i***@yahoo.com
2005-01-05 15:50:59 UTC
I have enclosed a link to an article from a source more reliable than
www.ncfm.org. Like the study I've quoted, it documents what anyone
familiar with the phenomenon has known for a long time already: That
most accusations of rape in America over the last decade were false, as
were most rape convictions.
When I came to America, I read works by Jefferson, Thoreau, Emerson,
Franklin and other great minds that were formative to this country. The
idea that all of them stressed repeatedly was that of liberty; the
second idea they all stressed repeatedly was that of due process; and
the third, of honesty and transparency. And yet when I went to college
in 1992-1994, I found a climate that possessed none of the preceding. I
found myself in a toxic, paranoid, vicious, hysterical environment that
preyed on men's compassion and women's fears to conduct mass
prosecutions, to demonize, to frighten. To make everyone believe that
the world is a dangerous place, and through poisoning the social
climate to the extent that some people were driven to desperation
appearing to prove their self-fulfilling falsehood. To convince people
to give up their constitutional liberties in order that a protection
racket - of claiming to protect people from enemies, while artificially
manufacturing enemies through the mechanism of shadow projection and
social poisioning - be allowed, under pretense of protecting them, to
take away all their rights and freedoms and reason and sanity.
It is needless to say that I was furious at this abomination; and my
response - to finish college in two years instead of four, while
fighting this hideousness with every tool in my arsenal - is something
that many people at my college remember, some hatefully and others
fondly.
When people prey on the good in the people for agendas that have no
good in them - on compassion, for agendas that have no compassion; on
honor, for agendas that have no honor; on goodwill, for agendas that
have no goodwill; on honesty, for agendas that have no honesty; on
desire for justice and fairness, for agendas that have no justice or
fairness - the best in the human nature is turned into tool of
wickedness. The mind and the heart are perverted, and all the good in
them turn into tool of wrong. The people who otherwise would be doing
good deeds, performing philanthropic works, sowing compassion and
generosity, helping the needy, producing great works, loving other
people and loving each other, are turned through a sleight of hand into
murderers, henchmen, liars, brutes, barbarians and vicious scoundrels.
The good, unaccustomed to evil and therefore undefended, is led through
the mechanism of manipulation into serving people who have no good in
them and who, rather than appreciating the good for being the good,
sees it as stupid and weak and shamelessly uses it to do work of
terror.
I saw this in Communist Russia, and I see it done in a more
sophisticated form in America. Through sophistry, manipulation,
fear-mongering, toxicity and predation on all human qualities, both
good and bad, the evil people turn good people into tools of
destruction. I see this among the abrasive Republican brats of the kind
that spuriously accused Clinton of unspeakable monstrosities, said that
environment does not matter, thought that 30% taxes made America a
socialist country and claimed to want government off their backs while
their states received huge subsidies from the government; but the form
I focus on here is the form that was taken by the so-called feminists
of 1990s and their henchmen. And the form is as follows: In the name of
prosecuting the supposedly unspeakable crime of rape, was excused a far
greater crime than rape and indeed one of the worst crimes in the
history of America - the false prosecution and conviction of thousands
of innocent men and boys, who as a result of their convictions
experienced far worse horrors than committed by any rapists - and had
their lives ruined to a far greater extent than life can be ruined by
just about any rape.
I've known a number of American women who have been raped. Most of them
live lives that, while not always perfect, are far better lives than
ones led by vast majority of humanity. A man who has been convicted of
rape, in addition to all the brutality he will experience in prison,
will experience extreme hardship for the rest of his life. To falsely
accuse a man of rape, is a crime far more hideous, lasting and cruel
than just about any form of rape except, perhaps, one that results in
murder or permanent mutilation. And, in most cases, its results are
just as horrible - and in many respects resulting in more lasting
suffering - than either of the above.
A large part of the prosecutors' ideology was the idea that rape was so
traumatic an experience, that a woman who has been raped pretty much is
ruined for the rest of her life. That is utter nonsense. In Ethiopia,
Bosnia, Sudan, Indonesia, Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and many other
countries, a large section of the population of women either get raped
continuously or have been raped during civil conflict. Are their lives
ruined? Well they live, right? They have kids. Some even have good
jobs, good spiritual lives, an existence that has meaning and purpose
and quality. Is anything like that at all possible for a man in America
who has been falsely convicted of rape?
Under the pretext of the unspeakable trauma inflicted by rape, was
justified a far more hideous crime: The crime of false prosecution and
false conviction of thousands of innocent American men. They were
subjected to far greater, more lasting and more traumatic brutality
than just about any woman who actually has been raped, and their lives
were utterly and completely ruined in a far more real and far more
immediate way than can be claimed by any living, non-mutilated rape
victim.
In a discussion of the issue in college, someone wrote about a scant
possibility that "an upstanding" male could get accused falsely. It
doesn't matter if you are upstanding or not; Everyone has right to not
be accused and convicted of crimes that they did not commit! The law is
not about popularity contests or character analysis; it is about
justice and truth, and to turn the issue into a popularity contest or
character analysis is to pervert the law and all it is based on and all
it exists to protect.
Let's turn the issue around here, shall we? What is the character of a
woman who falsely makes a rape accusation? For starters, definitely,
almost unfathomable cruelty, viciousness and lack of concern for the
next person; for who would subject the next person - whatever she
thinks of him - to what a man who gets falsely accused of rape goes
through in prison and afterwards? Secondly, a lying, cheating heart and
a devious mind that would concoct a false rape story and convince judge
and jurors, through fake tears and fake trauma description, that she
was subjected to an imaginary atrocity. Third, extreme sense of
entitlement; fourth, complete disregard for truth; and fifth and most
important, complete lack of compassion, caring, wisdom, goodness,
virtue or honesty.
Now let's ask yourself here for a minute. What character is more
harmful: The character profile of rapist, or the character profile of
false rape accuser? Who is more dangerous to this country, to its
founding principles, to its stated character and ultimately the
well-being of its citizens? Who can do more damage to America: Some
stupid Mexican brute who has a blonde fixation, or a woman who knows
her way around America, knows how to manipulate the system, knows how
to play on people's emotions, and has such utter lack of concern for
the well-being of the next person and such utter contempt for the
intelligence and the virtue of other people that she plays them like
violins for the purpose of grievously injuring the next person and then
going back to consider herself a good citizen and raise her children to
have herself as a mother?
What else would the world expect from such a person? The possibilities
are mind-boggling; but when presented with someone who has such a
mindset I would pick a rapist (or even a murderer) as a safer bet for
the long-term benefit of America any day. The rape hysteria took
everything good in the human nature and made it a tool of evil. And
that, along with the human toll of the thousands of falsely convicted
men and boys, made it one of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated
on American soil.
Ilya Shambat.
============================
Believe Her! The Woman Never Lies Myth
Frank S. Zepezauer*
ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief
that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male
sexual misconduct. Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual
harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false
accusations have become a serious problem. The motivations involved in
making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside
influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in
custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical
feminism.
Male sexual misconduct - rape, incest, stalking, sexual harassment,
child molestation, pornography trafficking - has, according to some
observers, become a problem so big that it demands a big solution, not
only the reform of our legal system but of our entire society. Yet the
increasingly heated debate over this crisis has focused primarily on
how these misbehaviors are defined and how often they occur. The
estimated numbers keep mounting. We hear that perhaps 31 million women
are suffering from some form of rape, 41 million from harassment, 58
million from child sexual abuse, and all 125 million of them - from
toddlers to grandmothers - from a toxic "rape culture" that
suffocates the feminine spirit.
Much less discussed is how often an allegation of male sexual
misconduct is false. The question seldom enters the debate because,
presumably, it had long ago been settled. Pennsylvania State Law
Professor Philip Jenkins (1993), in a review of the "feminist
jurisprudence" which leads the sex crisis counterattack, reports that
in response to the question its proponents have established an
"unchallengeable orthodoxy." It is that "women did not lie about such
victimization, never lied, not out of personal malice, not from mental
instability or derangement" (p.19).
Jenkins is not the first to cite this will to believe. Wendy Kaminer
(1993) reported that "it is a primary article of faith among many
feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the
dishonesty gene" (p.67). Eight years earlier, in 1985, John O'Sullivan
discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would
fabricate a rape charge" (p.22). Feminists themselves admit as much.
Law Professor Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming
rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring
complaints are suspect" (Newsweek, 1985, p.61). Some feminists believe
that even defending that premise is a sex crime. Alan Dershowitz (1993)
reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in
class the possibility of false rape allegations.
Believing the self-proclaimed victim of sexual misconduct has thus
evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some
jurisdictions, into law. California now requires that jurors be
explicitly told that a rape conviction can be based on the accuser's
testimony alone, without corroboration (Associated Press, 1992;
Farrell, 1993). Canada is proposing that a man accused of rape must
demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a sexual partner.
These new rules rest on the assumption that women do not lie because
they have no motive to lie. Consequently, as Jenkins (1993) states, the
question of the "victim's credibility" has now become "crucial."
Is that credibility warranted, particularly as feminist jurisprudence
would want it established, as nearly automatic? Not if we consult
recent history. And if we do, we will find that we do indeed face a
sexual misconduct crisis, but not the one radical feminists now insist
is ubiquitous in our society.
More on: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm
www.ncfm.org. Like the study I've quoted, it documents what anyone
familiar with the phenomenon has known for a long time already: That
most accusations of rape in America over the last decade were false, as
were most rape convictions.
When I came to America, I read works by Jefferson, Thoreau, Emerson,
Franklin and other great minds that were formative to this country. The
idea that all of them stressed repeatedly was that of liberty; the
second idea they all stressed repeatedly was that of due process; and
the third, of honesty and transparency. And yet when I went to college
in 1992-1994, I found a climate that possessed none of the preceding. I
found myself in a toxic, paranoid, vicious, hysterical environment that
preyed on men's compassion and women's fears to conduct mass
prosecutions, to demonize, to frighten. To make everyone believe that
the world is a dangerous place, and through poisoning the social
climate to the extent that some people were driven to desperation
appearing to prove their self-fulfilling falsehood. To convince people
to give up their constitutional liberties in order that a protection
racket - of claiming to protect people from enemies, while artificially
manufacturing enemies through the mechanism of shadow projection and
social poisioning - be allowed, under pretense of protecting them, to
take away all their rights and freedoms and reason and sanity.
It is needless to say that I was furious at this abomination; and my
response - to finish college in two years instead of four, while
fighting this hideousness with every tool in my arsenal - is something
that many people at my college remember, some hatefully and others
fondly.
When people prey on the good in the people for agendas that have no
good in them - on compassion, for agendas that have no compassion; on
honor, for agendas that have no honor; on goodwill, for agendas that
have no goodwill; on honesty, for agendas that have no honesty; on
desire for justice and fairness, for agendas that have no justice or
fairness - the best in the human nature is turned into tool of
wickedness. The mind and the heart are perverted, and all the good in
them turn into tool of wrong. The people who otherwise would be doing
good deeds, performing philanthropic works, sowing compassion and
generosity, helping the needy, producing great works, loving other
people and loving each other, are turned through a sleight of hand into
murderers, henchmen, liars, brutes, barbarians and vicious scoundrels.
The good, unaccustomed to evil and therefore undefended, is led through
the mechanism of manipulation into serving people who have no good in
them and who, rather than appreciating the good for being the good,
sees it as stupid and weak and shamelessly uses it to do work of
terror.
I saw this in Communist Russia, and I see it done in a more
sophisticated form in America. Through sophistry, manipulation,
fear-mongering, toxicity and predation on all human qualities, both
good and bad, the evil people turn good people into tools of
destruction. I see this among the abrasive Republican brats of the kind
that spuriously accused Clinton of unspeakable monstrosities, said that
environment does not matter, thought that 30% taxes made America a
socialist country and claimed to want government off their backs while
their states received huge subsidies from the government; but the form
I focus on here is the form that was taken by the so-called feminists
of 1990s and their henchmen. And the form is as follows: In the name of
prosecuting the supposedly unspeakable crime of rape, was excused a far
greater crime than rape and indeed one of the worst crimes in the
history of America - the false prosecution and conviction of thousands
of innocent men and boys, who as a result of their convictions
experienced far worse horrors than committed by any rapists - and had
their lives ruined to a far greater extent than life can be ruined by
just about any rape.
I've known a number of American women who have been raped. Most of them
live lives that, while not always perfect, are far better lives than
ones led by vast majority of humanity. A man who has been convicted of
rape, in addition to all the brutality he will experience in prison,
will experience extreme hardship for the rest of his life. To falsely
accuse a man of rape, is a crime far more hideous, lasting and cruel
than just about any form of rape except, perhaps, one that results in
murder or permanent mutilation. And, in most cases, its results are
just as horrible - and in many respects resulting in more lasting
suffering - than either of the above.
A large part of the prosecutors' ideology was the idea that rape was so
traumatic an experience, that a woman who has been raped pretty much is
ruined for the rest of her life. That is utter nonsense. In Ethiopia,
Bosnia, Sudan, Indonesia, Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and many other
countries, a large section of the population of women either get raped
continuously or have been raped during civil conflict. Are their lives
ruined? Well they live, right? They have kids. Some even have good
jobs, good spiritual lives, an existence that has meaning and purpose
and quality. Is anything like that at all possible for a man in America
who has been falsely convicted of rape?
Under the pretext of the unspeakable trauma inflicted by rape, was
justified a far more hideous crime: The crime of false prosecution and
false conviction of thousands of innocent American men. They were
subjected to far greater, more lasting and more traumatic brutality
than just about any woman who actually has been raped, and their lives
were utterly and completely ruined in a far more real and far more
immediate way than can be claimed by any living, non-mutilated rape
victim.
In a discussion of the issue in college, someone wrote about a scant
possibility that "an upstanding" male could get accused falsely. It
doesn't matter if you are upstanding or not; Everyone has right to not
be accused and convicted of crimes that they did not commit! The law is
not about popularity contests or character analysis; it is about
justice and truth, and to turn the issue into a popularity contest or
character analysis is to pervert the law and all it is based on and all
it exists to protect.
Let's turn the issue around here, shall we? What is the character of a
woman who falsely makes a rape accusation? For starters, definitely,
almost unfathomable cruelty, viciousness and lack of concern for the
next person; for who would subject the next person - whatever she
thinks of him - to what a man who gets falsely accused of rape goes
through in prison and afterwards? Secondly, a lying, cheating heart and
a devious mind that would concoct a false rape story and convince judge
and jurors, through fake tears and fake trauma description, that she
was subjected to an imaginary atrocity. Third, extreme sense of
entitlement; fourth, complete disregard for truth; and fifth and most
important, complete lack of compassion, caring, wisdom, goodness,
virtue or honesty.
Now let's ask yourself here for a minute. What character is more
harmful: The character profile of rapist, or the character profile of
false rape accuser? Who is more dangerous to this country, to its
founding principles, to its stated character and ultimately the
well-being of its citizens? Who can do more damage to America: Some
stupid Mexican brute who has a blonde fixation, or a woman who knows
her way around America, knows how to manipulate the system, knows how
to play on people's emotions, and has such utter lack of concern for
the well-being of the next person and such utter contempt for the
intelligence and the virtue of other people that she plays them like
violins for the purpose of grievously injuring the next person and then
going back to consider herself a good citizen and raise her children to
have herself as a mother?
What else would the world expect from such a person? The possibilities
are mind-boggling; but when presented with someone who has such a
mindset I would pick a rapist (or even a murderer) as a safer bet for
the long-term benefit of America any day. The rape hysteria took
everything good in the human nature and made it a tool of evil. And
that, along with the human toll of the thousands of falsely convicted
men and boys, made it one of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated
on American soil.
Ilya Shambat.
============================
Believe Her! The Woman Never Lies Myth
Frank S. Zepezauer*
ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief
that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male
sexual misconduct. Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual
harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false
accusations have become a serious problem. The motivations involved in
making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside
influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in
custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical
feminism.
Male sexual misconduct - rape, incest, stalking, sexual harassment,
child molestation, pornography trafficking - has, according to some
observers, become a problem so big that it demands a big solution, not
only the reform of our legal system but of our entire society. Yet the
increasingly heated debate over this crisis has focused primarily on
how these misbehaviors are defined and how often they occur. The
estimated numbers keep mounting. We hear that perhaps 31 million women
are suffering from some form of rape, 41 million from harassment, 58
million from child sexual abuse, and all 125 million of them - from
toddlers to grandmothers - from a toxic "rape culture" that
suffocates the feminine spirit.
Much less discussed is how often an allegation of male sexual
misconduct is false. The question seldom enters the debate because,
presumably, it had long ago been settled. Pennsylvania State Law
Professor Philip Jenkins (1993), in a review of the "feminist
jurisprudence" which leads the sex crisis counterattack, reports that
in response to the question its proponents have established an
"unchallengeable orthodoxy." It is that "women did not lie about such
victimization, never lied, not out of personal malice, not from mental
instability or derangement" (p.19).
Jenkins is not the first to cite this will to believe. Wendy Kaminer
(1993) reported that "it is a primary article of faith among many
feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the
dishonesty gene" (p.67). Eight years earlier, in 1985, John O'Sullivan
discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would
fabricate a rape charge" (p.22). Feminists themselves admit as much.
Law Professor Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming
rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring
complaints are suspect" (Newsweek, 1985, p.61). Some feminists believe
that even defending that premise is a sex crime. Alan Dershowitz (1993)
reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in
class the possibility of false rape allegations.
Believing the self-proclaimed victim of sexual misconduct has thus
evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some
jurisdictions, into law. California now requires that jurors be
explicitly told that a rape conviction can be based on the accuser's
testimony alone, without corroboration (Associated Press, 1992;
Farrell, 1993). Canada is proposing that a man accused of rape must
demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a sexual partner.
These new rules rest on the assumption that women do not lie because
they have no motive to lie. Consequently, as Jenkins (1993) states, the
question of the "victim's credibility" has now become "crucial."
Is that credibility warranted, particularly as feminist jurisprudence
would want it established, as nearly automatic? Not if we consult
recent history. And if we do, we will find that we do indeed face a
sexual misconduct crisis, but not the one radical feminists now insist
is ubiquitous in our society.
More on: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm