The Lives Of Men

I was reading a post on antimisandry.com today about Women's Institute women who are fighting to legalize prostitution in order to improve conditions for prostitutes. The women are visting brothels in various countries to find what they consider an example of ideal working conditions or the "perfect brothel". One of the women made the following comment,

'I discovered that in brothels in Holland men must wear condoms, which makes sense, and girls are regularly tested for infection. This is very important, not just for the girl, but for the family of the man who has been to see her.'

Did you catch that? It's essential for a man to wear a condom to protect the girls, as well as to protect his family should he catch some terrible sexually transmitted disease. Of course, there's no concern for the man who'll potentially contract HIV and end up be dying of AIDS.

I see this concept repeated time and again, and not just by the rad-fems, either. It seems I can hardly read anything that talks about the welfare of men without seeing the real concern being for the women in their lives.

If a soldier dies in combat, it's his wife and mother who are the real victims. If the suicide rate for men is alarmingly high, we must combat it because of the devastating impact it will have upon their wives and mothers. If men are dying at younger and younger ages, the real issue is the wives who they'll no longer be able to support.

Men are actual real, live human beings and as such, they matter. They don't merely matter as an extension of someone else. Their lives are not only important as they relate to the women in them. The very worst part about a soldier dying is the tragic loss of a young life that's ended way too quickly. The worst thing about high male suicide rates is the large number of men suffering emotional and mental anguish and the subsequent needless, wasteful end of their lives. The worst thing about men dying IS MEN DYING.

I don't imply that wives and mothers are not affected by the death of their sons and husbands. I can't imagine anything more devastating than if my husband or one of my children were to die, but the greatest tragedy would not be mine. The greatest tragedy would be the life that was ended prematurely.

Personally, I'm tired of the lives of men only mattering as they affect women. I'm tired of concern only being shown for the issues of men if those issues are negatively impacting women and I'm tired of hearing that we must take interest in the welfare of men for the benefit of women. It's a disgusting disregard for the value of life and it's a despicable display of bias. Society obviously accepts the importance of lives.....just not the lives of men.

Another Women's Studies Major

I was reading through the blog, Rex Patriarch, when I saw a comment I just had to respond to. It would appear that the blog owner has disabled comments to anyone who isn't a team member, SO, since I can't stand to let such distortion and misandry go without responding......here is the comment along with my response to it.

Prepare yourself for an example of feminist indoctrination at it's finest.

http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/2008/07/oh-now-they-want-truce.html

julianreal said...

I think we all know what happened and is still happening to Indigenous people all over the planet: white men and our values, industries, and institutions are killing them, genocidally. And white men are also systematically raping Indigenous women. See this for more:

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415046

What is your humanitarian response to these atrocities?

In what institutions, in what social venues, in what regions of North America, in your view, do "women rule over men"? I am eager to hear your answer.

As for where men get to speak like this: have you looked at the pornography industry in the last thirtyfive years; men have been putting down women there in every conceivable way, degrading women, raping women, pretending to rape women, cumming on women's faces, gang-banging women, treating women of color like sh*t in particularly
racist and misogynist ways. Often and routinely over these many years, the pornographers (I'm here I'm talking about the big fellas: the white corporate pimps, not someone at home alone or with a partner using their webcam) make feminists and feminism the targets of this scorn, contempt, and defamation: that's a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I ask this in earnestness: can you name for me one multi-billion dollar a year industry that promotes (accurately) the perspectives of radical feminists? Because I can't, and I've looked.

Practically every woman I know has been seriously harmed physically, emotionally, and sexually by a man or by several men, often within their own families of origin: I'm not a youngster, and this means dozens and dozens of women, just those women to whom I am personally connected. One woman friend was molested by three different men over one summer when she was nine years old. Another woman was raped by her father, older brothers, and male cousins when she was a girl. My female dental hygienist was murdered by her ex-boyfriend; he came to her home when she was alone and killed her.

I also know boys who have been raped or molested or assaulted by men: again, their numbers are in the dozens, but approximately half as large as the population of females harmed by men in these ways.

Do you know even five women who have been charged with rape, incest, child molestation, criminal battery, women who have detained boys or men in their basements as sexual slaves, women who have trafficked in boys and men for the purposes of sexual gratification, at the expense of the humanity of those so used and abused?

I see men treat one another like sh*t often, beating each other up outside of bars, shouting and threatening each other: white men threatening and discriminating against men of color; heterosexual men bullying and beating gay men. I'm curious why you don't see men as a significant population of man-haters.

I honestly (I'm being entirely serious here) know of not one single woman who hates men. Not one. I know women who fear men, based on past experiences; I know women who fight for justice for women, for women to be free from rapist culture, from pornographic culture, from a dominant culture in which Indigenous North American women can be raped by white men without any recourse. I can't "reverse" this phenomenon and match it to reality. Could you name the social experiences, on a large scale, that lead you to see the world this way?

Regarding your use of the term "feminazi": Given social-political reality, aren't white men "the Nazis," and women of all ethnicities more like "European Jews" than the other way around? In what sense do feminists in North America control the media, run state police forces, direct the military, and form an unfathomably inhumane dictatorship, as Hitler did? What sense does it make to call any feminists "Nazis"? Please explain this to me. (Thank you.)

How have you been harmed, personally, by women?

I look forward to your response. Thanks for engaging on this topic. I appreciate your willingness to keep the dialogue open.

Julian

July 24, 2008 11:13 AM

My comment,

@Julianreal

While I agree that this is probably pointless, I can't help but respond to some of your assertions, in particular the ones concerning pornography.

I'm always curious how the kind of sex being performed in pornography becomes oppression of women by men. The women choose to work in the sex industry. They choose to participate in the manner of sex being performed within the films.

Undergo the unsavory experience of visiting a few blogs by women who are into humiliation and degradation. You'll find that many rape fantasy stories and sites have a large female following.

All most of your allegations prove is that there is a darker side to human nature.

For every man who has committed acts of rape or violence, there is a woman who has committed an equally despicable act. All human beings have a capacity for evil. It is a feminist fallacy that men hold a monopoly on that evil.

Under the current clime of female empowerment without corresponding accountability, I would argue that women are more and more frequently guilty of immoral and dishonest behavior. I would say the most distinctive difference between the evil committed by men and women is that women are largely allowed to commit it with impunity. The bad behavior of men is advertised and denounced by every availiable medium while the bad behavior of women is ignored, minimized or justified.

You may not know any women who will state that they hate men, but we live in an environment that embraces and promotes hatred of men, evidenced quite clearly by your post.

It's a very small percentage of men who are rapists, murderers or pedophiles, yet you would have us believe that society is rife with them and women are living in a state of terror waiting to be victimized by them.

I don't once hear you allude to the type of men I know, the type of men that most men are. There's no reference to husbands and fathers who devote their lives to their families. No mention of soldiers or firefighters who sacrifice themselves for the lives and freedoms of others. No mention of the men who quietly go about their lives trying to leave the world a better place than how they found it.

THESE are the type of men I know. The type of men who you malign and villify by collectively lumping them with rapists,murderers and pedophiles. The type of men whose sacrifices and goodness you discount and brush off as you quickly jump back to trying to show how inherently evil men are simply by virtue of their gender.

Emily Rose Hindle

Here's one of those stories that make you think, "I just can't believe this is really happening"; that makes you realize just how messed up the system really is.

The story is of Emily Rose Hindle and her father Karl Hindle who has spent the last five years and over four thousand dollars in a fight to be reunited with his daughter who was illegally taken by her mother to the U.S..

Teri Stoddard has outlined some of the details of the travesties of this situation and Mr. Hindle's struggles with a corrupt and criminally ineffective system.

http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/barbara-grieg-us-state-department-facilitates-international-child-abduction-scandal/

Emily would not have suffered the loss of her father for the last five years, or the vision in her right eye, if it weren’t for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.) And people like Barbara Grieg of the U.S. State Department who see it as an excuse for misandry and a license for lawlessness.

Hindle, a U.K. citizen met and fell in love with American Sheila Fuith while in New York. When she moved to the U.K. in 2001 she hadn’t mentioned the husband and daughters she’d abandoned. Emily was born in the U.K. on March 1, 2002. At 5 months-old Emily was diagnosed with esotropia caused by amblyopia. She needed patching therapy, a patch worn a few hours each day, or she would lose sight in her right eye.

In February 2003 Fuith decided to leave Hindle and return to the U.S. She knew he would object to her taking Emily, so she did what many women in her position have done. She accused him of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. Thanks to VAWA, she needed only to speak the words.

Fuith was taken in by a battered women’s shelter, and given free legal aid by the U.S. government. With no evidence and no due process, Barbara Grieg authorized the illegal abduction. The U.S. Embassy in London issued a passport for Emily without her father’s signature as required by law. The forged signature was not notarized, and had the wrong date.

After arriving in the U.S. Fuith stopped Emily’s therapy. She then tried to give Emily away in a “baby switch.” She placed Emily with the family of Leslie Merriam, a three time convicted pedophile in Wisconsin. Karl learned of this and contacted local law enforcement.

Fuith needed only to claim Karl was harassing her, and the baby switch wasn’t investigated. A call to Grieg confirmed that Hindle was “dangerous.” Captain Alan Osowski never looked at Fuith’s phone when she told him numbers from “harassing calls from Hindle.” But he wrote he had in his report.

This was just the beginning of Hindle’s harrowing five-year journey to protect his daughter. Fuith has moved Emily dozens of times through several different states. She’s filed over 100 false police reports. And Hindle has received death threats.

Two police investigations in the UK and three in the U.S. cleared Hindle of all
allegations. Fuith was found guilty of coaching Emily and making false allegations. Hindle was given court-ordered reunification with Emily.

Hindle said, “Emily met her elder brother (Max) and sister (Elizabeth) for the first time in almost 3 years…as we walked into the resort hotel, Emily asked me ‘Is this my family ?‘“

They enjoyed these visits, evidenced by these photographs, until Fuith made another false allegation and disappeared. Emily was then listed as missing and endangered.

Knowing all of this, Grieg didn’t just harbor Fuith all these years. She interfered whenever Hindle needed a visa to attend custody hearings, arranged his improper arrest, imprisonment and deportation by the immigration department, and tried to set him up to be arrested for violence. She had officers hiding in bushes while her cronies harassed Hindle. And all the while, during her many lawless and reprehensible actions, she allowed Emily to go blind.

Fuith is still enjoying VAWA-funded legal representation. Recently there was a conference call between Fuith, Hindle, their attorneys and the State Department. During the call Fuith recanted every allegation she has made against Hindle. Even hearing this, the State Department refused to budge. The reason? The allegations the mother has made.

Sheila Fuith is clearly guilty, yet has not received any punishment. Karl Hindle is completely innocent, yet has not been able to see Emily or get custody. Now the State Department wants to send him back to London to apply for a new visa.

Hindle said recently, “I’ve been here for 5 weeks, yet Emily and I have not seen each other. The judge will not enforce his orders, and the mother maintains visitation must take place in Panama City, 350 miles away. Emily and I last saw each other on May 28th, 2006!” Hindle is now on his way back to the UK without seeing Emily.

******************************************
If you’d like to send a letter or make a phone call to to Barbara Grieg, here is her contact info:

Barbara Grieg
US Central Authority,
US Department of State
2201 C Street,
N.W. SA-29, 4thFloor
WASHINGTON, DC 20520-2818
United States of America
Direct Tel: 202-736-9142
Email: greigbj@state.gov

I would urge everyone to contact Ms. Grieg and voice your outrage over the horrors that Mr. Hindle and his daughter have been forced to endure; horrors for which Ms. Grieg along with misandric laws can be held largely to blame for. Undoubtedly, Mr. Hindle's ex is a despicable human being, but she wouldn't be able to commit such horrific acts with impunity if it weren't for the backing of unjust system.

I would also urge you to visit Mr. Hindle's blog where he further documents his fight to get back his little girl. While you're there, consider taking a moment to send Mr. Hindle an e-mail in a show of solidarity and support.

http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com/

Misogyny

I noticed on the NOW website what they call their "Media Hall of Shame". Said Hall of Shame is for their readers to "check out the most outrageous moments of sexism from mainstream media's coverage of the 2008 elections, and rate them" on their "Misogyny Meter" (yes, I'm serious).

A few of the nominations for most misogynistic media comments include,

"[Hillary Clinton] is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She's that stereotypical nagging -- [screeching]. You know what I mean?"---Glenn Beck

"[T]here's just something about [Hillary Clinton] that feels castrating,overbearing, and scary."---Tucker Carlson

"[Hillary Clinton] is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one." ---Marc Rudov

"The second bout of public tears just before a crucial primary vote - after no evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton has a history of tearing up in front of the cameras - provokes the unavoidable question: should feminists actively vote against Clinton to defend the cause of female equality?"---Andrew Sullivan

Sorry ladies, that's not misogyny, that's a little thing I like to refer to as "the truth". Hillary's problems did not stem from a society filled with a deep, dark hatred of women, but from a poorly ran campaign and an extreme lack of likability.

It would seem that any negative opinions of female politicians fall neatly under the heading of "misogyny". In fact, negative observations of any women are labeled misogyny. For instance, when men say that many women today have become shallow, selfish and lacking in integrity, that's not misogyny, that's an unfortunate and sad reality.

Incidentally, while we're clearing up fallacies, road signs that say, "Men at Work", words in the english language that incorporate the word 'man', any comments that allude to women being physically weaker or even remotely different from men, women choosing to work in the sex industry......all resoundingly NOT misogny.

Catching Wild Pigs

I recieved this in an e-mail recently,

Catching Wild Pigs ...

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fightingcommunists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do yo u know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops(CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big
enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

All Men Are Rapists

Here's an exerpt from a post on the blog The Corvid Diaries that absolutely had my blood boiling (shout out to Frostyboy on antimisandry.com who brought it to my attention).

From corvid-dreams.blogspot.com

Firstly, to Mary's "most women are so heavily invested in the concept of "some good men" that they are willing to entirely distort their perspective of what is the far greater violation of women, namely, rape." Thank you, Mary, I am guilty as charged, even sitting here as a rape survivor, and a woman who works to raise awareness of rape; but I am learning, and getting better at not "distorting my perspective", thanks in the main to amazing women like you.

And JusticeWalks, well, I'm speechless. One day I hope I have the bravery and the lucidity to write like that.

I would just like to add here, despite how unhelpful anyone may think it is, and how many women and men alike will argue no, it doesn't mean that, it means some men, or all men have the potential, that it is my firm believe, and if I'm going to be brutally honest, which I might as well be, has been my firm belief for a number of years, that All Men ARE Rapists. I mean that, just as it stands; no qualification, no, oh, except this special man, he isn't; I mean it. All Men Are Rapists. I'm going to say it again:

ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.

I did leave a comment however, comments are moderated so I'm not expecting to see it any time soon. Unfortunately, I lacked the foresight to copy my comment, but I'll do my best to recreate my response here.

My first question, of course, as you are so comfortable in stating (and repeating) that all men are rapists, what proof do you offer to substantiate such a gross generalization? I happen to know that my husband has never raped anyone and is, in fact, a man, so are we to assume that you have (in the form of radfems before you) chosen to label all heterosexual sex as rape? This must come as quite a shock to all the women in the world who are under the impression they're willingly and consensually engaging in sexual congress.

Men do rape, just as women do make false rape accusations. I'll assume, as it's already been established that you're comfortable with blanket stereotypes and collective accountability that you therefore must label all women as lying, vindictive bitches. Of course, I know that I'm not and I know other women who aren't, but for the sake of equality, you must hold women to the same standard of collective guilt as you do men.

I am sorry that you were a victim of rape but it does not vindicate your villifying and maligning an entire gender. You have the right to malign the man who harmed you, but not to spread hatred of all men because of the actions of one, or a few. I would hope you would show the wisdom and maturity to recognize that people should be judged, not be their gender, religion or skin color, but by their actions and deeds.

I am outraged by your comments on behalf of the many, many great men that I know; men who personify qualities such as honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness; men who've devoted their lives to their families and communities. These wonderful men, would never unfairly judge you, even as you have judged them; which makes them far, far better people than you are....regardless of their gender.

Word of warning to anyone wishing to add their comments, Ms. Crow does not allow comments from men on her blog....that probably goes for traitor women such as myself as well.

The World's Most Popular Women's Magazine

I've recently returned from a nice, relaxing 4 day trip to the lake. While there, I found myself without the benefit of having anything to read (an unfortunate side effect of having almost all of your reading material in the form of e-books). My husband was going to the gas station so I asked him to pick me up something to read while he was there. The selection being quite limited, he returned with the latest Cosmopolitan magazine.

Frequent readers of my blog will already be familiar with my aversion to the world's best selling women's magazine. However, struck with a morbid curiousity and nothing else to read, I decided to glance through the pages....what a load of trash.

Some of the highlights? I vividly recall the section that informs the reader what insights can be gained into a man's soul by his "down there grooming" (if you don't know what I'm talking about I'm not going to explain it to you).

I also recall one of the hot new topics that's "all the buzz" is open relationships and "antimonogamy", evidenced by the CBS's new series 'Swing Town' and the rising popularity of websites designed to aide people in cheating and having discreet affairs.

Mostly, the magazine seemed to consist of really, really bad sex advice intermingled with confessions by men and women of the very worst things they've done in their lives and embarassing intimate details. I honestly couldn't do more than just glance through....because it was really that bad.

The impression I got from the magazine was that it assumed as a given that women are on the prowl, unabashedly having indiscriminate sex and care for little beyond makeup, beauty tips and fashion. I came away with an intensified feeling of alienation from society, along with a deep gratification for that alienation.

Some may say,' lighten up, it's only a magazine', but it's a magazine that sells; sells by the truckload in various different languages and a multitude of countries. It sells because it's what women are interested in reading. I wonder if I were to distribute a magazine devoted to promoting kindness and charity how well that would sell....I'm guessing I'd have trouble giving them away.

I think Cosmopolitan is a fairly accurate reflection of society, and society has propped up everything that is of little to no value while undermining anything of real worth. Every essential value is considered old-fashioned and something from a bygone age. How does honesty, integrity and moral fortitude become outdated? Kindness, compassion, charity, empathy....these are not things that should fall in and out of style like clothing or hairstyles. They are instrumental, not only to society, but to the individual.

While my views on moral integrity might not hold near the mass appeal as articles on deciphering the hidden meanings behind the grooming of a man's private areas.....I think I'll stick with them, regardless of how old-fashioned and outmoded they may be deemed.

The Actions of 'Oppressors'?

I was reading some conversations and comments on feminist sites, I'll be merciful and spare you word-for-word accounts, but they went something along the lines of (excuse the extreme paraphrasing),

'Women are finally standing up to male oppression and supremacy and the dictators (read men) don't like it (referring to the MRM, anti-feminists and any other man who's fed up with the modern 'empowered' woman). '

It's nothing new, I'm sure we've all heard it many times before, but it just made me angry. I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing about the oppression of women at the hands of men, how tired I am of hearing about how horrible and evil men are. I think of the men I know, of the men I've known throughout my entire life, and I find myself outraged in their behalf.

When I read such things, I can't help but think of the men who've touched my life and compare them and their character to the way feminists portray them. I want to share a couple of accounts; accounts of the actions of some men who's lives have intersected with my own.

My husband and I had our first child about a year and a half after we were married. The pregnancy was not planned and it wasn't the best timing. I had dropped out of college and was working at a restaurant while my husband finished school. We had enough money to pay rent and buy food, but very little else.

We had regulars at the restaurant where I worked who would come in every morning for coffee. Two of these regulars became concerned because they noticed the tread on the front tires of my car had become perilously thin. They told me it was dangerous to have the tires that bald and that I needed to replace them. I thanked them for the advice but didn't do anything about it because I knew we didn't have any money to buy tires.

A few days later the two men noticed that my tires were still bald so after I'd finished my shift they came over and told me they were taking me to buy tires, that they knew how hard it was when you were newly married and had a child on the way, so they were going to pay for them and wouldn't take 'no' for an anwer.

I knew I couldn't let them do that so I assured them I just hadn't gotten around to buying them yet and would be sure and do so. They told me if I came to work again without better tires on my car they would just show up with them.

I went and sat in my car and cried. I was so touched by the kindness and concern these men had. They hardly knew me, I was someone at a restaurant that served them coffee every so often, but that did nothing to dissuade their kindness and compassion.

We managed to scrape together the money because I couldn't stand the thought of these wonderful men having to buy me tires, but I will never forget their generosity.

At this same time, when I was noticeably pregnant, there was a little old man who would come in a few times a week for a cup of coffee. He would buy a .75 cup of coffee and tip me $5.00. I told him every time that he really shouldn't give me that much, but he always waved me away stating, "I want to help buy a crib for that baby".

This went on for my entire pregnancy until toward the end he gave me a $10 tip. I told him that tipping me $5.00 for a cup of coffee was bad enough, I wasn't going to take $10. He said, "Look now, I got it all figured out, I priced cribs and that $10 added on to the rest I gave you should be just enough to buy one. I don't have any grandkids so don't go hurting my feelings by not letting me help you buy that crib".

I didn't know what to say. I took the ten dollars and whispered, "thank you" while trying to fight back the tears that were threatening to overflow.

Nothing ever infuses me with emotion like being witness to greatness; be it great kindness, great courage or great love. I am so thankful for all the great men I have known in my life. Wonderful men who have many, many times brought me to tears through the greatness of their actions and deeds.

'

The REAL 1 in 4?

We're hearing more and more instances of false rape accusations being reported in the news. Of course, as awareness of this despicable crime rises, the question of just how prevalent it really is comes up quite often. While it may never be possible to produce an exact figure, I found the following article from Wendy McElroy to be quite compelling.


False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
By Wendy McElroy

Is it the new 1-in-4 statistic?

I don't mean the widely-circulated '1-in-4 women will be raped in their lifetime' but a statistic that suggests '1-in-4 accusations of rape are false.'

For a long time, I have been bothered by the elusiveness of figures on the prevalence of false accusations of sexual assault. The crime of 'bearing false witness' is rarely tracked or punished, and the context in which it is usually raised is highly politicized.

Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports. Men's rights sites point to research that places the rate as high as 41 percent. These are wildly disparate figures that cannot be reconciled.

This week I stumbled over a passage in a 1996 study published by the U.S. Department of Justice: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.
The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned.

They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."
The authors continued, "these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

Before analyzing the competing figures, however, caveats about the one just mentioned are necessary.

First, the category of 'false accusations' does not distinguish between accusers who lie and those who are honestly mistaken. Nor does it indicate that a rape did not occur, merely that the specific accused is innocent.

Thus, there is a drive by voices for reform, like the Innocence Institute, to improve eyewitness identification techniques within police departments.

For example, the Innocence Institute suggests "Police should use a 'double-blind' photo identification procedure where someone other than the investigator -- who does not know who the suspect is -- constructs photo arrays with non-suspects as fillers to reduce suggestiveness."
Second, even if false accusations are as common as 1-in-4, that means 75 percent of reports are probably accurate and, so, all accusations deserve a thorough and professional investigation.
Third, the 1-in-4 figure has 'fuzzy' aspects that could influence the results. For example, Neufeld and Scheck mention only sexual assault cases that were "referred to the FBI where results could be obtained."

It is not clear what percentage of all reported assaults are represented by those cases. As well, the terms 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are often used interchangeably, especially when comparing studies, and it is not clear that they are always synonyms for each other.

Nevertheless, the FBI data on excluded DNA is as close to hard statistics that I've found on the rate of false accusations of sexual assault.

Where do the other figures come from and why is there reason to doubt them? Let me consider the two statistics that I have encountered most often.

"Two percent of all reports are false."

Several years ago, I tried to track down the origin of this much-cited stat. The first instance I found of the figure was in Susan Brownmiller's book on sexual assault entitled "Against Our Will" (1975). Brownmiller claimed that false accusations in New York City had dropped to 2 percent after police departments began using policewomen to interview alleged victims.
Elsewhere, the two percent figure appears without citation or with only a vague attribution to "FBI" sources. Although the figure shows up in legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, legal scholar Michelle Anderson of Villanova University Law School reported in 2004, "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the two percent false rape complaint thesis."

In short, there is no reason to credit that figure.

"Forty-one percent of all reports are false."

This claim comes from a study conducted by Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987.

Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."
Although Kanin offers solid research, I would need to see more studies with different populations before accepting the figure of 50 percent as prevalent; to me, the figure seems high.
But even a skeptic like me must credit a DNA exclusion rate of 20 percent that remained constant over several years when conducted by FBI labs. This is especially true when 20 percent more were found to be questionable.

False accusations are not rare. They are common.


Here we see evidence compelling enough to confidently suggest that at least 20-40% of rape accusations are false. Chances are the number is even higher but due to either a lack of thorough investigative techniques or blatant dishonesty, over 20%of men who are accused of rape are innocent.

Luckily, in this day and age we have the benefit of DNA testing so men who are falsely accused are far less likely to lose years and years of their lives sitting in jail because of a false accusation. That, however, does nothing to address the men who have already served time for a crime they didn't commit, or the men who's lives will be ruined and who will be forced to endure the humiliation of a false rape accusation before being cleared of the charges.

The feminists cling so desperately to their "only 2 percent" claim. Of course, their sole concern when cases of false accusation come to light seems to be how it's going to effect women. Granted, they do have a point. Real victims of actual rape are hurt by the false claims. False rape claims are an affront to those who really have been victims of such assaults. However, as much as I realize this, when I hear about a false accusation, what I think about is the man's life who's been ruined, like the lives of the 28 men above; 28 documented cases of innocent men who served an average of 7 years behind bars for crimes they didn't commit. This is where our concern and where our outrage should lie.

Any time a human being is accused of a crime they didn't commit, it is an outrage. However, some of these accusation fall into the category of human error. We need to make sure that procedures are set in place to minimize the likelihood of human error. That men are actually convicted of rape on no other evidence than the alleged victim's testimony is a travesty and a disgrace.

The unthinkable travesty is when a person's life is destroyed over a lie. Hardly a week goes by that I don't hear a new story of a woman who attempted to falsely accuse a man of rape; sometimes out of vengeance, sometimes to cover up for their own indiscretions or to hide an infidelity. Such a crime, such a disregard for the lives of others, is an extremely heinous thing. Until recently, the punishment for such a crime was generally very, very little....to nothing. A woman could accuse a man of rape, unconscionably attempting to destroy his life, and then simply walk away.

I've been happy to see that there are judges who are starting to address the severity of false rape accusations, albeit not nearly enough of them and not nearly to the extent they need to. I've long been of the opinion that any woman who intentionally accuses an innocent man of rape should be given the exact same sentence she was willing to sentence that man to. Whatever the average years served for rape in that area is what she should serve.

If even one man's life was destroyed because of a lie, we should be outraged, but, as Wendy succinctly stated, "false rape accusations are not rare. They are common."

If feminsts are truly concerned for women as they claim to be then they should spend a little less time worrying about whether or not an advertisement or road sign could possibly be construed as "sexist" and a little more time figuring out why it is that some women have little enough conscience and empathy to be able to ruin a man's life with a false rape claim; whether telling women it was all about them and their happiness (regardless of the impact upon the lives of others) was really such a good idea after all.