Reddit Feminists admit everything, page 2

Return to page 1

Several times during the last few years, men's issues discussion has included analysis and criticism of events in which there was feminist involvement;

• Feminist responses to MHRA postering, 
• Donglegate (http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/donglegate-vs-vaginagate/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jhGRuSvWOc,) 
• the feminist protest of Canadian Association For Equality hosted events (http://22to28.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/247/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVuK44kWgxk,)  
• Doxxing Violentacrez (for being disliked by feminists), 
• Anita Sarkeesian's damseling incident (in which she falsely accused MRAs of threatening her) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp4lJLJwfLo, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD6408gG6Ys&feature=youtu.be, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25o0EZiogw0, http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html.)

In each instance, instead of dealing with the reality of overt behavior on behalf of their movement, internet feminists have used the deflection, dodging, and denial approach I've previously described. Among the arguments used in that approach:

• Active, world-effecting feminists don't represent what feminism means to the world (a staple in their repertoire).
• That feminists pushed for something doesn't mean feminists are responsible for it happening.
• That a response or claim is based on widely-articulated and cited feminist ideology or claims doesn't link the response or claim to feminism.
• That feminists spoke out in support of an individual's actions doesn't link those actions to feminism. 

In each case, internet feminists have essentially argued that no matter what other indicators exist making a connection between a behavior or event, and feminism or any specific feminist group, unless there is an undeniable, in-your-face smoking gun, it's unreasonable to discuss those connections and draw any conclusions which would consider those connections valid.

Imagine my surprise... okay, so I wasn't surprised, just delighted at the ability to cite yet another display of feminist hypocrisy... when reddit feminists used exactly the same processes they have previously criticized when they wanted to support the claim "Men's Rights Activists flooded Occidental university with false rape reports!"

Now, for the record, here's where I have to admit to trolling a reddit feminist or two (and I'd apologize to them, but you know, they really asked for it) in order to get better evidence of that hypocrisy.

It didn't start out that way. I came in to that situation after the fact, not knowing whether or not there had even been any MRAs who filled out forms. Reading the accusation, the feminist response to it appeared to me to be completely hysterical. After all, they have spent the last few years arguing that false accusations are no big deal, even when they have real, life-wrecking consequences. They've specifically argued that wrongful use of the form in question would cause no damage at all, despite the stigma of being labeled a sex offender without the recourse of any kind of hearing for the accused. The equivalent would be in arguing the right to tattoo the word "rapist" on someone any time you like, because after all, that isn't same as imprisonment.
Therefore, it's not an abuse of the individual's rights.

If those really are their beliefs, it should not have bothered them if there had been over 9000 prank accusations filed... unless, of course, what is not damaging when women supported by feminists do it becomes a holy freakin' super-destructive force when those Magic Patriarchy Powers™ come into play.

As I looked into the existing discussions, I realized that once again, these feminists were using the molehill + feminist objection = mountain formula for justifying their own articulated outrage. Though the loophole-demonstration approach isn't something I'd have come up with, I don't actually see a problem with it, especially not one which justifies the mouth-frothing feminist response to this incident. Those involved, an unknown, untraceable mix of 4chan users and /r/mensrights subscribers, are not subjecting anyone to anything feminists don't support subjecting men to at random. They're simply demonstrating a serious flaw in the system set up by Occidental; that the anonymity factor and internet-wide availability of their sexual misconduct report form makes it easy to abuse, and abuse of it hard to quell or counter. The smartest approach Occidental could make to this display is to address that flaw, and take steps to improve their reporting system so that actual victims can report misconduct, but their students won't be vulnerable to the same attacks which were perpetrated against the poor Kool-Aid man and various incarnations of Mr. Jimmy Russel this week.

Within my set of comments, I asked for proof of the following:

• That the behavior (Prank use of Occidental's anonymous reporting form) was widespread among MRAs,
• That following their brigading of the sub, reddit feminists didn't manipulate voting
• That anything about the incident (either the demonstrable involvement in the behavior, or the vote pattern on comments and on the original post) demonstrated a unified sub-wide attitude about the behavior.

These weren't complicated questions, and though as I said, I have no doubt that there was involvement by MRAs, these questions weren't outside the standard of reason set by past reddit feminist responses to other discussion of feminist behavior and attitudes. They were based on the reality that an accusation can't be reasonably considered proved if there is not physical evidence, if there's reasonable suspicion of contributing factors not taken into account, and/or if there's not a direct, traceable and unbroken link between presented evidence and the conclusion offered.

The commenters replying to me failed to deliver on all 3 counts.

The show of hypocrisy by reddit's /r/againstmensrights feminists in response to my questions about this incident was priceless. On pushing the feminist trolls on /r/mensrights for more evidence, and then looking through the screenshots and links I was given, I learned the following:

• A small few /r/mensrights accounts (less than 0.00002% of the sub's overall population) had posted comments claiming to have filled out the forms.
• A very slightly larger number of /r/mensrights accounts had posted comments discussing the idea, with some encouraging it. Some of these were long-term, prominent members. 
• There was controversy among regulars in the sub over whether or not the idea was a good idea.
• Evidence for the claim that MRAs "flooded" Occidental with reports included an official from Occidental stating that reports "contained language similar to that used by members of 4chan and reddit's /r/mensrights." No concrete evidence was presented showing that more reports than were claimed by MRAs came from MRAs, nor was any concrete evidence presented that the official in question had any familiarity with either 4chan or /r/mensrights. 
• Based on the combined populations from which the reports are said to have come, there was no flood, but a mere 400 reports... a fraction of either individual population, and a pittance when considering their overall numbers. 
• There was no smoking gun here, but /r/againstmensrights thinks that a minority of comments and claims based on circumstantial evidence constitutes one when it's their accusation they're trying to prove. 

Now, let me repeat that I do believe there were men's rights activists involved in the effort to highlight this huge flaw in Occidental's approach to handling sexual misconduct. From the moment I saw the first list (to which I replied with my initial 0.00002% comment) I knew there were prominent, respected (including by me) MRAs involved, and I have no problem whatsoever with their actions. This article is not a denial of that; it's about the hysterical feminist response to the incident. 

Feminists - the same group which uses the deflect, dodge, and deny approach to discussion about feminist and feminist-led behavior, which responds to evidence of damage done by their movement with NAFALT, and actions taken in their name with "nothing but a smoking gun is evidence" - responded to my trollish barrage of requests for more and more evidence by offering me two things: More circumstantial evidence, and a healthy dose of vitriol. How dare I demand proof when I knew there was none? That they were so sure of their findings should be enough to convince me! Was I nuts? How could I be so unreasonable as to put forth the same requirements and stipulations they've made in the past in response to discussion of feminist behaviors? Don't I realize that when the suspects are MRAs, appearance = guilt?

The realization that those responding to me were so shocked when I presented in mock seriousness the same responses I've seen feminists present in actual seriousness made it a little hard to keep up the charade. I think I blew it in the end by pushing too hard, because they gave up and quit responding...

...but not before they cemented their display of hypocrisy by falling back on oft-used NAFALT-based projection, once again demanding that I ignore the difference between things feminists just don't like, and things that have a demonstrably discriminatory or oppressive impact on men both individually and as a group.

Reddit Feminists admit everything

The main response of feminists on the internet to any criticism of the movement is deflection, dodging, and denial. To understand this, you only have to look back at internet feminists' responses to information presented to them about their movement, and about internet feminists' actions during the last few years.

One example of the deflection response is to dismiss men's issues by combining blame for them on a conspiratorial concept they've labeled "Patriarchy" with the treatment of all men everywhere as a single unit instead of individuals with individual experiences and effects on the world. The gist of this argument is "men's problems are caused by men having power and control in society. One man's power is all men's power. Therefore, your issues are your fault, while women's issues are also your fault. That makes women's issues more important, and means that men aren't qualified to seek and apply solutions to men's issues. You should back off and let feminists have control. Our efforts to empower women will solve all of the issues related to discrimination in the world, and if they don't, you probably deserve to be discriminated against, anyway."


However, an accurate look at the history of the issues and the feminist response to them often reveals that feminist activism and feminist ideological assertions have been either causative or exacerbating factors leading or contributing to discriminatory conditions faced by men.

One example which stands out is the unequal legal handling of child custody and division of property following divorce. It was feminist activism which led to the widespread adoption of the belief that mothers should be primarily awarded child custody. Prior to their involvement, it was standard procedure that custody of children in divorce would remain with fathers, who did not receive any financial support from their ex-wives. Following the change, women given custody of their children were awarded support on the basis of their lower earning capacity. However, as women's earning capacity has increased, the expectation that an ex-husband will continue to fund his ex-wife's custody of their children following their divorce has not decreased in proportion to it.

When estranged fathers denied contact with their children and kept in poverty by exorbitant and often arbitrarily imposed support obligations (and therefore unable to fight the willful alienation imposed by their exes) began lobbying for equal custodial rights, feminist organizations opposed that effort by demonizing all fathers as abusers and deadbeats, and denying the behavior of mothers whose denial of parental contact and abuse of the system led to the effort. Further, feminist groups have not only supported the continuation of the use of outdated reasoning for the imposition of support obligation on divorcing husbands and fathers, they've fought to impose stricter legal handling of that obligation. This, knowing that the group primarily assigned custody is women, and the group primarily assigned child support obligation is men.

Another is the unequal treatment of victims of intimate partner and sexual violence depending on the sex of the victim and the sex of the perpetrator. This is another area in which feminists blame "patriarchy," but a look at their own activism shows that with respect to modern treatment of victims, their hands are as dirty as they can get, in both the area of sexual violence, and intimate partner violence. And they're still doing it. Feminist rape apologia is so blatant that they're willing to admit they have no basis for defining the same forced or coerced sex act differently depending on who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. 

The internet feminist answer to being confronted with feminist involvement in causing or exacerbating discriminatory conditions faced by men is to actually claim that despite their own actions, it's still "patriarchy," not feminism, which is the primary and current cause of these issues because   
   
1) NAFALT (explained below), and
2) Lawmakers are mostly men, and they don't have to listen to feminist advocates.
In other words, no matter the lobbying/information on which their decisions are based, all discrimination is male lawmakers' fault (female lawmakers who support feminist efforts don't count) and no responsibility can be placed on feminist groups exercising influence on the process. Or to put it another way, the all-powerful male lawmakers should have known that feminist groups were talking out of their asses, ignored all of the information presented to them, and decided purely based on the innate knowledge that comes from male omnipotence.

NAFALT is a combination of deflection, dodging, and denial that takes expert mental gymnastics to pull off. Address a concept upon which the feminist pro-discrimination lobby is based, using it exactly as feminists have described it, and your approach will be dismissed with "that's not what that concept is." Give references for your usage of the concept, and they'll be dismissed with some version of the "Not All Feminists Are Like That" argument, which boils down to the claim that no matter what the mainstream, heavily funded, established and world-effecting segment of feminism has laid down as feminist ideology on which to base their organized activism, if there's anyone anywhere who calls themselves "feminist" and believes or says differently, that feminist constitutes the new "mainstream," and all other feminism with which she disagrees (at the moment) due to her discomfort at hearing organized feminist pro-discrimination activism criticized is "radical." This argument is used in attempts to deflect responsibility for the effects of organized, established feminist activism to the subjective concept "radicalism." It's used to dodge one's responsibility to counter or accept the assertion that discriminatory conditions men currently face cannot be dismissed, or men's activism co-opted by attributing that discrimination to the ill-defined feminist concept "Patriarchy." It's used to deny the movement's role in the political process by proclaiming anything damaging which organized feminism has done "not feminism."

The NAFALT argument is the lazy feminist's answer to any criticism of any damaging thing ever done by feminist activists. It doesn't actually counter any of those criticisms, but it makes the feminist offering it more comfortable with them. 

Recently, feminists have begun responding to rejection of the NAFALT argument with lame attempts at projection. This method entails equating "prominence within a group" with "political/government establishment" and demanding that men's rights activists "take responsibility" for  men's issues discussion to which feminists take personal or ideological offense, by censoring said "offensive" speech. "If feminism is responsible for feminist-advocated and feminist-lobbied anti-male discriminatory conditions, then you're oppressing me by not condemning other MRAs for saying things I don't like!"

To employ this method, feminists treat speech they dislike as if their dislike defines it as malevolent, and  elevates its impact and that imposed malevolence to the same level as the active feminist lobby for discrimination against men in law, policy, and social response. In other words, the argument is "If you don't accept the claim that feminism is not responsible for the real, demonstrable damage feminist activism has done, then we expect you to let us tell you what you can and can't say on the basis that you're responsible for our emotional response to it. Having in existence statements we don't want to hear is as damaging to us as being falsely imprisoned, having one's victimization by intimate partner or sexual violence condoned by society and the law, being artificially pushed into poverty by the law, and being denied contact with one's children. We just can't tell the difference between an affront to our own fragile and twisted sensibilities, and real, demonstrable oppression."

Pointing out the double standard in that approach varies in effect depending on which feminists are involved in the discussion. Those purporting to be reasonable will often simply abandon the discussion at this point. Vehement opponents of the men's human rights movement, such as the trolls from reddit.com's /r/againsmensrights (certainly not a name that contains bias, right?) subreddit, on the other hand, have actually tried to justify their molehill=mountain and mountain=molehill mentality in two ways. 

The first is by assuming for themselves the right to not be offended and treating that presumed "human right" as if it is as valid and vital as the very real human rights which are violated when one is wrongfully imprisoned, stripped of personal property, separated from one's loved ones, or subjected to tolerance of violent crimes against oneself specifically on the basis of one's sex. In this way, internet feminists exercise a complete abandonment of all sense of proportion and authenticity in order to feel justified in attempting to use criticism of feminism as leveraging support for their effort to cut off nonfeminist or antifeminist speech about men's issues. 

The second is the "lower ground" argument, which employs the social justice concept of "privilege." The "privilege" dialogue uses treatment of perceived disadvantage as an excuse to infer guilt upon anyone not experiencing that disadvantage, and a baseline level of innocence for the disadvantaged. The term is used as a cattle prod in gender and other human issues discussion, allowing Social Justice ideologues to claim it's justified to treat existing conditions differently based on the "averaging" factor of privilege. Injustices against privileged people become justified; Injustices against the non-privileged are amplified. This allows the feminist to ignore real, life-effecting conditions in favor of an ideological interpretation of them. "Oh, you're in jail? Well, you're male, so you have Magic Patriarchy Powers™ that cancel out all adversity. Women have it worse just trying to live in public because women are oppressed."

The double standard approach to justifying feminist deflection of responsibility for their own movement's damage to society can also be seen in internet feminists' responses to the last few years' events. In this case, the double standard is in their application of standards of evidence.

Page 2

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 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.