For some feminists, ideology simply must dictate the facts.
On Saturday, April 14th, I was interviewed for KMOV TV’s show Extra Edition (video) about the charges being dropped in the Duke case.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the Duke case was a systemic pogrom exemplary of many other less-notable cases, Kathleen Hanrahan, director of the St. Louis Regional Sexual Assault Center (based in a YWCA building in Saint Louis), could not admit the case was false.
Hanrahan portrayed Crystal Mangum as a poor single mother just “trying to make a living.” Radical women’s advocates are famous for pretending that stripping and prostitution are honorable employment options. These activities create very little gross national product (GNP), but they do produce mass wreckage in their wake. These “careers” are integral drivers of self-elected welfare dependency and the feminist goal of replacing marriage with big government.
We know that false allegations misdirect governmental resources to attack innocent men, while legitimate cases fall by the wayside. Doubling injustice is not something radical feminist activists care about. After the interview, I shook hands with Kathleen and suggested that we work together to tighten up laws and procedures so agencies helping women do the right thing the majority of the time. Kathleen spit back, “There is no chance that will ever happen,” and stomped off the set, leaving the host and producer with astonished looks on their faces.
We have massive evidence that Duke was not an aberration of justice. Other infamous cases that never should have happened involving well-known individuals such as Kobe Bryant,1 John Fund,2 and CNN’s Tucker Carlson3 evidence what is going on behind closed doors all across America. Like the Duke case, these men were lucky too: they had the visibility and the economic resources to defend themselves.
The larger picture is ominous: according to leading prosecutors and researchers, at least 40% of rape allegations are false (recanted). This fact does not include cases that remain “in limbo” because evidence is too frail to prosecute even under reduced procedural and evidentiary standards applied to sexual assault cases.4,5,6
Congress must act to reform VAWA. Crucial language contained in the VAWA 2005 Reauthorization, that would have reformed VAWA substantially, was mysteriously excised. Nobody knows who did this because it is hidden deep in the Congressional record. I can predict who did: radical women’s advocates handing out payola generated by our tax dollars.
Endnotes
1. "Kobe Bryant, Rape Shield Laws, and the False Accusations Problem"
http://www.hisside.com/3_21_04.htm
2. "False Rape Charges Hurt Real Victims"
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2003/000062.html
3. "Tucker Carlson and False Rape Allegations"
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2003/000062.html
4. Kanin, Eugene J., Ph.D. "False Rape Allegations." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1994), pp 81-92.
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html
5. Sex, Lies, and Rape, Center For Military Readiness
http://www.cmrlink.org/social.asp?DocID=276
6. Fairstein L. Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape. William Morrow & Company, 1993.
What it all gets down to is society’s absolute refusal to accept the idea that a woman can do something bad, and its equally absolute belief that all men are guilty of something simply by being male. So we indict the man and excuse the woman.
Fact: Rape and Sexual Abuse are crimes that have a prevalence for false accusations. By false I don’t mean an honest misidentification but a deliberate false allegation of the crime itself.
In recent years false claims or threats of Sexual Harassment are also flowing like water.
Who’s to blame. For the latter, in large part, our own government which has taken a leftist path and wants an egalitarian society by what ever means. If that means lying (and if often does), so be it — the end justifies the means with these people.
The radical feminists have gotten on the band wagon. The have an agenda and they intend to win by any and all means. Unfortunately their agenda dovetails that of the egalitarians so we have a “united front” in this deceitful dash to transform society. Most of their tactics can be found in the old Communist handbook.
Guilt, innocence; right and wrong have nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters to these people is furthering their agenda by winning and every means to do that is acceptable and encouraged. If innocent people are destroyed in the process — so be it! Nothing or no one gets in the way of furthering their agenda and goal.
That is an overview of the situation. So it should come as no surprise to any astute observer of what has been happening in this country.
The real question here is will it change?
Personally I have some doubts. But what I do know is that no system built on lies can sustain itself.
NHGrouch:
What you are describing is the end of the rule of law.
The rule of law.
The worst totalitarian systems have law. In fact they have many laws and most are draconian in nature and brutally enforced. Does that make them right or just?
The Nazis had laws and so did the Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, Mao, etc. When they went so did their rule of law. Was that wrong or bad?
Would you want Sharia law imposed on you? or Nazi law? or any of the aforementioned laws? If not, you are against the rule of law.
Maybe not always a bad thing, huh?