlling the dialog on rape for a while, and it is slowly turning around, as people start to realize that modern feminism is a man hating cult. They are akin to the KKK, the only difference is thier target, and thier attire.

I'll leave this with a couple of notable quotes from some of the more prominent leaders in the Modern Feminist movement:

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience," said Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.

Sorry, that should be mike, not vlad.

False accusations are good for business. Attorneys get paid, and it creates anti-male sentiment for the courts favorite special interest group the feminists.

Everybody wins except the ever unpopular group in our society, men and possibly the taxpayers for footing some of the expense.

If there's actual hard evidence that these women lied, which the article seems to imply, then I think they should be prosecuted and their future wages garnished to pay back the accused.

But I suspect in many cases, it's just that the charges aren't proven, and that is vastly different from a solid determination that the woman lied.

I also think that, for something that men claim rarely to do, there is an awful lot of rape porn out there. I was married to a man who frequented those websites and bought those kinds of movies. There is a definite market and interest for the violent rape fantasy, which leads to the belief that a certain percentage of men will indeed act on these impulses, even if they don't get caught. In fact, I think more real rapes go unreported because women are too embarrassed, especially when the circumstances involve them drinking too much or foolishly putting themselves in vulnerable positions.

I was almost raped in a parking lot by a pilot I went on date with. I managed to kick him in the balls, get to my car, lock the doors and burn rubber out of there. But I didn't report him. He would've just claimed I was making it up, but it's scary that someone like him is out there on the prowl for victims.

LS - You did more by kicking him in the balls than he would ever get from a court room.

There's no point in prosecuting these women for two reasons - first, they'll cry and get the jury to send them home. second, there's no hope of recovery if you manage to get a judge-only trial. They're indigent junkies, what kind of future earning potential do you really think they have?

The unfortunate part of this particular case is that these women (like the one in the Duke Rape Hoax) had nothing to lose and everything to gain. They had it all figured out - get him convicted, use that conviction to win a civil suit and steal all his shit.

It's getting to the point that any man who works in a public-facing profession is going to have to either stop seeing female clients, or have a witness (or video) of every meeting.

The gender feminists have so successfully pushed the idea of man == rapist into the public psyche that a man's good reputation is no longer sufficient to protect him.

"for something that men claim rarely to do, there is an awful lot of rape porn out there"

I'm sure there is porn to cater to every taste... Even so: there is a difference between fantasy and reality, and healthy people know the difference. It's a shame you were almost raped, but that does not make the would-be rapist any less of an exception.

For the disillusioned guys out there, wanting to go their own way, the same applies. Sure, some women are nuts. So are some men. Don't let it disillusion you on the whole gender. If you run into this type more than once, then maybe you need to take a hard look at the type of women you date.

"for something that men claim rarely to do, there is an awful lot of rape porn out there"

and a lot of it caters directly to women viewers/readers. It seems to be the stock-in-trade of Romance novels. Fabio the dasterdly but misunderstood pirate ravaging the young maiden on the poop deck or a vampire who's bad but really good and sweeps the young virginal good girl teen off her feet as he protects her virtue in the "twilight".

Rape fantasy is fairly common for women. Don't believe me?

See rape fantasy wikipedia and go down to female fantasy section.

This is probably another thing that women do but want to keep hidden from other people, especially men. Women like to have many secrets, probably why the high incidence of taking psychotropic meds.

I brought the idea of rape fantasy up in a womens literature class I took in college. It caused one whacko chick to go off and get real dramatic. Of course I had literature from female authors to back up my point.

This girl acted like a victim for me even bringing it up.

The female teacher ended up giving me an "A" in the class.

Rape fantasy is fairly common for women. Don't believe me?

Violent rape and the literary allusions in softcore literature are a bit different. Being an irresistible sexual attractive entity to Jonny Depp or Orland Bloom is one thing. Some smelly dirty guy roughly dragging you into a dark alley quickly popping a load and leaving you there is a bit different.

Rough sex and role playing is not rape. The problem is the grey areas. "No means No" is quite clear but what about the "Not sure we should be doing this" or "I'm drunk lets fuck" (after you feed her the better part of a bottle of vodka) or some asshole slipped her a mickey and you had no idea she was drugged when she went home with you. This is the area where fuck nut fems and rapists make the lives of the rest of us suck.

Excuse me, but the romance novel scenario is not rape. There's usually chapters upon chapters detailing the attraction between the pair, so it is obvious that the woman secretly longs for this man. He may grab her forcefully, overcome by passion, but we all know by then she WANTS that.

And the act is usually never graphically described, leaving the intimacy to the female reader's imagination, and I assure you that most women do not imagine him humiliating her, slapping her, tying her up, or causing pain. We imagine him making love to her and giving pleasure.

That is entirely different from porn scenes depicting women being forced to have sex against their will with men they do not desire.

Perhaps some men, like my hapless date, get this wrong. Maybe he was hoping to imitate a Danielle Steel novel when he pushed me up against the car and forced my hands down his pants to touch his c--k, but there is a big difference.

Trust me, that would never have been a romance novel scene. But my point was that, even if he'd successfully forced himself on me, I likely wouldn't have reported it (unless he'd beaten or seriously injured me). I would've gone home, taken a shower, and cursed myself for being so stupid, but he was a respected pilot for a major airline, and I wouldn't have wanted to go through the embarassment, publicity, and the he-said/she-said involved in pursuing him legally. And I think I'm pretty reprentative of most women, so I truly believe that rape is actually under-reported.

It's a shame that these indigent scammers do this for money, but it doesn't reflect most women's actions.

You're exactly right, vlad. That's what I call a "passionate initation" - the forceful grab and kiss. And it does turn women on sometimes, but unless you look like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt, you're best off not trying it.

rape is a predominantly male action and false rape accusation is predominantly female. The difference is that society vocally condemns and the law severely punishes men for rape. The converse is not true

there are any number of "men against voilence/rape" websites and any number of women who insist that all men take responsibility for rape by men. Ask any woman if she believes that all decent men should take a stand against rape and you'll get a resounding yes!

all i seem to read when it's women behaving badly are excuses: "It's the system that's at fault" or "women wouldn't do it if the courts didn't allow it" or my personal favorite; "It was just a cry for help". Well...systems and laws don't change until someone stands up and says "we won't accept this anymore". Where are the decent women who are building websites and asking women to take a stand to protect men from abuse by women? (present company excluded Amy)

I'm not holding my breath

incidentally, i've never read or heard a woman make an excuse for a man accused of rape; never.

i have read in forums, but never heard in real life, men make excuses for or trivialise rape but they were, without exception, quickly ripped a new one in no uncertain terms by both men and women

apparently, women and men really are different

I have a bit of a different perspective on rape. I've been raped more than once. The first one happened on the school bus on the way home when I was 13. When I stumbled off the bus my parents immediately took me to the police station to report the incident. The guy who did this was a minor, pled guilty and received community service, a fine, and was kicked off the bus. The entire experience taught me that it wasn't worth it to report rape. You are publicly humiliated and you never feel safe again no matter what happens.

I see women who falsely report rape as several steps lower than human. To pretend to have endured that agony and the horrific process afterwords is something that makes me wish we could have 'posses' again to enact vigilante justice. However, there is a fine line.

I remember reading about a woman who was raped but was HIV positive. When the guy was fixing to rape her, she told him that she was HIV positive. The courts decided that even though she said 'no', that disclosing her illness was a form of consent, and ruled that the defendant was 'not guilty'. It is hard enough to stand before the person who has violated the part of your that is most sacred and tell a room full of people what that person did to you. It is something else to manage to tell people when you know that if the person is found not guilty that you might be prosecuted.

We need to create a better measure of preponderance of evidence in rape cases, but assuming that 'not guilty' means 'innocent' is a mistake that I never want us to make.

We also need to educate boys and girls about what rape is. I understand that the outliers want to assume that all hetero sex is rape, but we all know that is bullshit. Even if we took it to the minor lengths of 'no means no' and 'don't fuck when drunk' things would be clearer to people and we might avoid trauma all around.

-Julie

@Julie

not that i doubt your veracity but how does someone rape someone on a schoolbus in the presence of other children and a bus driver?

re the HIV rape - i suspect you've left out a lot of detail. That one just doesn't scan at all

i would never suggest that a he said/she said rape trial should result in severe punishment for the woman - only when it's obviously/blatantly a false accusation that can be proven. a women should not be punished for what she honestly believed was a rape. better a hundred guilty false accusers go free than convict an innocent woman

"Fabio the dasterdly but misunderstood pirate ravaging the young maiden on the poop deck "

Whoa, slow down. You don't hit the poop deck until everyone's warmed up and relaxed.

Jim,

Without going into too much detail, it was the back of the bus in a rural school that required a very long bus ride. By the end of the ride, most of the students were off the bus. His friends assisted in restraining me and blocking others' view (not to mention the high backed seats obstructed alot). They were rather effective, my little sister sitting in the front of the bus didn't have any idea what was going on (Thank God!) Pretty ugly all around. This was before cameras in school buses. When my mother went to the school, she was told that they are not responsible to ensure our safety. Luckily things have changed since then.

I do see this as a problem though. People who have low moral standards have a very easy way to ruin someone. Either they can be accused of sexual assault or abusing a child. Either way the person's name is never cleared, not completely. There has to be a way to take rape reports seriously without providing an open door for abuse of the system.

-Julie

@Julie again

what i got from your post was:

a) you've been raped
b) people who claim to be raped are humiliated
c) people who pretend to be raped are scum. Not because they are trying to destroy an innocent person but because they're cheapening true rape survivor's suffering - nice
d) men get off the hook on technicalities and the threat of resulting prosecution would be a deterant to reporting real rapes
e) you think proving someone might be 80% guilty (preponderance of evidence) is proof enough to send them to prison for 20+ years (where they'll probably be raped far more often than the alleged victim)
f) educating young people is the key to preventing rape - this only works for women btw. for men 'yes and maybe also mean no' when it comes from a woman and men are still held accountable when drunk (sexist IMO but whatever)

did i understand you correctly?

god defend us from the mercy of women

"If there's actual hard evidence that these women lied, which the article seems to imply, then I think they should be prosecuted and their future wages garnished to pay back the accused.
But I suspect in many cases, it's just that the charges aren't proven, and that is vastly different from a solid determination that the woman lied."

This is a very good point and the point is that these two sets of accusations are fundamentally different. The fundamental difference is the intent to make a false report. In the second set of cases there is no such intent.

Intent to tell a falsehood, actual lying, is one of the elements of perjury. Considering the harm that perjury does - it disrupts the entire system of justice - it should be punished in the same range as rape or similar crimes.

Julie,
"The courts decided that even though she said 'no', that disclosing her illness was a form of consent, and ruled that the defendant was 'not guilty'. "

OMG. The jury should be lined up and shot. I can't think of any reason other than deterrnce that she would have disclosed that, and they thought it was CONSENT?

LS,

"Excuse me, but the romance novel scenario is not rape. There's usually chapters upon chapters detailing the attraction between the pair, so it is obvious that the woman secretly longs for this man. He may grab her forcefully, overcome by passion, but we all know by then she WANTS that."

The problem here is the issue of communication of consent. The scenario you cite is all about the woman's consent, but nothing about how she communcates that consent. It's narcissistic - is the assumption that the man is supposed to somehow read her mind and that makes it all alright? It looks that way to me. The chapters and chapters may make it obvious to you the reader that she wants this, but there's one little problem - he's in the book - he can't read the chapters. So now apply this to a real life situation, and you see how a narcissistic set of assumptions can lead a woman to expect a man to read her mind, and accuse him of rape him if he doesn't.

"not that i doubt your veracity but how does someone rape someone on a schoolbus in the presence of other children and a bus driver?"

Easy. The other kids covered it from the driver. Not hard to do. Lots of assualts on school buses happen this way.

what we need is a reliable and repeatable system of lie detection - a long way off

by the mercy of women, i meant the scumbags not the decent ones

Jim,

That's about how I read that comment too. Doesn't look there is much of a moral sense there.

Jim, I agree that in cases where it is obvious that a woman made a false allegation there should be severe punishment. Yet, what I'm unclear about is what percentage of these cases are indeed so black and white.

As Julie says, a "not guilty" verdict isn't proof of a false allegation. A woman's body is essentially still the main evidence in a rape case. We really don't do enough to educate women about how to proceed AFTER a rape. If the victim goes home and washes away the evidence, she may not get a conviction. Rape is still a very hard crime to prove because there are usually no witnesses.

I'm sure there are lots of websites with posters who claim they were falsely accused, and it's easy for them to insist that the whole allegation was false, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Unless you have tapes of a woman laughing hysterically about how she falsely framed a man with a rape conviction, how can you prosecute?

This is the dilemma. Not that women don't care because I certainly believe that, in such blatant cases, the false accuser should be punished. I don't want that to happen to my brother, son, or to any man in my life. I want that liar off the street.

But my sense is that these obvious cases of false allegations are still pretty rare compared to the whole. And, without it being blatant - without the woman admitting she lied - then the victim still deserves the benefit of the doubt, even if she fails to prove she was raped.

Because both Julie's story, and mine, demonstrate that there are probably many more cases of true rape where the man isn't convicted, or properly punished...or even charged. There are rapists out there walking the streets, or trolling online dating sites (like my dear pilot), looking for victims.

My roomate in college was raped by her boss, while working at a grocery store. He took her in a stock room and raped her. She didn't report it. She came home and cried hysterically, and we made her tea, and comforted her as best we could.

And most women can tell of similar experiences - either to themselves or friends. That's why we know rape is a REAL THREAT. But your response is exactly what we fear and why we don't report rape - because it'll be "that doesn't scan"....or "why were you even there?" or "how come no one saw it?"

Unfortunately, rape is rarely a picture perfect, clean-cut crime.

@lovelysoul

i hope your last paragraph isn't implying that i'm a rape apologist because nothing could be further from the truth

having said that; the whole point of the article was that men ARE falsely accused - whether the numbers are high or low is irrelevant - it happens. and the system has to take precautions to ensure that an innocent person is not destroyed as a result. I'm sorry but a healthy dose of skepticism is de rigeur

all the more reason to severely punish demonstrably false accusations

FirstJim, the issue of consent really isn't that hard. I'll admit that the romance scenario might be a bit confusing at first glance, but the point is that even if you were drunk enough to feel like Fabio, and you grabbed a woman and kissed her passionately, that isn't rape! She might actually be into it, but if she doesn't want you, she'll let you know.

To keep being forceful - when there is any doubt at all as to the woman's reciprocation -is very foolish for a man to do. And that includes if she is intoxicated.

I mean, it really isn't that tough to tell if a woman wants you or not. If she's hungrily kissing and pawing you back, she wants you. If she seems reluctant, or too drunk to know her feelings, then don't proceed.

That said, I don't believe cases where the woman is sloppy drunk should necessarily be classified as rape unless the signals were clear and/or it was obvious she's in a stupor (like the NY cops that just raped the drunk woman). You can regret having sex with someone but that doesn't make it rape.

But, when in doubt, guys, just don't. That's what I tell my son. Use common sense.

Julie - There has to be a way to take rape reports seriously without providing an open door for abuse of the system.

Lets start with anonymity for both accused and accuser. Upon conviction, the name can be released.

How about making the false reporting of rape a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, as it currently is in most juridictions?

How about, if the false accusation is proved to have been levied with malice, the sentence will be the same that the accused would have received if convicted?

And how about we stop treating women as children when they commit a crime, or as someone in need of treatment/psychiatric help. When was the last time you heard of someone say that a rapist only did what he did as a cry for help? NEVER. So why should a false accuser, who has broken the law be treated differently? The only real difference I can see is gender.

thank you E. Steven Berkimer

the endless excuses for criminal behavior on the part of women that would you would never hear from these same people when the sexes are reversed are infuriating

lovelysoul,

I agree that talking to the boys is a good idea. But why doesn't anyone ever say, "hey, lets talk to the girls about situations that this happens" and teach them NOT to put themselves in those situations?

Common sense tells me that you don't put yourself in a situation where bad things can happen to you.

Drinking and drugs are the 2 biggest factors in all of this. But if a man and woman are drinking, have the same amount to drink, she is unable to consent, but he is. How is that even remotely logical? They are both unable to consent, and both should then be charged with rape (funny that it never happens that way).

Rape is a horrible thing, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But so is a false accusation. Men lose jobs, family, friends, self-esteem, life savings (as in this story), etc. Many become depressed and try to commit suicide. Some are beaten and some are killed by friends/relatives/good(?) samaritans. And that has happened just on an allegation, not a conviction.

And yet, I can't remember a single time I've seen a story about a false allegation, that the discussion doesn't, almost immediately, turn to those who have been raped. To minimize what the falsely accused have/are going through is, to my mind, morally grotesque.

Yes, let's get to the root cause of why people rape/falsely accuse. But at the same time, let's not give either the chance to do it again.

Jim, I was just saying that it's a bit against human nature to expect women, en masse, to be called to action by this.

Fair or not, people tend to be moved to action by what has personally effected them, and more women have had rape scares than any experience with false allegations. So, we're just not as likely as men to be the ones to form websites, fight for new laws, etc.

That would change if enough of our sons, brothers, dads, and husbands were falsely accused, but because it's fairly rare, most women just aren't aware of this problem.

Jim,

That is part of the problem IMO. Of course, that and a dollar will get you.....well, not much.

This is the disservice that I thing modern feminism has done to women. It doesn't empower them, it infantilizes them, and demands a lack of accountability. Obviously, there are many (most?) women who are responsible and take responsibility for what they do, but in the public discourse, rarely, if ever, do you hear calls for women to be treated more fairly by the judicial/family court system. False rape accusation are one of the side effects.

To be fair, the overzealous police and prosecutors also need to have some form of accountability for proceeding with something then know is false (Nifong anyone?).

When it is a mis-identification, things get a bit more sticky. If it is determined before someone is arrested, or after an arrest/prosecution, that it wasn't a malicious act, I am all for some leniency. But in the case of a prosecution, an innocent person was unjustly targeted. There should be some form of redress to cover this.

Man....fat fingers today.

Should read:

This is the disservice that I think

and

proceeding with something they know

@lovelysoul

no doubt you are right

what i do take issue with is the expectation by many women that men should stand shoulder to shoulder with them to support their fight for/against...fill in the blank...something, that for the most part, we do

unfortunately, when there is an issue that hurts men (paternity fraud, false accusations, health spending, family court etc etc)and we need you to stand alongside us suddenly all you hear from the majority of women are excuses for bad behavior and "most women just aren't aware of this problem"

for the most part we're on our own i guess

Common sense tells me that you don't put yourself in a situation where bad things can happen to you.

But if a man and woman are drinking, have the same amount to drink, she is unable to consent, but he is. How is that even remotely logical?

But at the same time, let's not give either the chance to do it again.

"It's proven that men by default have a higher tolerance then women so no it is biological"

sorry, i'm gonna call you on that. yes, men have a higher tolerance based on body weight, blood volume etc but that has absolutely zero effect on the final outcome of how drunk a person gets

if both individuals are drunk then they are drunk, it just means he drank twice as much beer or whatever as she did to get into the same state

Steven, I do talk to my daughter about this. But the drunken scenario you describe - and saying that BOTH should be charged with rape -is absurd.

Sex is something almost all men love, want, desire, and think about having 50 times a day. Having it is a score for you, not a trauma. If a boy wakes up and discovers he just had drunken sex, it's unlikely he'll be upset or feel "violated" by the situation.

That's just our different natures and social conditioning. Women are taught that sex is a precious thing that shouldn't just be given away to anyone - or else we're labeled and stigmitized as "sluts" and feel less valuable - whereas men are encouraged to have as much sex as possible and tend to experience sex as a boost to their self-image, not a violation.

You can't separate that different gender response from the issue because doing harm is about what causes trauma to someone.

In our culture, a male has a responsibility to know if a woman really is consenting because if she's not, he may be harming her.

I know that's one of those gender inequities that drive you guys crazy, because you can't balance it, but that's just the way it is.

@lovelysoul

"and saying that BOTH should be charged with rape -is absurd"

both should NOT be charged if they are both drunk and can't remember what happened

that is where the inequity, as you put it, comes in - men are held responsible when drunk and women aren't and that's wrong in my mind. either thay are both adults and accountable or they both aren't. having a penis doesn't make you any more capable of making a decision when drunk than having a vagina and vice versa

Jim, I generally agree if the two people are dating, which presumes that the woman at least had some attraction or desire for the man to begin with. I couldn't charge a man with rape under those circumstances - if we'd both just gotten sloppy drunk and fell into bed together.

But it is a different issue when strangers come on to a woman when she's vulnerable and take advantage. I don't care how drunk the guy ultimately gets. Certain males prey on that situation, and look for it - encouraging it by buying even more drinks.

Bottom line: if she wasn't your girlfriend BEFORE she got drunk, you probably shouldn't be having sex with her.

"In our culture, a male has a responsibility to know if a woman really is consenting because if she's not, he may be harming her"

true and in the case of a simple misunderstanding, if it wasn't malicious, he's going to pay for a long, long time - probably a much higher price than her. she still gets to go out and get drunk while he's stuck servicing Bubba for 10+ years

That said, I don't believe cases where the woman is sloppy drunk should necessarily be classified as rape unless the signals were clear and/or it was obvious she's in a stupor

You can regret having sex with someone but that doesn't make it rape.

&
You can't separate that different gender response from the issue because doing harm is about what causes trauma to someone.

In our culture, a male has a responsibility to know if a woman really is consenting because if she's not, he may be harming her.

Make up your mind lovelysoul, you cant have it both ways.

Or to put it another way.

If a man and a woman get drunk, and she crashes the car on the way to her house its her fault, so why is it if they make it to her house and have sex its suddenly his fault?

The basic problem with punishing false allegations with heavy prison sentences is that it will prevent some victims from coming forward. Now this is both an ethical and societal problem.
Ethical issues:
First we add one more element that the feds can screw up or innocent people being burned by corruption. Unless you can prove 100% that she lied maliciousness there isn't a jury in the country that would convict for reasons discussed above. Nut jobs like those in this case will still do it and refuse to recant.
Societal Issue:
How many more women will (not might) be raped when (not if) some refuse to come forward due to fear of retaliatory prosecution. So how do we determine how many innocent men will be spared from wrongful arrest, incarceration and prison rape vs how many more women will be raped? At what point to we ok the trade off?

The ultimate question for both sides is how do you prove intent. Did she lie to get him to marry her, bribe her, do her laundry, etc. Did he feed her more booze intentionally, was her drink spiked with 151 or ever clear, did he give her the roofy or did someone else, etc? Until FMRI or other technology get to that point I'm hesitant to change the law as a whole without careful evaluations of the outcome, planned and incidental.

if both individuals are drunk then they are drunk, it just means he drank twice as much beer or whatever as she did to get into the same state

A lesson I almost learned the hard way, almost.

Jim,

You did not understand my message correctly, so I will attempt to clarify one by one:

@Julie again

what i got from your post was:

a) you've been raped

*Yes I have*

b) people who claim to be raped are humiliated

*Yes, often they are. Between the medical investigations, the police interrogations, the witness stands, being called a whore and being told that you were asking for it. It sucks to be a victim of rape and report it. It sucks when you don't report it too.

c) people who pretend to be raped are scum. Not because they are trying to destroy an innocent person but because they're cheapening true rape survivor's suffering - nice

*You missed my point. People who pretend to be raped are scum for two (primary) reasons. They are ruining a person's life without any real recourse or cause, and they are making it that much more difficult for the women and men (It happens to men too) who have been raped to be taken seriously.

d) men get off the hook on technicalities and the threat of resulting prosecution would be a deterant to reporting real rapes

*I see that as a possibility. My experience kept me from reporting other sexual assaults, and my rapist was found guilty. Imagine if he had been found innocent and I was sent to jail instead?

e) you think proving someone might be 80% guilty (preponderance of evidence) is proof enough to send them to prison for 20+ years (where they'll probably be raped far more often than the alleged victim)

*No, now you are making assumptions. I believe that we should all be innocent until proven guilty. What I am saying is that no one should be able to make an allegation without proof and be able to ruin someone's life. The rape survivor should be required to come up with a greater amount of evidence other than 'he raped me'. There should be some physical evidence (injury, DNA, etc) Lack of this evidence doesn't mean that the person hasn't been raped, but we need to have reasonable cause before taking someone's life away.

f) educating young people is the key to preventing rape - this only works for women btw. for men 'yes and maybe also mean no' when it comes from a woman and men are still held accountable when drunk (sexist IMO but whatever)

*I believe that education is needed. It won't solve all problems, but it will definitely solve some. Men need to understand what rape is and also understand when they are walking into a situation that could lead to problems (fucking while drunk as an example). I agree that if both people are drunk one person can't be held more responsible than another, but the courts don't always see that (stupid, I agree).

Women need to understand that they should send clear signals about what they want.

And seriously Jim, if the woman that you have sex with first says yes, then says no, why are you fucking her? If someone is playing that game, the first time she says no, stop. If she was serious she will be thankful and you are in the clear. If she thought she was playing a game, you will leave her frustrated and she can either learn to be clear or buy a vibe. True adult women don't play that game.

Julie

Right but he said if they have the same amount. What would give the average guy a buz would flatten most women for the night.

i ignored the same amount bit because it never, ever translates in the real world. who keeps track of how many beers it took my date to get as drunk as me?

one thing i like about you folks is your intellectual generousity

thanks for taking the time to clarify Julie

"Societal Issue:
How many more women will (not might) be raped when (not if) some refuse to come forward due to fear of retaliatory prosecution. So how do we determine how many innocent men will be spared from wrongful arrest, incarceration and prison rape vs how many more women will be raped? At what point to we ok the trade off?"

at this point in history we err on the side of women almost completely. there doesn't appear to be a trade-off

i agree with the poster who suggested anonymity for both accused and accuser until conviction. at least that way his life won't be destroyed (much) until conviction

Lets start with anonymity for both accused and accuser. Upon conviction, the name can be released...How about, if the false accusation is proved to have been levied with malice, the sentence will be the same that the accused would have received if convicted?

I agree with your great suggestions, Lovelysoul.

And how about we stop treating women as children when they commit a crime, or as someone in need of treatment/psychiatric help.

I agree, in Houston alone I can think of one woman who killed all of her children and a woman who ran over her cheating husband. Neither got the 'pound you in the ass' prison time that a man would have gotten. I firmly believe that if women want equality (and I know I do!) then we should be treated equally, good and bad.

@Jim,

Thanks for your response. I will attempt to clarify anytime.

-Julie

i ignored the same amount bit because it never, ever translates in the real world. who keeps track of how many beers it took my date to get as drunk as me?

As I tend to be carrying the ones who have had too many I have a damn good idea what each one of them can or can't handle. Since none of us have kids just yet so the parties tend to involve more booze than more parent heavy groups.

at this point in history we err on the side of women almost completely. there doesn't appear to be a trade-off

As far as anonymity for the accused, yeah total agreement. Proving guilty vs innocent don't mean shit if everyone around you thinks your guilty. Anonymity would be a great first step.

I have a question.

If your going to argue that there is no point in prosecuting false accusers as they will simply not recant, can no that agrument be used to justify rape?

I mean why not simply rape if there is a good possibility of you being accused of it anyway?

One more question.

Everyone can see how absurd my question is, so why didnt you see how absurd vlad statment was?

If your going to argue that there is no point in prosecuting false accusers as they will simply not recant, can no that agrument be used to justify rape?

No the argument would be "will prosecuting false accusers" reduce the number of men being wrongfully accused and or convicted? Until the "you poor baby" crap goes away prosecuting false accusers will not actually help those being accused. Nor will the jury impose a harsh sentence for it. Just as they are quick to fry some poor guy being wrongfully accused. Prosecuting the false accuser to the same level as the crime in this case will back fire badly unless society changes it's view on the action. Society feels that rape is a far worse crime than crying rape. In addition to less chance of a recant. First lets protect the innocent (men accused) then worry about punishing the guilty (those screaming false rape charges).

"Make up your mind lovelysoul, you cant have it both ways".

Lujip, it's not contradictory. The guy still has a greater responsibility to make sure he has consent. It's pretty difficult for a man of any size to get so drunk that he wouldn't care or remember if the woman says, "No".

If he is that drunk, and the next morning, she claims she said, "No", and he kept going, then how does he know he didn't rape her?

It's pretty foolish to go out and get so drunk in the first place, when your judgement is impaired and you may misread signals, so this is one of those areas where we can go back and forth and sideways, but since the male faces the greatest consequence if he misreads the signals, he bears the greatest burden to stay sober enough to assess the situation.

And I agree that's a gender inequity, but, you know, I'm a business person, and I have to be aware all the time that there are people out there who will sue me, who will try to come after me financially. So, I must take as many precautions as possible to avoid that. It's not fair in many ways, and it has changed the trusting, good will that I might otherwise have with my guests, but as the one with the most to lose, I have the burden to use prudence.

Most women are not going to make a false rape allegation...only some unstable, greedy, or emotionally fragile women will. A man needs to try to get to know a woman first and not put himself in such a vulnerable position.

Gynecologists and male doctors now have assistants with them in examining rooms. Probably male therapists should have cameras. It's sad, but it's like me having to have costly liability insurance and take a host of precautions that I never used to have to take because, unfortunately, there are opportunists out there.

So, rape is not the only area where protective measures must be taken, and there's really no way we are going to be able to prevent this in all instances, so, as unfair as it is, men must bear the greatest burden to protect themselves.

Julie,

I did misunderstand you. Thanks for sorting me out.

The issue of humiliating rape victims is a tough nut to crack. At the treatment level or advocacy level, there is no question that there should be no poking around in a victim's soul. But at the police level it's different, because 1) the victim is the accuser and has the burden of proving guilt, not the other waya around and 2) the victim's mind is a piece of evidence in that non-consent is an element of the crime.

"The guy still has a greater responsibility to make sure he has consent.
LS, our sysytem supposedly works on a presumption of equality. Why does the woamn not have an equal responsibility to communicate the state of her consent. Of course the presumption should always be non-consent, and that should apply botht eh men and women, by the way - no women is entitled to sex just because there is a man present.

"It's pretty difficult for a man of any size to get so drunk that he wouldn't care or remember if the woman says, "No"."

First, that's just physiologically false. period.

And second, if the guy is drunk, why is he not just as much a rape victim as a women who is drunk? Is there some presumption of consent on his part? Of course not. So even if he says he's interested, how valid is that consent really, if he is drunk? It is not consdiered valid if the woman is drunk.

It's pretty difficult for a man of any size to get so drunk that he wouldn't care or remember if the woman says, "No".

And I agree that's a gender inequity, but, you know, I'm a business person

"The basic problem with punishing false allegations with heavy prison sentences is that it will prevent some victims from coming forward."

Perjury is perjury. The criteria are strict enough to filter out the accusers who are making a good faith report, even if it turns out to be erroneous. Perjury is hard to prove. If that's not good enough for some people, well what's good for them is not so important that it merits leaving other people unprotected from actual criminal false accusers.

Anyway, how is the risk of a false conviction for a rape accusation higher than a false conviction for a rape? Why should one be proesecuted and another shielded?

"Most women are not going to make a false rape allegation...only some unstable, greedy, or emotionally fragile women will. A man needs to try to get to know a woman first and not put himself in such a vulnerable position."

Well, yes, LovelySoul, but the same goes for rape. Most men don't rape. Are you going to give the same advice to women? well, I see that you probably do, and that's sensible, but it's amatter of matter of prudence, but not because you mean to exculpate rapists.

So this is where we end up - how many men here would pick a lone woman up on the side of the road - snow, rain, extreme cold, middle of the desert? You may get one or maybe even two, but it's risky behavior and irreponsible if you have anyone in your life depending on you.

Jim,

I agree that the humiliation thing is difficult to avoid at best. Despite my experience, I am very much a believer in the adversarial judicial system that we have in place. We all deserve to have someone on our side in court attempting all they can to work in our best interests. Cops need to evaluate the validity of the story to ensure that they aren't used as a weapon to hurt an innocent person. Victims are always in a horrible place when making an accusation and going to court. That is why the level of vindication/suffering can be so great depending upon the outcome. The suffering endured in the process of prosecution stabs a sharp stick in an open wound. It sucks, but we all deserve that day in court.

In my case, I really was a kid, and I was going against a person that I knew in a small town where everyone knew everything. Being anonymous would have been great, but even though my name wasn't put in the papers, everyone knew what was going on. Plus, what stops the accused from telling everyone their side of the story? In a larger city the situation is much different in that aspect, which is why I now live in one.

As far as the drunk, clearly if someone is so drunk not to be coherent, is passing out, or cannot walk, then he/she cannot give legal consent. Male or female. I swear I am going to make up bumper stickers, "Don't fuck drunk". It is as bad as drinking and driving. A person who is impaired cannot judge their level of impairment, so he/she shouldn't do crap that can get them into trouble later. Agreed?

-Julie

The criteria are strict enough to filter out the accusers who are making a good faith report, even if it turns out to be erroneous.

It's pretty foolish to go out and get so drunk in the first place, when your judgement is impaired and you may misread signals

Now lovelysoul, using a screen named that suggests you are a man go post that on a feminist website and see what happens.

Why is such advice verboten for women?

A person who is impaired cannot judge their level of impairment, so he/she shouldn't do crap that can get them into trouble later. Agreed?
- Julie

Well that kinda a catch 22 isnt it? After all if their judgemt is to impared to keep them out of trouble, how are they to judge what will get them into trouble?

David said:

"eah, I hear you --- after my last crazy girlfriend threatened to call the police on me for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever (totally out of the blue and just after she had earlier been friendly to me), I've now all but given up on women - they're honestly just not worth the trouble (and frankly, I'm much happier now, just doing my own thing). She would have had nothing legitimate to tell the police, so I had to assume she was gearing up to cook up something completely phony."

Why did you date a crazy person in the first place? If the answer is "she's hot" I have no sympathy for you. The only common denominator in your bad relationships is you.

Lujlp, because it's called 'victim blaming'. Honestly, when someone starts using that statement, you know you are talking with someone who doesn't want women to be responsible for any of thier actions. Or that they get to pick which actions they are responsible. Do most people (men and women) do this? I don't think so. But enough have screamed long and loud enough, that our judicial system has gotten all bent out of shape.

I agree that this would be a just punishment I just doubt it will have the desired effect

But we won't know unless it it tried. The way things stand, there are little to no repercussions for a false accusation. Even if it doesn't reduce the number of men meeting Buba, isn't the point of the judicial system to attempt to keep these things from happening? Right now, they barely try.

Ranter,

It is possible for people to go 'crazy' over time. It's not just a wake up one day and decide to be crazy. And who at the beginning of a relationship is completely forthcoming on thier negative aspects. No-one. We all put our best face forward in the beginning.

And the one thing that a lot of sociopaths have in common is that they are very friendly and engaging with people. How often do you hear, "I never would have suspected that of X. They were such a nice/respectful, quiet neighbor."

People are rarely what they show you.

FirstJim, yes, I think male consent for sex is usually presumed. That was my point about the difference in socialization of the genders. It is presumed that men want sex - are biologically and emotionally programmed to enjoy sex, even if they're drunk, and, in my observation, that's simply true. I've never known a man who was upset or ashamed about getting laid, even by an ugly woman he didn't plan to be with at the end of the night. Men tend to laugh it off, with a sense of pride and prowess.

No so with women. We're programmed differently. You can wish the genders were equal so it's the same playing field in that regard, but it isn't.

A man who takes a barely coherent woman home and thinks she is capable of giving consent is taking a much bigger risk than the reverse. If she wakes up, filled with shame, and thinks she probably wouldn't have slept with him in a clearheaded state, she's more prone to assuming that she didn't give consent and "remembering" events that way. Or if she remembers nothing at all she may conclude she was passed out drunk and he took advantage.

Whether she gave consent or not will then be open to debate, but it WILL be assumed that the man didn't mind.

I'm not saying that's right. I'm just saying men are taking the bigger chance in these drunken situations.

Julie and Lovelysoul,

I really appreciate your efforts at fairness and compassion in this discussion. If only feminism had used this approach, rather than spewing lies, bitterness, and hate.

BTW, LS, women are not aware of the false-rape accusation problem because feminist experts and organizations actively misrepresent and hide the problem. NOW trumpets the absurd lie that only 2% of rape charges are false, and Catherine("all heterosexual sex is rape") McKinnon has (in)famously said that Feminism depends on believing women's allegations of abuse. If women make false rape claims, then the underlying premises of feminism are invalid, so we MUST deny that women ever lie. And deny, and deny, and deny ....

This would be an appropriate thread in which to bid adieu to influential feminist Marilyn "Men are rapists, and that's all they are" French:

May you roast in hell you miserable, hateful bitch. The world is now a slightly better place.

so to summarize what i'm hearing...

men should consider all strange women as dangerous and treat them accordingly; like a time bomb that could go off at any second

we should shoulder the responsibility because we're more likely to be damaged by a casual sexual relationship and more likely (much) to be held accountable

i'm sure that's not what was meant but that's the message i'm seeing

@lovelysoul - yes, men enjoy sex and aren't likely to be traumatized waking up to discover they've been used by a woman. having said that; i really think it depends on the intentions of the woman. did she wait until i was incapacitated to use me as a sperm donor or for a good time. something like that did happen to me in the middle east when i was peacekeeping. i don't remember what happened but i woke up in, shall we say, a disheveled state. for all i know i have a kid somewhere i'll never see. was i raped according to female standards? maybe...

as you said, men and women have different perspectives on it but it does sound an awful lot like what was said about women years back to excuse rapists "aw, she probably enjoyed it so that makes it okay - she was asking for it"

"Don't fuck drunk".

You will make a million! Love it.

"It is as bad as drinking and driving. A person who is impaired cannot judge their level of impairment, so he/she shouldn't do crap that can get them into trouble later. Agreed?"

Totally

"FirstJim, yes, I think male consent for sex is usually presumed. That was my point about the difference in socialization of the genders. It is presumed that men want sex - are biologically and emotionally programmed to enjoy sex, even if they're drunk, and, in my observation, that's simply true. "

No, it's false and what you see is a cultural stereotype. a gay man at a straight party who is tipsy or drunk does not consent to sex witha woman, however hot and irresistible she may think she is, and he should not have to explain it in detail to her on the spot and so her her thumbhead straight boy friends can beat the shit our of him on the spot. So no, it's false. And even if he is straight, just because he's male and just because every other male you have ever known etc. etc. He deserves to be treated and approached like an individual. Do you deserve to have men assume that you are a gold digger based on their observations of women? Do you agree with so many Muslim men that Western women are all sluts, 'cause, hey, that's what they observe? Of course you don't because you have better sense and it's all bigoted bullshit.

"No so with women. We're programmed differently. You can wish the genders were equal so it's the same playing field in that regard, but it isn't."

It has more to do with the legal regime and gender stereotypes than with programming, or maybe it had to do with the way the police and courts are programmed.

"Those criteria would be? "

Vlad, maybe you missed where I said what that the crucial element of perjury is lying - knowingly and intentionally making a false statement. It requires a prosecutir to prove the accused persons state of mind and extent of knowledge when making the statement. This is why perjury is notoriously hard to prove.

"Also there is a given sentence for perjury but that's not what is being suggested."

There are plenty of crimes where the sentence is in the form of restitution, and that amount of that restitution depends on the damage done. There are other crimes where the length of the sentence depends on the damage done. this is no different. In fact in this case the perpetrator would know in advance what he/she was risking. Such a deal.

No, FirstJim, we are talking about heterosexual males. Yes, gay males deal with a different set of issues, but that is all you can really come up with, right?

Gay men don't want to have sex with women or necessarily with other gay men (though I'm not sure how often this is reported as a problem).

Of course, straight men don't want to be raped by other men, and that is probably the closest comparison. If you went out for drinks with a guy friend and woke up naked beside him, how would you feel? Would you think, "I wouldn't have slept with him!" or would you assume this must've been consentual?

Truth is, straight men almost never report being raped, so this isn't a legitimate societal problem like women being raped is. If it is happening, and men are truly being traumatized, then it would be - men would report these rapes. But let's be honest, this is not a pressing societal concern, like the raping of women is.

The only counter you guys can offer is the infrequent false allegation, and I assure you that more women are truly raped every day - usually unreported - than a man is falsely accused. So, as much as I agree that false accusers should be punished, you have no right to play martyr here. Far more women are raped, without any justice, than cases of false accusation.

In our culture, a male has a responsibility to know if a woman really is consenting because if she's not, he may be harming her.

I know that's one of those gender inequities that drive you guys crazy, because you can't balance it, but that's just the way it is.

This is a perfect argument for legally prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages by women.

This state (CT) has made the man responsible for determining if a women is sufficiently intoxicated so as to be impaired (without using a breathalyzer or being a doctor), determining if she is legally capable of consent (fake ID notwithstanding, and he doesn't have the appropriate equipment to test the veracity of the ID), oh, and if she changes her mind at any point during or after the sex act, he might be a rapist.

The law in Connecticut has effectively made all females into minors. There is no way to hold them legally responsible for decisions they make, nor to hold them accountable for any material misrepresentation.

In other words, it is to the benefit of the woman who wishes to protect her reputation among her peers (I can't believe you slept with him) to lie and claim that she was intoxicated and taken advantage of. By the time she reports it, she'll have nothing but third-party hazy memories to use as evidence of her state of being.

Tell me again why I should ever trust a woman?

So let me get this straight LS, according to you if men were raped it would be less likey to be taken seriously but men would report it any way knowing that they are more likey to be ridiculed

But when women are raped, it is more of a societal issue and more likey to be taken serioulsy and supported

Why then are women supposedly less inclined to report their rapes?

Lujip, I'm saying it would likely be reported in roughly the same percentages. Many women do still report rapes, despite embarrassment, and so would many men, if it was truly a cause of trauma for them. Some straight men do report rape when it is committed by another man because, unlike sex with a woman, that is not desirable.

You simply can't remove all cultural influences just to make things gender neutral. Let's say we live in tribal New Guinea, or somewhere, and in our tribe, young girls, ages 10 or 11, are taken aside by elder men and initiated into sex as a part of becoming a woman. And this ritual is viewed as a cause of celebration, not shame, so the girl is happy, not sad.

Feminists might come to our tribe and try to convince the girls that a crime has been committed against them, which they should feel terrible about. But that would be kind of stupid. Why?

If there's no emotional injury, it's not a crime. That's my view. In our culture, women have a different attachment to sexuality than men.

Straight men are definitely traumatized by sex with another man, but sex with a woman is viewed positively and almost never (if ever) considered "rape".

It would be just as foolish as the feminists in the tribe to try to convince straight men that they are, in fact, being raped and should feel equally traumatized. Although it would make things gender equal, we'd also be creating an injury where none currently exists.

Before anyone asks, I'll just add that the injury involved in rape of women is partly due to socialization.

If we women were raised like boys are - to believe that having sex is always good, that it makes us "cooler", gives us another notch on our bedposts, increases our social status and esteem, then you likely would not have so many rape claims - at least of the drunken, wild night variety. Women might wake up feeling equally pleased by what happened, so there would be no emotional injury, and therefore, no crime.

The emotional injury occurs because women are socialized to believe that sex is not always good, that it can lower our status - in fact, make us "sluts" and "whores", rather than "cool". We're taught to guard our sexuality, so any misuse or temporary loss of control of it is viewed as a violation.

This doesn't apply to violent, humiliating rape scenarios, which should be universally experienced as bad by both sexes, but it explains the milder forms, and why there can be such a different response to the same act.

If we women were raised like boys are - to believe that having sex is always good, that it makes us "cooler", gives us another notch on our bedposts, increases our social status and esteem, then you likely would not have so many rape claims

Yeah, you would.

Because the drive to invent such a thing in one's head comes from the feminist notion that sex is not sex, but that sex is power.

The feminist argument about rape is wrong. It is not about the expression of patriarchal dominance. It's about sex. It's about a man taking by force something that he wants.

There was a time when an actual rape would buy the perpetrator an opportunity to swing by his neck - extra-judicially.

Brian, that is wrong. I've acted out rape fantasies (for my ex), and I can assure you that rape IS about power. It's also about sex, but it would not be the same without making the woman feel inferior and helpless. The begging, the "please don't hurt me", the name-calling, and the denigration of the woman's dignity is a big turn-on for a rapist. If it was only about taking sex, they wouldn't need all that. The biggest turn-on is feeling completely in control, and that is all about power.

"I've acted out rape fantasies (for my ex)"

You are sick and a complete hypocrite. I fear women like you.

Why, because I tried to be a pleasing wife to a man who had a fetish?

You know, lots of women do things they regret to try to make their men happy, hold their families together. I'm not proud of it, but I did it with the best of intentions.

I hardly see why that makes me hypocritical though. Maybe you are assuming I was the rapist? He was, not me. I guess I didn't make that clear.

"Why, because I tried to be a pleasing wife to a man who had a fetish?" "I'm not proud of it"

Not proud, then why the double standard? You are a hypocrite and an enabler.

"Truth is, straight men almost never report being raped, so this isn't a legitimate societal problem like women being raped is."

So if women were trained to doubt they would be takenseriously or shaned if they reported rape, that societal problem would go away, right?

"Many women do still report rapes, despite embarrassment, and so would many men, if it was truly a cause of trauma for them."

So if women are intimidated away from reporting rape, rape will no longer be "truly a cause of trauma for them."

That is very twisted thinking there. Come back when you get NOW to concur with that.

"The emotional injury occurs because women are socialized to believe that sex is not always good, that it can lower our status - in fact, make us "sluts" and "whores", rather than "cool".

So change the socialization.

"We're taught to guard our sexuality, so any misuse or temporary loss of control of it is viewed as a violation."

It's about controlling the supply to drive prices up.

For those who keep talking about this as a man rapes woman issue

http://www.rmdglobal.net/she-stole-my-voice/

It's about the prevalance of lesbian rape.

Go figure.

FirstJim, I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm referring to the trauma of rape itself, not reporting it.

You have to be honest enough to admit that most straight men don't view a drunken night of sex as rape at all. That's why they don't report being raped - not because they won't be taken seriously, but because they're not traumatized by it.

Besides, men pretty much know - even if they can't remember having sex - that they must've been somewhat aroused for it to happen at all. Yet, a woman can pass out cold and still be raped. These biological differences matter.

Whether you realize it or not, men reinforce the socialization by using negatives words, like "whore" and "slut", to describe women who give sex away freely.

If you called us "Goddesses" and worshiped us for being promiscuous..if men only wanted to marry women who'd had the MOST sexual partners...if there was no stigma involved...then the socialization WOULD change.

But our worth and status, in this culture, is generally higher if we are less sexually active, more sexually selective, so that is why women respond negatively to a night of drunken sex because we feel devalued. Men do not usually respond that way. You typically gain status.

Theoretically, you could reverse the gender response through social conditoning, but since men have more testorone and naturally higher sex drives, it would be tough.

XYZ, I wish you'd explain what sort of double-standard you mean. I may have been an enabler, but not a hypocrite.

If we women were raised like boys are - to believe that having sex is always good, that it makes us "cooler", gives us another notch on our bedposts, increases our social status and esteem, then you likely would not have so many rape claims - at least of the drunken, wild night variety. Women might wake up feeling equally pleased by what happened, so there would be no emotional injury, and therefore, no crime.

Holy crap!!! That is an astounding statement. If a person is unable to give legal consent, whether because they are too young, too intoxicated, or because they dont' want to have sex, if the other partner 'presses forward', that is rape. It doesn't matter if the person feels traumatized by it or not. That is why you cannot have a consensual sexual relationship between a 12 year old and a 40 year old. Even if they 12 year old wasn't upset by it, he/she cannot give consent legally.

We are talking about 2 different things: Legal consent and personal trauma. The two generally go together, however not always, at least not at first.

Someone else asked, "If you are impaired and cannot make intelligent decisions, how can you keep from having sex?" I question back, how do you keep from driving drunk? You plan ahead in some way, be it not drinking, having someone there to take care of you if you do, etc.

-Julie

The emotional injury occurs because women are socialized to believe that sex is not always good, that it can lower our status - in fact, make us "sluts" and "whores", rather than "cool

No the emotional trauma comes from being forced to do something violently that I didn't want to do. We are still talking about rape as if it is real sex. The goals are very often different, depending upon the type of rape. Rape is very often about control, humiliation, and violence. Sex is about sexual gratification and personal/emotional enjoyment. I've spoken with men who have been raped by women. The trauma is the same and the horrible feelings are the same in most cases. People can view drunk sex differently, but that doesn't always fall on gender lines, men just don't talk about it.

-Julie

Julie, of course, you're right about children. But if a grown woman woke up in bed with a guy after a drunken night, and didn't remember if she had sex or not, but reponded more like a guy would, which is like, "I hope we had sex because sex is cool and I really love sex", then there wouldn't be any trauma. She's unlikely to charge rape.

Men, don't view it like, "Omg, maybe she had sex with me! Oh no! What if she took my virtue? Oh, this is horrible!"

We women think that way because to us it's a potential loss of value, of status. We're afraid we've been cheapened...and sometimes that leads to charges of rape, which aren't fair.

Besides, men pretty much know - even if they can't remember having sex - that they must've been somewhat aroused for it to happen at all.

Lovelysoul, that is just not the case. Men can physiologically respond, even when passed out. It is possible to be physically aroused by someone, even when comatose. So men can be raped while passed out. And being aroused and consenting are completely different things. The problem is, that the rape industry has pushed hard for consent to have to be a verbal thing. You can grant consent without saying a word. Just because you don't remember giving the consent, doesn't mean you didn't. And that is the difficulty with most rape claims. It is a he said/she said issue, that usually involves no witnesses but the two individuals involved. And that makes it a nightmare for law enforcement. There are no easy solutions to this that protect everyone inovolved. But everyone (men AND women), can take steps to minimize thier exposure.

You have to be honest enough to admit that most straight men don't view a drunken night of sex as rape at all. That's why they don't report being raped - not because they won't be taken seriously, but because they're not traumatized by it.

What i'm getting from that, is that if a woman has a drunken one night stand, she is automatically traumatized by it. Ummmmmm....the guy had nothing to do with how she feels after a one night stand. Only she does. And feelings of guilt, does not make it rape. If I'm misreading this, let me know.

Saw this on another site, but it brings the point home rather well:

Funny, isn't it? We are ever so concerned about rape accusers not coming forward, but for all the ordeal of making a rape claim, this somehow doesn't discourage the false accusers from coming forward, does it?

It makes sense. If it is so easy, as in this story Amy posted, for the false accusers to basically ruin this guys life, then how is it that true rape victims find it so hard to come forward? It's obvious, to me, and to many others, that the diligence that accusations are pursued (this case, Duke, etc.), up to the point where it is determined that it is false, that true rape vicitms should have no worries about coming forward.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that prevents a person from coming forward to report being raped, is that person.

lovelysoul,

This is the part that I don't think you are getting and I wish that I didn't speak from experience. Whether you are held down and beaten up and forced to have sex that way, or are assisted back from a party where you have (stupidly) gotten almost pissing on yourself drunk and a 'friend' decides to 'help him(her)self' while you are passed out, the legal result is the same. You didn't consent. It is perfectly fair and reasonable to prosecute someone who has sex with someone who cannot give legal consent. Period.

If both parties were drunk, the issue becomes more grey, and if one person prosecutes, then both parties should have the option. This is how domestic violence laws are now. A couple gets in a fist fight, and they both go to jail for assault. Not the best solution, but it is fair to both sexes. Men don't pay a heavier price than women.

From a traumatic perspective, being raped while drunk is often more difficult to get over. The self blame is higher. However, to say that the trauma is merely a socialization issue that women need to get over is a stark oversimplification and justifies abhorrent behavior. What kind of person really thinks that it is okay and well adjusted to have sex with someone who is nearly/completely unresponsive? Seriously?

Julie, we agree. I wasn't referring to cases where consent clearly isn't given. I was only referring to the drunken one-night stand, where it's questionable...and I said a woman *might* respond more like a man to that, if our sexual socialization was different.

And, Steven, these false accusers aren't people with much to lose. The Duke accuser was a stripper. These lovelies in this case sound like low-life opportunists.

It's much different for someone like me - a mom, with a semi-public business - to face the scrutiny of having people question my truthfulness...or wondering if I wore a too provocative dress that night...or had too much to drink...or sent the wrong signals to my date.

Anonymity means almost nothing in a small town. You become gossip fodder. Unless the attack was brutal, I personally would hesitate to go through it, and drag my kids through it. The only reason I might do it would be to protect other women, but there's certainly more to lose than gain.

"XYZ, I wish you'd explain what sort of double-standard you mean. I may have been an enabler, but not a hypocrite."

Why is one form of rape wrong and another right? The acting-out of "fake" rape is just as bad.

So, again, you are saying that prosecutors are willing to support people who are questionable, but not people who are considered more respectable? I'd have to say that just isn't so. You'd have to prove to me that your word would mean less than thiers. If only because you do have more to lose by a false accusation. You have less reason to make a false accusation (more to lose).

And this is exactly what several of us have been saying. If it is this easy for people who have nothing to lose to do this, then the general populace is going to think that someone in your position would be even more believable, and understand how easy it would be to file a false accusation.

You want to get that changed? Then women are going to have to stand up and demand that false accusers are punished, and severely. Men are viewed, when we scream about it, as being rape apologists (Furthest thing from the truth), or have too much self interest to be objective about it.

And if you haven't already, I suggest looking at the link above. How long before we see a case of a false rape accusation being leveled at a women, by a woman. What then? So, it's not just a matter of teaching men, it has to be everyone that is involved.

It's that damn equality stuff.... :)

So, again, you are saying that prosecutors are willing to support people who are questionable, but not people who are considered more respectable? I'd have to say that just isn't so. You'd have to prove to me that your word would mean less than thiers. If only because you do have more to lose by a false accusation. You have less reason to make a false accusation (more to lose).

That isn't what she is saying. In a small town, everyone knows everyone's business. I used to be able to determine who was driving past my house based upon the sound of the engines. Seriously. When I was attacked and my parents forced me to go to the police, everyone in my school knew what was going on in less than 24 hours. The police didn't tell them, but word gets out. So now I get the looks, the stares, I get backed into bathrooms because the guy who attacked me is telling everyone that I 'asked for it'. I get people coming up to my little sister asking her why I'm trying to 'ruin' my attacker's life. I was harassed, belittled, and made fun of until we moved 3 very long years later.

You might think that your community will stand behind you when you are hurt in this way, but it doesn't. Everyone just wants it to go away, and frankly the easiest way to make that happen is to shut up the victim. I learned not to report anything that happened after my first rape based upon the very little punishment my attacker received and the horrible treatment I got for being an innocent 13 year old girl riding the bus home from school.

However, if you are a strung out crackhead or low rent stripper looking for a payday, you often have little respectability to loose and also aren't viewing any harassment you receive through the lens of someone already traumatized by a rape. You are also looking ahead to a payday that might support you for years to come. What is a little bullshit for that kind of payoff?

People should prosecuted for perjury, and both the victim and the perp should have their names withheld until a guilty verdict is returned (we all discussed that earlier). However, people will know if you report the rape, and the treatment you receive as a result will lower your view of humanity.

I submit that most Women's Studies Ph.D professors are mentally ill. I fervently believe that most if not all of today's academic feminists are for the absolute abolishment of all heterosexuality and the separation from men. This will be accomplished slowly like a leaky faucet dripping into a kettle one drip at a time. Over time that kettle will fill and all heterosexual intercourse will have become rape. You get there through redefinition. You redefine sexual practices and behaviors. You rethink heterosexuality.

What once was called sex is now called rape.
What once was called sex is now called oppression.
What once was called sex is now called victimization.
What once was called sex is now called violence against women.
What once was called sex is now called contempt.
What once was called sex is now called hatred.
What once was called heterosexuality is now called patriarchy.

Drip, drip, drip. The kettle is getting full.

Steven, I'll share with you a case that just happened in my town:

A doctor's wife claimed she was raped by another doctor. He admitted to being at their office, on the night in question, and having sex with her, but he claimed it was consentual. The two couples had previously been friends.

This was the talk of my small community for months, and the end result was that both doctors basically lost their practices. The accused was never convicted, but he left the state, under a cloud of suspicion, and his marriage is in shambles.

The accuser's husband has suffered financially because his wife works in their office, and many patients probably didn't know what to say to her, or couldn't support her accusations because the other doctor was well-liked and had been in the community longer. Their house is in foreclosure.

Now, I don't know if she lied or not. If she did, she has certainly suffered consequences for it. So, has the accused. Naturally, his friends believe her allegations are false, and her friends believe a rapist got away with rape. Either way, both their reputations are pretty much ruined.

The bottom line is that NOTHING good came of the whole charge. She wasn't able to prove that he raped her, and he wasn't able to prove that he didn't.

So, I, as a reasonable woman, take that as a lesson that you must have VERY strong evidence or it's just not worth pursuing. And, unfortunately, there's usually not that sort of evidence in a rape case. It's a he-said/she-said situation.

It's probably easier if it's a total stranger because with acquaintances it's harder to prove consent wasn't given. How can a woman really prove that? DNA was taken from the medical office, but that only proves they had sex there.

So, I don't think it's as easy as you contend to get a rape conviction. Nor is it easy to protect either the victim's or the accuser's identity, except perhaps in large cities. In small towns, this stuff leaks out.

And the valid concern is that if you're going to start punishing women for making false allegations, they'll never recant, which could mean even more innocent men will be jailed, and reputations ruined. This approach could backfire, and I suspect that's why the legal system hasn't been as agressive as we'd like in prosecuting these false accusers.

It sucks, but it's kind of a catch 22 when you really think about it. An accussed person's best hope to clear his/her name is a recantation.

I fervently believe that most if not all of today's academic feminists are for the absolute abolishment of all heterosexuality and the separation from men.

Wow, that's new. Um, the abolishment of heterosexuality and full separation from men will end the human race.

The term feminist is not a dirty word. I would call myself a feminist. I demand equal pay for equal work, equal treatment under the law (good and bad), equal consideration for promotions and jobs, ya know, silly things like that. I suspect that most of you believe in the same things, man or woman. That is all the word feminism really means. Just like Rush Limbaugh doesn't represent all Republicans or Christians, and not all men are rapists and abusers, not all feminists are man hating fear mongers.

-Julie

The term feminist is not a dirty word. I would call myself a feminist. I demand equal pay for equal work, equal treatment under the law (good and bad), equal consideration for promotions and jobs, ya know, silly things like that. I suspect that most of you believe in the same things, man or woman. That is all the word feminism really means - julie

Tell me Julie what does the word 'skinhead' mean to you?

"Wow, that's new. Um, the abolishment of heterosexuality and full separation from men will end the human race."

"Will end the human race." LOL! I can see you don't read much feminist literature. Read up on human parthenogenesis, a radical feminist goal for all womynkind.

"not all feminists are man hating fear mongers."

I never said they were, but my point stays. Go back and read my post again.

Lovelysoul,

That's a good example, and it is exactly why, the following should be part of every investigation of rape:

1. Anonymity for all involved, until such time as there is a conviction. This has to be the BIGGEST thing in all of this.

2. Lie detector tests for all involved. Currently, only the accused is subject to this. The accuser isn't.

3. Past sexual history. Right now, only the accused past sexual history can be used. the accusers can't. So even if she has a history of false accusations, it can't be introduced as evidence.

===========================================

Just the leveling of an accusation is enough, as your example shows, to ruin peoples jobs, family, reputations, etc. Depression and suicide, are 2 of the biggest problems in those falsely accused. Sounds a lot like what happens to rape victims, isn't it? Yet the falsely accused are regarded as floatsam in the "war" on rape. They aren't important enough for the rape industry to care about.

And using the same shaming tactics that that industry uses, what if this was one of thier brothers/fathers/husbands etc., that this happened to. I doubt they would be singing the same tune. Yet they are completely dismissive.

Ultimately, that is what our site is about. We are advocates for those falsely accused, because there is no one else who wants to. I'm not an advocate for rape victims. There are enough of those already. So I don't really concern myself with it. It's not that I don't care, but there is a group of people who are ignored, belittled and considered unimportant. That is who I choose to help.

And I'd like to know, did you check out the link: Here.

At this point, women need to get involved with preventing rape. It's no longer enough to say it's a mans responsibility.

Bottom line: MEN don't rape. Scumbag criminals and sociopaths rape, and that includes both men and women.

Sorry for the rant. :)

XYZ,

Check out Susan Caringella.

Feminist Scholar's new book proposes most dangerous idea ever: turn sex into a presumed crime when a woman cries 'rape'

Lujlp, I often like your comments, but I wish you didn't feel the need to be such a mean-spirited sniper sometimes. Julie has shared her very personal experiences here in regards to rape, which is the topic. She doesn't deserve to be attacked like that. Skinheads have no relevance to either feminism or this topic.

lovelysoul,

Not to be contrary, but the topic of this post was actually false rape accusations. Like most such discussions, it has changed to a discussion of rape, not false rape accusations. I have yet to see a discussion of false rape NOT devolve like that.

"well, that's too bad, but....", is a common occurence when discussing false rape accusations. I don't know if it is because to fully face false accusations, means that the Gender Feminist man=bad, woman=good, would be tilted upside down, or if it is because people diminish what happens to a person falsely accused of rape, or any number of other reasons.

But I agree, that skinheads have absolutly nothing to do with this topic (unless lujlp had a specific reason he can share with us).

I completely disagree that drunk sex = rape. That's ridiculous. A sober man having sex with a drunk woman (or vice versa!) is a shitty thing to do, but it's not rape. Two drunk consenting adults having sex is, well, consensual sex.

I'm a college student and my friends and I all drink heavily, occasionally have sex while drunk. Unless I'm passed out and incoherent, I know what I'm doing and am capable of making decisions, or at least as capable as the drunk guy who's trying to get with me. If I wake up the next morning and regret a drunken one-night stand, then it's a clear sign that I need to drink less or find a way to stop putting myself in those situations. MY problem, not the guy's. People have a responsibility over their own actions. Sure, a guy might be buying a woman drinks with the intention of getting her drunk and sleeping with her, but she's the one choosing to drink them.

I am against drunk sex being classified as rape because it trivializes legitimate rape.

skinhead: A group of people, primarily young men, who believe in the superiority of the 'Aryan race'. They believe in the subjugation of people who they consider racially or physically inferior through eugenics and violence. The term 'skinhead' came about from the traditionally military attire and hairstyles of the group. They typically attract young disenfranchised youths, much the same way as inner city gangs. Generally there is a close association with KKK or NeoNazi groups.

Lujlp, in your anger you are making assumptions about the people around you that are not accurate and serve to make you more of a target for ridicule than proving your point. My point is still valid. You cannot judge a group as a whole based upon it's most extreme membership. Not all white people are skinheads. Not all men are misogynists furthering the patriarchy. Not all feminists hate men.

Lovelysoul, that you for your defense. It is appreciated.

I am against drunk sex being classified as rape because it trivializes legitimate rape.

But it is legitimate rape. You have to understand that having sex is a contract where both people consent. If a person is too intoxicated to consent, that is rape. Period. The clear way to avoid problems is don't fuck drunk. Just because the victim doesn't come out of it beaten and bruised doesn't' mean it wasn't rape.

Now, there is a difference between being buzzed and being drunk. I think that is where we are falling off the beam. Being drunk means you are incoherent, unable to walk, talk, carry yourself, or drive. If you catch a buzz and want to fuck, then that is your business. My concern is over the person who takes advantage of someone unable to defend themselves or consent one way or another.

"well, that's too bad, but....", is a common occurence when discussing false rape accusations. I don't know if it is because to fully face false accusations, means that the Gender Feminist man=bad, woman=good, would be tilted upside down, or if it is because people diminish what happens to a person falsely accused of rape, or any number of other reasons.

Steven,

I agree that being falsely accused of rape is in many ways just as awful as being raped. We have already discussed the idea that all people involved in a case should have their privacy preserved, and obvious false accusers should be tried for perjury. We have plenty of other very valid suggestions of what could be done on the part of the government to make this better. As a person very obviously involved in this fight, what do you suggest each of us can do to make this situation better?

You're welcome, Julie. Well-said.

Steven, with all due respect, that is such a bogus site you linked. "50% of rape claims are false"?

I mean if you're going to read such one-sided anti-female bullshit, then no wonder you'll become paranoid. It's important to try to keep a sane, reasonable and balanced perspective when evaluating any societal problem.

For that reason, I don't read rapid, anti-male feminist literature or websites. Like Julie said, I know all men aren't rapists - most men are great people - but if I were to immerse myself in that kind of one-sided propaganda, it might start getting to me, as I'm afraid it's gotten to you and poor XYZ here.

There are a few bad apples in either gender, and there are disadvantages and advantages to being one or the other in various circumstances. But UNPROVEN rape charges do not equal FALSE accusations. There are not thousands of women out there falsely claiming rape. A few opportunistic scums do not a conspiracy make.

"XYZ, Check out Susan Caringella."

Thank you E. Steven Berkimer.

By the way, I frequent the FalseRapeSociety site. What a wonderful and informative site. If only CNN would catch on.

First Julie, lovelsoul I didnt attack Julie I asked a question
Thank you for answering it

And now for my point.

The skin head movement started in the 1950s britian kind of an anti hippe movement as they were noted for their consumerism due to their increased income and the loosened social class status that allowed for increased interaction between members of the former 'social spheres'

It want unti the early 70's 20 yrs later that racist elements took over the forefront of the culture, and it wanst until the late 70's that the trem skinhead became synonymous with the definition you provided.

The point I am makinging is within 20yrs the term skinhead had come to mean something entirely different from what it frst meant due to the radical elements that took control.

Suppose you met someone on the street who said they were a skinhead, but not what skinheads are now, what they were in the begining - what would your response be?

The point is it is radical feminist who are in charge of the movment, radical feminists have for all intents and purposes destroyed the meaning of what feminism once was. My point is the definition may not have changed yet in the dictioary, but it certainly has in popular culture

I was not labeling you a skinhead Julie, I was showing you how quickly a word and a movment can change when its members let the assholes take the wheel. And I'm sorry to say that feminism no longer means what you think it does

Also Julie I'm thinking the guys who say drunk sex isnt rape, are thinking drunk as in what you labeled buzzed.

You are defing drunk and blacked out, incoherent, cant walk unsupported - correct?

The way I see it
Women say buzzed
Men say drunk

Women say drunk
Men say shit faced

The thing is guys dont try to sugar coat our vices, we dont replace words with nicer sounding ones.

I think this particular point is just a simple misunderstanding of word defintion

"but if I were to immerse myself in that kind of one-sided propaganda, it might start getting to me"

Yes, we know! It's already in practice and becoming mainstream. It has already 'gotten to' mainstream society in terms of our legal system. It has influenced judges, juries, law enforcement officials and attorneys. But wait, there's more! Politicians (local and federal), news media, educational institutions, corporate HR departments, etc. This special form of pseudo-intellectualism and rethinking has permeated into just about all aspects of our lives.

By the way, I'm not "poor xyz". I am just fighting against a unique form of fascism that is disguised to the masses as equality. Talk about a trojan horse.

I was not labeling you a skinhead Julie, I was showing you how quickly a word and a movment can change when its members let the assholes take the wheel. And I'm sorry to say that feminism no longer means what you think it does

Thank you for clarifying your point lujlp, now I will clarify mine in this context. I am still unwilling to give up the movement that gave me the right to vote, the right to wear pants, the right to have my own checking account, and the right to say no to the hate mongers and idiots anymore than the original anti-hippies should have given up their movement to the bigots and sociopaths.

My only way to continue the fight for women and men to have equal rights is to continue to call myself a feminist and define it for people who have been exposed to the idiotic polemic that 'men are bad, women are good'. Men and women are both wonderful in their own unique ways and deserve the ability to decide their own paths and have as few restrictions as possible as long as they cause no harm to others. Raping someone is harm, but so is reporting a false rape. Both are remarkably shitty and should be dealt with fairly and with justice.

See, I even tied it back in with our original topic. :-)

You are defing drunk and blacked out, incoherent, cant walk unsupported - correct?

Yes we are on the same page now. That is why I defined my words. No sense arguing when we agree.

-J

No, you guys are giving the radical feminists way too much credit. That's because what you read is basically fear-mongering about how these feminists are out to obliterate your gender. And that leads you to incorrectly believe that all women are supportive and influenced by the same rhetoric, or that we - who are mothers of sons and sisters of brothers and daughters of fathers and lovers of men - will just mindlessly support this radical feminist anti-male agenda.

It won't happen. Sane women won't support doing away with an accused rapist's presumption of innocence or support all rape claims being accepted as truth. That's illogical and unbalanced and an affront to our entire legal system.

Rape is just a very tough area, and the people working in the legal system sometimes get it wrong. They make mistakes. They're trying to do right by the accuser, knowing that proving rape is extremely difficult, so sometimes they go too far in giving the benefit of the doubt. But it's not a conspiracy against all men. To me, it's just people not using enough common sense and perhaps leaning too far in one direction because they know, for years, the whole system was weighted heavily in the other direction.

But I strongly believe that if we all keep addressing these inequities, fairness will ultimately prevail.

julie,

I would agree that that is what feminism is supposed to mean, but the current man haters in charge of NOW and similar organizations, claim to be speaking on ALL women's behalf, and calling it feminism. And there just aren't many women calling them on thier bullshit. VAWA/TITLE IX/IMBRA, all this was pushed by the lobbyists working for the national feminist organizations that claim to speak for all women. So that is what the majority of men associate with feminism.

Unfortunately, the egalatarian feminists, such as yourself, at least in this coutry, appear to be a minority (at lease it seems that way to most men). Or maybe its just that the gender feminists are the ones screaming the loudest, so they are getting the most attention.

"will just mindlessly support this radical feminist anti-male agenda."

Consciously no. Subconsciously over time, yes.

The kettle in the sink....the leaky faucet....Drip, drip, drip.

lovelysoul, The president of the NEw York chapter of NOW has said everymen in existance is a gang rapist and she still has a job

That right there is proof positive that most women, either
1 agree with her
2 dont disagree with her
3 dont care enough about men to give a shit what happens to them

And that leads you to incorrectly believe that all women are supportive and influenced by the same rhetoric, or that we - who are mothers of sons and sisters of brothers and daughters of fathers and lovers of men - will just mindlessly support this radical feminist anti-male agenda.

Silence is approval. Don't like the site? Google any of the following:

Kanin
McDowell
Rape study by the Times of India

All put the percentage of false accusations way over the 2% Myth (and it is a myth). Talk to any detective that investigates rape, where he can be honest with you, and see what he/she thinks the percentages are.

What it boils down to, is that men are a target in this country. Sorry you don't like the truth, but there it is. Let any woman or child point a finger at me and say, "he hurt me", and I'm in handcuffs before my next breath. Men are a subjugated class, legally, in this country. That is what part of this is about. Equality before the law. Right now, men don't have that when it comes to rape, or even false rape accusations.

Julie,

As a person very obviously involved in this fight, what do you suggest each of us can do to make this situation better?

The above mentioned protections for anonymity etc, would be a good start.

Education, of both men/boys, girls/women also need to be top on the list. Only telling boys/men that they shouldn't do something won't work, unless girls/women are also aware of the dangers, and take some precautions to prevent them. Even though lovelysoul doesn't like the link I posted, keep in mind that it is showing a side of rape that no one wants to talk about - women rapists.

For the legal aspect of things, we MUST adhere to the principle of the preponderance of evidence. Anonymity should be a default for both sides. There are men who have been falsely convicted on nothing more than the word of the woman. That isn't enough in my book. Not for something that will put someone in prison for life, where there is a better than 50/50 chance, he will spend his time getting raped. I'll take the non prison form of rape any day over that. At least I have my freedom and the ability to try to move on. Those falsely convicted of rape don't even get that.

Education is the key. But so long as Gender Feminists drive the discussion, we aren't going to get anywhere. Egalitarian feminists, MRA's, and those who just care about fairness without feeling the need to attach any lables to it, need to tell these people to STFU and sit down. Until that happens, men will be a target for false accusations (rape, DV, etc.).

So that is what myself and Pierce over at our website are striving to do. Put the topic into the public discussion. Because until such time as people are aware of the problem, nothing will be done.

Julie,

Your heart is obviously in the right place, but you will have to give up on the term "feminist" if you want to promote equal rights for men as well as women. The term is inherently hostile and insulting to men. How about I start a movement to promote racial equality and call it "Whiteism"? How much traction would you get with people by trying to explain that "National Socialism" is a term which has been ruined by a few bad apples, and that you are a "good Nazi"? Why not just abandon "feminism" for "masculinism"?

Every fundamental premise of feminism is a lie, or a twisted half-truth. Feminism is a crutch for weak, envious, and insecure women, and you're better than that. Feminism is also a tool for women to grab power at others' expense, and to enjoy privilege without corresponding responsibility. You are better than that, too.

I'd like to see the subject of false rape on Oprah. It'll never happen. To mainstream television, there's just no such thing as false rape. And what about the 2% false rape lie? 2% is actually high. I remember when I was in college, the radical campus activists claimed zero. If you brought up any examples or numbers, they made it look like you were searching for the tooth fairy.

Lujlp, it just means that I have no respect for organizations like NOW. To me, they are extremist organizations that most modern women can't even relate to...like the KKK in the south, which is dying breed of old-school racist. Pathetic little men wearing robes and rattling sabres. Nobody takes them seriously anymore.

I don't have a single friend who is a member of NOW, and I'm in my 40s, which should still be on the cusp of their 60s-era feminist market. So, they may grab headlines - which I'm sure they try to do by spewing ridiculous assertions like "all men are gang rapists!" - but that only makes them seem even more pathetic and irrelevant.

You guys can't let that convince you that they actually have the power to turn society into this anti-male world you fear.

Males are more likely to be presumed to be rapists simply because they ARE more likely to be rapists. Sorry, but it's true.

I want my son to grow up in a fair world, but I'm also going to advise him that if he follows a girl too closely in a dark alleyway, he's likely to scare her. She may presume he's a rapist. Not because she's a member of NOW, but because she's a female and more vulnerable to being raped by a male.

Is this completely fair? Of course not. No more than being afraid of a black man in a dark alleyway may be. But it isn't just some gender bias pulled out of nowhere or preached on high by feminists. It is a bias based on true stats and the best probability of who might be a rape threat.

But using exagerrated figures like "50% of rape claims are false" makes men's groups no better than feminist organizations like NOW. I understand why it's tempting to do this - because it gets people's attention and provokes male anger, but you've got to realize that it's the EXACT same tactic feminists use - and one that has increasingly made them irrelevant because they sound like irrational fruitcakes!

If you want to enact change, you have to be better than them at seeming rational...which shouldn't be hard. :)

You guys can't let that convince you that they actually have the power to turn society into this anti-male world you fear. - lovelysoul

You know, you usually arent that stupid. You cant look at current laws and really claim that femminist groups dont have political power.

They pushed madatory arrest laws, when that didnt work to their favor they pushed 'primary agressor' laws, sorry LS but they do have the power

I didn't say feminists were always wrong. They prevail on certain things because those actually make sense. Primary agressor laws do make sense in protecting victims of domestic violence.

I know, I know, women hit too. Women hit back. In your view, it always has to be equal accountability or it's gender bias, but that flies in the face of logic. It is prudent to allow a police officer the discretion to determine who is the primary aggressor in a domestic dispute - who is the most dangerous and who is most in danger. It is not my fault, or feminism's fault, that this is more often the male. Frankly, that is the male's fault.

But you all can never acknowledge that men are guilty of anything - much less MORE guilty of committing certain crimes, like rape. And that is irrational.

First off, fuck you - I defy you to offer ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE WHERE ANYONE EVER said men men were not guilty of anything or men never rape

Second

Its mens fault that they get arrested when hit by their parnters becuase they were born male??

Are you fucking insane?

Tell me how does arresting the victim, charging them with assulting their batterer and punishing them for asking for help in any way what so ever 'protect' them?

You say it prudent to allow offices to determine who the primary agressor is? Did you even read the laws? The officers are given guideline they have no choice in who to arrest and the forumla practically gaureentees that the man will be designated the primary agressor even when they is not a scrach on the woman and he has a knife in his chest.

What you are really saying is that because men, in general, have the physcial capacity to do more damage they must be the one arrested, jailed, and run out of town to protect the woman from having to abuse him again.

Hey Julie - you wondered why men no longer define feminism as an equality movement?

I present your fellow feinist lovelsoul who belive that any man should be thrown in jail when he calls the cops as a law abiding citizen should rather than defend him self

Tell me LS what since you belive arrest and jail are approprite punishments for abuse victims, what do you think should be done should an man dare lay his hands on a woman in self defense? Death by fireing squad perhaps?

"You guys can't let that convince you that they actually have the power to turn society into this anti-male world you fear."

We are already there. I see it everyday in the actions of prosecutors and police. Don't you watch television? Don't you read the newspaper?

"Males are more likely to be presumed to be rapists simply because they ARE more likely to be rapists."

What's rape? What is it anymore? I'm not talking about a dark alley. Today, rape is, if she says so. Heterosexuality today is a blur. It's not black and white anymore. Rape is an option and a choice for women at anytime for any reason. Consent to it on Friday, change your mind on Monday. That belief system is out there and in action right now as we speak. Feminist separatism has come so far in the last thirty years. Radical feminism planted the seed decades ago and is now reaping the harvest. The goals are separation of the sexes in society, the end of all heterosexual practices as a liberty, the biological ability to reproduce completely on their own without men, to ensure that all heterosexual intercourse is a felony, to live in a safe environment completely isolated from men and to ensure the complete obsolescence of men.

Some day, there will be separate public transit for women, separate elevators for women, separate workplaces for women, separate restaurants for women, separate streets for women, separate neighborhoods for women, separate towns for women, separate parks for women, separate beaches for women, and separate religion(s) for women....all legalized! Slowly but surely we will get there.

Drip, drip, drip.

"Women hit back."

Sometimes, women hit first, you moron.

Oh, please, Lujlp. You know, I'm tired of this fantasy of the common male domestic abuse victim. As a trailer park owner, I deal with domestic abuse on a regular basis. The cops come here, and they talk to me and the neighbors, so by the time they arrest anyone, they have a pretty good idea who is the primary aggressor. These cops are good MEN (primarily - is that biased to say?), and they're not trying to arrest the wrong person. They do a great job.

And I know this contradicts the fairy tale idea that you have that it's so often the woman beating the crap out of the poor man, but that JUST ISN'T the case! Never had ONE situation in 25 years where the woman was the primary aggressor and the man was some meek, mild, innocent victim of abuse. NEVER....EVER...IN 25 YEARS!

Some relationships are toxic, and both parties hit. Guess what? They both get arrested in that case. But PRIMARILY it is the man physically beating up the woman. One of my tenants was killed by her boyfriend - shot dead. But, oh my god, it's so biased of me to say he was the primary aggressor.

I'm sorry, but part of the whole gender slant is to invent fairy tales - to find the few exceptions and spread them across the board to paint a different picture from what is really happening, and this is one of those fairy tales. Men are not more likely to be physically abused by women. There may be some cases, but they are extremely rare compared to the reverse.

"Women hit back."

Sometimes, women hit first, you moron.

Yeah, usually because the man is in her face screaming, "You fucking moron!" He WANTS her to slap him, so he can then beat the shit out of her. DV abusers are often polite that way -they let the girl get the first blow because they're "gentlemen".

Tell me something lovelysoul

If these good cops were already arresting abuisve men why the need for primary agressor laws?

And I'm still waiting on those quotes where we men saind men never do anything wrong.

Either pony up or retract your lie

Lets see lovelysoul, you belive men who antagonise women into hitting them in order to retaliate are abusive - I agree

Tell me, what are your thoughts on women who antagonise men into hitting them?

Or is it only men who are resposnisble for their actions?

Woman hits man, its becuause she was provoked
Man hits woman, Well there is no excuse.

Right

So one the one hand feminists dont have the power to make an anti-male society

But feminist were right to push primary agressor laws because its the mans fault he is larger and therefore a bigger threat no matter what.

Its also abuse for a man to
ask for sex
deny sex
ask for money
deny money
ask for gift
deny gifts

Kinda funny isnt it that no matter what a guy does feminists consider it abuse - tell me again they dont have any power, I dare you

"Yeah, usually because the man is in her face screaming, "You fucking moron!" He WANTS her to slap him, so he can then beat the shit out of her. DV abusers are often polite that way -they let the girl get the first blow because they're "gentlemen"."

Yeah, usually because the woman is in his face screaming, "You fucking moron!" She WANTS him to slap her, so she can then claim victimization. DV manipulators are often polite that way -they let the guy get the first blow because they're "feminists" disguised as "ladies".

Probably to solidify the officer's discretion in these cases, so that they wouldn't feel compelled to arrest both people if one was more of a threat. It's not uncommon for the male to claim that he was "hit first". True or not, this rarely tells the full story of who is the dominant and most threatening party.

And I never claim you said anything - you just omit any acknowledgment of these truths. If one of us asserts that males are more likely to commit certain crimes, or more often to be the aggressor, you throw out something deflective, like "Sometimes, women hit first too, you moron."

It doesn't disprove the statement. You just try to make it sound equal or gender neutral when it's not.

First
But you all can never acknowledge that men are guilty of anything - much less MORE guilty of committing certain crimes, like rape. And that is irrational.

You said we never acknowledge that men are guilty of anything, and that is a lie, retract it or prove it. FYI 'sometimes women hit first too', implies that men hit first as well - notice the modifier SOMETIMES

Second
I'm sorry, but part of the whole gender slant is to invent fairy tales - to find the few exceptions and spread them across the board to paint a different picture from what is really happening, and this is one of those fairy tales. Men are not more likely to be physically abused by women. There may be some cases, but they are extremely rare compared to the reverse. - lovelysoul

One last thought and then I'm off to bed

Werent some very popular arguments back in the 60's against feminist calims of domestic abuse that there were 'some cases', they were 'extremely rare', 'exceptions', and 'if women were really being abused they would report it'?

Odd isnt it how feminist now parrot the lies once used against them?

I'll leave it at that for tonight

Look, I own a trailer park. Everyone here is in close quarters. We see who starts it, and we see who gets hurt the most.

My little tenant who was killed was no angel, but she was 105 pds and he was 200 pds. Almost every DV victim becomes passive-aggressive over time. These are sick, co-dependent relationships. These women have no self-worth because they're so beaten down. Sometimes, they'll stand up to him, take a slap or two, push his buttons.

He's drunk. She's drunk. Always a bad situation. In her case, it was the last situation of her life.

But you cannot tell me that I should view her as the primary aggressor because she got a smack or two in. You cannot tell me that this 200 pd man shouldn't be the main one to show restraint.

It sounds good in theory to make it equal, but up close, it's pretty obvious who is the primary aggressor, and honestly, that is usually the male.

Lonelysoul, you really need to start reading a few more publications and studies, and I would recommend the arrest notices in your local paper. It might be enlightening.

Please, check out This.

You still want to believe that things are the same as they were 30-40 years ago. Things have changed immensely, mainly due to feminism's grand lie that women are able to have it all, and do what they want, when they want. The thing they left out of that mix, and have pushed so hard for legislatively, is there is no corresponding responsibility for those actions.

Girls/Women between the ages of 15-30/35 are some of the most violent people in this country. With few exceptions, do you realize that most false rape accusers are between the ages of 15 and 25? And with few exceptions, there is little to no punishment? The only message that sends to other women is "you can do this too", because you aren't going to be held accountable (Crystal Mangum not only received no punishment, she got her way through college paid, and a book deal too). Great way to deter others from filing a false accusation, isn't it? Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back while he slept, stood there and watched him die, then packed up the kids and decided to take a holiday. She spent 2 months in jail, and got custody of her kids back. I guess in the long run, it's good for us men to know just how much we are worth, judicially speaking.

Honestly, this thread has gotten so off topic, I would ask Amy to shut it down. This is no longer about false rape accusations, and we do a disservice to those falsely accused by bitching about something completely unrelated.

At this point, this will be my last post in the thread.

All the best,

E. Steven Berkimer

"It sounds good in theory to make it equal, but up close, it's pretty obvious who is the primary aggressor, and honestly, that is usually the male."

Sexist.

No, sexist would be that I WANT it to be the man. Honest is the fact that it usually is the man, and as much heat as I take here, I'm not going to change facts just to be politically correct.

I don't know why it's usually the man. That is something that if anyone truly cared about, we could address civilly, and maybe find ways to change.

But 25 years running a trailer park gives me pretty extensive experience with domestic violence, and I'm not going to dismiss that experience just because it doesn't jive with the way you want to see the world - just because you want to paint males as victims.

I wouldn't do that for feminists either.

Unfortunately, the egalatarian feminists, such as yourself, at least in this coutry, appear to be a minority (at lease it seems that way to most men). Or maybe its just that the gender feminists are the ones screaming the loudest, so they are getting the most attention.

I believe you have hit on it. If you were to walk up to the average woman on the street, I really believe that she would be horrified by someone being falsely accused of rape. She loves her father/brother/husband/son and realizes that no ones life should be ruined because an immoral person took such an action. I continue to define myself as a feminist to not only fight against the rare misogynistic male, but to also fight against women who don't see the value in the sex that resides the other half of the planet. It likely won't fix the world, but it is my part to play.

Education, of both men/boys, girls/women also need to be top on the list. Only telling boys/men that they shouldn't do something won't work, unless girls/women are also aware of the dangers, and take some precautions to prevent them. Even though lovelysoul doesn't like the link I posted, keep in mind that it is showing a side of rape that no one wants to talk about - women rapists.

For the legal aspect of things, we MUST adhere to the principle of the preponderance of evidence. Anonymity should be a default for both sides. There are men who have been falsely convicted on nothing more than the word of the woman. That isn't enough in my book. Not for something that will put someone in prison for life, where there is a better than 50/50 chance, he will spend his time getting raped. I'll take the non prison form of rape any day over that. At least I have my freedom and the ability to try to move on. Those falsely convicted of rape don't even get that.

We are in agreement. Men and Women need to know what not to do and what puts them at risk without realizing it. Part of the reason why I harp on 'Don't Fuck While Drunk' is not because I think that every tipsy sex act is rape, but fucking while drunk puts both parties at risk for problems later.

"But 25 years running a trailer park gives me pretty extensive experience with domestic violence"

LOL! I love your scientific research.

Every fundamental premise of feminism is a lie, or a twisted half-truth. Feminism is a crutch for weak, envious, and insecure women, and you're better than that. Feminism is also a tool for women to grab power at others' expense, and to enjoy privilege without corresponding responsibility. You are better than that, too.

First, I am going to take the part in bold as a complement, as I am sure it was intended. Thank you.

I am curious about what fundamental premises your believe are false in feminism. Here is a pretty complete definition and review of feminism over the past century. Radical feminism is only given one small blurb. What are your thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Ok, here are some statistics on what we have been discussing, both in regards to the prevalence of rape/domestic assault for both men and women. The site is for the American Bar Association, which should be more neutral.

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html#prevalence

I"m looking for third party stats on false rape accusations.

-Julie

Thanks, Julie. That proves what I'm saying from a neutral source.

I wish they would break the stats down further to show how many male victims of DV are actually abused by other males, not females (unless I missed that).

Years ago, I had a transgender tenant. He was still male but acted female, and he lived with males. He was abused on a day-to-day basis worse than any female I've witnessed. They beat him, and used him whenever they wanted sexually (while his abusers strangely claimed to still be straight, not gay). He was later killed by another male, after he left my property.

So, I suspect that a lot of the male victim figures are not composed strictly of female - to male abuse, but gay male-to-male abuse.

Here it is:

"Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men."

So, I suspect that a lot of the male victim figures are not composed strictly of female - to male abuse, but gay male-to-male abuse.

The statistics aren't broken down that far, so we can't prove that either way.

I cannot find a third party source discussing the rate of false rape accusations. So, in reality it likely isn't 2% or 50%, which leaves a great amount of room for debate, or at least argument.

However I believe that we have all agreed: *Anonymity for accused and accuser
*perjury charges for obvious false accusations,
*education for men/women/boys/girls about rape including how to reduce the risk of being raped and how to reduce the risk of someone 'crying rape'.

Now that we've solved this problem, how about the crisis in the middle east?

lol. Great summary and productive too. I agree with all that but would add that maybe we make the punishment less severe if the accuser recants. The punishment would be much harsher, such as jail time, if facts ultimately and convincingly disprove the rape claim. That way there's a stronger incentive for a false accuser to recant first.

The ABA is one of the most virulently feminist, politically-correct organizations in the country. Which is why I terminated my membership. "Neutral source," my ass!

Julie:

"That's not MY kind of feminism!" = "That's not MY kind of Communism!" = "That's not MY kind of (fill in the blank of your favorite hate movement)"

Your semantic tactic won't work with me. Reduced, you argue that "feminism" means nothing, except as interpreted by a particular individual, thus rendering all discussion meaningless and futile. Keep identifying as "feminist" and expect to be treated (fairly) as an OPPONENT of reason and fairness.

Anyone, today, calling herself a Communist bears responsibility and guilt for what Stalin did in the name of that "sounds-good-on-paper" political philosophy. Any self-professed Feminist had better be ready to own, and justify, the ocean of hate, destruction and abuse generated by this movement over the last 40 years. (In other words, no one-sided coins are allowed!)

Jay R.

I've spent a fair amount of time attempting to find statistics from a source that you will find appropriate. I've also asked that you what basic tenets of feminism you find objectionable and you have responded with rhetoric, not a detail explanation of what you find to be untrue.

I'm looking to have a valid fact based debate, so provide me with the objectionable feminism tenets from a neutral source and provide me with the crime by sex crime statistics from a neutral source and I will be happy to evaluate this topic more closely.

Here are some similar stats from the Department of Justice, just in case you don't regard them as part of the 'feminist plot':

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#women

Any self-professed Feminist had better be ready to own, and justify, the ocean of hate, destruction and abuse generated by this movement over the last 40 years. (In other words, no one-sided coins are allowed!)

By your own argument, you should be willing to own and be responsible for all the idiotic misogynistic rantings of men who claim that rape is good, women should know their place, that men should earn more than women, and that women should be barefoot and pregnant will no means of support, etc.

People are only responsible for their own message and their own actions. Just because you see feminists as man-hating lunatics bent on creating a matriarchy doesn't mean that is reality.

40 years ago a women wasn't allowed to wear pants to work, school, or church. She could expect to be sexually harassed at work or school with no recourse. Men were expected to always be the bread winners while a woman's primary goal was churning out kids. Amy Alkon wouldn't have been able to exist 40 years ago! There were very few women professionals, and typically they were either nurses or teachers because those were the only two options available for women (in many circumstances).

There are many other examples like that. You cannot say that striving for equal rights for women has been all bad and that you haven't reaped benefits from it as well. Seriously, do you really believe this shit?

By your own argument, you should be willing to own and be responsible for all the idiotic misogynistic rantings of men who claim that rape is good, women should know their place, that men should earn more than women, and that women should be barefoot and pregnant will no means of support, etc - julie

That argument might make sense if Jay claimed he was a member of a group which promoted such views, he has, you have

That argument might make sense if Jay claimed he was a member of a group which promoted such views, he has, you have

Actually he has...the gender of man. This is my point: I have provided documentation detailing the varied and complex viewpoints believed and projected by feminists. Most feminists do not claim membership of the radical type, nor do they promote their stupid diatribes as law.

Just like you shouldn't be responsible for attempting to defend the undefendable actions and words of a small subset of men, I shouldn't be responsible for defending the undefendable words of a small subset of feminists who obviously have much larger personal mental health issues than anything else.

Jay R doesn't need to claim to be a part of any men's rights groups. It's pretty obvious when you're mainly getting your stats from "falserapesociety.com" and claim the ABA, an organization full of male lawyers, is so "virulently feminist" it can't be a valid source.

Julie, these guys don't believe life was even tougher for women decades ago. They contend that even though women had to churn out babies, couldn't vote, and could only own property if some male bequeathed it to them, that we actually had the better deal because at least we got to stay home, while men had to work in the salt mines. However rough women's lives were in the past, they assert men had it even worse. In fact, they dispute that there was ever a patriarchy at all - they contend this is purely feminist revisionism. They call it "herstory".

I think you've tried very hard to be gracious and productive and offer real solutions to the problem of false rape accusations. And it's nice to have someone so fairminded and solution-oriented in these forums. But you have to understand that these guys are zealots in their anti-female views - as committed and blind to the truth as the most rabid feminist out there.

I think you've tried very hard to be gracious and productive and offer real solutions to the problem of false rape accusations. And it's nice to have someone so fairminded and solution-oriented in these forums. But you have to understand that these guys are zealots in their anti-female views - as committed and blind to the truth as the most rabid feminist out there.

I agree, and my previous response was going to be my last response about the horrible people that all feminists are. :-O lol I have little doubt that many men are confused, angry and frustrated. The world has gone through a massive upheaval socially. However to imply everything that has been implied here sounds very much like a person attempting to start a 'flame war', and I will have none of it.

Now that I've found these boards I plan to stick around for awhile. Most of the discussion is very fruitful and interesting.

As one evil man-hating feminist to another (hoping everyone understands sarcasm), I appreciated the backup Lovelysoul.

-Julie

You have proof of the patriarchy?

Who founded it?, in what year? who were some noteable members?

Julie, the nut job men out there who want to "put women in their place" are not in charge of the male gender movement, and to be honest I dont know of any male gender movement

Unfortuntly the nut jobs are running the feminist movement - please tell me you see the difference.

Trying to save your definition of feminism is like opening the barn door after someone shot all the hosres and set the barn on fire.

I used to talk unitl I was blue in the face trying to explain to morons that the rusians were never communist they were socialist, but it didnt matter because the definition in the minds of the public had made the two words one and the same.

Tell you what, why dont we compromise - dont refer to yourself as a feminist until you acctually get those nut jobs to give up their power and put feminism back on the equailty track,

Tell you what, why dont we compromise - dont refer to yourself as a feminist until you acctually get those nut jobs to give up their power and put feminism back on the equailty track,

ROFLOL...so you getting to decide how I define myself is a compromise? That is really fucking funny. The only compromise on the table is that I get to call myself whatever I want and you can choose your own reaction to it. Luckily my foremothers and forefathers have given us both that right.

Fair enough, but notice you said forefathers - the women in charge of the movment you're a part of dont care about their contributions.

Call yourself what ever you want, but words mean differnt things to different people.

"But you have to understand that these guys are zealots in their anti-female views"

Wanting justice for innnocent men is "anti-female"
Wanting accusers to be charged with the crime of false rape is "anti-female"
Wanting the legal system to recognize and change it's bias is "anti-female"
Wanting the mainstream media to accurately report false rape is "anti-female"
Wanting anti-rape activists to include false rape accusations is "anti-female"

The more you post here the more you show your true colors, lovelysoul.

Wanting justice for innnocent men is "anti-female"
Wanting accusers to be charged with the crime of false rape is "anti-female"
Wanting the legal system to recognize and change it's bias is "anti-female"
Wanting the mainstream media to accurately report false rape is "anti-female"
Wanting anti-rape activists to include false rape accusations is "anti-female"

No one said that. Insisting that all women who believe in equal rights for all and call themselves feminists are man-hating lesbians looking to make all hetero-sex outlawed as rape does make you anti-female, or at least paranoid.

We all agree on the topic at hand. It is the insistence of some people posting here to define a group to which you neither belong nor understand that has caused this contention.

"Insisting that all women who believe in equal rights for all and call themselves feminists are man-hating lesbians looking to make all hetero-sex outlawed as rape does make you anti-female, or at least paranoid."

Fuck you.

I never said that any of those things in your list are anti-female, XYZ. I agree with all of those. What I find anti-female is:

- Failing to acknowledge that women are still statistically at much greater risk of being raped, abused, and killed by men.

- Failing to acknowledge that women were ever historically oppressed, and that some of the balancing that feminists have fought for was actually positive.

- Calling any woman who demands stats from neutral sources, and won't automatically accept your assertion that our whole society has turned matriarchal, a "radical feminist" (regardless of how many times said woman repeatedly denies being associated with organized feminism - meaning me, not Julie).

- Refusing to have a civil, respectful discourse with women who may disagree with you, and instead using terms like "stupid," "moron" or "fuck you". These little slips unfortunately betray your misogyny.

I know you guys have anger at women, and I also know it's forever off-limits here to discuss why in any personal way. When I question your personal histories, you get even more defensive, but I sense that many of you have had very bad experiences with women, and I'm sorry for that. But women like Julie and me are not those women, and if you really listened to what we say, and how we are sincerely trying to address the issues that matter to you, rather than reacting to us solely as a gender, you might see that.

"These little slips unfortunately betray your misogyny."

Oh, well when someone throws a load of twisted misandrist tripe at me, I sometimes respond that way. :)

Oh, well when someone throws a load of twisted misandrist tripe at me, I sometimes respond that way.

Wow, if you regard a person who believes that men and women should be treated equal in all aspects (the good with the bad) as misandrist, I would be shocked to hear what you regarded as appropriate views of rights for men and women.

"if you regard a person who believes that men and women should be treated equal in all aspects"

Wow, haven't seen that in any of your posts.

Wow, haven't seen that in any of your posts.

XYZ, then you haven't been reading them. Let me quote some for you here:

My only way to continue the fight for women and men to have equal rights is to continue to call myself a feminist and define it for people who have been exposed to the idiotic polemic that 'men are bad, women are good'. Men and women are both wonderful in their own unique ways and deserve the ability to decide their own paths and have as few restrictions as possible as long as they cause no harm to others. Raping someone is harm, but so is reporting a false rape. Both are remarkably shitty and should be dealt with fairly and with justice.

The term feminist is not a dirty word. I would call myself a feminist. I demand equal pay for equal work, equal treatment under the law (good and bad), equal consideration for promotions and jobs, ya know, silly things like that. I suspect that most of you believe in the same things, man or woman. That is all the word feminism really means.

"I demand equal pay for equal work, equal treatment under the law (good and bad), equal consideration for promotions and jobs, ya know, silly things like that. I suspect that most of you believe in the same things, man or woman."

Yup, me too!

"That is all the word feminism really means."

Um, sadly no.

"I say I'm not a feminist. I'm a humanist -- for fair treatment for all people, and never mind whether they're penis people, vagina people, or hermaphrodite."

Beautifully said. (applause)

Yup, me too!

for fair treatment for all people, and never mind whether they're penis people, vagina people, or hermaphrodite.

We all have the same beliefs on this topic. Perhaps I am overly innocent or optimistic when it comes to people or the equality movements. I'm not ready to give the feminist movement over to the freaks and radicals simply because they shriek louder than the rest of us. I suspect that is the only thing we disagree on. Whether this particular battle is lost.

Well, if we want to change that, then either the label "feminist" must be used by more reasonable women, until it comes to symbolize something different, or we have to use "humanist" en masse until it sticks.

It seems possible that if enough fairminded women began to use the label again (and I don't, for the same reasons), and openly reject the more radical agendas, then the view of the word "feminism" might change.

To me, it's just natural process. Cultural revolutions are usually fought by the most radical and most aggrieved people. The old-school, radical feminists were the ones most angry at men, irrationally so in many cases, but it was that anger that fueled a lot of positive change. Apathetic people sitting on their couches don't provoke change.

Yet, now, those front-line feminists are old, and beginning to die off. Younger women, who haven't grown up in such an unbalanced world, can't relate to their mindset anymore. We're not angry. We don't feel really disenfranchised. So, the opportunity exists for a new leadership to take the reigns and concentrate on maintaining balance and true equality. Isn't it perhaps better that we continue to use the word and give it renewed meaning?

Nope. I'm sorry but for all its gains, and even if you turn the definition around the word itself is sexist.

And ironically, thanks to the gains of feminism, I dont have to have a valid reason - emotion trumps logic

You see the same thing happening now on the male side - with MRAs, or whatever they're called. These are angry, aggrieved men, and they're leading a movement for change - building websites and forums. It's the anger that fuels it, and right now, that's working.

But I don't think they see how similar it is, and the danger of what it can become. At some point, they may be facing the same dilemma - failing to attract more moderate members. If you don't reign in the extremists of any movement, the agenda gets carried too far.

Julie, you seem genuinely curious and interested. However, I won't do your homework for you. I've spent 30+ years informing myself on these issues. Do the work yourself, and you will value the results more highly. I wonder, do you ever approach feminist-generated "data" with ANY degree of skepticism?

Lovelysoul is in a panic that her cherished feminized world-view is under attack. She wants to be fair to men -- but not THAT fair! She seems a decent sort, though, so I'm not giving up on her! She, as a woman, is just used to starting every sentence with, "And I think I can say without fear of contradiction ... ." :)

Riddle me this, as a start.

How could the Fair Pay Act (1963) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, respectively prohibiting unequal pay for the same job, and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex -- two pillars of women's rights -- have been passed into law even BEFORE second-wave feminists came snarling onto the scene? These laws were passed by legislators who were, almost exclusively, white men. So, where is this oppressive Patriarchy of which you speak so certainly? Or, should I just accept that these guys were thoroughly "feminist" members of the Patriarchy?

Somehow, the absurdity of feminist assertions escapes you. You want to claim credit for feminism where none is deserved (as noted above), and claim innocence for feminism where it is covered with shame.

Again, is "Whiteism" a good name for a racial equality movement? Only an idiot would think so, don't we agree? Listen to Amy. Find a different "ism" than feminism if you MUST have one to feel philosophically grounded in life. Otherwise, you will alienate most of the people you bludgeon with that now-unsavory term.

Nobody has asserted that there were no decent men throughout history, Jay R. Yet, the fact that legislators were "almost exclusively men", and that these men decided to right a wrong that had been in place for decades in itself proves there was a patriarchy. The tide was just beginning to turn then, partly because of the civil rights movement.

Of course, these men couldn't have also been influenced by their wives, sisters, and mothers - or from witnessing the injustice and discrimination they endured.

No, these almost exclusively male legislators just decided one day to write a law that was totally unnecessary, to address an inequity that didn't even exist.

You want us to belive in a patriachry?

Tell us exacly how pre teens from poor famillies forced to work their entire lives in coal mines and die horribly in order to provide enough to barely keep their famillies from starving to death benifited at the expense of women via your mythical cabal?

And then expalin how women would have behaved any differently, and how historuy would have been a glorious paradise had nature made the male smaller and the child bearers?

Life sucked for everyone, we arose from the muck as animals - life was short, brutal, savage, a constant fight for survival.

Women were capable of bearing children so they were not sent out on the dangerous tasks, as civilization progressed thru its first fragile stages you had city states that would fight over resorces and ideologies, and again, women were kept from facing the worst of it(unless their men were all slaughtered)

After all one man can impregnate hundereds of women.

Were there abuses? Of cousre, there always are. It is mamillian insticnt to 'protect' the half of the species that generates the next generation. As our intellegence out paced our instincts we tried to rationalise instinctive behaviors, we turned our instincts in to laws and traditions.

Some father sold their daughters for money, most sold them to men who could 'provide'. Was that really such a bad thing? There were no weapons, technology, or tools that provided women with a leveling advantage when competing with or defending against men.

Who would hire a woman to weld beams together in the 30's, or to dig treanches by hand, or to place telegraph poles? A man would do it faster and when they died it was just part of the job. Can you imagine the outrage if a woman had fallen 40 stories to her death becuase of faulty saftey harnesses?

Men dont deny that life was tough for women, but women deny that life was just as tough for 99% of the men as well.

There are groups of men that try to reatin there power and influence - but they dont do it for men, they do it for themselves.

Quite frankly lovelysoul I with the entire history of mankind had had equality between both sex, if for no other reason than the population of the earth would be fractions of what it is right now.

There is no patriarchy, if there were men wouldnt have to work so hard or die so often or have fractions of what women get in fedrals grants for medical reaserch

Jay R, it's like discussing judaism with someone who doesn't believe in the holocaust. We can have a discussion, but there's an enormous crater in the landscape of your understanding.

And perhaps it's in how we each define patriarchy. To me, patriarchy is that women were dependent on men for almost everything. The chance to shape their own destiny, no matter how tough it might've been, was denied because women were considered inferior, a lesser class.

Your version of history doesn't deny this, It's just that you make it sound good when fathers sold their daughters. After all, what would become of the poor dears? They were helpless and inferior.

Yes, you can have a kindly father, but he's still superior. You're still not free or independent. And most humans would rather be free, even in a tough world.

There were kindly slave owners too. Some worked the fields beside their slaves, broke bread with them, and treated them like family. And I'm sure the slaves appreciated that, but they were still not free or independent. They were still inferior - largely because white men viewed them as incapable of anything OTHER than manual labor. Like you, many thought they were doing a good thing, protecting this lesser class from the larger world.

Patriarchy is just that: considering women inferior to men. And that is undeniably true throughout history. This modern age is a blip, and basically gender equality only exists in the western world. In the rest of the world, women are still under a patriarchy. And perhaps this could be why so many of those culture, like Islam, remain in the dark ages. Maybe if they'd allow women more freedom, they'd figure out something other to do than ride camels, dig trenches, and kill people.

You're assuming that society wouldn't have advanced further faster because women were inacapable of manual labor and unable to do anything else - unable to invent anything, write anything, sell anything, or build anything. And that's just not true.

Ask Amy. I'm sure she can address this more eloquently than me, and you must repsect her somewhat or you wouldn't be here.

LS,

What has been will be. Per your paradigm, women are inferior, and always will be.

Dependent = supported = survival. And you call it "oppression." What a selfish, ungrateful, hateful attitude.

As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. We men are finding this out, and will adjust accordingly. Enjoy.

Jay R, according to you, women can't win. If we are supported by men, we're leeches. If we're independent (as I am), then our men will "come to resent us". If we want independence now, then we are "ungrateful" for the all men of the past, even caveman, in the dark ages who may have contributed to our survival.

You act as if women were doing nothing to assure male survival - cooking, cleaning, working in the fields, sewing your clothes, bearing your children, and nursing you back tio health when you were sick. Did all that not count towards your survival? Do you really think women are that indebted to men? It seems to me that both genders helped each other survive tough times.

The reality is that we're not in the dark ages anymore. Women should have the choice to shape their own lives, same as men. Had women been given the choice, in the treacherous past, many probably would've still CHOSEN to stay home and have babies, just as many still do today. But others might've chosen to strive for something different - to become doctors, artists, inventors, or business owners.

Most free people don't choose to do anything extraordinary with their lives. But we know we CAN if we want to strive for it. No one - male or female - should have boundaries set on what they can possibly achieve. Just knowing there's no fence, no restriction, is what freedom is all about, even if one never strays beyond the pasture.

It may be imprudent, impractical, or just plain rebellious, but a few people will strive for something great and achieve it, and if there are no boundaries, we can all feel that perhaps we, too, could do the same.

You men can be anything you want to be. You can choose any profession, and any way of living your life. You can marry or not. It's your choice, and it's our choice now too. That's FAIR. It's basic FAIRNESS. Why would you prefer that women be limited by social and legal restrictions from shaping our own destinies?

That seems like a selfish, ungrateful, and hateful attitude.

You know, your stand is just indefensible, Jay R.

You act as if men got nothing out of the deal? Men were just selflessly helping women "survive"...they got no benefit from women in return? And this, during periods of history when men didn't even know women could have an orgasm, much less give us one. Yet, men sure had enough of them to keep us barefoot and pregnant - which, by the way, is what KILLED most women. It was typical for men to have more than one wife because the first would often die in childbirth, struggling to provide progeny to help assure the family's survival.

And, like I said, women cooked, cleaned, churned butter, worked the fields, sewed clothes, washed the clothes, and nursed the men, as well as the rest of the family, back to health. Yet, you think women OWE you? That we need to be "grateful" for our "survival" - for you keeping us dependent?

That's the most arrogant, narcissistic, one-sided statement I've ever heard.

>Why would you prefer that women be limited by social and legal restrictions from shaping our own destinies?

Please stop erecting strawmen. I never said, nor implied, any such thing. You have no response to any point raised except the hysterical, "you want to have women chained barefoot and pregnant to the kitchen stove!" I think, LS, that you have come to actually believe that this is how things were.

There is none so blind as she who will not see. I feel like I'm trying to describe "blue" to a blindwoman ... .

Jay R, it WAS that way. It still IS that way for most of the world's women.

I'm from the south. The feminist revolution did not hit there as quickly as other, more indutrialized parts of the country, so women were not as liberated, even when I was growing up. They were (and many still are) incredibly subservient to men - cooking, cleaning, sewing, working the fields on the farm, dealing with livestock, and having babies.

Barefoot and pregnant and chained to the stove is not an innaccurate description of their lives. So, growing up there in the 60s certainly gave me a snapshot of what life must've been like for women 100 years ago.

It took a while before southern women realized the opportunities that feminism had given them, and probably even longer for a significant percentage to take advantage of them.

I don't understand how, knowing how male-dominated women are in most other cultures, you somehow set this country apart just because we are more advanced. Yes, being a country founded on the principles or equality, we were the first to try to have laws of protection, and to allow women to vote, but it took decades for women to truly have societal approval to pursue other dreams besides motherhood, teaching or nursing.

And what is good about that? What is fair about that? You may not explicitly say so, but you write as if there's a positive to keeping one gender in an inferior position.

I'm not denying men had tough lives too, but they were not these selfless characters carrying all the weight for survival. Of course, they did more manual labor, but women contributed in other just as important ways. And, in the south, the manual chores of running a farm - raising crops and livestock -were not exempt from women. They were planting/picking crops and caring for livestock right along with the men.

So, I just don't get your view. I don't even see any points to address. You're asserting that men worked hard and kept women alive, and even if you were buying and selling us, there "was no patriarchy". Men were not considered a superior class. Women were not treated as inferior - unable to handle the big chores like voting.

Just the fact women weren't allowed to vote in this country PROVES there was a patriarchy. Just the fact patriarchy continues in much of the rest of the world PROVES there was a patriarchy here too. I cannot see how any rational person can think otherwise.

Again, please provide names of members of this cabal, or how prepubecsnt teen theat died in coal mines, lumber mills, and steel mills benifited frmm it

Don't be foolish, Lujlp. Just because one gender had superiority over another doesn't mean that some members of that gender didn't also suffer or die horrible deaths. People die horrible deaths all the time! What does that have to do with anything? It's a deflective argument.

I could say, "What about those all white men that suffered here...or there....well, there must not have been any racism then! See, white men had it rough too, so this disproves there was any racism!"

You can't disprove sexism by pointing out individual cases of male suffering. Nobody disputes male and female suffering. Even today, the human condition still provides plenty of examples of suffering.

But women and men were not equal. They did not have equal opportunities or protections. Only men had the broadest choices across the board.

The fact that many poor men still chose, out of necessity, to work in coal mines, lumber mills, etc, is no different than the many people who make similar choices to get ahead today - migrant or factory workers, for instance. Some will still be killed in accidents because it's dangerous, physically demanding work. But it is their CHOICE.

Their choices may be limited by economics, but not gender or race. You guys are trying to play the male victim card because of poverty. But poverty doesn't disprove sexism. It may equalize the suffering of both genders in the lower classes, but there were plenty of well-to-do men who were able to fully benefit from the inequality of women...to keep women dependent and subservient, unable to own property except for their good graces, unable to vote or shape the laws of their government, unable to be anything other than mothers and wives for the most part.

That wasn't true for men. They could dream big, like Henry Ford or Thomas Edison. If they had a great idea, and were willing to work hard, they could pursue it and make fortunes. There was no BARRIER to success, like there was for women.

There's no barrier now. Yet, some men and women will still work in factories and not pursue an education or advance in life. They may die horrible deaths. But it's not gender based. Freedom is the equal chance to fail as well as succeed.

Some advice for heterosexual men:

1. Love thyself
2. Respect thyself
3. Protect thyself

SOCIAL LIFE:
Never have intercourse with strangers
Never have intercourse with drunk women
Never get into a vehicle alone with a female stranger or acquaintance
Never be in a room alone with a drunk woman, always try to have another witness in the room with you
Use a consent form (from an attorney) that is signed by both parties before engaging in any sexual activity

WORKPLACE:
Never flirt with women in the workplace
Never look at woman's bodyparts in the workplace, always maintain eye contact
Never look when a woman bends over, turn your head
Never be in a room alone with a woman co-worker, always try to have another witness in the room with you
If you are sexually harassed yourself, report it to HR immediately

Men, if you don't take the responsibilty to protect yourself, no one will because no one cares. Men in power don't care. Start thinking to yourself right now, what if false-harassment or false-rape happened to me? How would it change my life? How would I clear my name? You probably wouldn't be able to clear your name. You would have to wear the injustice the rest of your life. Take the steps now to protect yourself and heed them daily before the system gets you.

"You men can be anything you want to be. You can choose any profession, and any way of living your life."

Man, that's a load off my mind. I guess I'll just choose to be a brain surgeon and make over $200,000 a year. Oh wait, I don't have the money to pay for that kind of tuition. Oh well, at least as a white male there are plenty of grants and special loans that have been specifically constructed to help out people like me......Oh that's right, there aren't. Silly me.

Well, I guess I'm off to find gainful employment as a garbage man. What wonderful "choices" are available to us men! Thank god we live in a Patriarchy!

"Women were not treated as inferior - unable to handle the big chores like voting."

Well, I guess that means poor white males were treated as inferior too, since only those who owned property were allowed to vote,meaning that a great many men were not allowed to vote. See, that was really what qualified a person to vote. Being a landowner,I mean. It had nothing to do with genitalia.

"Just the fact women weren't allowed to vote in this country PROVES there was a patriarchy."

Just the fact that there was no organized resistance by any male groups to making a special provision in the constitution for women in order to ALLOW women (women who weren't landowners, men still had to own land) to vote proves there wasn't. After all, if this "patriarchy" had enough power to dominate women in every social arena, they surely would not have allowed their "slaves" to desert the plantation like that, much less ENCOURAGED it (as most men did at the time).

"Some will still be killed in accidents because it's dangerous, physically demanding work. But it is their CHOICE."

94% of "some" people who are killed in workplace accidents today are male. When you say "some", you might as well say "men" will still be killed in accidents because it's dangerous,physically demanding work. As to sentence 2, see my first comment.

"...to keep women dependent and subservient, unable to own property except for their good graces, unable to vote or shape the laws of their government, unable to be anything other than mothers and wives for the most part."

You forgot "unable to be indebted", "unable to be put in jail for even the most reprehensible of crimes (after all, the woman was the responsibility of the man of the house)", "unable to be forced into military service", etc., etc.

Dave, that's because 60% of doctors are still male...oh, and that's because previously 100% of doctors were male!

You can't tell me there are no loans or incentives for qualified male students. My son is in college. There are tons of scholarships and loans available. If you want to be a doctor, and you're smart enough, you can be one. That's only been true for women in the last few decades.

And it's completely untrue that women were never put in jail or financially indepted. Even worse, they could be committed by their husbands into mental institutions.

If it were not for the women's suffrage movement, lead primarily by women, the right to vote would never have been granted. The fact that some men ultimately supported it, does not take away from the basic unfairness in place to begin with.

Many whites also supported civil rights, at least by the 50s and 60s, but there had already been centuries of disenfranchisement by that point! Coming in late to the cause doesn't wipe out all the prior years of discrimination.

This is about balance. Yes, you men have some legitimate things to complain about - mostly regarding family court or legal issues - but it's totally out of perspective. At worst, you're getting a tiny taste of the sort of discrimination that women have endured for centuries...which, I'm not saying is right - all discrimination needs to be addressed - but to deny that male domination of women ever occurred, or wasn't in place for most of history, or still isn't ongoing in many parts of the world, is wrong.

Women are still more likley to be raped, mutilated, or killed by a male, usually an intimate partner, than you are by a female. That is still one area of inequity for us. So, it's not like you all have it soooooooo much rougher comparatively. There are still areas where women face greater risks and disadvantages.

Nobody contends that men weren't controlled by outside influences too - governmental and societal. But men did dominate women. Perhaps it was the one bright spot in your whole miserable lives - that you were the "king of your castle" and basically owned your women, but it must've held some value.

If men were that unhappy with the status quo, men would've rallied to change it. After all, men made all the laws and could vote. Why wasn't there a "free men from the tyranny of women" campaign? The reason is because, even for a guy working in the coal mines, it was still preferable to come home and be waited on hand and foot by a woman.

And, now, since you've lost the upper hand in gender relations for the first time in history - for all of about four or five decades - you sound like a bunch of spoiled crybabies. "I can't be a doctor...I must be a garbage man"...Please!

You ask for balance but give none. You have no humility in light of how stacked things were in your favor for so long, and still are, in most parts of the world. If you consider this such a "matriarchy", such an unfair society to men, then move to Saudia Arabia, convert to Islam. You can have your women covered in burkas, genitally mutilated, and subservient.

But if you're going to stay here, then you need to at least be intellectually honest about the gender discrimination women, across the globe, have faced for centuries and try to weigh that against your relatively petty gender complaints now.

"And it's completely untrue that women were never put in jail or financially indepted. Even worse, they could be committed by their husbands into mental institutions."

No, it's not. For a woman who keeps claiming women had no ability to make decisions, I would think you'd be able to understand this. Women weren't allowed to make financial decisions, and were generally seen as being less moral than men. Hence, women were not morally responsible for their decisions, their husbands,or fathers, or brothers were, and they were not financially responsible for their debts, their husbands were. When a woman made a mistake in the past, a man paid for it.

"You can't tell me there are no loans or incentives for qualified male students. My son is in college. There are tons of scholarships and loans available."

None specifically FOR WHITE MALES. Plenty for females, plenty for minorities, some for exceptionally bright people from all races,creeds, and cultural backgrounds, yet NONE specifically for males in general or males who are not a member of an ethnic minority.

"If men were that unhappy with the status quo, men would've rallied to change it."

What do you think the American Revolution was about,sweetheart?

"After all, men made all the laws and could vote."
I don't recall hearing about any women who risked execution for treason so that we could live in a democracy where people actually have the right to vote in the first place.

"Why wasn't there a "free men from the tyranny of women" campaign?"

Well, that's largely because men don't see the sacrifices they make so that women and children can live in a safe,healthy environment as "tyranny". That's just us doing our part for society.

"The reason is because, even for a guy working in the coal mines, it was still preferable to come home and be waited on hand and foot by a woman."

How many female hermits have you heard about? Quite a few men in the past have chosen to live alone in a cave rather than marry a woman. You'd probably call THOSE guys "misogynists, though.

"And, now, since you've lost the upper hand in gender relations for the first time in history - for all of about four or five decades - you sound like a bunch of spoiled crybabies."

You know, if I were a lesser man, I would turn this around and say that women who are emotionally traumatized by ACTUAL rapes "sound like a bunch of spoiled crybabies", just so you could get a picture of how sick what you just said REALLY sounds. I don't play that game,though. I'm not going to belittle another person's suffering when they have been horribly victimized.

"If you consider this such a "matriarchy", such an unfair society to men, then move to Saudia Arabia, convert to Islam."

I don't have to. If feminists have their way, the Islamic extremists will eventually find their way over here and by that time, let me tell you, there won't be much complaint on the part of men when Western females are forced into burkas and stoned for citing feminist propaganda. By that time, heterosexual intercourse will probably be classified as a "crime against women",though.

"But if you're going to stay here, then you need to at least be intellectually honest about the gender discrimination women, across the globe, have faced for centuries and try to weigh that against your relatively petty gender complaints now."

Oh yeah, our "gender complaints" probably seem "relatively petty" to you, but then again, YOU'LL never be falsely charged with rape or domestic violence. You'll never be assigned a child support payment in excess of your current income and called a "deadbeat mom" when you can't pay it,you'll never be forced into battle against your will, you can opt out of pregnancy and parenthood should your contraceptives fail.

That will be the last thing I say off the topic.

I just want to lend my support to any man reading this article who has been falsely accused of rape. My heart goes out to you all. As a man who has been raped by several women, I understand the hypocrisy and double-standards inherent in the rape and DV industries. I have never been personally falsely accused of rape but I would posit that,from a male's point of view, it is probably worse than actually being raped. At least I didn't have my name dragged through the mud in the papers.

Statistically, your chances of being falsely accused of rape is very low. Not that it shouldn't be zero, but unfortunately, the nature of rape makes achieving that figure nearly impossible.

I agree that the child support complaint is valid. I won't argue with you there.

"Women weren't allowed to make financial decisions, and were generally seen as being less moral than men. Hence, women were not morally responsible for their decisions, their husbands,or fathers, or brothers were..."

First off, I would like you to prove that women who inherited property did not also inherit debt. If you can prove that, I will concede the point, but I really don't think that women were excused of debt in those circumstances.

Besides, the first part of your statement proves my point that women were treated as an inferior class. How can you deny that on one hand and contradict it on the other?

There was a patriarchal system. That's all this is about. I mean, blacks didn't have the same responsibilities as white land owners either, but it's a bit unseemly for whites to claim that they had it "rougher" because they had to worry about the finances of the plantation...that they might get "stuck" with a debt that one of their slaves caused. No doubt this happened too, but are we really supposed to feel more empathy for the slaveowner?

And white males (and females) may legitimately argue now that they are being discriminated against - with laws that were designed to address discrimination of blacks that are perhaps outdated.

And you, as a white male, may indeed be discriminated against now in certain areas by the measures that feminism took too far to address sexism.

Yet, my point is that you don't really have the moral high ground in these arguments. A superior class, which discriminated for decades against another, needs to be at least a little cognizant, a little humbled by those actions when viewing themselves entirely as "victims".

Indeed, you may be a victim of some wrongheaded thinking. But please try to keep it in context. Being both white and male, you are still in a privileged class. You do not live in a society where males are subservient - in fact, white males still control much of our government, and our legal system. Males still make up a high percentage of cops, legislators, CEOs, and judges.

I mean, I could see you guys feeling this victimized if women were in all those places of power in much higher numbers, or exclusively. Then, I would agree that you are suffering some hostile matriarchal takeover.

But it seems to me that if men are not being well-served by this society - by our laws - then it must be, at least in part, the fault of other men, who are in positions of power...not just the feminist movement. I think women are simply the easier scapegoats here, but these laws weren't passed just by women. Nor do women really control the legal system. Most judges are men. Most cops who would arrest you are men.

If what you say is true, males are frequently persecuting their own kind. Females aren't the only ones to blame.

Feminism - punishing every man today for what less then 10% of them did to women centuries before any of us were born

Ah, I see you just can't let it rest,can you?

"First off, I would like you to prove that women who inherited property did not also inherit debt. If you can prove that, I will concede the point, but I really don't think that women were excused of debt in those circumstances."

I don't think I should have to prove something that would seem obvious. Probably the best paying job in those days was that of a prospector, who in their right mind would expect a woman to be able to pay for any substantial incurred debt? Even prostitution didn't pay that much in those days. Therefore, it seems obvious to me, and historical evidence of the time suggests, that it was most likely the young males of the family, some as young as 8, who were sent out into the workplace to pay off debt that actually belonged to the female widow or female head of the household.

"Besides, the first part of your statement proves my point that women were treated as an inferior class. How can you deny that on one hand and contradict it on the other?"

Haha. Yes, if being the beneficiaries of years of hard labor and sacrifice from males could be called being "treated as an inferior class". Women may have not inherited the family wealth directly, but if you're telling me the eldest male son wasn't charged with the responsibility of taking care of his mother and sisters in the style to which they were accustomed you're either very dumb,or you think I am.

Also, I said women were generally seen as being less moral. By generally, I mean WOMEN shared this sentiment. Important women. Like the Queen of England. I'm not contradicting anything. Women were certainly treated differently in the past, but it was a far cry from the "oppression" feminists imagine. In fact, chivalry and other such outmoded expressions of preferential treatment for women hurt MEN a LOT more than women.

Victorian women mainly complained about having too much free time and being too bored, not feeling browbeaten, abused, neglected, or mistreated by their husbands or men in general.

"There was a patriarchal system. That's all this is about. I mean, blacks didn't have the same responsibilities as white land owners either, but it's a bit unseemly for whites to claim that they had it "rougher" because they had to worry about the finances of the plantation...that they might get "stuck" with a debt that one of their slaves caused. No doubt this happened too, but are we really supposed to feel more empathy for the slaveowner?"

Name one female who has EVER been lynched by a "patriarchal" or "male power" group in America. Just one will suffice.

"I mean, I could see you guys feeling this victimized if women were in all those places of power in much higher numbers, or exclusively. Then, I would agree that you are suffering some hostile matriarchal takeover."

Who benefits from the leadership of the men in power? MEN? Or "women and children"? Males in power always legislate on behalf of females, and with female needs in mind. Why wouldn't they? Females spend over 60% of the nation's wealth and make up 51% of voters.

"Being both white and male, you are still in a privileged class. You do not live in a society where males are subservient - in fact, white males still control much of our government, and our legal system. Males still make up a high percentage of cops, legislators, CEOs, and judges."

No. I'm not privileged. See here's the fact feminists just keep missing. Yes, most of the people in influential positions are males, but NEARLY ALL of the people on the bottom rung of society ARE ALSO MALES. Men make up most of the homeless too.

I think the reason feminists don't see this is because they are biologically programmed (as females) to only pay attention to males with high status and the greatest amount of resources, that is my only my personal conjecture though.

"But it seems to me that if men are not being well-served by this society - by our laws - then it must be, at least in part, the fault of other men, who are in positions of power...not just the feminist movement."

Yes, it is. They are doing this out of good old-fashioned chivalry and deference to female interests. It is being done in the name of charity and goodwill toward women, and yet women like you spit on these men, while men like me get spit on by both you AND THEM.

"If what you say is true, males are frequently persecuting their own kind. "

Yes, they are. Now you're catching on. See, " mainly males are in powerful positions", does not equal "most men are powerful".

That would only be true if males in power wrote laws mainly FOR men, the way females in power do for women.

See, now we have males AND females in leadership positions throwing favorable legislation at women, at the expense of the average male, who still pays most of the taxes.

That is the crux of the problem.

Sorry, that should be "That would only be true if males in power wrote laws that mainly benefited men, the way females in power do for women."

I won't be replying to any more of your comments, LS, as I don't wish to derail the topic of this discussion,
which is false rape accusations.

These people already don't receive enough public attention as it is and I have no wish to add to their problems.

Are you reading Victorian romance novels as history, Dave? I suppose Henry XIII was just being "chivalrous" when he beheaded his wives.

Are you really asserting that men were/are only driven by "chivalry"? Is that why 80% of women killed by domestic violence are murdered by their partners? And the lifetime risk of rape for women is 1 in 12?

No, women aren't routinely "lynched" - just raped, beaten, or killed by the very men they trust. We are by far more likely to die that way than you are, so there must not be as many "chivalrous" men out there as you presume.

And you can't prove your contentions about debt because it's not true. Women still inherited estates and farms from their husbands or fathers at times, and the worth of those estates and farms would still be levied for debt. It wouldn't be like, "Oh, you're a woman, we'll be chivalrous and allow you not to pay your debts." Some probably lost their properties because they couldn't find employment providing enough income to maintain them or settle what was owed.

Finally, may I remind you that women birth all the males in this country, so it's absurd to contend that we have no interest in their well-being. Women do not "only pay attention to" men of high status. We care about our sons, brothers, and fathers too.

I find it highly unlikely that all the men in power are just being "chivalrous" by creating laws that imperil even themselves.

My view is that most of these laws are, in fact, well-intentioned to protect those most at risk for being victimized by certain crimes and social situations - which, statistically, are women and children. Some were just not thought out well, but it's not a result of some vast, feminine conspiracy against you because both genders are heavily involved. It's just lack of common sense or foresight.

I could rail on about all the well-intentioned environmental laws that have, in effect, ruined the environment and needlessly harmed property owners, like myself. But even I, who have been impacted greatly from these laws, don't believe it's a vast conspiracy. It's simply the impulsiveness and lack of understanding of voters and legislators alike. They're well-meaning but foolish, and some of what they put on the books needs to be fixed or reversed.

But I don't HATE all environmentalists. I just work to change those laws. You guys need to stop wallowing in your "victimhood" and villanizing all women, and take a civil, productive approach to resolving these inequities.

I'd say the same to radical feminists - this hateful verbiage and wallowing in victimhood is not productive.

If we're going to get anything done about false rape accusations,child support laws,domestic violence laws,or general misandry in society it's clear that we will have to fight feminists every step of the way. They'll do anything to prevent women from being seen as fallible human beings like us men.

That's ONE gender stereotype they will NEVER challenge and will fight tooth and nail to protect.

Thankfully, there are good, rational, reasonable women out there who actually DO care about equality. Women like Amy Alkon give me hope that at least some women do care about the systemic victimization that males undergo as a matter of daily life in the West today.

I applaud her for doing her part to shed some light on this situation and try to educate people about the very real dangers this situation presents.

I suppose Henry XIII was just being "chivalrous" when he beheaded his wives.

And what kind of mental head case would marry a man who killed a string of women?

The firt one I can see her not getting it, but the rest of them deserve NO sympathy - they knew what they were getting into

And yes LS women are more likely to be raped by men, but so are men. And lets not forget that a large number of rapists claimed to have been abused as children by women

You think there is a patriarchy? Expalin how a woman drown five of her kids and is let out of jail, or how a woman shoots her husband in the back to hide her finacial misdeeds and gets less than two month in jail by claim her husband abused her by ASKING her to wear heels occasionally, or how an astronauht drives across 3 states intent on kidnapping and murder and isnt charged.

Or how a woman in phx left her kid to bake in a car the day after her ex sued for custody, and isnt charged, or how a woman leaves her 6 month old in a car while taking her DOG on a 6 hour shopping spree is only give probation, or the woman in canada last week who MURDERED the child she was baybysitting only to have the judge tell her she suffered punishmnet enough when the agancy fired her for killing a clietnts baby.

Meanwhile men are being releashed from prison by the dozens who were sent their for rape on nothing more that the word of one woman

Tell me again about this patriarchy and how all men benifit from it

Lujlp, I said there WAS a patriarchy. I don't think there is one anymore. Perhaps you might consider that the incidences you site - and I don't know all the cases except Winkler, so I can't respond to them - might be remnants of the patriarchy because patriarchy simply means:

"Rule by the father or a male authority. The word patriarchy comes from the Latin word pater, which means father. It most often refers to the political power and authority of males in a society. The concept of patriarchy is often used by extension (in anthropology and feminism, for example) to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole..."

The cases you site seem be ones where women were treated more like children than adults, less able to understand their decisions and therefore less guilty of crimes than men would be.

This seems to prove that there WAS indeed a patriarchy. Fatherly judges still view women as less capable of committing violent crimes than men.

I haven't been arguing for the patriarchy in terms of male domination in modern times. I just think it's a pretty important factor to omit from your understanding of history. The patriarchy is a well-established fact from almost any neutral historical source, and it helps to give a better perspective on these gender differences.

Rather than automatically blaming feminism for every inequity, you might consider the way MEN still view women differently.

Feminisms definition of patriachy is not the one you just gave LS, it was the one you gave a few posts back when you claimed that all men benifited thru the subjigation of women at the hands of 5-10% of men, the other 90-95% of men were just as subjigated.

You werent agrueing that the ptriachry was man resppnisble for the fucionality of society, you were argueing that the partiarchy was a consiparcy to futher the rise of all men every where by way of degredation and rape of women

By the way, men and women are different, physically, emotionally, and mentally deal with it

Lujlp, that was never what I argued, which was the frustrating part. You guys kept putting words in my mouth - things I never said and don't believe. That may be how some feminists view patriarchy, but not me. I just don't think it serves you guys to DENY there was a patriarchy.

"By the way, men and women are different, physically, emotionally, and mentally deal with it.."

You deal with it. On the one hand, you want total equality - if women aren't treated exactly the same as men under the law, then it's a conspiracy. Yet, you now say men and women are different?

I agree, and I think that explains quite a lot of the inequities, but I didn't know this was your argument.

If I had said that, you'd be livid, assuming I was arguing for favorable treatment for women.

You said men veiw women differently as thogh that were a bad thing, I am different from other males as well, that is not ground for different treatment by the law - something I never suggested

Who putting words in mouths now?

No, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, or a good thing. I think it's a human nature thing, based on years of evolutionary and cultural programming that just doesn't get undone overnight.

But, understanding that, knowing that both men and women - on juries, and judge's benches, for instance - have deeply ingrained perceptions of the differences between men and women helps explain how there can be such unequal outcomes.

Because the influences of feminism alone, however evil you may consider it to be, doesn't fully explain this phenomenon. Feminists aren't on every jury or in every family courtroom. Judges and cops are primarily male, and males usually make up half or more of all juries.

I think it is precisely the differences between the genders that is weighed - by BOTH genders. It is only common sense to acknowledge that men and women respond differently, function differently - especially with regards to sex and sexual crimes.

To a man, for instance, being asked to wear high heels or play act isn't an emotionally charged thing. A man's repsonse is more likely, "I wish my wife would ask me to wear a black wig and boots and pretend to be Johnny Depp!" That's no big deal.

But I saw those heels in the Winkler case - they were probably 9" platform stilettos. Now, you look at Mary Winkler - as I'm sure the multi-gendered jury did - and you ask, "Does this seem like a woman who would be comfortable wearing 9" stilleto heels...or having anal sex?" And the answer is a resounding no.

Yet, if I had been on the stand, the multi-gendered jury might've thought, "She looks like a woman who wouldn't have a problem wearing 9" stilettos...or performing various sex acts" - and they'd be right. I would've probably been convicted. So, it isn't just the differences between men and women. It can also be the differences between women.

And we can't - and shouldn't - take that objectivity away from juries because we'll inhibit justice.

Name one female who has EVER been lynched by a "patriarchal" or "male power" group in America. Just one will suffice.

Here is a list:

Bridget Bishop
Rebecca Nurse
Sarah Good
Susannah Martin
Elizabeth Howe
Sarah Wildes
Martha Carrier
Martha Corey
Mary Eastey
Ann Pudeator
Alice Parker
Mary Parker
Margaret Scott

I will let you do the research and determine why they were hanged.

The fact that things sucked for men doesn't negate the fact that women didn't have independent franchise and in many places still don't:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=200900507

-Julie

I’m a heterosexual man and I quit.

The posts here have drifted off topic from time to time. As far as false rape goes, I'm a man who has stopped participating in all intercourse. I just decided I didn't need it anymore. I need air, food, water, and shelter, but not intercourse. I wish more men would realize this fact. It's not safe anymore because it has become way too political. Any intercourse session that starts out consensual can become rape. To be honest, in my discussions with women over time, I've never met any woman yet who really wants to have intercourse. It is usually consented to for reasons other than sex. I believe that all het intercourse can become rape. After all, it is unpleasant for the woman and can cause a lot of pain. How can that be sex? She does it because she thinks it's a requirement or because she is begged to do it. I believe that most het intercourse in our society is really a form of 'gray-rape' because deep down she really doesn't want to do it, but does it anyway for various reasons because she thinks she has to. What kind of liberation is that? It’s a form of oppression and its total hypocrisy. False rape then becomes a ‘choice’ or an ’option’ with no consequences. Well what do you know, maybe that old, tired, radical feminist slogan “All Heterosexual Intercourse Is Rape!” you’ve read in books in the women’s studies section just might be true after all. So, for reasons of independence, liberation and safety, I quit and I’ve never been happier.

"I've never met any woman yet who really wants to have intercourse"

This is more prevalent than you think. 100%? No. I don't have a percentage, but many women participate in this act for reasons OTHER than their own desire. That IS a fact. And ironically enough, this is also the same fact that has been stated by many feminist writers over the years. This is what I meant in my original post whether what I call 'gray-consent' is based on alcohol, peer pressure, societal expectations, cultural expectations, or a mix of all, the truth is if these women could get out of it they would, but they stay silent. This bothers me deeply as a man because of the possible legal ramifications down the road. Women don't have to have het intercourse if they don't want to and if they don't they are NOT prudes, they are still ok as people. Het intercourse is NOT a requirement to be a woman and since it's NOT a requirement, it's time for them to be truly honest with themselves. My second point was I don't miss intercourse because I finally learned that I just don't need it anymore. I'm just fine without it and for a het man, that IS revolutionary and empowering and not a copout.

Amy said:
"I've been a lusty broad my entire life"

Good for you. Lots of women can be "lusty", but not necessarily for het intercourse.

Amy said:
"I'm with my boyfriend”….”simply because he's the best person I know and there's nobody I'd rather spend an hour with."

Congratulations.

Amy said:
"I have plenty of lusty broad friends...."

So do I, but again, the term "lusty" does not define or necessarily mean het intercourse.

Amy said:
"There's something wrong with you that this is your experience."
"In fact, I'm guessing that you're the reverse Vivian Gornick."
"Perhaps there's something about you that makes you creep women like us out?"
"I'm guessing there's some serious character flaw in you that leads you to be around women who say such things."

All of these assertions are simply not true and are very unfair accusations. Women that I have met and continue to read about in various publications have been very honest concerning their personal feelings towards het intercourse.