We are about to go through a court case in February 2024 with our beautiful sensitive son whose life has been decimated by false allegations. The last two years have been hell and I have had to make sure suicide was not an option for him. He has watched his friends travel, have fun and be happy while he is unable to leave the state. Our hearts are broken for him. His accuser told him she had split up with her abusive boyfriend and an ensuing one night stand and subsequent re engaging with her abuser prompted her to report the mutually consenting encounter a week later at the insistence of the boyfriend. The boyfriend has threatened my sons life and promised him that he would ruin his life. The police told my son that they had no choice but to press charges as they had to keep numbers up. How is this ok?
Feminist mono-braincelled thinking never produces the results they want. 'Gender is a social construct' was meant to prove that women should do everything that men can do and if we don't have 50/50 equity this is due to society sabotaging the efforts of women. And women need compensated for this. The fact that this theory* gave rise to trans-ideology which is making women's lives hell wasn't part of the plan. There probably wasn't a plan - as the question 'how can this possibly go wrong?' should be part of your plan.
Same with not charging false accusers with perjury. The idea is 'perjury charges will only encourage more genuine victims to not come forward for fear of being disbelieved.' There's no logic to this at all. It's just another emotionally abusive plea to let women off with lying. Logic would say that if you wanted women to be believed you would purge the system of as many lying women as possible, so the remaining ones would be believed. But no. We have a legal system that encourages the worst of women to lie. The more liars there are the harder it is to believe any one. I wonder how this can possibly go wrong?
*Theories are actually proven ideas, not propostions or hypothesis. I've used the word wrong, I know. Apologies to all real theories.
To be fair, it was John Money who got the gender ball rolling. But feminists picked up the ball and ran with it. But like the semi mythical invention of rugby.
I have to look into who this John Money character is. The world is filled with people coming up with bad ideas. Luckily 99.9% die at birth. As you mentioned there is a difference between coming up with an idea and demanding other people put it into practice.
Allowing women or in principle any person to lie in a court on the weak excuse of not wanting to discourage other "victims" from coming forward is a bad idea . How can we have confidence in the justice system?
The description of the young man's proper 'consensual' sex sounds as much fun as a driving test. Only if you fail your test you get a 'sorry try again' and you've lost your fee. You don't have your life ruined. How is any young man meant to get pleasure from this? And do women get pleasure from men who have to ask all the time and are unable to lead? Can you be consensually ravished? Or is that word archaic?
When you look at the 1970s feminists who were pushing 'rape culture' or making comments that heterosexual sex was indistinguishable from rape (Katherine McKinnon), a disproportionate number - are lesbians (I'm not sure about Susan Brownmiller). Mmm, why would lesbian feminists be encouraging women to be physically revolted by men? Sounds like a pretty obvious recruitment drive to me. It must really gall these man-hating lesbians that straight women prefer men over them. And I mean gall them to the core of their fetid being. The destruction of heterosexual sex as always been a goal. And they're getting there.
Sorry about this note - on a different topic. But please will everyone reading this sign this important petition objecting to the proposed family law changes which will remove any presumption of shared parental responsibility from Australian family law. This is a huge issue. https://bit.ly/3o3xL8t
I suppose I will be accused of not being in tune with the modern world
(I'm ninety-two) but I am appalled that such language comes from the lips of young women. I've been in the Airforce, worked in oil refineries, been a professional fireman and I don't think I have ever heard a man talk that way. Of course I heard men swear (but not the way they do today) and skite about triumphs, which most of the time never happened but they bragged any way. But the way that young woman spoke absolutely sickened me. There should never ever be an excuse for rape, no matter how aroused the man may be, if the answer is no it ends there. I have been aroused plenty of time in my long life and limped home in excruciating pain with epididymal hypertension but I never tried to force a woman, I am not a believer so I never had an issue with other forms of relief. The other thing that worries me is the way in which so many are seeing rape accusations as a career path, how to make money or for some diverse way notoriety. Look at the situation in America, sure the men like Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and many others including Trump were using women but the women were also trying to use them and when they didn't make it, you know what. As I said in another way, I'm an athiest so nothing I have said is Bible bashing, I believe that Christ was a philosopher of sorts but nothing more and some of his messages are worthy.
We are no longer wild animals, animals yes but not wild, we are supposed to be civilized and that means caring and respecting but we all need to earn respect.
But...are these women charged for false allegations and made to pay the court costs or compensation to the wronged male? Or do they just shrug their shoulders, say "ho hum" and live for another day? Better still, will we ever hear about these wannabees being brought into question. Are the women as equally accommodating to the men during intercourse? Do they consider the man's needs? It seems to me there is now a policy and procedure manual on sexual intercourse which is quite sad. In my time, we knew what we liked and go on with it. And there was certainly no "20-questions" during the act. Just enjoyment of the moment/s.
Never a truer word spoken. To add to what you are saying about "lifetime" statistics they do not even take into account whether the instances actually take place in Australia. This gives a completely false picture of the situation in Australia and helps them with statements like "one in four..." based on the survey, etc.
A quick comment about the man who thought he was doing all the right things, and got accused anyway.
As they say - "We've seen it all before".
I well recall the 1980s and 1990s when men were taught to be "sensitive", to be attentive to their wife's "needs" and so on. Another lesson given to young married men was "to keep the romance alive".
I, like most men of my generation, dutifully did as we were instructed. When we attended "counselling" we listened to our wives complain about us, and resolved to do better.
By the mid 1990s the term SNAG, for "Sensitive New Age Guy" had been invented to mock us. It turned out that women didn't want a "SNAG" after all.
Whatever we did, it wasn't enough. Some wives left us for earthier men, and the wives of earthy men left them for more "sensitive" men. And whichever way it was, the law was on their side and the man got wiped out.
Interesting "development" but ohhhh so sad for the true victims of sexual assault who may now be tarred with the one brush and treated skeptically in future cases. The assault trend from 2016 is ascending, I would love to see a study of the nationalities of the accused/convicted. The huge increase in migration numbers may be an underlying cause? [NOT being parochial, of course, "born and bred Aussies" can and have carried out sexual assaults] ...
The true victims of sexual assault are so often left terrified and a shell of their former selves, with many too afraid to seek justice, instead morphing into the shadows, which is extremely sad. Conversely, the faux "victims" are abusing the criminal justice system, and endlessly bellowing from the rooftops, attempting to validate a scenario that simply doesn't exist.
The second point is equally important, and a discussion that our woke society and political class refuse to have. It is impossible to solve a problem without acknowledging who the primary perpetrators are, and why they commit the crimes they do.
When it comes to some races within our society (not all), and their embedded cultural attitudes towards women, the cold hard truth is that rape and violence are tolerated behaviours within their respective societies. There are also indigenous elders that repeatedly try and alert mainstream society to the endemic levels of violence and rape of aboriginal women and girls.
So what does the media do to address these travesties? Ignore the facts while cultivating a feminist narrative that ALL white (predominantly Anglo-Saxon/European) heterosexual males are fundamentally evil, and a perennial threat to every female in society.
Empirically, it is an enormous distortion of the truth, and yet from a cultural perspective, it has escalated the propaganda to a level that is now profoundly divisive, and socially corrosive.
Of course there are white men who are represented in sexual assault data, as they should be if found genuinely guilty of a crime, but contextually, we need to be transparent about every segment of society if we truly aspire to modifying criminal behaviour.
Turning an entire segment of society into pariahs — namely white males — while venerating all others, is not a solution.
This timely article highlights a major issue with the way terms such as "sexual assault" are often hijacked in the media by use of the "number of reports" rather than breaking that information down into the constituent parts which show what is actually going on. By using the larger overall statistic serves two purposes for the domestic violence industry and its media allies - 1) artificially exaggerates the number of actual sexual assaults beyond a figure than is reasonably verifiable and 2) ramps up the community attacks on men because all reports of assault are automatically assumed to have been perpetrated by men on women e.g. sexual assaults in the same sex community which are routinely assumed to be committed by men in the overall reporting statistics which don't distinguish the victims and the perpetrators. The overall figure can also be artificially exaggerated by counting multiple reports about the same perpetrator and/or multiple reports about the same incident or series of incidents, by including reports that are considered to be false or exaggerated reports and by deliberately including outlier communities with a high instance of all forms of violence in the overall statistics to boost the numbers and spread the blame for the increased reporting to men in general. Consistent with the Brittany Higgins case, I believe the idea that "women must be believed" has its origins in the confirmation hearings of Brett Cavanaugh to the US Supreme Court which alarmed the left by threatening to tilt the balance to conservatives on the bench when they believe the Supreme Court was supposed to be "theirs" or nobody else's. Because they didn't have anything on Cavanaugh the left and its media allies, in their desperation, concocted a false narrative about Cavanaugh that his accuser had to be "believed" because they were unable to come up with any actual evidence that he had committed the crime he was accused of and the allegation was contradicted by the associates of the accuser who were there at the alleged scene. The fact that the political activists knew their accusation was false and undermined the fundamental human rights protection of the presumption of innocence was given no consideration in their quest to justify their false political narrative. The role of Heidi Yates by degrading her office in the Higgins proceedings was, I think, an unethical attempt to deliver a similar false narrative message that "women are to believed", irrespective of whether or not there is any basis to the allegation. The controversial actions of the prosecutor in this case, now subject to inquiry, appear equally concerning if not more so.
I think the mantra of "women must be believed" should read "women should be listened to" as back in the 1970's when rape was a common occurrence, unfortunately the saying back then was that "she asked for it"; and the woman was therefore ignored or dismissed. ALL people should be listened to and I think the re-writing of the definition of rape/assault has also muddied the waters where statistics are concerned. It seems that if a male looks sideways at a female these days, he has supposedly assaulted her. Really?
Hi Verity, I very much doubt rape was a common occurence in the 1970s. It has always been the most serious of crimes, after murder and manslaughter. Most men feel good about themselves when they manage to please women in bed - makes them feel like a stud, or at least competent. Very few sadistic men enjoy having sex with women who are suffering because of it. Groping, fondling, and other assaults, on the other hand, I'm sure were much more common. I can see how many unpleasant men would have done this thinking 'sure, no real harm was done'. Much like a barbed joke at a colleague's expense - not pleasant but if you've a thick skin you'll move on. We don't have such a dismissive attitude to molestation today.
I agree with you that the definition of rape and assault are ever-changing. One survey claimed that 3/4 of women had recently been sexually assaulted. The survey contained questions such as, 'Have you received an unasked for compliment about your appearance - such as hair or dress?' The trauma of it all. This does not help with our understanding of crimes or how to prevent them. That's feminist logic for you. Always takes a bad situation and makes it worse.
Yes, there's all sorts of manipulation of statistics to built up "evidence" of dire threats to women, from men. In building their statistics they also use very broad definitions which encompass normal behaviour, yet in talking points stick to words with primal impact, such as "rape", "violence" and "assault" and ensure that their audience think that the "shocking" statistics are perceived to be about the primal word.
The long faces and shaking heads when they talk on the ABC and similar about the number of women who are "subjected to domestic violence" are nauseating, because they know and educated people know that these statistics are mainly comprised of non-violent behaviour, even normal conflict behaviour. (slamming doors, pushes, raised voices, the silent treatment, etc.).
To build up their case they also use "lifetime" statistics, entirely without context. eg. Susie had a verbal stoush with her boyfriend in 1970, in which she gave as good as she got, but she is "one of three in her lifetime" who has been subjected to "domestic violence".
As you say...
"ramps up the community attacks on men because all reports of assault are automatically assumed to have been perpetrated by men on women"
The worst part of all this, to me, is that they do this in comfortable office jobs, paid by the taxpayer. To keep those cosy jobs it's in their own interest to always find more "rape", "domestic violence", etc. Why are we paying people to lie to us, and to concoct grievances???
Ohhh yes!...the NSW Uni School of Architecture Balls in the 1970s!...I agree, sad for the youth of today to be under so much pressure and conflicting rules of life...
Definitely....and a substantial one. Punishment is used as a deterrent so maybe if the public is made aware of punishment after a false allegation, these wannabees might think twice.....might being the optional word.
' ... it was her text messages which ultimately brought her undone. It was revealed in court that within 24 hours of the alleged rape, she’d sent Matters an audio message saying, “Fuck me, Daddy?” and another saying, “I want you to fuck me so hard.”'
Which explains why feminists are pressing for phone evidence to be excluded from alleged rape trials.
What is said below about a lucky jury is so true but shouldn’t be the case. Each sides get 3 strikes in jurors and I won’t say here what you try to avoid but there are two types in a sexual assault case. In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go. Juror get lazy, they get sick of it and let me tell you it’s not black and white when it comes to the judges summing up and liberato direction. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86024/sd-bb-26-defendant-giving-evidence.pdf
I agree that most cases should be overseen by legal professionals, either a Judge or number of judges, or a board of Barristers/Solicitors. Unfortunately todays population appears lazy in their thinking or just moronic; or they have an activist agenda.
'In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go.'
I disagree. There are moves to end jury trials for alleged rape cases in England, solely for the purpose of increasing the number of convictions, and the proposal is causing concern. A jury trial is not a guarantee of a just outcome, however, it is a guarantee against a corrupt judge, and far too many are ideologically corrupted or politically motivated. 'Sir' Keir Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the imposition of the 'believe the victim' doctrine at the Crown Prosecution Service and innocent men's lives have been destroyed as a result.
There needs to be a specific crime when it can ne proved someone knowly makes these sort of false allegations. There also needs to be full civil remedies to recover the costs of the defendant in such cases where there was little merit in the case.
In the meantime men need to avoid women. Handling toxic industrial waste is less risky.
I agree, Dave. It is in fact an offence to: a/ make a false accusation; b/ to pervert the course of justice; c/ to commit an act of perjury. This woman has committed all three.
Ultimately, she would need to be charged for these offenses, and even then, it would remain to be seen whether the case would actually go to trial.
The defendant would probably be able to sue for costs, or more likely some form of damages, but you can't get blood out of a stone. It's a lose, lose scenario for men whatever way you look at it.
Perjury should be a very serious offence and prosecuted with zeal, IF the justice system is to be held in high regard by the public, but of course this is not the case, women are allowed to lie in court and cops have been doing it since god knows.
So the reputation of the justice system is toast and those working in it do nothing and say nothing, the gravy train rolls on.
We faced that in our experience with the girl who lied thru her teeth in the case against our son august 2017 thru to may 2020 not guilty. ( wife had beast cancer during the same period and died horribly at the end of it after pouring out love on the girl.) our barrister said put $50,000 in a trust account and we'll pursue them ( her and her mother).
You mention the girl's mother, this reminds me of a case in WA , a girl student claimed to have been sexually assaulted by her male teacher, he was charged, lost his job , spent all his money on lawyers etc., when the case came to trial the girl admitted to making up the whole story and that she was coached by her mother in this fraud.
The reason , the mother wanted to get a big payout from the State Govt. victims of crime compensation scheme.
The case was thrown out but the teacher received no recompence and was barred from civil action against the girl and mother, who also was not charged with what was conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as well as fraud.
Robert, could you write to me privately please? I am keen to put together cases like these so they are available in case our media ever wakes up to the lies they have been told about the low rates of false allegations. Write c/- contact@mothersofsons.info
It is a disgrace how prosecution not only destroy innocent men but also their loving families and yet all we hear is what about the false victim. The revenge lies told by women destroy good people along the way, while the narcissist female gets off without any charges. Prosecution how do you sleep at night ?
These narcissistic girls are borderline sociopaths. Devoid of empathy or an understanding of the basic tenets of humanity, they wreak their vitriol and malice on society with impunity.
The fact that the consequences of their actions so often extend far beyond their male victim doesn't even reconcile in their minds.
It is so incredibly sad that your wife had to endure this insult to your family while battling breast cancer, with the shadow of this atrocity hanging over her throughout the final days of her life. That is the true definition of injustice.
Agree, can we move your proposals, (a-c), to the Family Court, especially the dreaded "c", now non-existent for many tears. (whoops, silly spell check, however I have left it in place). I meant to type "years". Both apply me thinks!
I wish we could get a serious debate in parliament on a proposal to rename The Family Court to Mummy's Court to reflect its actual function, ideology, operation and outcomes.
Had to chuckle at the "tears"— they flow in unfettered abundance.
When it comes to the Family Court, I think most men would consider the definition, a government sanctioned "cesspool", as the perfect fit for crimes and misdemeanours beginning with "c" under this jurisdiction.
We are about to go through a court case in February 2024 with our beautiful sensitive son whose life has been decimated by false allegations. The last two years have been hell and I have had to make sure suicide was not an option for him. He has watched his friends travel, have fun and be happy while he is unable to leave the state. Our hearts are broken for him. His accuser told him she had split up with her abusive boyfriend and an ensuing one night stand and subsequent re engaging with her abuser prompted her to report the mutually consenting encounter a week later at the insistence of the boyfriend. The boyfriend has threatened my sons life and promised him that he would ruin his life. The police told my son that they had no choice but to press charges as they had to keep numbers up. How is this ok?
Any update on this?
Feminist mono-braincelled thinking never produces the results they want. 'Gender is a social construct' was meant to prove that women should do everything that men can do and if we don't have 50/50 equity this is due to society sabotaging the efforts of women. And women need compensated for this. The fact that this theory* gave rise to trans-ideology which is making women's lives hell wasn't part of the plan. There probably wasn't a plan - as the question 'how can this possibly go wrong?' should be part of your plan.
Same with not charging false accusers with perjury. The idea is 'perjury charges will only encourage more genuine victims to not come forward for fear of being disbelieved.' There's no logic to this at all. It's just another emotionally abusive plea to let women off with lying. Logic would say that if you wanted women to be believed you would purge the system of as many lying women as possible, so the remaining ones would be believed. But no. We have a legal system that encourages the worst of women to lie. The more liars there are the harder it is to believe any one. I wonder how this can possibly go wrong?
*Theories are actually proven ideas, not propostions or hypothesis. I've used the word wrong, I know. Apologies to all real theories.
To be fair, it was John Money who got the gender ball rolling. But feminists picked up the ball and ran with it. But like the semi mythical invention of rugby.
I have to look into who this John Money character is. The world is filled with people coming up with bad ideas. Luckily 99.9% die at birth. As you mentioned there is a difference between coming up with an idea and demanding other people put it into practice.
Allowing women or in principle any person to lie in a court on the weak excuse of not wanting to discourage other "victims" from coming forward is a bad idea . How can we have confidence in the justice system?
The description of the young man's proper 'consensual' sex sounds as much fun as a driving test. Only if you fail your test you get a 'sorry try again' and you've lost your fee. You don't have your life ruined. How is any young man meant to get pleasure from this? And do women get pleasure from men who have to ask all the time and are unable to lead? Can you be consensually ravished? Or is that word archaic?
When you look at the 1970s feminists who were pushing 'rape culture' or making comments that heterosexual sex was indistinguishable from rape (Katherine McKinnon), a disproportionate number - are lesbians (I'm not sure about Susan Brownmiller). Mmm, why would lesbian feminists be encouraging women to be physically revolted by men? Sounds like a pretty obvious recruitment drive to me. It must really gall these man-hating lesbians that straight women prefer men over them. And I mean gall them to the core of their fetid being. The destruction of heterosexual sex as always been a goal. And they're getting there.
Sorry about this note - on a different topic. But please will everyone reading this sign this important petition objecting to the proposed family law changes which will remove any presumption of shared parental responsibility from Australian family law. This is a huge issue. https://bit.ly/3o3xL8t
I suppose I will be accused of not being in tune with the modern world
(I'm ninety-two) but I am appalled that such language comes from the lips of young women. I've been in the Airforce, worked in oil refineries, been a professional fireman and I don't think I have ever heard a man talk that way. Of course I heard men swear (but not the way they do today) and skite about triumphs, which most of the time never happened but they bragged any way. But the way that young woman spoke absolutely sickened me. There should never ever be an excuse for rape, no matter how aroused the man may be, if the answer is no it ends there. I have been aroused plenty of time in my long life and limped home in excruciating pain with epididymal hypertension but I never tried to force a woman, I am not a believer so I never had an issue with other forms of relief. The other thing that worries me is the way in which so many are seeing rape accusations as a career path, how to make money or for some diverse way notoriety. Look at the situation in America, sure the men like Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and many others including Trump were using women but the women were also trying to use them and when they didn't make it, you know what. As I said in another way, I'm an athiest so nothing I have said is Bible bashing, I believe that Christ was a philosopher of sorts but nothing more and some of his messages are worthy.
We are no longer wild animals, animals yes but not wild, we are supposed to be civilized and that means caring and respecting but we all need to earn respect.
But...are these women charged for false allegations and made to pay the court costs or compensation to the wronged male? Or do they just shrug their shoulders, say "ho hum" and live for another day? Better still, will we ever hear about these wannabees being brought into question. Are the women as equally accommodating to the men during intercourse? Do they consider the man's needs? It seems to me there is now a policy and procedure manual on sexual intercourse which is quite sad. In my time, we knew what we liked and go on with it. And there was certainly no "20-questions" during the act. Just enjoyment of the moment/s.
Given the noise feminists have made about the witch hunts one might expect them to defend the presumption of innocence to the death.
Never a truer word spoken. To add to what you are saying about "lifetime" statistics they do not even take into account whether the instances actually take place in Australia. This gives a completely false picture of the situation in Australia and helps them with statements like "one in four..." based on the survey, etc.
A great article!
A quick comment about the man who thought he was doing all the right things, and got accused anyway.
As they say - "We've seen it all before".
I well recall the 1980s and 1990s when men were taught to be "sensitive", to be attentive to their wife's "needs" and so on. Another lesson given to young married men was "to keep the romance alive".
I, like most men of my generation, dutifully did as we were instructed. When we attended "counselling" we listened to our wives complain about us, and resolved to do better.
By the mid 1990s the term SNAG, for "Sensitive New Age Guy" had been invented to mock us. It turned out that women didn't want a "SNAG" after all.
Whatever we did, it wasn't enough. Some wives left us for earthier men, and the wives of earthy men left them for more "sensitive" men. And whichever way it was, the law was on their side and the man got wiped out.
#seenitallbefore.
Interesting "development" but ohhhh so sad for the true victims of sexual assault who may now be tarred with the one brush and treated skeptically in future cases. The assault trend from 2016 is ascending, I would love to see a study of the nationalities of the accused/convicted. The huge increase in migration numbers may be an underlying cause? [NOT being parochial, of course, "born and bred Aussies" can and have carried out sexual assaults] ...
Excellent points, Mick.
The true victims of sexual assault are so often left terrified and a shell of their former selves, with many too afraid to seek justice, instead morphing into the shadows, which is extremely sad. Conversely, the faux "victims" are abusing the criminal justice system, and endlessly bellowing from the rooftops, attempting to validate a scenario that simply doesn't exist.
The second point is equally important, and a discussion that our woke society and political class refuse to have. It is impossible to solve a problem without acknowledging who the primary perpetrators are, and why they commit the crimes they do.
When it comes to some races within our society (not all), and their embedded cultural attitudes towards women, the cold hard truth is that rape and violence are tolerated behaviours within their respective societies. There are also indigenous elders that repeatedly try and alert mainstream society to the endemic levels of violence and rape of aboriginal women and girls.
So what does the media do to address these travesties? Ignore the facts while cultivating a feminist narrative that ALL white (predominantly Anglo-Saxon/European) heterosexual males are fundamentally evil, and a perennial threat to every female in society.
Empirically, it is an enormous distortion of the truth, and yet from a cultural perspective, it has escalated the propaganda to a level that is now profoundly divisive, and socially corrosive.
Of course there are white men who are represented in sexual assault data, as they should be if found genuinely guilty of a crime, but contextually, we need to be transparent about every segment of society if we truly aspire to modifying criminal behaviour.
Turning an entire segment of society into pariahs — namely white males — while venerating all others, is not a solution.
This timely article highlights a major issue with the way terms such as "sexual assault" are often hijacked in the media by use of the "number of reports" rather than breaking that information down into the constituent parts which show what is actually going on. By using the larger overall statistic serves two purposes for the domestic violence industry and its media allies - 1) artificially exaggerates the number of actual sexual assaults beyond a figure than is reasonably verifiable and 2) ramps up the community attacks on men because all reports of assault are automatically assumed to have been perpetrated by men on women e.g. sexual assaults in the same sex community which are routinely assumed to be committed by men in the overall reporting statistics which don't distinguish the victims and the perpetrators. The overall figure can also be artificially exaggerated by counting multiple reports about the same perpetrator and/or multiple reports about the same incident or series of incidents, by including reports that are considered to be false or exaggerated reports and by deliberately including outlier communities with a high instance of all forms of violence in the overall statistics to boost the numbers and spread the blame for the increased reporting to men in general. Consistent with the Brittany Higgins case, I believe the idea that "women must be believed" has its origins in the confirmation hearings of Brett Cavanaugh to the US Supreme Court which alarmed the left by threatening to tilt the balance to conservatives on the bench when they believe the Supreme Court was supposed to be "theirs" or nobody else's. Because they didn't have anything on Cavanaugh the left and its media allies, in their desperation, concocted a false narrative about Cavanaugh that his accuser had to be "believed" because they were unable to come up with any actual evidence that he had committed the crime he was accused of and the allegation was contradicted by the associates of the accuser who were there at the alleged scene. The fact that the political activists knew their accusation was false and undermined the fundamental human rights protection of the presumption of innocence was given no consideration in their quest to justify their false political narrative. The role of Heidi Yates by degrading her office in the Higgins proceedings was, I think, an unethical attempt to deliver a similar false narrative message that "women are to believed", irrespective of whether or not there is any basis to the allegation. The controversial actions of the prosecutor in this case, now subject to inquiry, appear equally concerning if not more so.
I think the mantra of "women must be believed" should read "women should be listened to" as back in the 1970's when rape was a common occurrence, unfortunately the saying back then was that "she asked for it"; and the woman was therefore ignored or dismissed. ALL people should be listened to and I think the re-writing of the definition of rape/assault has also muddied the waters where statistics are concerned. It seems that if a male looks sideways at a female these days, he has supposedly assaulted her. Really?
Hi Verity, I very much doubt rape was a common occurence in the 1970s. It has always been the most serious of crimes, after murder and manslaughter. Most men feel good about themselves when they manage to please women in bed - makes them feel like a stud, or at least competent. Very few sadistic men enjoy having sex with women who are suffering because of it. Groping, fondling, and other assaults, on the other hand, I'm sure were much more common. I can see how many unpleasant men would have done this thinking 'sure, no real harm was done'. Much like a barbed joke at a colleague's expense - not pleasant but if you've a thick skin you'll move on. We don't have such a dismissive attitude to molestation today.
I agree with you that the definition of rape and assault are ever-changing. One survey claimed that 3/4 of women had recently been sexually assaulted. The survey contained questions such as, 'Have you received an unasked for compliment about your appearance - such as hair or dress?' The trauma of it all. This does not help with our understanding of crimes or how to prevent them. That's feminist logic for you. Always takes a bad situation and makes it worse.
Yes, there's all sorts of manipulation of statistics to built up "evidence" of dire threats to women, from men. In building their statistics they also use very broad definitions which encompass normal behaviour, yet in talking points stick to words with primal impact, such as "rape", "violence" and "assault" and ensure that their audience think that the "shocking" statistics are perceived to be about the primal word.
The long faces and shaking heads when they talk on the ABC and similar about the number of women who are "subjected to domestic violence" are nauseating, because they know and educated people know that these statistics are mainly comprised of non-violent behaviour, even normal conflict behaviour. (slamming doors, pushes, raised voices, the silent treatment, etc.).
To build up their case they also use "lifetime" statistics, entirely without context. eg. Susie had a verbal stoush with her boyfriend in 1970, in which she gave as good as she got, but she is "one of three in her lifetime" who has been subjected to "domestic violence".
As you say...
"ramps up the community attacks on men because all reports of assault are automatically assumed to have been perpetrated by men on women"
The worst part of all this, to me, is that they do this in comfortable office jobs, paid by the taxpayer. To keep those cosy jobs it's in their own interest to always find more "rape", "domestic violence", etc. Why are we paying people to lie to us, and to concoct grievances???
What a contrast to my recollections of campus life
How sad and frightening for the few young men there and how lonely for many young women
I remember having so much exciting fun with girls many are still friends
Ohhh yes!...the NSW Uni School of Architecture Balls in the 1970s!...I agree, sad for the youth of today to be under so much pressure and conflicting rules of life...
There needs to be punishment for false accusers.
Definitely....and a substantial one. Punishment is used as a deterrent so maybe if the public is made aware of punishment after a false allegation, these wannabees might think twice.....might being the optional word.
' ... it was her text messages which ultimately brought her undone. It was revealed in court that within 24 hours of the alleged rape, she’d sent Matters an audio message saying, “Fuck me, Daddy?” and another saying, “I want you to fuck me so hard.”'
Which explains why feminists are pressing for phone evidence to be excluded from alleged rape trials.
'He was the very model of woke manhood.'
The phrase is an oxymoron.
What is said below about a lucky jury is so true but shouldn’t be the case. Each sides get 3 strikes in jurors and I won’t say here what you try to avoid but there are two types in a sexual assault case. In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go. Juror get lazy, they get sick of it and let me tell you it’s not black and white when it comes to the judges summing up and liberato direction. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86024/sd-bb-26-defendant-giving-evidence.pdf
Have a read please i would love other opinions.
I agree that most cases should be overseen by legal professionals, either a Judge or number of judges, or a board of Barristers/Solicitors. Unfortunately todays population appears lazy in their thinking or just moronic; or they have an activist agenda.
Hewi, was this lliberato direction only used in rape cases in qld.
'In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go.'
I disagree. There are moves to end jury trials for alleged rape cases in England, solely for the purpose of increasing the number of convictions, and the proposal is causing concern. A jury trial is not a guarantee of a just outcome, however, it is a guarantee against a corrupt judge, and far too many are ideologically corrupted or politically motivated. 'Sir' Keir Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the imposition of the 'believe the victim' doctrine at the Crown Prosecution Service and innocent men's lives have been destroyed as a result.
Be careful what you wish for.
Excellent point, Ian.
We are seeing overt partisanship within the judicial system right across the Western World.
In Australia, we now have barristers who are thumbing their noses at the "cab rank" rule, and refusing cases on ideological grounds.
Today's barristers are tomorrows judges, which reinforces the point that impartiality and fairness are now implicitly at stake within our judiciary.
There needs to be a specific crime when it can ne proved someone knowly makes these sort of false allegations. There also needs to be full civil remedies to recover the costs of the defendant in such cases where there was little merit in the case.
In the meantime men need to avoid women. Handling toxic industrial waste is less risky.
To be fair, the penalty for a false accusation should be the same as the accused would have received if falsely convicted.
I agree, Dave. It is in fact an offence to: a/ make a false accusation; b/ to pervert the course of justice; c/ to commit an act of perjury. This woman has committed all three.
Ultimately, she would need to be charged for these offenses, and even then, it would remain to be seen whether the case would actually go to trial.
The defendant would probably be able to sue for costs, or more likely some form of damages, but you can't get blood out of a stone. It's a lose, lose scenario for men whatever way you look at it.
Perjury should be a very serious offence and prosecuted with zeal, IF the justice system is to be held in high regard by the public, but of course this is not the case, women are allowed to lie in court and cops have been doing it since god knows.
So the reputation of the justice system is toast and those working in it do nothing and say nothing, the gravy train rolls on.
It is up to the ordinary people to demand better.
We faced that in our experience with the girl who lied thru her teeth in the case against our son august 2017 thru to may 2020 not guilty. ( wife had beast cancer during the same period and died horribly at the end of it after pouring out love on the girl.) our barrister said put $50,000 in a trust account and we'll pursue them ( her and her mother).
You mention the girl's mother, this reminds me of a case in WA , a girl student claimed to have been sexually assaulted by her male teacher, he was charged, lost his job , spent all his money on lawyers etc., when the case came to trial the girl admitted to making up the whole story and that she was coached by her mother in this fraud.
The reason , the mother wanted to get a big payout from the State Govt. victims of crime compensation scheme.
The case was thrown out but the teacher received no recompence and was barred from civil action against the girl and mother, who also was not charged with what was conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as well as fraud.
Robert, could you write to me privately please? I am keen to put together cases like these so they are available in case our media ever wakes up to the lies they have been told about the low rates of false allegations. Write c/- contact@mothersofsons.info
It is a disgrace how prosecution not only destroy innocent men but also their loving families and yet all we hear is what about the false victim. The revenge lies told by women destroy good people along the way, while the narcissist female gets off without any charges. Prosecution how do you sleep at night ?
These narcissistic girls are borderline sociopaths. Devoid of empathy or an understanding of the basic tenets of humanity, they wreak their vitriol and malice on society with impunity.
The fact that the consequences of their actions so often extend far beyond their male victim doesn't even reconcile in their minds.
It is so incredibly sad that your wife had to endure this insult to your family while battling breast cancer, with the shadow of this atrocity hanging over her throughout the final days of her life. That is the true definition of injustice.
Peter D,
Agree, can we move your proposals, (a-c), to the Family Court, especially the dreaded "c", now non-existent for many tears. (whoops, silly spell check, however I have left it in place). I meant to type "years". Both apply me thinks!
I wish we could get a serious debate in parliament on a proposal to rename The Family Court to Mummy's Court to reflect its actual function, ideology, operation and outcomes.
Well said, Ross.
Had to chuckle at the "tears"— they flow in unfettered abundance.
When it comes to the Family Court, I think most men would consider the definition, a government sanctioned "cesspool", as the perfect fit for crimes and misdemeanours beginning with "c" under this jurisdiction.
Agree Peter D,
Well stated. Your temptation not to elaborate further with the "c" word is admirable.
I suspect that you are a dad and would do so also with your kinder, as I do. When we see them.
Was certainly tempting, Ross.
The feminists would suggest that I "checked my misogyny."
I can assure them they would be wrong.