False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought

Started by Christiane, May 20, 2006, 09:55 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


This was very enlightening for me - I had heard the 2% figure before.   I'll be interested to see Dr. E's new site on this topic.


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.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.


Christiane good find but it was posted earlier in the week. Probably just before you arrived.
It's here if you wish to have a look.
If I may I reckon you're likely to be a real asset to SYG.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.


Oops, sorry.  Didn't take the time to look.

Can this be deleted?     :oops:

dr e

It's okay Christiane.  It's good to have a reminder.  Not to worry.  Usually when people double up on a post we just leave both up and the board takes care of things.  Very little is deleted here so you can go back and see exactly what happened and how.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.


Vis-a-vis Paul McCartney, anybody got any stats on how many men have been 'financially' raped? There's a drive to endlessly extend the definition of rape. Sir Percy would no doubt attest that 'rape and pillage' was one of the dubious benefits of battle. Rape is now the second greatest sin. 'Child Abuse' easily takes first place. Pillage of men by women is not even recognised since feminists are (by definition) always either on the winning side or victims of the war.
'm an asylum seeker. Don't send me back.


Quote from: "Malakas"
Vis-a-vis Paul McCartney, anybody got any stats on how many men have been 'financially' raped? There's a drive to endlessly extend the definition of rape. Sir Percy would no doubt attest that 'rape and pillage' was one of the dubious benefits of battle. Rape is now the second greatest sin. 'Child Abuse' easily takes first place. Pillage of men by women is not even recognised since feminists are (by definition) always either on the winning side or victims of the war.

I have no stats, but I do have term for this:

Sexual Parasite
 woman needs a man like a fish needs water


Here is a little bit more about the study that was used for this article.

An alarming national trend:
False Rape Allegations

Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Purdue University

[Notes in brackets are added by the Ananda Answers editor]


With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. False rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases (109) reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations. [False rape allegations are reported in similar numbers at college campuses; approximately 50% of rape charges are admitted to be false by the accuser.]


[The author discusses the history of unfounded rape allegations, and how legitimate cases of rape were discounted until pressure from women's groups caused them to be taken more seriously. He describes how the pendulum has now swung significantly the other way]

Currently, the two main identifiable adversaries involved in the false rape allegations controversy are the feminists and the police. The feminists are by far the most expressive and prominent on this issue. Some feminists take the position that the declaration of rape as false or unfounded largely means that the police do not believe the complainant; that is, the rape charges are real reflections of criminal assault, but the agents of the criminal justice system do not believe them (Brownmiller, 1975; Russell, 1984). Some feminists virtually deny the existence of false rape accusations and believe the concept itself constitutes discriminatory harassment toward women (see Grano, 1990). On the other hand, police are prone to say the reason for not believing some rape complainants resides in the fact that the rapes never occurred (Payton, 1967; Wilson, 1978; Jay, 1991). Medical Examiners lend support to this police position by emphasizing the ever-present possibility that rape complainants may be lying (Shill, 1969, 1971).


This investigation is essentially a case study of one police agency in a small metropolitan area (population 70,000) in the Midwestern United States. This city was targeted for study because it offered an almost model laboratory for studying false rape allegations. First, its police agency is not inundated with serious felony cases and, therefore, has the freedom and the motivation to record and thoroughly pursue all rape complaints. In fact, agency policy forbids police officers to use their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint may be. Second, the declaration of a false allegation follows a highly institutionalized procedure. The investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects. Additionally, for a declaration of false charge to be made, the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false. The police department will not declare a rape charge as false when the complainant, for whatever reason, fails to pursue the charge or cooperate on the case, regardless how much doubt the police may have regarding the validity of the charge.

In short, these cases are declared false only because the complainant admitted they are false. Furthermore, only one person is then empowered to enter into the records a formal declaration that the charge is false, the officer in charge of records. Last, it should be noted that this department does not confuse reported rape attempts with completed rapes. Thus, the rape complainants referred to in this paper are for completed forcible rapes only. The foregoing leaves us with a certain confidence that cases declared false by this police agency are indeed a reasonable- if not a minimal reflection of false rape allegations made to this agency, especially when one considers that a finding of false allegation is totally dependent upon the recantation of the rape charge.

We followed and investigated all false rape allegations from 1978 to 1987. A ranking police official notified us whenever a rape charge was declared false and provided us with the records of the case. In addition, the investigating officers provided any requested supplementary information so that we could be confident of the validity of the false rape allegation declarations.


Regarding this study, 41% (45) of the total disposed rape cases (109) were officially declared false during this 9-year period, that is, by the complainant's admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false. The incidence figure was variable from year to year and ranged from a low of 27% (3 out of 11 cases) to a high of 70% (7 out of 10 cases). The 9-year period suggests no trends, and no explanation has been made for the year-to-year fluctuation.

The study of these 45 cases of false rape allegations inexorably led to the conclusion that these false charges were able to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, a means of gaining revenge, and a platform for seeking attention/sympathy. This tripartite model resulted from the complainants' own verbalizations during recantation and does not constitute conjecture. Of course, we are not asserting that these functions are mutually exclusive or exhaustive; rather, these rape recantations focused on a single factor explanation. A possible objection to these recantations concerns their validity. Rae recantations could be the result of the complainants' desire to avoid a 'second assault at the hands of the police. Rather than proceed with the real charge of rape, the argument goes, these women withdrew their accusations to avoid the trauma of police investigation.

Several responses are possible to this type of criticism. First, with very few exceptions, these complainants were suspect at the time of the complaint or within a day or two after charging. These recantations did not follow prolonged periods of investigation and interrogation that would constitute anything approximating a second assault. Second, not one of the detectives believed that an incident of false recantation had occurred. They argued, rather convincingly, that in those cases where a suspect was identified and interrogated, the facts of the recantation dovetailed with the suspect's own defense. Last, the policy of this police agency is to apply a statute regarding the false reporting of a felony. After the recant, the complainant is informed that she will be charged with filing a false complaint, punishable by a substantial fine and a jail sentence. In no case, has an effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation. Although we certainly do not deny the possibility of false recantations, no evidence supports such an interpretation for these cases.


In addition to the foregoing, certain other findings and observations relevant to false allegations warrant comment. First, false allegations failed to include accusations of forced sexual acts other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Not one complainant mentions forced oral or anal sex. In contrast, these acts were included in approximately 25% of the rounded forcible rape complaints. Perhaps it was simply psychologically and socially more prudent for these women to minimize the humiliation of sexual victimization by not embroidering the event any more than necessary. This phenomenon has been observed previously (McDowell and Hibler, 1987).

One of the most haunting and serious implications of false rape allegations concerns the possibility of miscarried justice. We know that false convictions occur, but this study only tells us that these false accusers were weeded out during the very early stages of investigation. However encouraging this result may be, we cannot claim that false charging does not incur suffering for the accused. Merely to be a rape suspect, even for a day or two, translates into psychological and social trauma.

We may well be faced with the fact that the most efficient police departments report the higher incidence of false rape allegations. In view of these factors, perhaps the most prudent summary statement that is appropriate from these data is that false rape accusations are not uncommon. Since this effort is the first at a systematic, long-term, on-site investigation of false rape allegations from a single city, future studies in other cities, with comparable policies, must assess the representativeness of these findings.


[The author talks about other studies of women on college campuses which show an approximately 50% rate of false rape reports, similar to the study above].

Quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge. Other reports from university police agencies support these findings (Jay, 1991). In both police agencies, the taking of the complaint and the follow-up investigation was the exclusive responsibility of a ranking female officer. Neither agency employed the polygraph and neither declared the complaint false without a recantation of the charge.

Updated: December 7, 2001
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.


Quote from: "Malakas"
Vis-a-vis Paul McCartney, anybody got any stats on how many men have been 'financially' raped? There's a drive to endlessly extend the definition of rape. Sir Percy would no doubt attest that 'rape and pillage' was one of the dubious benefits of battle. Rape is now the second greatest sin. 'Child Abuse' easily takes first place. Pillage of men by women is not even recognised since feminists are (by definition) always either on the winning side or victims of the war.

Here is part of the story..............


The Bradley Amendment has been a controversial law and has resulted in several notorious examples of unintended consequences including:

   * A veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.
   * A Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder. After 10 years in prison, the man sued the state for wrongful imprisonment. The state responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.
   * A Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.

In September 1999, Marilyn Ray Smith, the Chief Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division gave the following testimony before the US House of Representatives.

   As you know, under the Bradley Amendment enacted by The U.S. Congress in 1986, a child support obligation becomes a judgment by operation of law as of the date that that it is due and unpaid. In addition, under Section 368 of PRWORA (42 U.S.C. 666 (a) (4)), an administrative lien also arises by operation of law against any unpaid child support. It is therefore not necessary to return to court after each payment is missed to get past-due support reduced to a judgment in order to obtain a lien or enforce a judgment. This means that a child support agency can move quickly to seize income and assets of a delinquent noncustodial parent without first passing through a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing process."

In 2003, Keith McLeod, author of The Multiple Scandals of Child Support, testified before the Committee on Ways and Means that

   "The 1986 Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D forbids any reduction of arrearage or retroactive reduction for any reason, ever. This reinforces the approach that inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt they will never be able to pay because they were:

       * In a coma
       * A captive of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War
       * In jail
       * Medically incapacitated
       * Lost their job but were confident of another so did nothing until it was too late
       * Did not know they could not ask for retroactive adjustments and waited too long
       * Cannot afford a lawyer to seek adjustment when adjustment was warranted
       * Wouldn't use the legal system even if they could, feeling it alien from their world, so don't ask for a reduction when the legal establishment expects them to.

   Some say this measure is a violation of due process and cruel and unusual as it removes the use of human discretion from dealing with individual cases, not to mention removing human compassion. But non-custodial fathers do not have the money to fight a constitutional case."

As of 2004, the Bradley Amendment was being challenged as unconstitutional and was the subject of a repeal effort.

Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

Men's Rights Activist

I worked on a college campus for many years, and shortly before I left I had the "experience" of going up to one of the tables in club row being run by the women's studies group.  There were all kinds of tables set up with flyers being given out so I was just going from table to table picking them up.  At the women's studies/rape crisis table I picked up some fliers said hello, when the woman started asking questions:

# Do you know of anyone needing rape counselling services?

# Do you know anyone whose been raped or who needs help?

# Do you know anyone whose being raped?

# etc.

# etc.

What a witch hunt we have going on at college and university campuses these days, especially when you consider how trivialized the definition of sexual assault and rape has become.

Here's an interesting article from awhile back by Glenn Sacks and Marc Angelucci,

Research Shows False Accusations
of Rape Common

By Marc Angelucci and Glenn Sacks

In her recent Daily Journal column, high profile feminist professor Wendy Murphy dismisses the problem of false accusations as an "ugly myth," and calls for "boiling rage" activism to address what she perceives as the anti-woman bias of the criminal justice system.

According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge. Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.

Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

The most common reasons the women gave for falsely accusing rape were "spite or revenge," and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame (Forensic Science Digest, vol. 11. no. 4, December 1985).

A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions."

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with "scary frequency." As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver's ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that "any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.

The media has largely ignored these studies and experts and has instead promoted the notion that only 2% of rape allegations are false. This figure was made famous by feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Brownmiller was relaying the alleged comments of a New York judge concerning the rate of false rape accusations in a New York City police precinct in 1974.

A 1997 Columbia Journalism Review analysis of rape statistics noted that the 2% statistic is often falsely attributed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and has no clear and credible study to support it. The FBI's statistic for "unfounded" rape accusations is 9%, but this definition only includes cases where the accuser recants or the evidence contradicts her story. Instances where the case is dismissed for lack of evidence are not included in the "unfounded" category. Brownmiller's credibility can be assessed by her assertion in Against Our Will that rape is "nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!


That Eugene Kanin study seems to be the most nuetral.  I would put it closer to %85 false, but I occupy the extreme MRA fringe, just like my feminist counterparts swear up and down its %2 false.


Quote from: "Malakas"
Pillage of men by women is not even recognised since feminists are (by definition) always either on the winning side or victims of the war.

While it is yet to be tested I suspect feminists would always be on the side that appeared to be winning. The victim position would be held in reserve for use against the eventual victor.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Sir Percy

In defence of myself at least and perhaps Knights in general (although we are thin on the ground these days), there are certain aspects of battle booty that I eschew. I have dispatched the odd few knaves who overstepped  the mark. Humiliation of an enemy is designed to cleanse their soul, not simply for the entertainment of troops.

I would add, in similar fashion, that women who falsely accuse a man of such a heinous crime should be publicly humiliated at the very least. The full weight of the law should fall on her. She should be prosecuted. Personally, I would support bringing back the stocks and the ducking stool.

Perhaps the upcoming rally on the 17th June could have a mock ducking stool with an effigy of a false accuser, a perjurer, for public dunking to underscore the issue that father's and men face in the Family Court.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.


Hello S.I.G.E

That Eugene Kanin study seems to be the most nuetral. I would put it closer to %85 false, but I occupy the extreme MRA fringe

In my view, you are not being extreme at all. I have no doubt that the false accusation rate is very close to 85%; e.g. see, ...

ttp://www.angryharry.com ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address


Quote from: "angryharry"
Hello S.I.G.E

That Eugene Kanin study seems to be the most nuetral. I would put it closer to %85 false, but I occupy the extreme MRA fringe

In my view, you are not being extreme at all. I have no doubt that the false accusation rate is very close to 85%; e.g. see, ...


Dude I thought you got assassinated or something.  Your site has been dead for ages.  I was about to call Scotland Yard.  The reason I put the false rate so high is that I just don't think your average male is even capable of maintaining an erection during a rape.  It wasn't uncommon in the Army to get sent out to the field for months at a time with no possiblity of female contact, and I never witnessed any type of aggression towards women, even in the lowest economic strata.  The hysteria is almost completely manufactured if you ask me.


The problem with MRAs devoting their energies to the rape statistics is that - in practice - it does not make any real difference what the alleged rape figures show.

1. In the climate that prevails - and will continue to prevail - these figures will always be subject to gender politics, wooly definitions, virtually useless 'research' and - as the evidence shows quite clearly - downright lies and disinformation.

2. The **general public** will **never** be able to get to grips with the **truth** about rape on the basis of the **various** rape figures - and, quite frankly, the same goes for MRAs; including myself.

Furthermore, the **truth** about rape will fluctuate with the changing times and social conditions. In other words, one will never be able to pin it down.

3. When arguing hither and thither about the rape figures with feminists, with women, or with whoever; nothing is ever achieved. At best, and with luck, one might be able to convince them that the rape figures are not quite as high as they thought. (The same is true for all the other 'abuse' figures.) But what does this achieve?


Whether the accepted figure is 50,000 or 500,000 there will be no difference in the attitudes and beliefs of those who wish to further their destructive anti-male agenda.

For example, in the case of child sexual abuse, the NSPCC knows from its **own** data that fathers and child professionals are the least likely to be the perpetrators, but this does not stop them from portraying these very groups as the main perpetrators.

4. When it comes to abuse statistics, you are dealing with very ***powerful*** groups who lie, cheat and exaggerate; such as the NSPCC. But it is **they** who have the power to capture the audience. As such, in practice, you will never convince the **general public** that your 'minority' point of view about 'the statistics' is valid.

Let me give you a parallel which might demonstrate better what I am trying to say.

We know that women earn less in the workplace because of their choices. But the message from some of the most powerful groups in the land is that women are being discriminated against when it comes to their pay.

Now, ask yourself this question.

Is it better for MRAs to argue over whether women earn 78 cents for every dollar that a man earns, or whether it is 85 cents, or 95 cents? Or is it more fruitful to point out that, whatever the numbers might be, it is **women's** choices that lead to them?

My point is that arguing the **alleged statistics** surrounding pay is far less productive than pointing out why they might have arisen to be the way that they are.

And I believe that the same is true when it comes to the rape figures.

Thus, for example, whether it is 85 cents on the dollar, or 98 cents, the feminists will **still** manage to make a 'justifiable' fuss about it, if they can convince the public that this is due to discrimination. But, on the other hand, if the general public can be made to see that women's choices lead to these figures, then no matter what the figures show (85 cents or 98 cents) the dishonest feminist argument is scuppered.

I'll repeat that bit again; no matter what the figures show, the dishonest feminist argument is scuppered.

And the same goes for the rape figures, in my view.

Whether it is 50,000 or 500,000 rapes per year will make no difference to the attitudes out there.

What **does** make a difference in this case is telling people that, yes, rape happens, but, as a man, I have no intention of being subjected to highly prejudicial unjust laws, and I am not prepared to be continually demonised over this matter, and, further, I will fight you all the way if you continue to treat me as a fourth class citizen etc etc.

Take it from me; this approach works.

And **one** of the reasons that it works is that people who are **demonstrably** unconcerned about what happens to **innocent** others have lost the moral high ground.

Indeed, **ANY** person who thinks that it is justifiable to harm ***innocent*** others immediately exposes themselves to be unworthy, hypocritical and undeserving. And people who find themselves in this position tend to back off very quickly.

About a year ago, I received an email from a UK feminist professor who pointed out - amongst other things - that whatever the truth about the rape figures, even small numbers of rapes were unacceptable, and that society had a duty to try to prevent them. I pointed out to her that if this involved harming innocent men - such as my good self - then she could not complain if people like me set out to harm people like her! After all, she was no longer 'innocent'. Indeed, she was someone who advocated the harming of innocent men!

Take it from me, this argument works, because the rape advocates have nowhere to turn.

"You hurt me without justification, then I will seek to hurt you ***WITH*** justification."

In my view, the alleged statistics for rape and the manner in which they are calculated are useful activist tools only insofar as they can be demonstrated to be fraudulently produced and inflated. In other words, the numbers themselves - 50,000 or 500,000 - are far less important than is exposing the depths of dishonesty to which the feminist groups and others will sink in this matter in order to pursue their disgusting agenda against men.

Thus, for example, exposing the fact that the official rape statistics in the UK are based **entirely** on the number of **allegations** of rape demonstrates just how purposely misleading and, hence, dishonest are government officials prepared to be.
ttp://www.angryharry.com ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address

Go Up