Because feminism

Schoolboy feared to have killed himself after being falsely branded a rapist on Facebook

Tom Acton, 16, was subjected to a false rape accusation (circulated as a rumor) after contacting police about drug dealers in his neighborhood. Despite the absence of any evidence, any news story, any police report, and apparently without even a specific alleged victim, the rumors sparked enough local outrage that his schoolmates and other residents of his community threatened, harassed, and bullied him into an apparent suicide.

Some discussion on the story has highlighted the relationship between feminist "rape culture" claims, and the environment of credulity and knee-jerk reactions which led to Acton's death. The first response I saw to that discussion by a self proclaimed feminist is as vapid as one can get, acknowledging that the story is tragic, but ignoring the existing discussion to simply deny responsibility "as a feminist." That's expected; given that the modern feminist victim complex relies largely on hypoagency, it would be out of character for a feminist to take responsibility for any negative result of the movement's advocacy. It's also a steaming load of bullshit. 

Feminists, this tragedy is your fault. It's a direct result of feminist promulgation on rape and rapists.

No, the social response to rape accusations wasn't balanced prior to feminist advocacy. No, there has never been a time when a man could be genuinely believed by his community to be a rapist, and consider himself safe. Even criminals will take vigilante vengeance upon a presumed rapist.

However, thanks to feminists, the existing reaction has been exacerbated to the point where no evidence is needed to spark the kind of outraged harassment and abuse faced by Tom Acton. Society's strict stance on the crime has evolved into a hair-triggered hatred not just of known rapists, but of the accused in general. This isn't a natural extension of society's response to rape. There are other reasons for this, and none of them has anything to do with the society's view on the nature of the crime, or the nature of those who actually commit it.

One reason is the decades of feminist agitation for societal adoption of a "believe the female accuser (feminists say victim) mentality. Once a woman alleges a sex crime, we aren't supposed to ever doubt her story. All rape allegations must be presumed true unless proved false, and often even after proved false. Feminist-presented statistics all rely on the presumption that female accusations of sexual misconduct are rarely false, including popularly used statistics about frequency of occurrence, reporting, arrests, and conviction. This has normalized presuming any man or boy accused of rape guilty.

Another reason is feminist capitalization on male disposability. Any time there is a discussion about the falsely accused, arguments put forth by feminist ideologues rely on taking as a given that imposing adverse conditions on an uninvolved or innocent man can be made acceptable by arguing that doing so will benefit a woman. Feminists impose a false competition upon allegations of sexual misconduct, wrongfully pitting the rights of the accused as a group against the rights of actual crime victims (in part by treating all accusers as victims, as described above, and also in part by treating all accused as perpetrators) as a group. They base arguments on the topic of due process on treating the rights of the accused as a barrier to recognizing the rights of the accuser. This generally includes treating attainment of a conviction as "justice," and that brand of "justice" as an accuser's right by virtue of being presumed honest. This normalizes ignoring the humanity of the accused, which facilitates inhuman treatment of them.

A third is predatory feminist exploitation of female proxy victim status. In order to maximize the mileage feminist advocates get from trotting out female victimization as lobbying material, fundraising fodder, and a ploy for social power, mainstream advocates, academic activists, and grassroots debaters have worked to distort the perception of rape into a belief that the crime is worse than even murder. In fact, many feminist advocates respond to the idea that any crime might be worse than rape with eye-bulging outrage, as if acknowledging that there are crimes more damaging than rape somehow excuses or reduces the crime itself. Treating rape in this manner normalizes the kind of overreaction that incites ordinarily reasonable people to vigilante violence.

A fourth is the hard push by feminists to make all of society responsible for sex crimes committed by male individuals. The "teach men not to rape" and "don't be that guy" campaigns are examples of this. So is the feminist version of "rape culture" theory. The concepts used to support all three of these rely on holding everyone but perpetrators responsible for the crime, while imposing an image of complete and utter helplessness on the entire female population, who are all treated as victims-in-waiting. Feminist advocates use these concepts to try to shame society into adopting their ideological perspective on sex, sexual relationships, and sexual misconduct, and to normalize violence against men accused of misconduct against women.

The effect of this set of approaches, when combined, can lead to a completely warped response to an accusation, or even a rumor, as in Acton's case. Guilt is presumed by reason of accusation. The humanity of the accused is eclipsed by that presumption of guilt; now that he's labeled a rapist, his humanity isn't important any more. Since rape is the most heinous of crimes and the worst experience one can have, so horrible one would prefer to be brutally murdered rather than experience it, the accused is now a terrible monster. He must be stopped, punished, or at least used as a convenient receptacle for everyone else's guilt and outrage. Being an inhuman monster, his bodily autonomy is null and void. It's acceptable to assault him, harass him, threaten him, stalk him, anything to achieve a personal sense of accomplishment in the name of "justice."

It doesn't matter if, as a feminist, you don't feel responsible for Tom Ashton's death. In supporting the ideology that enabled drug dealers in his neighborhood to manipulate his own community into badgering and harassing him to death, you might as well have committed the attack against him and every other innocent victim of rape-accusation triggered social vigilantism yourself.     
   
If it's your tendency to use the word "victim" to describe a rape accuser whose case has not been tried, much less proved, you're responsible.

If it's your tendency to use the word "rapist" or "perpetrator" to describe a man accused of rape or any other sex crime when his case hasn't yet been tried, much less his guilt proved, you're responsible.

If you're offended at the idea of questioning a rape accuser's story, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued in favor of feminist-advocated legal protection from judicial scrutiny for female accusers using statistics that are based on the assumption that all or most rape reports are true, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued against prosecuting proved false rape accusers because you think it might discourage other women from filing rape accusations, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued against taking measures to discourage false accusation on the basis that it is rare, you're responsible. 

If you're offended at the idea that the potential for severe penalty in a sex crime case merits a high standard for proof of guilt, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued that "it's better to jail an innocent man than to let a rapist go free," you're responsible.

If you've inflated the number of "rapists going free" to make that argument sound more valid, you're responsible.

If you've ever responded to statements about the experiences of the falsely accused by describing the experiences of rape victims, you're responsible.

If you think of obtaining a conviction as justice and a right for a female rape accuser, you're responsible.

If you believe intervention programs for sex offenders work, but you still want to put them on a state-sponsored, publicly available registry after they complete those programs, you're responsible.

If you've ever called rape a worse crime than murder, you're responsible.

If you've ever used the concept of "Schrodinger's rapist" to describe the experience of being female in public, you're responsible.

If you back the use of male-demonizing, society-shaming advocacy such as the "teach men not to rape" or "don't be that guy" campaigns, you're responsible.

If your personal ideology includes a belief in the feminist concept of 'rape culture,' and you've ever defended or advocated that others adopt that belief, you're responsible.

If, upon hearing or reading an unsupported, context-free accusation like the one to which Tom Acton was subjected, you'd believe it, you're responsible.

If you're offended at seeing responsibility for Acton's death attributed to feminists, instead of concerned with how you can help reverse the feminist-led trends that led to it, you're responsible.

If you feel inspired to argue "Not All Feminists Are Like That" in response to this post, and then proceed to tell me what "real feminism" is all about, you're responsible.

If you believe you can fit one of the above descriptions and not be responsible, you're responsible. 

If you're not comfortable with that responsibility, then take some responsibility for reforming your activism, and stop supporting an ideological push designed to create the conditions which cause terrible tragedies like this.

The Nature of the Allegation

Recent discussion on whether it's acceptable to sacrifice one man to false imprisonment in order to jail 50 rapists has inspired me to hunt down an old comment of mine that I think needs repeated.   

Originally, the comment was made in reply to a politician who asked about men's rights issues, and specifically mentioned false rape allegations. Given the history of my personal activism, false accusations are an issue which holds special significance to me, and that is what I chose to address. The comment hit a lot of points that ended up being brought up in that discussion, and also some points that were not, but which are frequently presented in similar discussions. In light of that, I've decided to publish it here. For additional thoughts on the subject, also see my previous post, The Seriousness of the Charge.

________________________________________________________________________

The first thing to understand about rape and false allegations is that we are never going to eliminate either the incidence of innocent people receiving jail time, or guilty people escaping the justice system, because rape cases can be subjective, lawyers can be sneaky, and mistakes can be made with any case.

What we can do is ensure that the reason innocent people sometimes go to jail is not because they were denied their right to a fair trial, and the reason guilty people sometimes get away is not because their initial conviction didn't have to be based on any real evidence and a deserved conviction was overturned because the system enabled poor effort by police and prosecutors in handling the case.

An individual should be convicted of rape when the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The definition of the term Rape should be held to as strict of a standard as the definition of the term murder. The designation of an act of homicide as first degree murder requires that the perpetrator be sane, and that prosecution can show malice aforethought (prior intent) in the evidence presented. The designation of an act of homicide as second degree murder requires intent, but not necessarily prior intent. Homicide which was not intended by the perpetrator is still treated as a crime, but is not treated as murder.
 
Deliberately killing someone is considered a much more heinous act than unintentionally causing someone's death. Both have equal capacity for terrible consequences to the victim - death being the obvious, but also physical and mental suffering prior to death. Both have equal capacity for terrible consequences for the victim's community, leaving behind loss and mourning. The only reason the judicial and penal systems differentiate between murder and homicides that are not murder is that there is a difference in the nature of the perpetrator based on whether the victim's suffering and death were the goals of the actions that killed him or her, or whether they were just something the perpetrator was willing to risk.

Further, there are circumstances in which an individual may cause the death of another, but not be charged with a crime. For instance, if it is demonstrated that an individual had no access to information which would have prevented the action which lead to the death, and no other reason to not perform that action, the death may be ruled as accidental rather than homicide. A driver who hits a pedestrian illegally crossing the street in the dark, wearing nothing bright enough for the driver to see, would be able to argue that 1) if the pedestrian had not illegally crossed, he would not have been in the path of the vehicle, and 2) if the pedestrian had made himself more visible, the driver would have had a chance to avoid hitting him. In this type of case, even though the victim may suffer just as much as a victim of homicide or murder, the individual whose actions caused the victim's death is not equal to the perpetrators of those crimes, in that he or she neither intended to kill nor was willing to risk killing as a side effect of the actions which led to the death.

The terms of rape should be treated with equally strict standards with similar regard to other sex crime terms and standards. It is not strictly  the experience of the victim which should determine the nature of the of the charge. The intent of the accused must be taken into account when determining what charge should be made. The term rape should apply if there is evidence that the act was committed with intent to override the victim's right to refuse sexual advances (such as injuries from applied force, a weapon or coercion/blackmail used to force compliance, or an act performed on an obviously incapacitated victim.)

If evidence does not show that level of intent, then the term rape should not apply. Even though the victim may be able to demonstrate equal consequences (emotional and physical suffering, with possibility of diseases and pregnancy) there is a difference in the nature of the perpetrator  based on whether the victim's suffering and risks were the goals of the actions of the accused, or whether they were a result of lack of understanding, lack of communication, or other factors which caused the accused to fail to realize a conscious partner who declined to rebuff advances was not a willing participant.

The definition of the term Rape should apply equally to both sexes. It is no less heinous or depraved to deliberately override a man's right to refuse sexual advances than it is to deliberately override a woman's right, nor does being the same sex as the victim change the wrongness of the act. The choice to do so shows the same character flaw regardless of sex. The law and the legal system should not discriminate against any sex or sexuality by failing to penalize the act of violation on those bases.

The second thing to understand, the thing that those who argue in favor of compromising accused men's right to due process fail to understand, is that discussion on the issues of false allegations and due process is not a pit fight between the due process rights of the falsely accused, and the personal rights of existing or potential rape victims. Debaters often forget that the "falsely" in falsely accused refers to accused who did not commit the crime, not someone who is trying to get away with rape.

Imprisoning the falsely accused does not

• prevent rape
• undo rape
• avenge the victim
• act as a substitute for handling actual perpetrators
• achieve justice

Imprisoning the falsely accused does

• victimize an innocent person
• create the risk of additional rape
• damage the community's respect and trust for the justice system
• damage the community's respect and trust for the law
• damage the community's sympathy and trust for rape victims

Arguments in favor of lowering the burden of proof in rape cases are based on the assumed disposability of men (the majority of the accused) in that these arguments accept the fact of potentially destroying the accused's life for the satisfaction of the accuser regardless of whether the accusation has merit.
 
This leads to the third thing which really must be understood. Knowingly and willfully leveling a false allegation is a heinous act with potentially terrible consequences for the accused. Those consequences can range from emotional pain and suffering to whole life-altering destruction of reputation and relationships, to wrongful imprisonment.

The law and the legal system already have set ways in which methods of false allegation (false police reports, perjury, slander) are handled. Where criminal charges would apply if the false statements made were about any other matter, they should also apply in rape cases. The same standards of severity and consequence used to determine the seriousness of those charges in other cases should be used to determine the seriousness of the charges when the lie told involves rape. The standard for proof should also be the same.

Arguments against holding knowing and deliberate (proved) false accusers responsible for their actions are based on the assumed greater value of the rights of women (the majority of accusers) over the rights of men. It is an argument that although there is an authority response and legal process for handling the victimization of women, there should not be an equal response and process for handling the victimization of men, with the reason given being that having that response and process available to men might prevent women from using it.

These things really are the bottom line:

The stated experience of the alleged victim does not define the nature of the accused. We cannot permit compassion for the alleged victim and a quest for retribution for her alleged suffering to reduce our acknowledgement of and deference to the basic human rights of the accused. The choice to fall into that trap depends on treating the human existence of men, the group most often accused, as less than that of women, the group which most often accuses.

Due process rights cannot be compromised, and laws protecting them must be enforced. If we make that compromise, fail in our standards and our efforts because of how we feel about the nature of the allegation, then we are no more righteous, no more validated, no more upstanding, and no more rational than a lynch mob.

Letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, 9-19-2012

Dear Colleague,

For the record, let me begin by stating that no one is arguing against treating the crimes of rape and sexual harassment as not serious, not criminal, not wrong, or not important. The argument here is not an advocacy to excuse the act, nor is it an advocacy of dismissal of the victim's experience. The points I intend to make here are very simple: It is wrong to designate one portion of the population as having disposable rights in order to assuage the outrage of another portion, and that is what modern treatment of sex crime allegations does.

The right to due process is a fundamental, basic human right. It involves a simple, bottom-line status which is to be applied universally: The presumption of innocence until guilt is proved. This status belongs to every living human being, accused or not, and if accused, whether accused of the lightest misdemeanor, or the most heinous felony crime. It is not to be impinged regardless of the nature of the accusation. Until there is proof of guilt, any accusation, no matter how serious or how heinous, is still just an accusation. This is how we protect innocent people from being victimized by the juggernaut that is government, and in particular the court system - by enforcing that standard of proof. This is also how we protect innocent students from being victimized by the life-path wrecking ball that higher education disciplinary authorities can be, as these are human judges subject to emotional appeal, who may be easily swayed toward assessing that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met by faulty or superficial factors rather than genuine proof.

The move to compromise policy and law related to the application of the Presumption of Innocence standard to men accused of sex crimes is based on sympathy for existing victims. The choice to relax standards of proof rides on the assumption that failure to penalize men against whom allegations are unproved somehow damages existing victims, combined with the choice to ignore damage done to falsely accused and falsely penalized men. In other words, it treats the innocent man as if, just by being accused, he is guilty of the actions of previous criminals.

In enforcing upon university disciplinary authorities the Preponderance of Evidence standard instead of the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, you have determined that accused students can be found guilty by insinuation, rather than requiring proof. This creates a great increase in the risk of convicting and penalizing falsely accused students, while not necessarily increasing the ability to determine the guilt of the guilty. In fact, it clouds the issue by lumping the innocent and the guilty together, casting doubt upon the validity of all convictions instead of confirming the validity of any.

Pitting the rights of the falsely accused against the rights of the genuinely victimized is a false argument. Punishing the innocent does not

• prevent sex crimes
• act as a substitute for handling actual perpetrators
• unrape or unharass existing victims
• in any other way achieve anything resembling justice

When the innocent man remains free, that does not

• cause sex crimes
• prevent the pursuit of an actual perpetrator
• re-victimize existing victims
• in any way deny anyone's attainment of a just outcome to any investigation

Punishing the innocent man does not ensure that the guilty will be punished along with him. In fact, in the course of a traumatic experience, the victim may misidentify the perpetrator due to her fear response. Punishing the innocent rather than requiring proof can lead to leaving the guilty unpunished and free to repeat his crime.

The right of the accused to the benefit of due process, particularly the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, is equal in value and importance to the legal rights of the alleged victim. The choice to release the name of the accused, to apply penalty prior to a hearing, and to apply the lowest standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) to the investigation of a serious crime, treats the accused as already convicted and requires him to prove his innocence, rather than the reverse. Further, the stipulation that universities must choose between denial of the accused's right to appeal or subjecting him to something very like double jeopardy (by allowing the accuser to appeal as well) is a second violation of the accused's due process rights.

In abridging the due process rights of men accused of sex crimes with a standard which is not applied to the investigation of any other offense which college and university disciplinary commissions might address, the Department of Education has applied a sexist and discriminatory requirement. This requirement applies only to an accusation set which is predominantly made by women against men, which means the population subjected to it will be predominantly male. This does not enforce equal treatment as described by title IX, but instead violates the intent of the law.

To summarize, the 2011 changes in Department of Education policy on sexual assault and sexual harassment, rather than achieving the stated intent of making all students feel safer in their schools, has created a hostile environment for men on college campuses while failing to increase safety for women. I would encourage the department to rethink and rewrite this policy to bring it more into line with legal standards, to eliminate the gender discrimination inherent to the 2011 version, and to insert a modicum of sense into the handling of sensitive allegations on college and university campuses. If you cannot do that, then it may be better to abandon the policy completely and allow campuses the freedom and responsibility to handle these matters on a more individual basis.

Sincerely,

*XXXXXXXXXX
Adjunct Professor,
XXXXX University XXXXX Campus,
XXXXX Ohio

Alumus,
XXXXX University,
XXXXX, Ohio 




*information removed to avoid compromising my privacy, but included in letter sent.

In Response to my Newest Fan

To the male feminist who copied the text of my consent post in its entirety, then re-posted it in your own blog intertwined with straw man arguments and denial:  
   
First: Accepting implied consent as consent can get a guy charged with rape. It has gotten and can get a guy kicked out of post-secondary school through the college or university's disciplinary system. This can happen and has happened even when consent is implied by active participation. This can happen and has happened even when the female initiates sexual contact. This can happen and has happened even when there are witness to the event who explain that. Giving your own definition of what constitutes consent is interesting, but it does not change how feminist advocacy has shaped the legal definitions which determine the environment faced by sexually active men. No matter how you feel about consent, the fact is that men as a group and individually are subject to the possibility of being accused on the basis of a woman's whim. Failure to account for that reality is a risk, regardless of your feeling or belief.

Second: What we are worried about here is not, as you claim, limited to consent in terms of a relationship. We are worried about the movement in modern western society to convince women that any time sex is later regretted, for any reason, even if there was consent at the time of the activity, the act should be considered rape of the woman by the man. MRAs do not consider consent to be a trap. The movement is in overall agreement that

•  No means no
•  Unconscious means no
•  Incapacitated to inability to communicate or respond means no
•  Underage means no

MRAs consider feminist advocacy regarding its definition and usage to be a trap. We consider social and legal perception and treatment of consent to be uneven and discriminatory toward men. Society and the law apply unequal standards of accountability and rights between the sexes when considering consent, and the differing treatment of the victim when addressing sexual assault. This is especially noticeable in the expectation that men must obtain explicit, verbal consent or be guilty of rape, while women face no such dilemma because physical response in an adult man's body is considered implied consent. It is further apparent in the disparity of social and legal assumption of free will between men who drink, and women who drink, when drinking is followed by sex.

Feminists attempt to move the target regarding what constitutes consent, arguing for the right to treat consensual sex as rape if the female partner chooses to withdraw consent at a later time. The movement has successfully convinced some judges to treat post-sex-act withdrawal of consent as legally binding.

The movement has successfully advocated adoption by universities of rule sets under which consent implied by active and willful participation does not negate allegation of rape because consent was not spoken. Discussion on this often includes selective quoting of more sensible policies, as when debaters quote from Vasser's definition of consent from the school's Sexual Assault Violence Prevention plan in order to advocate treating it as "A process, which must be asked for every step of the way; if you want to move to the next level of sexual intimacy" (in other words, asking permission before each new action, such as kissing, each area touched, and so on) while ignoring the admonitions toward women (contained in the same policy statement) to communicate, "Say 'no.' Say 'I want to stop.'" and even to take matters into their own hands if communication is ignored, "In a situation where the other person isn’t listening to you and you feel unsafe, you could pretend you are going to vomit. (It’s amazing how quickly someone moves away from you if they think you are going to be sick)." Highlighting the suggestion of obsessive questioning  as a means of ensuring consent while ignoring the empowering advice below it shows a determination in the debater to embrace willful helplessness. Too often, the same feminist advocacy which demands that women be treated as being as tough, strong, and capable as men in every other situation turns around and demands that women be treated as weak, helpless, and incapable of standing up for themselves in iffy, rather than overtly forceful, sexual encounters.

The movement has successfully convinced many women that consent withdrawn after the woman has participated in sex can change the man's status from participant to rapist. When the logic of this is questioned, it is never countered on its own merits. Instead, many feminist advocates move the goalposts, choosing instead to discuss withdrawal of consent during the act, and avoiding discussion of withdrawal of consent after the act and how that can criminalize the male partner's part in consensual sex. Some instead argue that consent is not valid unless it's enthusiastic consent. In other words, heterosexual sex involving a woman who is not naturally demonstrative? Rape. Heterosexual sex involving a woman who is interested but too tired to physically show enthusiasm? Rape. Heterosexual sex involving a woman who isn't naturally assertive in the pursuit of her desires? Rape.


It is one thing to argue that sexual activity should stop when one partner communicates discomfort or dislike, or cessation of desire or interest. That is reasonable - it's rape if someone says "stop" (or in the context of alternative sex acts, utters the "safe word,") and the other partner refuses and forces the issue. It's a whole other ballgame to argue that a partner is guilty of rape because the other partner has at a later date changed her mind. It is not reasonable to expect that an individual would know consent is withdrawn, without verbal or at least easily discernible nonverbal communication of discomfort, dislike, or cessation of desire or interest (such as pushing him away, turning away, dramatic, obvious reduction in physical participation from enthusiastic to nil.) Assuming the male has such knowledge in the absence of evidence is essentially a requirement that he be psychic.

Third: Feminism does not have to be a single standpoint to be held responsible for the practical application of the advocacy discussed. I'd explain to you why, but there's another woman who has all ready given the best possible explanation, and I recommend listening to her statement on the topic. If you don't take measures to rein in the advocacy which is actively chipping away at the due process rights of men, actively shaping post-secondary educational facilities' policy on handling allegations of rape in a way that criminalizes simply being male and accused, actively teaching young women to consider themselves victimized by a man whenever the decision to have sex leads to consequences they don't like, you have no business arguing that feminism is not a single standpoint. That advocacy is the advocacy which is getting results. If you choose to wear the label under which that advocacy is active, you choose to be associated with their assertions, their beliefs, their attitudes, and their reputation. If you don't like that, then don't quietly stand by while they fight for ideals you claim not to support. Speak up, condemn the behavior, and shape your movement. If you refuse to do that, then your attempt to dissociate yourself from the mainstream, most active, most applied brand of feminism is a bald-faced lie.

Moving on: Your mischaracterization of the paragraph on female sexual liberation and slut shaming shows a lack of reading comprehension. The paragraph does not condemn the sexual liberation of women. It merely describes the activity of the movement... and there is a reason why "allegedly" precedes "male practice" in the introduction of that label. Ranting as if you didn't catch that is either disingenuous, or a sign of inability to keep up.

Your paragraph about cheating is a straw man. The last sentence states that applying the label "slut shaming" to the act of treating a female cheating on a male partner as a mistreatment of the male - in other words, a hurtful and harmful act committed against him by her - is an abuse of the label. Your response? "If a woman cheats, it hurts you, but it is no excuse to treat her as a slut." This would be a straw-man argument, as the sentence does not excuse use of the term slut, but condemns applying the label slut-shaming when a  male partner treats a betrayal as the betrayal that it is.

For the record, partner cheating is not treated equally between the sexes. Male cheating on female partners is considered abuse, condemned as the behavior of a selfish, uncaring and dishonest individual. Male cheating is blamed on the cheater, and on occasion, the other woman, but rarely on conflict with the female partner - that would be blaming the victim. The jilted woman has social and legal support behind her in expressing feelings of hurt, betrayal, abandonment, and being unwanted... and in seeking some measure of reprisal, even to the point of violent behavior. The lines drawn are clear. When a male cheats on a female, it's an abuse perpetrated against her. There is no outrage at how she chooses to treat him because of the incident. There is only support for the woman's effort to assuage her own feelings by whatever actions she chooses, up to and sometimes including assault. In fact, when a woman is seen abusing a man in public, the assumption that he deserved it because he cheated is sometimes even seen by the public, especially by other women, as an excuse for the violence. Notice the "You go girl" reaction. Notice in the narration of the linked video, it's explained that hundreds of people walk by. Notice women stating that the man probably deserved the abuse because (they assumed) he was cheating. Notice how only a small minority took any action to help the victim.

Conversely, when a female cheats, the perception often is that the cheater is the victim. It is unacceptable to assert that her behavior indicates selfishness, lack of caring, or dishonesty. Instead, the blame goes to the other man, who must have seduced her, or to her male partner, who must be abusive or neglectful of her needs. When she cheats with a woman, the blame goes to society, who kept her from figuring herself out (making up her mind about her sexuality) until too late to spare the man the experience. It's not treated as a betrayal, but a mistake which should be forgiven. When her male partner attempts to hold her responsible for her actions, that's considered treating her as if she's his property. If she's using the seduction excuse, then by claiming betrayal, he's blaming her for being tricked, as if she had no agency to consent or to withhold consent from the other man. If she's using mistreatment as an excuse, then by showing his hurt, he's blaming her for something he made her do, as if he walked her to the other man's bed and put her in it. If she's using sexual confusion as an excuse, then by feeling abandoned, he's blaming her for society's forced repression of her sexuality.

Your last sentence in discussing that paragraph is one of the defining characteristics of MRA complaints with feminism: If you treat an entire gender as jerks then you will always always be disappointed. That is what feminism does - treat an entire gender as jerks, only bigger. The feminist movement treats an entire gender as criminals waiting to happen, who must be ordered to not commit crimes, or expected to commit them.

Following that, thanks for addressing me as a man. (Have you ever considered that the problem with your dating strategy is you keep thinking that sex is something to be earned?) That's probably the most telling thing you did in your entire post. By not even bothering to read my sidebar, "Whose Blog Is This" to find out who you are dealing with, you let yourself fall into the oh-so-common feminist fallacy of assuming that the only people concerned with men's rights are men. In doing so, you have disclosed your sexist outlook.

Further, your whole argument relies upon treating your personal philosophy as being the reality in which dating takes place. It's not. It's not men who treat sex with women as a privilege, but sex with men as a given. It's women. It's even taught to daughters by their mothers and grandmothers, with inane adages like "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free," meaning "don't be promiscuous, or no man will marry you."
 
Your belief in male consent agency is great, but it's not backed up by legal handling. The assumption that consent and body autonomy are reserved for women is an attitude which permeates modern western society, leading to such myths as the idea that men can't be raped, or if he is, he's weak or gay. Many western laws still define rape as something men do, and women suffer. When a man's sexual boundaries are violated, if there is prosecution, lesser terms like "sexual assault" and "sexual imposition" are applied. Try using "Woman convicted of forcible rape" as a search term. It doesn't call up any stories on the topic. Instead, it brings up stories on convicted men, discussions on male rapists of women, and a few hypothetical questions with hypothetical answers. Take out "woman" and you'll get even more stories about male rapists. Is this because no woman has ever forced herself on a man?

No.

Recent statistics in the U.S., from which I hail, show that women commit rape (forcing men to penetrate) as often as men (forced penetration.) However, when women do it, it's not legally considered rape - merely an "other sexual offense." When a man forces sex on a woman, it gets the most serious criminal labeling. When a woman forces sex on a man, it gets downplayed as a more minor offense. Does that show equal treatment and value of consent?

Your assessment of the paragraph beginning "In the dating arena" is another strawman, taking the discussion out of the sex act and into minor interactions, ignoring the context in which the statement is made. Again, I see two possibilities. Either your reading comprehension is low, or you're once again attempting to move the goalposts because you can't debate the topic. The claim that emotional response to sexual advances keeps women from saying no, made in the context of date-rape allegations and affirmative consent discussions, amounts to exactly what it says in that paragraph. This is reinforced by the idea that consent may be withdrawn at any time. If consent is withdrawn, but the change is not communicated, the man hasn't changed his intent. He is not responsible for the woman changing her mind. However, college disciplinary boards and criminal courts do hold men responsible for that change. Once again, your personal philosophy on how dating should be does not define how things are.

The same is true of your assessment of the one after, beginning "Complicating this environment." Your claim that no one is treating women as helpless is not backed up by criminal courts, nor is it backed up by feminist advocacy. Your next sentence attempts again to move the goalposts from discussion of incidents involving women who withhold communication and then accuse rape, to women who have been raped after saying no. The issue isn't that the circumstance described never happens. The issue is that you cannot address it without admitting that sometimes, rape allegations the woman believes to be true are false, and sometimes, a sexual encounter that a woman regrets experiencing is her own fault for choosing to not assert herself.
Following that, you add bigotry to your post, baselessly accusing MRAs as a group of having a love of "rapey behavior," which you fail to define. You've completely dropped all semblance of analysis and dropped into the realm of inarticulate denial and unmerited attacks.

Following that paragraph, you reply to the one beginning "This is taken to the extreme in the choice" with another attempt at moving the goalposts because you cannot debate the concept presented to you. With that, you level yet another straw man argument, attempting to debate an unmade statement of justification for sex with someone who is incapacitated. As previously stated, that is not a Men's Rights position.

Your answer to the next paragraph about the Gatekeeper to Consent argument is covered in my previous responses. The only thing I would add is that your reply is wandering and disconnected, and your dismissal is not a valid debate tactic.

Your response to the paragraph beginning "The answer is in how this combination may support the use of abuse" negates itself. I live in the western world - in the United States, where men are not considered able to be rape victims. Men do not have equal agency of consent here. Neither do they in Canada, or most of Europe. You can only believe otherwise if you ignore the entire first world's last few decades of legislative and legal history.

Your final paragraph is yet another straw man, choosing to argue against something much simpler and more benign than the topic discussed in the paragraph above it, the use of false allegations by women as a weapon. Attempting to retrain the reader's eye to the male rape discussion at that point is a sad stab at misdirection, considering it isn't even mentioned in the paragraph under which it is posted. You would do better to attempt to address the topic you brought up by placing that paragraph there.Your further choice to address the reply to MRAs as a group instead of the blogger at hand, leveling another ad-hominem attack on the movement instead of offering an actual point shows that your opinion is seated more in bias than knowledge.

Then again, maybe you would not. Your ability to stay on topic and handle tough questions with solid, well thought-out answers is seriously lacking. As you are a student, and as you write more like a person influenced than a person exercising reason, I suspect that you are still young, and have not had the chance to experience the level of discrimination and harassment some individuals in the movement you so hate have experienced. Perhaps after you have lived a little time outside the shelter of academia, you'll gain a better understanding of how things are in the real world. Until then, enjoy your delusions of practical equality while they last.

The Seriousness of the Charge

I'm seeing the same poorly thought out, hypocritical response whenever the issue of false rape allegations garners the attention of radical feminists. It's a single response, divided into multiple concepts designed to disguise its nature, with most discussions relying on a single one of those. I'm not going to provide links to discussions, partly because some are old and I can't easily find them any more, and partly because I don't want to feed the trolls involved. I'm addressing it here instead, because having personally witnessed the shoving of families through the meat grinder that false allegations represents, I'm more than a little focused on that issue. Also, I think it might be good to have the disguising concepts of the feminist response put into words and discussed all in one place.


Denial comes to mind first. Though it's no longer the most notable response, it's one of the most ridiculous, in light of the existence of proof to its contrary, in cases like the Brian Banks story. The existence of proof makes it the easiest to counter. Because of that, I'm not even going to address it beyond mention.


More often and more effectively used is the attempt to marginalize and minimize. There are several methods to this.


There is the assertion that if a man is not guilty, he has nothing to fear. The wrongness of that assertion is highlighted by cases of false conviction (again, with the recent example of the Brian Banks story.) Even we ignore existing examples, there is still the ordeal he must go through; mandatory investigation, public defamation, and possibly being tried on the charge. During the ordeal, he faces discrimination and suspicion at the hands of his peers, and possibly also harassment and violence. If he's underage, the chance of violence increases, because social violence among youth is more tolerated than among adults, due to the expectation among adults that kids will sometimes fight, to and the fact of reduced legal repercussions for fighting while underage.

Imagine gym class for an accused boy who is believed by the other kids to be guilty of raping a girl.

There are also still the factors which lead to false conviction. Under legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, and policies enacted by police precincts and procedures followed within the court system, a male accused of rape is considered guilty until proven innocent, a daunting and perilous standard. Conviction may occur in the absence of evidence. Worse, even if he is acquitted, the allegation can stick to his reputation. An accused male who has been acquitted faces the likelihood that to some, he will never again be just a guy, but always seen - and treated - as a falsely acquitted rapist.

However, just for a moment, let's assume that assertion is true; that the falsely accused are never convicted. How does that justify subjecting anyone to the experience, putting him through the rigors of an investigation, damaging his reputation, and possibly forcing him to defend himself in court? Is it really believed within the feminist community that the hope of an acquittal negates all other aspects of the experience? Does feminism now consider no harm to be done even if the only worst harm is evaded? Does this mean that it's okay for men to fantasize about rape,  joke  about rape, and threaten women with rape, as long as they don't actually do it? After all, if a woman is not actually getting raped, then she has nothing to fear, right?


There is the assertion that false allegations are not a big deal because their occurrence is rare. This is contradicted by existing factors within their own community. Victim advocacy on the topic of rape calls for treatment of allegations as credible without doubt, including when there is not sufficient evidence to support that. Even lack of conviction is not viewed as vindication of the accused, but as an instance of the perpetrator getting away with the crime. The assertion of rarity, based on loyalty to the concept that female accusers must not be doubted, is circular reasoning - a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. (Because we are not allowed to doubt the credibility of alleged rape victims, it must be accepted that false allegations occur only in the rarest of circumstances, when evidence against the accusation is overwhelming.)

Broadening of the definition of rape to include incidents in which the alleged victim was not averse to the interaction until after the fact has further muddied the water, by creating a conflict between what feminists consider rape, and what rape actually is (and is considered to be by the law.) This manner of twisting the definition turns sex into a form of entrapment in which the woman may withdraw consent after the event. The fact that the man involved did not force the encounter by any means does not deter radical feminists from applying the label "rape." This leads to filing of allegations which get tossed out or struck down because the accuser was never actually victimized. These cases, in turn build an area of disagreement, in which the term rape has been falsely applied to sexual encounters in a way supported by feminist ideology. That disparity in viewpoint is the key to a lot of feminist dismissal of the falsely accused.    

Basing the assertion of rarity, in any part, on loyalty concepts like regret as evidence of rape, and guilt until innocence is proven, is an act of begging the question, or basing one's belief on a false premise which one has accepted to be true. (The allegation cannot be false because the woman feels raped, or because the man must be perceived as a rapist.)

Still, just for a moment, let's accept that assertion as true. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that only one in a hundred allegations actually turns out to be false. How does that make the act of falsely accusing any less wrong, any less serious, or any less harmful to the victim, the falsely accused? Does he suffer less because of the rarity of his plight? Does the "fact" that other accusers are honest reduce the damage done to this victim's life? How about we apply this to rape. If we get the occurrence of rape down to 1 in 100 women, can we just let it go and not prosecute the perpetrator in that one, simply because the crime is rare? If it doesn't happen often, then it doesn't merit much attention, right?

How is this an accurate or honest way to measure the severity, seriousness, or wrongness of any crime? Applying the rarity-as-an-excuse standard, misdemeanors such as moving violations while driving (running a stop sign, speeding, improper lane change,) which are committed with greater frequency than any assault, should be taken much more seriously, discussed at length, and subject to greater legal consequences than say, anything as comparatively rare as rape. When played out to such an obvious extreme, the concept that rarity excuses the behavior is exposed in its lack of logic.   

There is the assertion that false allegations are not harmful to the accused. In reality, false allegations can be extremely harmful, both immediately and in the long term. The falsely accused suffers, and faces, damages.

• his reputation takes an immediate hit
• he will be at least temporarily imprisoned
• there will be at least the financial loss involved in paying bail
• regardless of the outcome of the trial, there will be at least some in his community who will always view him as a rapist

In addition, the stress of dealing with the false allegations and the ensuing mandatory investigation can

• damage his existing relationships with family and friends
• cause him problems at work due to lost time, reputation issues, and hostility resulting from reputation issues
• cause stress-related health problems, including anxiety, depression, elevated blood pressure, digestive issues, and exacerbation of existing health conditions

He faces an uphill battle, being accused of one of those crimes for which discriminatory law requires that the accused be treated by the court as guilty until proven innocent. If he cannot prove his innocence, he faces

• imprisonment, followed by
• abuse by fellow prisoners and guards because of the nature of his conviction

If he survives that long enough to be released, he is subjected to invasion of privacy via

• sex-offender registration
• publication of said registry for public viewing, including online access
• forced self-identification to neighbors

as well as

• compromised freedoms (regarding where he may or may not reside)
• reduced employability
• loss of right to bear arms

Falsely accused boys, whose selves are still forming at a rapid rate and strongly subject to outside influence, and whose community includes the closer-knit and less private environment of school, would face issues not present for adults.

• frequent and consistent violent bullying and harassment in response to his damaged reputation
• lost education opportunities, as the accusation could lead to his being barred from attending school during the investigation, or if convicted
• reduced academic achievement, even if allowed to attend school; caused by stress, time lost to compliance with investigation and hearings, and possibly educator bias
• loss of time-specific personal development opportunities, in the delaying or prevention of enrollment in youth programs and activities which won't be available to him when he's older 
• greater susceptibility to the emotional and psychological repercussions of the terrible lessons the experience may teach him, including damage to his ability to trust both authority figures and women
• change to the path of his character development by subjecting him to incarceration, where defensive behaviors must be adopted, at an impressionable age
• damage to his developing self-image, and possibly his future ability to emotionally connect with sex partners, due to a possible mental association of sex with betrayal
•  potential damage to the formation of his entire sense of self, as kids' beliefs about themselves can be shaped by what they are told and shown that their respected or loved elders and those in authority think of them

Regardless, let's just for a moment pretend that assertion has merit. Let's assume that every time a male is falsely accused of rape, it doesn't change his life in any way. Aside from how absurdly difficult to hold, and insulting to the accused, that assumption is, there is also the question of why that makes it all right to create a false alarm in the community. Let's compare it to pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire. Since no harm is done to the building, is that okay, feminists? Should we treat false fire alarms as if no harm is done, when police and firefighters are occupied, resources are used, and a disturbance is created around the source of the alarm? Should we enact legislation to protect false alarmists from prosecution? After all, since no damage is created by the false alarm, the alarmist hasn't done anything wrong, right?

There is the assertion that the experience of being falsely accused doesn't feel as horrible as being raped. This kind of statement can only come from someone who has never seen the devastating effects false accusations can have on an individual's life. It's not just dismissive of the damage done to the accused, but insulting to the intelligence of the listener or reader, who is apparently expected to not be able to imagine how the fear, shame, humiliation and other feelings often associated with rape may also be experienced by the falsely accused.

Subjected to perception of guilt within his community, and because of that, treated as a walking perpetrator, the accused will experience a sense of being violated, coupled with a response of indignation at the assumptions others are making. He may feel betrayed by the accuser, and/or by other people he expected to know him better. He may feel outraged by behaviors exhibited by those around him in response to the allegations against him. He may feel frustrated and confused by the dissonance between his knowledge of his innocence, and his experience of being treated by those around him as guilty.

He may have a sense that his own personal choice, or control of self, has been taken away from him. He may be stricken by a sense of helplessness or powerlessness. By creating a false public impression, the accuser has robbed her victim of a level of personal sovereignty. It is no longer enough for him to live within the bounds of common decency; he can now be viewed as an indecent person through no action of his own... in fact, his actions don't matter. He has been robbed of his right and his ability to shape his reputation through the behavioral choices he makes.

He may be oppressed by the hostile environment that a discriminatory public attitude toward him can create; reluctant to confront the stares, whispers, and sometimes open aggressiveness of individuals who have judged him by the accusation, rather than by any evidence. Even though he knows that he did nothing wrong, he may pick up and carry the guilt lobbed at him by a judgmental public. There is a vulnerable, naked-in-public  feeling in knowing that everyone around you may have a bad impression of you in mind as they interact with you, more so when it's a concrete belief that you've committed a crime thought of by most as an atrocity. He may be humiliated and ashamed at what strangers might think of him, made to feel dirty or tainted by the allegations against him.

He may feel like a predatory presence or perverse outcast among other people in response to the knowledge that that is how others see him. This can lead to a level of phobia... fear of interpersonal interaction within the community in which his reputation has been tarnished, or even of going out in public at all. That phobia may be made worse by others' treatment of the victim. He can end up isolating himself and becoming depressed, even suicidal.

There is also the fear of the other potential consequences of those allegations, as described above, all of which can take an emotional toll. As with the experience of rape, that emotional toll can, and often does, last well beyond the duration of the experience of facing false allegations, which can arguably be said to last much longer than the experience of rape.    

However, let us again take this assertion to its logical conclusion. Let's accept, for a moment, the belief that being accused is a less horrible experience than being raped. How does that justify advocating tolerance of the behavior? The argument basically is that because the experience of the victim is thought to not be emotionally traumatic, the crime is not a crime. Taken to its logical extreme, that assertion excuses embezzlement, tax fraud, grave robbing (the victim is dead,) destruction of public property, and a host of other serious crimes which do not emotionally traumatize anyone. Or rather, that we should not prosecute a rapist who victimizes an individual who is too mentally disabled to understand or care about the experience. Since it's not as emotionally upsetting as forcible rape, it's not worth addressing, right?
    

There is the assertion that addressing and combating the use of false allegations is an attack on actual rape victims. This assertion is based on the pretense of an either-or competition, pitting the rights of rape victims against the rights of the falsely accused. The claims are as follows: First, that the effort to prevent men from being wrongfully convicted would create a legal environment in which legitimate rape allegations would not result in conviction due to the court's requirement for actual evidence; and second, that penalizing women for leveling allegations proved to be false will discourage legitimate rape victims from coming forward.

The first claim, offered as an argument in support of rape victims, is really an attack on due process. What the debater is really articulating is the belief that women should be able to expect to accuse without evidence, yet automatically be believed... or turning it around, that when accused by women, men lose their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the very base upon which the western concept of due process is framed.

The second claim, also offered as an argument in support of rape victims, is really an attack on the value, or weight, of the human rights of men in comparison with the human rights of women. It amounts to the assertion that some men may be subjected to involuntary sacrifice of their rights, reputations, health, families, and freedom, to foster the emotional comfort of some women.

Taking the attitudes of these claims to an extreme end, one could justify the abolition of due process. If affording accused criminals the right to due process is a violation of the rights of crime victims, then there should never even be hearings held to determine the validity of criminal charges involving a victim. As soon as there is an injured party, it doesn't matter whether the party convicted is guilty. It only matters that someone is convicted. Who cares about a few human sacrifices when there are women to protect, right?

Finally, even in the one concession that ever gets made in favor of addressing and effort toward prevention of false rape allegations, there is the move to transfer victim status from the accused to uninvolved women. This is done by stating, as one's reason for condemning the act of false accusation, the fear that public awareness of the existence of false allegations will negatively impact the credibility of real rape victims. Doing this marginalizes the real victim, the falsely accused, and ignores the ordeal he suffers at the hands of his accuser, in favor of steering the discussion back around to a female-centric perspective.  
 
Of all of the various ways in which feminists dismiss the wrongness, ignore the impact, and marginalize the victims of false rape allegations, this one is both the sneakiest, and the most blatant. It's sneaky in that it involves a pretense of support, and blatant in its designation of men as irrelevant and disposable. It relies solely on the treatment of the human rights of men as having less value or weight than the human rights of women.

That attitude is at the bottom of all of the ways in which feminists dismiss and marginalize male victims of false rape allegations. The hypocrisy is that these self-described fighters for equality cannot abide any acknowledgement that the human rights - or human experience - of men are equal to their own. Doing so would take away the Mantle of the Oppressed that gives women the power of Blame, used to maintain the privilege for which feminists have so passionately fought since the 1960s, and the soapbox from which feminist ideology is preached. This is the way that the feminist response to false rape allegations against men reveals the underlying basis for feminist advocacy; that they fight not for human equality, but for female power, and they're willing to ignore, step on, or sacrifice anyone who gets in between them and their achievement of that goal.