this post was submitted on
149 points (73% like it)
231 up votes 82 down votes
all 179 comments

[–]Celda 45 points46 points ago

My comment, pointing out the fact that her claim "women would not report false rape claims for trivial reasons like missing a midterm" was false, with several examples.

No insults or attacks on women, simply factual statements.

Not approved as of yet.

[–]aetheralloy 122 points123 points ago

How it works:

  1. Feminists say <x> wouldn't happen.

  2. People point out specific examples of why it might.

  3. Feminists say <x> doesn't happen.

  4. People point out specific examples of when it has.

  5. Feminists say <x> happening is rare though!

  6. People point out how it isn't rare and is increasing.

  7. Feminists say not all women are like that.

  8. People point out that many are.

  9. Feminists call everyone misogynist and start trolling from /SRS.

[–]millertime73 33 points34 points ago

This should be in the sidebar. I'm not even joking, just titled "This is how it works".

[–]MattThePossum 21 points22 points ago

i second this

[–]lasertits69 15 points16 points ago

Third

[–]BlueSteelRose 10 points11 points ago

I fourth this was a good idea.

Still do =p

[–]GavnLogic 7 points8 points ago

I third.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

Here's what I don't understand when people start using terms like misogynist. Presumably we're trying to remove hate, as the term is calling out an attitude for being hateful. Yet there seem to be no restrictions on how the term is used. That is, a commenter makes a post that could be construed negatively, and is instantly attacked for their "bias". Is that not as hateful as the wrong that is perceived? Sure, attack bias, attack privilege, but why not through the arguments one sees rather than ad hominem?

Anyhow, I agree. I think that our reasoning about gender needs to be raised to a higher level than merely "<gender> oppresses <gender>". And we need to focus on debating people rather than insulting them.

[–]aetheralloy 8 points9 points ago

That's because until now it was a sort of power word - they could just say "misogynist!!" and win the argument.

Recently though, people have been calling bullshit on it being used that way. Naturally their reflex reaction is just to use it more to try and get others to back down.

We'll have won when people just laugh when feminists cry wolf/misogynist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

That's not winning to me. Because I'm not an MRM anymore than feminist, but want goals from both. Devaluing the term "misogynist" is a win for misogynists and for those who claim the new meaning. But it's a loss for everyone else, imo.

[–]aetheralloy 0 points1 point ago

It is a win for everyone else when the word losers the power to simply win arguments by being invoked regardless of how sensible it is.

[–]pcarvious 7 points8 points ago

Accusations of misogyny are meant to attack the character of the person presenting the argument. If you can't challenge an argument invalidate it. Once someone is called a misogynist, they have to play ball by either letting it stand or challenging it and allowing the person that used it to dictate the conversation.

"you're a misogynist!"

"no I'm not!"

"then why are you arguing me about how bad rape is?"

That kind of scenario. Once it's been used it shifts how the argument can flow and wrests power from one party and places it solely in the hands of the other.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, I definitely agree that's how it gets misused. Which is unfortunate, because if we could reserve these terms for a higher bar of evidence, they would actually be meaningful and could be used to discredit those purely arguing from hate.

[–]pcarvious 0 points1 point ago

The problem with that though is that if we infer that someone is arguing from hate, it's too easy to assume that in general. Where there's smoke there's fire and all that bullshit.

I would rather an argument take longer than use a believed perception to end it, no matter how much evidence I might have.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I reject that for the same reason I reject all slippery slopes: difficulty != impossible. There is a difference between logical reasoning and hatred. Sometimes the line is blurred. Sometimes it's not. What I'm suggesting is the term should be reserved for when it's not, because those times matter and rejecting them is good for us all.

The problem is that some discussions are unresolvable without merely acknowledging the fundamental fallacies and moving on. I think hatred is one of them.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Fenderfreak145 26 points27 points ago

Down-voting someone never felt so good

[–]GavnLogic 8 points9 points ago

Indeed.

[–]aetheralloy 35 points36 points ago

Aww /SRS troll turn that frown upside down! You're #9 in my book!

[–]drinkthebleach 14 points15 points ago

The only time anyone from SRS was called a 9.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]aetheralloy 2 points3 points ago

Don't be mad /SRS troll. Be glad /SRS troll!

[–]GavnLogic 13 points14 points ago

I liked her non-sequitur here:

Few people would. So why do most of my peers and elders believe that a false rape accusation is the easiest way for a young woman to torpedo the aspirations of a successful young man?

As if the number of people who would or wouldn't really bears any impact on how easy it would be to get away with a false claim in order to blackmark a man.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

It's wimminthink.

If lots of people think it it's troo.

[–]getthefuckoutofhere[!] 2 points3 points ago

So why do most of my peers and elders believe that a false rape accusation is the easiest way for a young woman to torpedo the aspirations of a successful young man?

possibly because they've heard of the duke lacrosse team

[–]Human-Stupidity_com 6 points7 points ago

If you don't post links, you don't need approval. Repost it without links, or put the links as plain text, without http or www

[–]Celda 3 points4 points ago

Done, ty.

[–]surfnsound 23 points24 points ago

My comment mentioning anonymity for the accused which I think was overlooked by many:

"Coming forward and being branded a liar must be even more difficult, and is incredibly unfair to someone who is seeking justice and trying to do what is right after being horribly victimized. "

What about being falsely branded as a sex offender and then having that accusation live on in perpetuity even after those accusation never come to any sort of resolution that shows them to be the truth? I'm not one to claim the number of false rape accusation is high, but the fact remains that it can be a horrible, vengeful tool at anyone's disposal should they be so unscrupulous to use it against someone.

The evidence of it's impact can be seen in Ms. Woods own post trying to fight against the fear of false accusations. She spends nearly half her piece discussing the allgations against Mr. Witt, meanwhile acknowledging that the identity of the accuser remains unknown. Therein lies the imbalance that drives the fear of the false accusation.

However, Ms. Wood fails to mention the single biggest step that could be taken to reduce the fear of false allegations and with it the backlash and doubt that is placed on accusers of sexual misconduct, that is full anonynmity for both parties until a trial. If you remove the fear of a cloud hanging over the head of the falsely accused, and the perpetual doubt it will create about their character for the rest of their lives, the less likely anyone will be to immediately cast doubt on the accuser because the motivation for a false accusation will have been removed.

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 7 points8 points ago

It's a controversial topic but I like your reasoning very much.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

That'd be a start. Another would be increasing prosecutions for false accusations (of any crime) and slander/libel (iffy on this one, but I think false accusations are certainly a legitimate place for these civil suits).

[–]aloneinlove 3 points4 points ago

The common feminist argument against increasing severity of punishment of false accusations is that it prevents rape victims from coming forward to report the crime. Some groups even outright want the removal of punishment against false rape accusers.

This argument can be easily debunked by the fact that only cases where the accuser has conclusively been proven to have lied about the whole thing will get punished. Evidence.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Well, yes and no. It's like the argument that rape prosecutions would interfere with some type of consensual sex. The counter-argument is that "if you don't do anything wrong, you'll have nothing to worry about", but we all know there are edge cases where it doesn't work.

It's certainly true that some rapists will escape that otherwise wouldn't if there are strong false rape prosecutions, as the threat of law can always be used illegally, and such threats are stronger the more examples of the force actually being used one can point to.

On the other hand, like most areas of justice, I think the fundamental answer is "we must carry out justice while minimizing it's side effects", so strengthening witness protections while also punishing false accusations doesn't seem contradictory to me, for example.

[–]surfnsound 1 point2 points ago

I wouldn't mind false filing being investigated more often, however I think one needs to take care not to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. As others have mentioned here, often times when an allegation is made that does not end up resulting in charges against the accused it probably is true that the accuser felt wronged in some way, and possibly in a very corporeal way that to them exceeds mere regret, but falls short of criminality.

Successful rape convictions are very rare, much to the chagrin of victims rights groups. I simply want to advocate a way that the accused can remain not guilty in the eye of public opinion. If there were a sudden uptick in false filing prosecutions, the burden would still remain on the state, and ideally the conviction rate for that would be equally low. Victims rights advocates see low convictions rates as a failure of the system, whereas I think it is proof positive that the system works as it should.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Definitely. Not guilty has to be very different than a false accusation, as others have noted. Ideally, the line should be just as stark for what defines a false accusation as for what defines rape itself.

As for high non-conviction rates, I actually think false accusation could be far easier to prove than rape, so for those cases actually brought, the rate might be significantly higher, but I agree that the overall rate (of false accusations convicted) might still end up comparable low.

[–]Strumpetincinerator 0 points1 point ago

I agree that there should be anonymity up to trial for the accused, what was the reasoning behind revealing the name of a person accused of a crime in the first place?

The sort of suspicion and defamation that are cast upon any accused is seen as being bad enough for it to be inadmissible in later trials (ie the accused, if found guilty, cannot be drawn into suspicion into the future as it is assum that the first ruling was correct and there is no reason to have any more suspicion than of any other accused).

[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point ago

The sort of suspicion and defamation that are cast upon any accused is seen as being bad enough for it to be inadmissible in later trials (ie the accused, if found guilty, cannot be drawn into suspicion into the future as it is assum that the first ruling was correct and there is no reason to have any more suspicion than of any other accused).

Except in cases of sexual assault that isn't true. Federal Rules of Evidence 413 allows for prior accusations, even if they never resulted in trial or went to trial and were acquitted, can be introduced as evidence that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime at hand.

[–]Strumpetincinerator 0 points1 point ago

...so much for that wholeinnocent until proven guilty thing

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points ago

It gets better.

On the original piece at FRS, an idiot feminist suggests that the way to stop women falsely crying rape because they don't want to pay their cab fares is to stop charging women cab fares.

It's just unbelievable stupidity on multiple levels.

I guess when you're an overprivileged princess who has grown up with everyone doing everything for you and you've never had to find out how the world actually works (like people, mainly men, have to do jobs to put food on the table), you would consider it a practical business model to give women rides for free.

I wonder if she thinks women having to ever pay for anything is "oppression."

These are a bunch of fucking girls.

[–]DevinV 0 points1 point ago

Yes I saw that too. That's really something.

[–]GrimChains 0 points1 point ago

If she wants to stop false rape accusations over cab fares, she's more than welcome to pay for every woman's cab fare out-of-pocket. Either she'll wise up or won't have money to pay the utility bills. Either way, we won't be hearing from her.

[–]aloneinlove 1 point2 points ago

Feminists like her think that because women are oppressed it gives them the right to say anything. We're victims, we should have superior rights to men. Oh and feminism is all about equality.

[–]carchamp1 27 points28 points ago

I was going to read it but the title stopped me in my tracks:

"The Myth of the False Accusal"

When they start with that you just know it'll be a pile of shit.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points ago

Yeah, I mean, I read SRS and I'm used to MR sometimes being out of line, but holy shit is this a good example of SRS being full of shit and MR being spot on. This woman is fucking insane. She raises legitimate points, which are delegitimized by her own victim blaming and sexism.

Therefore, we should not be asking the impossible question of “Did Witt assault this woman?” Instead, we should ask what kind of society we have constructed if false rape accusations are considered a likely and easy mode of retaliation. To me, this pervasive fear points to a world in which men are aware of an unearned cultural dominance. Since they know their authority has not been obtained but inherited, they fear losing it to a resentful woman, whose only tool in their eyes—one to be used for good or for evil—remains her sexuality.

So, what does false rape mean to this woman? It's nothing more than an invented concern of privileged males. I'm more and more agreeing with the reddit posted that the biggest insult a white male can receive in US society is "priviledged". Fuck off to this author: she acknowledges herself in the article that she's one of those who believes sexual assault has infinite definitions, since everyone gets to make up whatever they'd like, and yet she doesn't think false accusations are a legitimate concern?

The era of a legitimate feminist movement is dead, in my opinion. I do not wish to see men's rights rise as the alternative, I'd rather see humanism, but damn, attitudes like this demonstrate to me how important it is to fight all sexism rather than even daring to call myself feminist anymore. That word gives authors like her strength.

[–]carchamp1 5 points6 points ago

Spot on post. It seems like you're going through an "enlightenment" period regarding "feminism". Been there.

I've read many posts of self-described feminists here on r/mr defending feminism but these people are really egalitarians. They believe in equity. Feminism REQUIRES precisely what you're highlighting, sexism. It REQUIRES a point of view that we live in "a world in which men are (blah) (blah) (blah)". That is, men are BAD. And, as a consequence, men need to be denied basic human and civil rights to protect women.

I think what you'll find with the men's rights movement is that, although men complain about women plenty here and throughout the MRM, there is no issue that requires denying basic rights to the female gender. It is truly an "equity" movement, despite the MRM moniker.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I must beg to differ, at least in part.

When you say that "feminism" requires this, I think you are incorrect. Just as your opponents would be wrong to claim that "MR" inherently means only concern with men being oppressed in general by women. I think both labels can be used by people defining them to be an inclusive view of equality which merely acknowledges through the title on of the areas of representative concern.

But I do think both labels tend to become exclusionary and narrowly-focused. Which is why part of my reaction to, as I think you phrase it well, my enlightenment about feminism, is that I will refuse to join sectional groups in the future. That is, I subscribe to MR to read the topics, and I am concerned with them, I can no more call myself part of a MRM than a feminist, because either label will associate me too much with provincial concerns.

For me, humanism is the closest label I've been able to find. It loses the biases, but also gives up some of the direction. I think this is actually an advantage: sexual discrimination is only important to humanism to the extent it's harming people. Which I think is a logical place to start rather than "we must make women equal to men" or "mens' problems are unaddressed", because I think both of these limit themselves temporally and become problematic after they serve their purpose.

[–]Celda 12 points13 points ago*

I made a comment:

Let's not forget the situation that Emma herself has described in this very article.

A woman makes an informal, anonymous accusation of rape / sexual assault. This accusation, of which nothing is proved, results in a man having his scholarship revoked AND HIS NAME TRUMPETED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AS A RAPIST.

A clear injustice, is it not? Surely no man (and I do mean man, because women have the privilege of being safe from this) should be punished in this way without any proof of wrongdoing? Surely, this article will point that out?

Sadly, no. Emma Wood is more concerned about the "swampy terrain" of sexual assault and the "myth of false accusations."

How on earth can Emma, or any other rational person, examine these facts and conclude "Hmm, yes. Clearly we live in a patriarchal, misogynist society where women are oppressed and rape victims are shamefully marginalized."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Great comment. +1

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 10 points11 points ago

Every now and then, the Sheriff of the falserapesociety gathers his trolls, and caravans over to a legitimate blog. He brings with him a brand of flippant sarcacism combined with intimidation intended to coerce you into submission (total agreement) as if his opinion were the only opinion worth considering. His style is quite similar to that of the rapist .... control, intimidation, coercion, and superiority.

The irony is strong this [accusation].

"Dissension is good - if communicated properly. But when a comment starts out with sneers such as "presumably a straight face", you know it's going to go downhill from there and reek of harassment. Please ban those who cannot communicate without barbs."

TL;DR: it's only okay to disagree with me if you hold my hand and don't hurt my feelings doing it.

[–]aetheralloy 8 points9 points ago

What you are seeing there is that feminists want an accusation to be believed by default - and that if you don't, you are being harassing. To them "innocent until proven guilty" is an annoyance, a hassle, and a burden they'd like done away with.

They want her to be believed by default - it means that he's then guilty until proven innocent.

That's not how we know the law should work though. An accuser should NOT be believed by default.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 6 points7 points ago

Very true, and I'd add on it shouldn't be either party that is to be believed by default, and a presumption of innocence is preferred to a presumption of guilt before due process applies.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

There is a legitimate interpretation of the feminist position I'd like to point out here: to believe the individual claiming to be raped in a treatment setting and to leave "innocent until proven guilty" to courts. However, I think this is also a position that most of the gentlemen here would agree with, though those outside of this place might not think they would.

[–]aetheralloy 2 points3 points ago

I don't think anyone here would disagree as long as it in no way interferes with or relates to a criminal investigation.

That becomes problematic though if you start having 'expert witnesses' who are the people who were providing the treatment start giving testimony in court though - or in the college case where they are part of the kangaroo court.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Right, and I said I thought they'd agree.

And absolutely agreed that therapeutic professionals must not be made judicially certified neutral experts. The bias is irremovable and necessary to treatment.

Edit: Not to say very similar techniques couldn't be used neutrally, but that these must be different individuals and institutions because of the difference in objectives necessary.

[–]eberkimer 0 points1 point ago

And that's exactly what Jessica Valenti was espousing not to long ago, if I remember correctly. I really hope this isn't an indication that the idea is spreading.

[–]throwaway000000999 10 points11 points ago

as a man who has been falsely accused or rape, and had the power to completely ruin the girl's life, but didn't, and forgave her, and made sure that the college didn't punish her, because I figured that she wouldn't do it again, and she was going through a very hard time, and who cares very deeply about the women in my life, it disgusts me that some women wouldn't give guys like me the benefit of the doubt. yes, this woman is right. for most people, falsely accusing someone of rape is an outrageous idea. but so is committing rape for just as many men. it's just reverse sexism to say otherwise.

This sentence I found particularly troubling: "I have even found myself questioning my own past experiences, unwilling and unable to categorize them." Thinking like that makes me scared of having sex with women. I guess in the future I just need to make sure I can completely trust someone, because that's what having sex with someone is nowadays. You're life can be fucked over based on no evidence and just on someone's word. Even with me, after I proved the girl's story wrong to the college, some people still don't fully believe that I didn't do anything. Even female friends of mine who have slept in beds with me simply as friends.

We need to get out of the mentality that some serious percentage of men want to rape women, just as much as we need to not shame women who have been raped or assume that they are lying.

Seriously. I can't imagine going to jail for something like that and then actually knowing what rape is.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

for most people, falsely accusing someone of rape is an outrageous idea. but so is committing rape for just as many men. it's just reverse sexism to say otherwise.

Thank you for saying this. My only note would be that I would refer to this as "sexism" rather than adding the reverse.

I'm glad you made it out intact; my regrets to those less fortunate.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

I hope next time you do everything in your power to crush the bitch.

[–]Mc_Farland 0 points1 point ago

Wrong mentality...

[–]TheRealPariah 21 points22 points ago*

There are plenty of reasonable, rational people at Harvard; they just don't say anything because they will get attacked relentlessly by the people who make those comments. You aren't going to change their opinions so why bother with the headache?

Many people make the mistake of thinking any statement which points out the flaws in their assertions or conclusions is an "attack" and become emotionally invested and defensive. Disagreement and differing opinions != barbs. Always so willing to censor everyone. So funny.

God forbid witness accounts were met with the scrutiny they should be in a system where people are innocent until proven guilty. God forbid women are judged as a clean slate and her characteristics and past speak to the truth of her current statements. God forbid men are not viciously attacked at the mere whisper of rape. Who would have thought starting at neutral would be so revolutionary.

[–]GavnLogic 7 points8 points ago

There are plenty of reasonable, rational people at Harvard; they just don't say anything because they will get attacked relentlessly by the people who make those comments. You aren't going to change their opinions so why bother with the headache?

Because if good people don't say suff, people will beleive the erroneous shit spewed by the crazies.

[–]eberkimer 5 points6 points ago

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Supposedly a quote of Edmund Burke's, but not really attributable to him.

[–]GavnLogic 3 points4 points ago

Yes, I suppose that's a more eloquent way of putting it. Thank you for that.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

This is why we keep sayings: they sound cooler than our putterings.

[–]GavnLogic 2 points3 points ago

Who you accusing of puttering?!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

...myself and the hivemind? XD

[–]TheRealPariah -1 points0 points ago

It's easy to armchair quarterback.

[–]eberkimer 0 points1 point ago

Before I say anything, I'll ask...sarcasm?

[–]TheRealPariah -1 points0 points ago

Nope. It's easy to tell other people what they should do from the comfort of your computer chair. It's not your risks and you pay no costs, but can potentially receive some benefits.

[–]eberkimer 0 points1 point ago

Which might be a valid criticism, if you know what those posters do offline.

[–]TheRealPariah 0 points1 point ago

It's a "valid" criticism in either case (whether I "know" or not). I suspect it isn't the case anyway.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

God forbid women are judged as a clean slate

WHAT? You mean, the simple "women are too noble to ever false accuse anyone; it'd be a hassle" argument isn't enough to convince you that they're not?!?

[–]buffalo_pete 11 points12 points ago

This is good. The more that we show that radical bigots such as these have no leg to stand on in debating us (either morally or rhetorically), the more they have to resort to shoutdowns and censorship, the more blatant and obvious their attempts to hold double-standards of what constitutes "appropriate dissension" (WTF)...the more they hasten their own demise as it becomes obvious that they spread nothing but hate.

[–]BruceCambridge 99 points100 points ago

The problem is that false rape accusations really fall into (at least) 2 different categories. You have those, that the article attempts to address, where a woman is vindictive, uncaring or attempting to cover her own ass for something where she outright lies, knows that she's lying and is comfortable with that lie. But the other category - and I think it would be much more common - is the woman that actually believes that she was raped, while the guy actually believes she consented. The article doesn't address this type of situation at all.

Prior to 1980, the term "date rape" didn't even exist. Of course, just because it didn't have a name, doesn't mean that the concept didn't exist.

The problem is that women have now been so brainwashed by the "date rape" mentality, that they honestly believe that things are rape (or sexual assault) that men honest believe are not. You even see it here on Reddit, on a regular basis. Some women believe that "unenthusiastic consent" is rape. So if you're with one of those women, and you ask 3 times for sex before she finally consents, that woman is going to believe that you raped her because you "coerced" her into having sex with you. As a man, I find that fucking ridiculous. But that doesn't change the fact that, based upon the brainwashing, the girl honestly believes she was raped.

The author of the article even eludes to this brainwashing when she says:

As a senior member of Response Peer Counseling, I have spent fifty-seven hours of the past three academic years in training about issues of sexual assault, abuse, dating, and other relationship issues.

Depending upon who is presenting this "training" and what their personal philosophy is, the training itself can be part of the brainwashing process. If you go to a "training" session, and the "expert" tells you that a particular situation is rape, you're going to be inclined to believe that the person wouldn't be conducting the training if they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.

Furthermore, those radical feminist that both lead and following the brainwashing often end up trying to convince women that they were raped, even if the woman doesn't believe it to begin with. How many time have 5 girlfriends sat around in a dorm room listening to one tell of a regrettable sexcapade, only to have one or more of the others try to convince her to "report him" because she was raped. When in reality, she made a poor decision for herself under the influence of drugs, alcohol, money or desire for acceptance?

The bottom line is, you can't have a serious and legitimate debate about false accusations unless you first identify which type of false accusation you're talking about.

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points ago

And herein lies a key point of disagreement I have with feminist attitudes about rape.

I am perfectly willing to have an open discussion about what defines consent, including a discussion where I seriously consider the possibility that my understanding of consent may be wrong. However, feminists never want to frame the debate that way. They have their pre-existing notion of consent, which differs from mine. But instead of directing dialog to that issue, they insist that because I consider something consent which they do not ("unenthusiastic" consent, consent under the influence of moderate amounts of substance, especially when both parties have partaken, etc), therefore I am pro-rape. I am not pro-rape. I disagree about whether the event in question is rape. But they don't want to hear that kind of talk, and won't have the discussion on those terms.

The same could be said of the abortion discussion, but for both sides. At least 95% of arguments between pro-lifers and pro-choicers consist of each side accusing the other of being against individual rights, and at most 5% focus on what rights fetuses and mothers do and don't have.

[–]logrusmage 4 points5 points ago

The cognitive dissonance in that thread is immense.

[–]the_prole 0 points1 point ago

I was cool with the first sentence. It was well qualified.

The problem is that false rape accusations really fall into (at least) 2 different categories.

But this sentence was a big generalization and made you look sexist which maybe you are (reffering to the OP).

The problem is that women have now been so brainwashed by the "date rape" mentality, that they honestly believe that things are rape (or sexual assault) that men honest believe are not.

[–]Kuonji 26 points27 points ago

Not only are you pro-rape, you are also a misogynist for even wanting to discuss it!

[–]_clifton_ 14 points15 points ago

It's this logic and rational that pisses me off so much.

"You don't agree with me so I'm going to ad hominem and not even have a conversation while still making blanket statements."

[–]jobosno 1 point2 points ago

"because I have first-hand knowledge about every issue!"

[–]GrimChains 4 points5 points ago

Every feminist knows a friend who has first-hand knowledge about every issue!

FTFY

[–]jobosno -1 points0 points ago

Now that's more likely

[–]GingerTats 2 points3 points ago

......are.....is this serious?

[–]fieryseraph 1 point2 points ago

Thanks for posting this. I just today got called "anti-woman" because I suggested that some people might have sincerely held opinions that aren't pro-planned parenthood. I just... ugh. How can you even have a conversation with someone like that? /facepalm

[–]GingerTats 4 points5 points ago

What is unfortunate is that planned parenthood is almost solely associated with abortions/contraception, when it provides a lot more than that to many people.

[–]fieryseraph -2 points-1 points ago

Well... I would have been happy to have a discussion with her, but she wasn't interested. She just wanted to label me to silence me.

[–]GingerTats 0 points1 point ago

This happens. I'm a lady and SERIOUSLY don't want my options taken from me, however I won't jump on someone who disagrees/doesn't understand. I just blame those kinds of people on blind passion, and move on. :/

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

One way would be to point out that Planned Parenthood was founded to eliminate black people.

Source 1 Source 2

[–]tamarron 0 points1 point ago

...your own source (the first one) contradicts your claim.

"I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born. In other words, we're giving Negroes an opportunity to help themselves, and to rise to their own heights through education and the principles of a democracy." -Margaret Sanger

The fact that she tried to get a black preacher to lead the Harlem clinic is pretty convincing that she was working towards the 'stronger race, less poverty' eugenics goal. While we now rightly condemn such a perspective, in that era it was forwarded for the best of intentions, and more importantly as a voluntary method (in this instance and most of the time; there were obvious and patently evil exceptions); the idea that a woman should not have to have as many babies as her biology would allow while married was entirely tied up with the eugenics movement.

[–]barbadosslim 0 points1 point ago

("unenthusiastic" consent, consent under the influence of moderate amounts of substance, especially when both parties have partaken, etc)

It's not impossible to consent if you're under the influence of a moderate amount of a substance or are unenthusiastic. If either of these is the case, and the person in question feels like he or she was not consenting, then it was rape though.

I disagree about whether the event in question is rape.

of course, and this is pro-rape when you're talking about a person who did not consent or was unable to consent to sex

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points ago

there is a difference between the legal definition of rape and the emotional fallout of unwanted sex. women sometimes consent to sex they deeply do not want to have for any number of reasons. being under the influence of drugs and alcohol are a couple.

its not rape in the legal sense, but these women experience the same emotional consequences. depressed, untrusting, terrified of not being in control of their own bodies, etc. the behavior pattern is the same as someone who was truly raped in the legal sense.

these women have to find a way to deal with all of these emotions and part of that is realizing what caused them. she had sex she didn't want to have. we can't fault her for that simple fact. we can fault her for crying rape and ruining a guy's reputation and possibly getting him thrown in jail when she did actually give consent to him.

again, women sometimes give consent to sex they don't actually want to have. they can't blame the guy for that, but it fucks these women up just the same. and to be honest, a lot of the women who do that were already treated badly earlier in their life and learned not to stand up for themselves so that compounds the issue.

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 17 points18 points ago*

BINGO!!!

And, yes, these unsatisfacory sexual experiences ought to be addressed directly. But not with the language of criminality. I've written about this -- but the zealots on both sides don't want to hear it: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/12/gray-area-he-saidshe-said-college.html

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

you wrote that? great article! i couldn't agree more. i had to work through something like this with an ex-gf years ago. she had a similar experience with someone we both knew right before her and i got together. he took advantage of her and she was humiliated and angry the next day but she might have kind of started things but she was really drunk and doesn't remember clearly.... on and on. we drove ourselves a little nuts trying to figure it out and finally had to just let it go. there was no clear answer. but we were both absolutely clear that it was nothing he could or should be prosecuted for, and that he was a a shitty friend.

sexual and emotional intelligence are the answer! not angry black and white compartmentalized thinking. you're totally right

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 3 points4 points ago

You would do a lot of people a great service if you'd write something for False Rape Society. falserape@yahoo.com Please consider it.

Pierce

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

i'm interested. i'll think about it and i appreciate the invitation

[–]surfnsound 43 points44 points ago

I have spent fifty-seven hours of the past three academic years in training about issues of sexual assault, abuse, dating, and other relationship issues

I wish I could spend 19 hours a year on something and be considered some sort of expert on the subject.

[–]purrit 1 point2 points ago

"alludes" not "elludes"

haven't checked if anybody already pointed this out. sorry if somebody did. "the word is elude and it means to escape, either physically or mentally". "allude" means "to refer to". pardon if you already know this and it was a typo.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]BruceCambridge 7 points8 points ago

[–]altmehere 5 points6 points ago

I see they deleted your comment.

SRS is great for pretending that it's just a "circlejerk," not an actually feminist subreddit, so that it can attack any subreddit it wants and censor all discussion on its own subreddit under the guise of not being an actual subreddit for the discussion of feminism.

[–]GlitterFox 0 points1 point ago

pretending that it's just a "circlejerk," not an actually feminist subreddit

It's a feminist circlejerk. People who want to discuss things do it in the aptly named r/SRSDiscussion.

[–]altmehere 1 point2 points ago

And be instabanned there as well. The point is, reasoned debate is not allowed.

[–]cuteman 8 points9 points ago*

  • A) getting out of a midterm is a pretty weak reason and even as someone who has witnessed a false accusation, I would not suggest such. While this probably has happened in the past I'd said the main chunk of false claims from guilt, regret, avoiding responsibility for cheating. But also rarely curfew, not wanting to pay for a cab, etc.

  • B) Public opinion on such things is largely irrelevant to a professional investigation. Crimson OP states that the accuser wants to remain anonymous and "rightfully so" but cavilerly cites the accuseds name multiple times. It is this mentality is what caused the Rhodes thing to vaporize at the mere suggestion of assault. Investigation much less evidence or trial be damned.

  • C) Public opinion devoid of fact and evidence has no place in these situations. If the articles author could understand this and researched the facts she would see that while not as frequent as assaults themselves, happen at alarmly above average rates for other fraudulent complaints of felonies. This rate of fraudulent complaints increases moreover in the university setting. So while no one will deny rapes happen, fraudulent complaints also happen and at higher rates than normal fraudulent claims (insurance fraud, etc.). So why is it less acceptable to afford the accused due process and color blind investigation when the potential consequences of an innocent person being treated unfairly are sometimes beyond the damage a real crime of the same nature inflicts (I would argue arrest, imprisonment, potentially and most likely being raped in prison all while truly innocent is WORSE than someone being raped on the street.)

  • D) all I would ask is fair, fact based, protection for the accused until guilty. Is that so unreasonable? Lowering the burden of proof does increase convictions but so too does it increase the number of innocents being punished for fraudulent complaints. Therefore the only sane thing is to let the police handle it and keep activist and amateur universities out of it entirely. There is no legal expectation for backlash in saying the police are investigating, we must wait for their evidence and investigation. This alone would go a long way towards curing the problem.

[–]GavnLogic 7 points8 points ago

"The Myth of the False Accusation"

That's pretty strange - the only myth that's actually real!

[–]cuteman 1 point2 points ago*

Of course lying about your neighbor stealing your mower are more prevalent than false rape accusations!

There is no motive and no woman would ever lie about such a thing. There is an oath all women must take and that's one thing they all swear upon their lives that they'll never do.

[–]GavnLogic 6 points7 points ago

You're right. Women never fasley accuse someone of rape. Therefore, why even have a trial process?! I DUNNO!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

THIS IS WHAT RADFEMS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

[–]cuteman 1 point2 points ago

Furthermore, court of law? How about Kangaroo committee hearing where it's a grab bag between novice law professors, feminist pyschology masters students, Math Phd candidates and hyphenated last name sociology associate professors as judges, you never know what you're going to get! Then they swap roles as judge and school advocates and all get lunch together and laugh like nothing happened after they sentence you to explusion. Attorney? He can sit there and pass you notes, but you get to defend yourself!! What a good learning experience for you!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Those math phds could be troublesome to you, but you can distract them with a couple unproven theorems and they'll forget about ethics again.

Edit: And of course, the learning experience is coming to grips with all of your bounteous "privilege". Hey, you all got the special Visa too, right? I mean, damn, that negative interest money is great!

[–]cuteman 0 points1 point ago

Bottom line is amateur hobbyist committee "judges" don't have anything on professional investigators via the police and unbias courts of law.

There is no standard operating procedure or rights and you are completely at the behest of whoever you find looking across from you at the table.

At least in the judicial system blatant fraud are much easier to root out and prove. When singular commitee members can ignore evidence they do not agree with and make up rules as they go along how can you ever say you respect truth and justice?

[–]darkon 4 points5 points ago

Ignoring the strange hypothetical of a person trying to get out of class by claiming rape (huh?), I was mostly sympathetic until I reached this:

To me, this pervasive fear [of false accusation of rape] points to a world in which men are aware of an unearned cultural dominance. Since they know their authority has not been obtained but inherited, they fear losing it to a resentful woman, whose only tool in their eyes—one to be used for good or for evil—remains her sexuality.

To me, this fear of a false accusation of rape points to a world where a man's life can be ruined even if he is completely guiltless in every way. The rest of the paragraph says plenty about the author's beliefs, but it certainly does not describe me, nor do I think it describes most men, if it describes any at all.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

It doesn't make the slightest sense. What 'authority' are we talking about that could be lost to a false rape claim? The 'authority' to not be behind bars for a crime you didn't commit?

And does the source of 'authority' matter? Whether 'obtained' or 'inherited', an 'authority' could still be lost by someone resentful making a false accusation.

And ... 'her sexuality': what? That isn't what false rape claims are about. It's special privilege in the legal system.

This idiot woman has her head so far up her ass, no wonder all she comes out with is cow shit.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

Nice comment on her post Pierce.

It is morally disgusting but this is how feminists think, she put it proudly on display.

Her comment about "handsome" I thought was especially misandric but especially gross comming from a feminist and someone who judges cases like this.

I hope the alumni are paying attention.....their boy is next.

[–]1angrydad 5 points6 points ago

I think a great way to stem this tide of misandrist "guilty until a woman says otherwise" nonsense would be be to punish the false accuser with the same sentence the falsely accused faced. You rape a woman, 20 years in jail. A woman falsely accuses a man of rape, 20 years in jail.

Never happen, of course. Justice for a feminist is a one way street, and they are the traffic cops.

[–]DevinV 2 points3 points ago

Actually the best way is to drop the witch hunt mentality of accused = guilty and actually investigate each claim properly. You know, that whole due process thing that seems so anathema to feminists.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

That and harsh deterrents for false accusers.

[–]DevinV 2 points3 points ago

Of course. As long as it can be proven, as rape should have to be.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

A man being found not guilty DOES NOT = woman is a false accuser, lock her up.

This is the kind of scare tactic feminists use to justify not punishing false accusers.

False accusation is a SEPARATE crime. It requires a wholly separate charge and trial and its verdict is not contingent on a man being found 'not guilty.'

In many cases 12 reasonable people simply will not have enough evidence to judge beyond reasonable doubt.

That does NOT = woman (who may be a victim or may be lying) gets locked up.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

ALSO: falsely accused men are true victims no less deserving of protection and to see their attackers punished.

[–]1angrydad 2 points3 points ago

How do you them accountable, then? A false accusation gets a slap on the wrist at best, where a man can be arrested and jailed just on a womans word. His name gets published, he gets dragged through the public mud and then is either proven innocent or she grows a concience and recants.

That argument comes up quite frequently when I discuss this position, and while I can understand the basis of that thinking, I don't agree that it's better to let her off instead of risking more "true victims" coming forward. If the definition of rape wasn't so fluid, it would be a no brainer for a woman to know and be able to prove she was raped. The problem is who knows what rape is any more? You listen to the idiot that wrote this article, and it should be up to any woman at any time to decide her definition of rape and then have that opinion to be legally binding. That doesn't work either.

The flase accusers have to be held to the same standard as the rapists, or it's always going to be an option for a jilted ex, a messy divorcee', a disgruntled employee, you name it, to toss out that rape accusation and see if it sticks. As it is right now, they have nothing to lose.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]1angrydad 0 points1 point ago

Thats a sound approach.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

It is not necessary as retaliation but as deterrent.

False accusations should always be punished.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

less witch-hunty

GIT OUT MY MERICA!

[–]Chamoflage 2 points3 points ago

He's not suggesting that anyone who fails to convict their accuser gets sentenced instead. He's suggesting that someone convicted of making a false accusation actually get sentenced for it. There's a difference.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Of course we should pass a law making false accusation have a terrible price.

After all true women who have been raped have nothing to fear. They are not guilty, why should we consider abuse of a law saying proven false accusors serve the same sentence as their lies would have inflicted?

-See that's irony there, that's what that is.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

But this is true: for a guilty verdict in a false accusation case there would need to be evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she intentionally made a false accusation.

Not so for rape. The feminists have made it so that no evidence at all beyond a woman's word is sufficient to charge and convict.

The two are not equivalent, so there is no irony in what you are saying. Genuine rape victims would not have anything to fear when false accusers are charged and punished harshly.

[–]Te_Credits 3 points4 points ago

Basically the idiot making the comment just described feminism to a T..

You want to learn all about sarcasm? Try Jezebel, you fucking moron.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

I see 55 comments here, but only about 25 comments on that Harvard website... Redditors... I think we can do better. I have left a (constructive) comment under her op-ed. You can as well.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

I left many comments.

Come on erry'body

It's mostly MRAs there, get stuck in, we own the fucking discourse so let's show it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Good man.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

The reason (in part) is that their system is designed for censorship and exclusion. I believe all protocols which do not allow for secure anonymity are fundamentally flawed, but then the Internet that I believe in is truly science fiction still today.

edit: The Internet never was / but the Internet must be

[–]breakwater 3 points4 points ago

So why do most of my peers and elders believe that a false rape accusation is the easiest way for a young woman to torpedo the aspirations of a successful young man?

Can you think of a better one? Seriously, if I wanted to ruin a man's life, shy of physical violence, I cannot think of a single better way than to falsely accuse him of rape.

[–]clockworkgirl21 1 point2 points ago

Me either. Especially since everyone will instantly be on her side, not interested in hearing the facts of the case or any evidence.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

Emma Wood writes like someone who falsely accuses men of rape.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

It's really fun to debate feminists on this kind of thing in real life. They fume, spew at the mouth, get in your face and threaten you.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

Hello Reddit. This is what I posted on the comment section of that article. I doubt it will be posted, considering the language I used. Here it is:

"Therefore, we should not be asking the impossible question of “Did Witt assault this woman?” Instead, we should ask..." Lol, I'm sorry... but what the fuck is this? How is that an impossible question? That's the very same question the courts decide daily on rape cases. Why shouldn't we ask ourselves the same question?

I am from McMaster University, Canada, Ontario. And I am disappointed that some in the student body of Harvard, like yourself, Emma, are trying to remove the tried and tested idea of "innocent until proven guilty" from jurisprudence because of your sick and misguided belief that all man accused of rape are guilty.

[–]clockworkgirl21 2 points3 points ago

Ugh. Whenever I try to defend men falsely accused of rape, feminists call me a victim-blamer, misogynist, and a bunch of other shit. I guess they missed the part where I specified FALSELY.

[–]mshenrick 1 point2 points ago

it sounds like the author is surprised by the concept of a fair trial and 'innocent until proven guilty' philosophy

[–]funnyfaceking 0 points1 point ago

Sue her ass for defamation.

[–]Il128 0 points1 point ago

According to /r/shitredditsays there are no false rape accusations only degrees of rapeiness.

[–]SilencingNarrative 0 points1 point ago*

I thought the commentors did an excellent job of criticizing her piece. I did not do a careful count but the well reasoned and MRA sympathetic posts seemed to be in the vast majority.

This is an excellent example of how the MRM is mobilizing and outmaneuvering bastions of misandry like the absurd sexual assault grievance processes in universities.

edit: just did another read of the comments. there were several first hand accounts posted of false accusations and how they ruined the lives of the accused. that sort of response to the article greatly augments the quoting of statistics on how common false accusations are. Well done, people. And thank you, Pierce, for your work at FRS. You have done a lot to make this sort of response possible.