Friday, July 13, 2007

Women Can Stop Lying About Rape

A tip of the Counter-Feminist hat to Male Samizdat, from whose most worthy web log I re-post the following. Let's spread this one around and make it a men's movement classic, shall we?

-------------------------------------------------

Only Women Can Stop False Rape Accusations

  • If a man is drunk, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is walking alone at night, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is drugged and unconscious, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is wearing shorts, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is in a bar at 11:00 p.m., don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man looks like one of your twelve ex-husbands, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is asleep in his bed, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is asleep in your bed, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man if fixing his car, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is in the hospital, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man changes his mind in the middle of or about a particular activity (like giving you money), don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man has repeatedly refused a certain activity (like giving you money), don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is not a man, but a child, don't falsely accuse him of rape...or rape him (like many female schoolteachers these days).
  • If a man is not in the mood to spend money or time on you, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your step-son is watching TV, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If you break into a house and find a man there, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your friend thinks it's okay to falsely accuse someone of rape, tell her its not, and that she's not your friend.
  • If your "friend" tells you she falsely accused someone of rape, report her to the police.
  • If your sorority-sister or another girl at a party tell you she is angry with a man and is going to falsely accuse him of rape, and you should too, don't do it, call the police and tell her she's a liar.
  • Tell your daughters, god-daughters, nieces, granddaughters, daughters of friends it's not okay to falsely accuse someone of rape.
  • Don't tell your male friends how to be safe and avoid false accusations of rape.
  • Don't imply that it's in any way his fault.
  • Don't imply that men have it coming to them and deserve it anyway.
  • Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you she got away with a false rape report.
  • Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have every right to use the courts to destroy a man. You can, too, help yourself.
If you agree, re-post it. It's that important.

Labels:

13 Comments:

Anonymous Michael said...

Hi fidelbogen, could be you'll find this thread interesting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1394933

:-)

11:46 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Thank you, Michael, for sharing. The thread was, well...informative as to the range of arguments and counterarguments, points and counterpoints that can be found on the Serengetti of gender politics.

It was, to be sure, a tangled ball of yarn. Which reminds me once again why I have decided to "cut the Gordian knot" in my counter-feminist approach to the issues. It is unnecessary to pursue endless tit-for-tat debate upon separate points of argument. What is essential is to frame the larger moral/political contention in such terms that feminism's macro-structural weak points are subjected to a relentless (and steadily increasing) pressure. By reason of such pressure, cracks will appear, and these will grow. . .

This means: Don't go way out upon a limb to engage the enemy in combat - just saw the branch off closer to the tree!

9:54 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

The thread got locked shortly afterwards, but for an interesting reason I didn't really expect: The moderator said it's a "a broad-brush smear against men"! So there's hope that public perception of right and wrong is still working sometimes.


Anyway, what I wanted to say (different topic): The world of MRA blogs is quite new to me, and as much as I despise feminism for its patronizing and men-hating tendencies, there's something in a lot of MRA blogs I can't agree with too (not here, but you link to some of them). They express patronizing views towards women in general just like feminist blogs do towards men.

Let me give you a (fictional) example for illustrating what I mean:
Imagine a young woman dreaming of becoming a car mechanic and earning her living with that job.

The feminist approach to the situation would probably be something like: "Good choice! Go and set an example of how good we are at that! In a just world there'd be (at least!) as much female car mechanics as there are male car mechanics, because women just want to work in the same jobs men do work in. And [whispered into the ear of the female car mechanic] we're so much brighter and smarter anyway, but don't tell your male colleagues..."

Now (for lack of a better word) the MRA extremists' viewpoint: "What? You want to become a car mechanic? That's a men's job! Let me tell you: Deep down inside you don't really want that. What you really want is a family and children and a MAN earning the family's money. That's how it has been done for ages and that's how it should be because deviating from this concept would ruin human society in the long run. WE (men) know that."

Now I can't agree with that. If that woman really wants to become a car mechanic, by all means she should go ahead and be given that chance. No one with a sense for mutual respect can just tell another human being what to think and what to want from life. That'd be patronizing.
But here's my suspicion: If we'd just give nature free rein, by minimizing the influence of society or movements of any colour, not a lot of women would want to become car mechanics (as a wild card for any "traditional" men's jobs of course) in the first place. Just like not a lot of men have an instinctive leaning to become house husbands.
But in any case, there should always be room for indivdual decisions of how to live one's life. There's nothing worse than a society where a person's choices get not respected.

I have a premonition that building and positioning a strong men's rights movement against the feminist brick wall doesn't lead to anything else but a further poisoning of the atmosphere of gender relations. That's not how it should be if we, men and women, want to make progress together. But to be honest I'm a bit at a loss of what else to do, at least as long as most women think that attacking and deconstructing feminism automatically means attacking them and their dignity as fellow human beings. That's the opposite of what I want.

So, how do we expose the smelly fish of feminism for what it is and make friends and comrades with self-confident, proud women at the same time?

5:41 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"The thread got locked shortly afterwards, but for an interesting reason I didn't really expect: The moderator said it's a "a broad-brush smear against men.""

Wellll....now THAT'S interesting! I didn't notice that last bit because I didn't read that far in the thread - maybe only half-way.

The phrase 'broad-brush smear' or 'over-generalization' or anything along that line, could also be expressed as "too many undefined variables."

7:01 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"...there's something in a lot of MRA blogs I can't agree with too (not here, but you link to some of them). They express patronizing views towards women in general just like feminist blogs do towards men."

I have a very strict policy to NOT make misogynistic statements. And "policy" is my middle name, you might say. But at the same time, I don't pull any punches about exposing bad female behavior where it occurs. So, I try to walk a fine line. But it's not really such a fine line at all even though some MRAs unfortunately have difficulty finding it.

Yea! I know the guys you are talking about, and true it is that I link to them. For that, one main reason: Solidarity.

And another reason: I like to encourage a certain "glasnost" as per the men's movement. This openness means acknowledging forthrightly everything which the movement contains - and then understanding the movement as a product of predictable forces that are sometimes light, sometimes dark, but most often somewhere in between.

And then....communicating to the other side that it is in their interest, and the interest of all concerned, that they open themselves to cooperation and negotiation in order that the light be maximized and the dark minimized.

(And the catch is, that in the process of so doing, they must necessarily come to an awareness of their own lights and darks - for which they have had a very poor record over the years!)

"But here's my suspicion: If we'd just give nature free rein, by minimizing the influence of society or movements of any colour, not a lot of women would want to become car mechanics (as a wild card for any "traditional" men's jobs of course) in the first place. Just like not a lot of men have an instinctive leaning to become house husbands."

And there's the rub! The very last thing the feminists want to do is to "give nature free rein". That would effectively spell the end of feminism, since feminism is an ideology, and nature chews up ideologies and spits them out. (But unfortunately, sometimes only after they've done their damage! )

"I have a premonition that building and positioning a strong men's rights movement against the feminist brick wall doesn't lead to anything else but a further poisoning of the atmosphere of gender relations."

Feminism's no brick wall. It's a dust-devil that will not freeze into a pose. It's a . . . perpetual revolution, as I have described it here, and here ... and a few other places.

If it were a brick wall that would make things simple - just swing a wrecker's ball at it!

But being how it's a perpetual revolution, better to apply some 'crazy science'....

"So, how do we expose the smelly fish of feminism for what it is and make friends and comrades with self-confident, proud women at the same time?"

That's a problem that will solve itself, I think. Just continue to attack feminism in a strategically wise manner, and these sorts of women will pop up everywhere more and more....

These self-confident, proud women will not be feminists - by which I mean that feminism shall never have been the SOURCE of their pride and self-confidence. They will have gotten those qualities on their own in some completely different way..

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

I feel obliged to revoke my above positive statement about democraticunderground.com: My account (member since 2003) just get deleted by its moderators because I said in a thread there that often, courts do routinely decide in favor of women in divorce cases and because of that, some men nowadays decide not to marry in the first place.
Saying something like that is "misogynistic slur" in the opinion of democraticunderground.com... Ok, so if even the liberals in America have a thought police, I'm not sure there's any hope left for the U.S. . But on the other hand I feel almost relieved - waste of time debating with an impolite army of zombies.

By the way, seen this article?

4:20 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

So, let's get this straight. You merely passed along some widely reported information about the court system, and about the life decisions being made by certain men. . .

And they call THAT a "misogynistic slur"?

"Misogynistic" means woman-hating, but on the face of it, your statement would not appear to reflect upon women in any way whatsoever. I don't know your exact words, but if they were as innocuous as they seem (from what you have said, anyway), then I am at a loss to decipher WHY any intellectually honest person would read misogyny in them. . .

My curiosity is aroused! Can you provide a link to that particular thread, perchance?
-------

Yes, I have read that article you linked to. Disgusting, isn't it?

6:04 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Yes of course, here's the link.

My deleted message was at #42. In reply to the last paragraph of the thread's original message (which is something about "men and porn" and how watching porn allegedly makes men incapable of appreciating "real women"), I wrote: "More and more men shy away from those "real women", because nowadays the courts often routinely decide in favor of women in divorce cases, and that's why some men avoid marriage in the first place. It has nothing to do with porn." As best as I can remember, that's word for word what I said.

As you can see I got some replies which were ok, they didn't agree but reflected my factual tone of voice, until I got at #49 the reply that this is "misogynistic garbage". I replied with message #87, but some minutes later my post #42 was gone, probably because the author of #49 (a woman) had alerted the moderators. After my post was deleted, of course I couldn't defend anymore what I actually had written, so anybody just assumed I had written "misogynistic garbage". The rest of the thread then more and more turned into something like a mob campaign against me. The thread as it is now isn't complete anymore, some messages and sub-threads got also deleted. But you'll get the gist of it... anyway, after a while I noticed I wasn't logged in anymore. I tried to re-login, but my account was gone.

2:33 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

I had a look at the thread....

YIKES!!

The people on that board were a gang of stupid, vicious, arrogant, irrational, pigheaded piranhas! I almost want to call them fascists, but since their political leaning is to the Left, that wouldn't be the correct term. All right, so they are the left-handed version of fascists, then!

Simply stated, they are the "PC Crowd!" The same "mob" that wanted to railroad those three boys in the Duke lacrosse rape trial. Nifong..the Gang of 88...the students who staged the "shivaree" with pots and pans...all those feminist bloggers with their "virtual vigil" GIF stickers...the doofus who wrote the article at Salon.Com....Mr. Rush-to-Judgement at the Acton Institute website who called for a "hero" to "confess"!

Etc...etc...ad nauseum!

That intellectual lynch mob treatment you got at the DU forum was like a tiny taste of what was dished out to the Duke boys. Just multiply the volume by about 900, and stretch it over a duration of several months, and you'll have some idea what the Durham Three must have experienced. (And of course, they had FAR more at stake than getting banned from a website!)

The idea that you said anything "misogynistic" on that thread would not be feasible to uphold. Clearly however, you said something that touched the "ugly button" in a dark, primitive, robot section of their minds.

And they reacted essentially like rattlesnakes. (Rattlesnakes being the perfect little robot beasties who simply STRIKE by a kind of mechanical instinct!)

As simply as i can say it, in order for your words to have been justifiably deemed "misogynistic", it would be needful that you had said something depreciatory of women.

But not only did you not say anything depreciatory of women, you weren't even talking ABOUT women in the first place.

You merely spoke of judicial practices in the court system, and life decisions that certain men are making in response to those judicial practices.

Properly speaking, women were not even the subject at all.

I took a peek at the forum rules, and noticed THIS:

"The moderators of Democratic Underground enforce the rules based on consensus. Whenever a moderator takes action, they are required to first get a consensus from the available moderators that action is necessary and appropriate. What constitutes a consensus varies based on the situation. If a rule violation is obvious, then action only requires a second opinion from one other moderator. But if a situation is unclear, highly subjective, or likely to be controversial, then the opinions of many moderators are required. Whatever the situation, one moderator has the power to veto any enforcement action. All moderator actions are logged by our software, and can be reviewed by the administrators."

So...here's what happened: First, post 42 got deleted. Then, you posted several times in self-defense, the mob action started, and at that point the moderators reached their "consensus" to ban you.

Actually, I can see why some of the people in the "mob" should have been banned according to the forum's very own rules!

At any rate, it looks like you got "nifonged" by the committee of moderators while the mob was banging on pots and pans....

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

What I find so disturbing is the underlying, deep conviction of these allegedly "progressive" people that they are right. And they don't allow any discussion about what exactly they think they are correct about. It's black and white thinking, supported by a cocoon of smugness that comes along with a person's decision of running with the mob.

I've written to the DU management that in case they think I got mistakenly banned, they should tell me. Otherwise, I'd be happy not being part of a community anymore that bans its members based on hearsay. Got no reply so far.

The sad thing is, back in 2003 I joined DU as my self-prescribed antidote against the widespread anti-Americanism here in Europe since GWB is president.

5:16 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Their attitude is called "triumphalism". I've noticed it too. .

The irony thickens when you consider that these are some of most anti-american people you'll meet anywhere, even though they are Americans themselves!

6:35 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Thanks for the vocabulary!
We don't have a word for "triumphalism" in German (we only have "Triumph", which is the same like the English "triumph").

Regarding anti-Americanism: I'm not sure, but it could be we need to make a distinction between how we here in Europe understand the word anti-Americanism, and what's attributed to it in America itself...

I'd characterize an European who is anti-American as someone who is opposed to U.S. politics.
Could it be that you in America see someone you'd characterize as anti-American as someone being opposed to what you regard as being American values?

A majority of Europeans are against American politics, because in the eyes of many people here the current actions out of the White House don't seem exactly wise, respectable or reasonable. But being "anti-American" in that way, we surely don't want to criticize "ordinary" American people and their values or heritage. One cannot judge what one doesn't know, and us ordinary Europeans usually don't personally know ordinary Americans.
The reason I joined DU was that I thought that DU was a meeting point of people in America who are opposed to the arrogant Bush world politics.

Here's an article you maybe find interesting regarding anti-Americanism in Germany:
Exchange Students Find a New Way to Deal With Germans

3:42 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Regarding 'anti-americanism', yes, those people at DU don't like Bush, and current American politics, so they are indeed anti-american in the "European" sense you mentioned.

However, being Americans themselves, they cannot help being influenced by the local flavor. Speaking from my close-up view as a native, I am aware that those kinds of people do indeed have prejudicial feelings against "ordinary Americans" who are unlike themselves, quite independently of politics. YES.... some portion of their 'anti-americanism', at least, is based on little more than snobbery against OTHER Americans, generally people of different social class or education level.

So, their anti-americanism is really a two-part compound: the political part, and the snobbery part. However, what makes the matter tricky is that these two parts flow together in such a way that it's rather difficult to separate them; to know where one ends and the other begins.

I can tell you one thing which is the dirty little secret of the 'PC Crowd', and that is: they hate the white working class! (Of course, they would react like rattlesnakes if they heard me say that!) And the main central sting of this hating seems to be directed toward rural southern folk - who tend to be simple and old-fashioned and not so educated. (I'm a northerner myself, but I have a soft spot for southerners - who are often very sympatisch!)

Another point to make about the American PC crowd is that they tend to share a very templated set of opinions on a range of prescribed issues, which for them serves as a social marker to identify themselves as a social tribe. Furthermore, this 'opinion template' is heavily slanted toward socialism or Marxian analysis in some form - which causes them to be ideologues all the more.

They like to chatter about "diversity", but they are very, very threatened by anything which doesn't fit their template - thus, they live in a narrow, brittle world. I think that you got on the wrong side of their brittleness at DU. When you mentioned anti-male bias in the court system, and the consequences of it, you overstepped a certain line in a way that threatened to crack the template.

As for that article you linked to.. .. that reminds me that a lot of people in the USA don't even have well-developed political opinions at all: most of their mental energy and intelligence goes into coping with their personal lives day by day (sometimes very grim!), and the rest of the time they spend distracting themselves with various things. . .

And also, religion and politics are personal matters as the article says - so....Americans overwhelmingly keep it to themselves, unless they are gathering with the crowd that shares their views.

7:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home