Out of curiosity, if we could be serious rather than sarcastic for a moment here, what would you say is a reasonable response to false accusations of rape? Obviously, saying false accusers should be raped themselves is wrong, but I assume you don't believe we should simply let them get away with it, either?
If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an accuser deliberately accused someone of a rape that they knew simply did not happen, if he/she commits perjury in court, etc., then yes a false accuser should face jail time.If it's a he said/she said case that is dropped because it would be nearly impossible to prove in court, or if the rape happened while both parties were so drunk it's impossible to tell what went on, or if a rape victim identified the wrong guy in a police lineup, or the wrong guy was accused due to errors in a police investigation, etc, then no.It's a complicated issue. Many of the cases that MRAs describe as "false rape accusations" are in fact simply cases that are dropped.
Fair enough, that's a reasonable position. Thank you.
When it comes to rape, there is discrimination over men as the woman's word is likely to be placed over the man's without any proof.It would be a different story if I was accusing someone with theft when there is no proof that whatever this person stole was originally mine.If a man accused a woman of raping him, would he be taken as seriously as a woman or seriously at all?Now let’s look at it in a racial way. If it was taken more seriously if a black person committed a crime against a white person compared to a white person committing a crime against a black person, would this be deemed as racism?If a white person’s word was placed over a black person’s word in criminal accusation, would this be deemed as racism?When it comes to gender, I see a lot of political correct sexism favouring women.
Oh and regarding what you are solely pointing out in the thread. This guy is a nobody within the men's rights movement. He is simply a random.But Catherine Comins is a different story. She's a feminist who has a high status.See for your selfhttp://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2010/04/feminism-encourage-false-rape-accusations-against-men.htmlShe encourages false rape accusations.So let's think about this stance compared to yours.
As a mens rights activist I do not believe in an eye for an eye, or Karma. However I do believe in justice.False rape accusations can ruin the life of those accused. The conviction isn't required in most peoples minds as just getting accused is enough to make people think "well he must have done something, I bet he got off with lack of evidence" and so forth.The best deterrent in such cases would be to apply the same or at least half the jail time the man in question would have received. However there is a problem with this. For such an "equal" society the jail sentences females receive are laughable compared to what a man would receive for the same crime. Not only that, women are most likely to get away with the mental instability defence which of course garners sympathetic support and alters the sentence she would have received.Another problem here however is also law. In a comment above you mentioned when both parties are drunk. In such a case the courts treat men and women differently. Women are always considered the victim even if their past histories indicate that this behaviour normal for them, and there have been the same accusations been made in the past. I believe in countries such histories are not even allowed to be taken into consideration as so not to "colour the case" and only kept the pertaining facts, which is a misnomer which such histories are taken into account for other crimes.Add to that some of the laws proposed, such as the UK law where a female would be allowed to remove consent 4 weeks after the event just worsens the situation due to the ease of abuse of such laws. Thankfully I believe that particular law was shot down in the house of lords and never made it into law. However that such a law could even be conceived is shocking in itself.
For some people, this may go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: just because a woman slept with eight men at a party, that does not mean she could not have been raped at that same party. Obviously, from these posts we have no idea what actually happened - but these posters are assuming that having sex with one man, or eight, means a woman must be a slut and want "it" from everyone. That is a false assumption.
"Just because a woman slept with eight men at a party, that does not mean she could not have been raped at that same party."True. But what perversion of common sense could make people believe her?Oh that's right! Feminism.
She doesn't deserve to be a raped, she deserves this.http://www.medievality.com/saw.html
Nick"Oh and regarding what you are solely pointing out in the thread. This guy is a nobody within the men's rights movement. He is simply a random.But Catherine Comins is a different story. She's a feminist who has a high status.See for your selfhttp://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2010/04/feminism-encourage-false-rape-accusations-against-men.html"Um, that's an antifeminist site. To make the case that Comins has a high status within feminism, you have to show that feminists frequently cite her.Incidentally, we only have the word of the Time journalist that Comins ever said "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them" etc., and even if she did, 2. that "they" in the above refers to "men who are unjustly accused". But journalists routinely precise down their intervewees remarks, stripping out nuance, and sometimes also fitting it to the journalist's own agenda.Comins then, as far as I can see, is a middle-ranking university administrator whom nobody, feminists or antifeminist, would have ever heard of if it hadn't been for this one remark which she may or may not have ever said. She is, to use your own formulation "a nobody within the feminist movement".
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.