>
The rape charges against Julian Assange have inspired a massive flareup of pure bushittery on the net, amongst Men’s Rights troglodytes and liberal bloggers alike, vilifying the accusers and dismissing their charges as politically motivated revenge schemes. The gist of it all: the charges are false, and it wasn’t even real rape, and the women charging him are evil feminist harpies and might be working for the CIA.
And, as Kate Harding points out in a Salon piece that is the best thing anyone has written about any of this so far, all this speculation is based on … a whole lot of nothing. We don’t know the specifics of the accusations, and much of what little we do know of the case comes second-hand from tabloids and other unreliable sources. One thing is clear: the few new details released today indicate that he’s being charged with real rape all right, so let’s move on from all the indignant and uninformed talk about “sex by surprise.” (Feministe has the only really intelligent discussion of the “surprise” issue I’ve seen.)
Harding sums it up:
The fact is, we just don’t know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.
Public evidence, as The Times noted, is scarce. So, it’s heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.
So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let’s suspend our judgment about Assange’s guilt or innocence. Liberals want to support Assange because, you know, he’s fighting the power and shit. (Even Naomi Wolf has joined the pro-Assange chorus.) But the fact is, sometimes politically admirable people do bad shit to women. Men’s Rightsers want to vilify the accusers because the primary accuser is a feminist. But the fact that someone is a feminist doesn’t mean that she can’t get raped.
The low point of the Men’s Rights discussion of the case so far is probably this blog post by ScareCrow, who took a few moments from posting comments here to write up the strangest attack on the accusers yet. ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is “innocent until proven guilty,” conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want. (Heck, we’re allowed to disagree with jury verdicts: I have no problem calling OJ a murderer, even though he wasn’t convicted as one.)
Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there’s no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point.
It’s what ScareCrow does next that’s telling: after indignantly telling us not to assume Assange’s guilt, he spits forth an extended series of vicious “speculations” about the accusers, based on … what they look like in a couple of photos he’s seen of them. Of one accuser, he writes:
This woman reminds me of those women – to whom – everything is a simple “chess game”. Move and counter-move – guile and deceit. This type is what I like to call the “quiet” and “not so brainy” type. Smart when she was young perhaps, but upon hitting puberty, blamed her supposed “lack of attraction” on the fact that she was “no so brainy”. This lead to a contempt of men. I can see that in her face. A certain bitter frustration that her encounters with men did not proceed according to the “tea parties” she used to imagine as a small child – is what I see written on her face.
And of the other:
Ah yes. The look on this woman’s face is painful for me. Why? Simple – she looks like many women I have met – who consider themselves to be excessively attractive. Since they believe they are so attractive, they use that “feature” to hurt men. This type of woman was basically the “parasite” I encountered many times in my youth – at clubs, in college, and various other places where young men and women are supposed to “hook-up”. When being approached by a man, such women would usually respond with extreme callousness and uncalled for hostility and rudeness. Looking at her face, all I see is malice and hatred of men.
Yep, that’s right: she’s a dirty man-hating liar because … she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down turned down other dudes (who definitely weren’t him) when he was in college. Absurd, to be sure, but not, in the end, all that different from liberal bloggers and Men’s Rightsers who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case.
Go read the Harding piece.
More on the case from Jezebel and Amanda Marcotte.
EDIT: A new piece on Feministe critiquing Naomi Wolf’s idiotic blog post on the case.
>John Diaz: The word "disproportionate" in this context means a number of false accusations not proportionate to the number of actual rapes or other reasons for the statistic. You're saying that the majority of rape accusations are purely false and not followed up for any other reason than the woman or man was lying about the rape; you don't even address the plethora of other reasons the case may be dismissed.What I said was that false accusations in rape cases do happen. That's simply what any rational, reasonable person knows, just like false accusations of theft, and so on. Anyone with a working brain knows that false accusations will happen. I did not say that I believe a "disproportionate" number of rape cases were false accusations.So.. no. I didn't concede. You just don't know what you're saying.
>@DarkSideCat, thanks for that explanation. I've realised that I conflated rape shield and anonymity laws in my comment, which here as in the US are separate. It's not my precise area of expertise, but I believe the anonymity laws are more stringent in the UK from what you've described as the American situation, but I do know that the right is waived if the accuser if found guilty of perjury (false allegation), so in both countries there's really no merit in the claim that women can make false allegations anonymously. I remain in confusion as to why the 'Men's Rights' advocates would think that women are in favour of making false claims or protecting those who do (if that's their argument). I have yet to see a discussion in the press that didn't stress the negative effect such claims have on the credibility of legitimate victims of sex crimes. False allegations are bad for women, and bad for men.
> LexieDi: @ Yohan: Seriously. You're a funny fellow. I've never heard of an 8 year old boy going to jail for being abused by an adult woman. Could you site that for me? I think you have your cases and informaion seriously mixed up. I think you have a reading problem, this is what I said in my previous posting…(in Sweden) No boy 8 or 10 year old will be accused for rape and facing a trial with a jury as an adult like in UK.We are talking here about Sweden and why the conviction rate is so low…Well, Sweden has a different legal system than USA and UK, and this is partially the reason for a small number of convictions.Nobody younger than 15 will face a court in Sweden.As I explained there are also other reasons, like fines in many cases, judges in Sweden are not obsessed to send men to jail, it's not like in USA, which keeps unusually many men in prison (more than China, more than Russia..etc)You have to consider that feminism is not the same everywhere worldwide, and feminism is nowhere so hateful against men as it is the case in USA and UK.
>LexieDi: What I said was that false accusations in rape cases do happen. That's simply what any rational, reasonable person knows, just like false accusations of theft, and so on.Yes, false accusations do happen and not every woman showing up reporting a crime is a liar.However you mentioned theft – to notice that your wallet is missing is one side of the story (it might be lost and not stolen btw.), to accuse an unknown person, that he is the thief, is another side of the story.While your wallet is indeed missing, you have to PROVE that it was stolen by that person you accuse, and this is often not possible because of missing evidence. You cannot prove it, and a judge cannot convict a person, if you cannot prove what you say.However feminists want to change that, and the accused man should be seen as guilty from beginning on in case of sex-crimes, and HE has to prove to his expenses that he did not do that crime.It's not acceptable, that a malicious woman is allowed by law to pick out any man and is accusing him for not-existing sex-crimes solely out of her bad mood and remains unpunished.What is happening now, is something like a grey zone, and every man who keeps any form of a sexual relationship with a woman is on the risk to be accused. A man might face – innocent – many years in prison, while his accuser remains anonymous and unpunished for creating sex-crimes out of fantasy.Not the way it should be, of course that's the perfect legal setup for feminists.
>@ Yohan: Ah. Sorry. I skimmed your answer because I was about to go to class and your response was quite long.I doubt you know much about an 8 or 10 year old boy committing rape. But if someone rapes someone else, there should be punishment. Period. Of course this is all personal opinion.I don't know much about Sweden or Swedish law and I doubt you know very much about laws from other countries that you've not lived in for some time.I'm so glad you know so much about feminists and what feminists want all over the world. It's so obvious that I hate men, what with my close relationships with my father, brother, and loving boyfriend. /SarcasmWhen someone does wrong they should be punished. Male and female. Young and old. Period.
>@ Yohan: Really? Feminists just want to be able to accuse men willy-nilly of rape? Huh. I must not have gotten the Super Secret Association of Man-Hating Feminists' super secret note, because I'm a feminist and I and all the feminists I know (and I know a lot of them) don't want to do that. And, at least I, think it's wrong to do that. However, to just ignore rape accusations is wrong too. Sitting there and saying that all feminists want one particular thing is idiotic and reeks of propaganda.
>@LexieDi:If you read the actual study that I cited, published by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, you will see that there were several nations that were surveyed for their crime rates. The conviction rate for rape differed for each of those countries. For example, in the U.S., the conviction rate for rape was 15%. In Sweden, the conviction rate for rape was 1%.Since it is true that false allegations factor into whatever the conviction rate is, regardless of the country, then to me it seems reasonable to conclude that the number of false allegations would likely fluctuate along with the conviction rate. The proportion of false allegations in Sweden would therefore be higher compared to the other countries that were surveyed in that document.Incidentally, the document that I cited examines a whole range of crimes along with their conviction rates in different countries; it doesn't just cover the one crime of rape. There is an enormous amount of data there. Did you bother to read any of it? Or were you preoccupied with composing your comment in which you claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about?
>John Dias: I didn't claim anything. It was obvious by your comment that I had conceded that you didn't know or didn't think of the real meaning of "disproportionate."And you're still just assuming you know what's going on but reasons for charges not being followed up could vary even from state to state and country to country. Anyone could make the same claim about of the factors that go into those statistics.I'm a college student. I can BS with the best and I know it when I see it.
>LexieDi, don't make a fool of yourself. Disproportionate refers to the disproportionality of rape convictions from one country to another, and therefore the disproportionality of false allegations from one country to another. Follow?Please also try to understand that when you tell me that you are a college student, it doesn't impress me (or anyone) in the slightest.
>John Dias:Your original sentence was worded to state that the low conviction rate for rape cases in Sweden meant that that must be directly linked to the number of false accusations. You said, "…in Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction, indicating a disproportionate number of false allegations THERE." (Emphasis in caps, mine.)You were not talking about from one country to another, you were saying that because people were not convicted, alleged victims were lying. It's not my fault that you took a statistic you found and wrote some bull around it to try to make it work for you and look a certain way. (Which is what I honestly think you did, as you seem like an intelligent person, not like a person who actually believes that crap you tried to sell.)I'm not trying to impress anyone with my being a college student. Being a college student is no great feat; hundreds of thousands of people go to college (even women). What I was saying is that college students often BS their work, and, therefore, I am good at recognizing BS. Context clues. They're helpful.Trust me, I have no desire or need to impress you or anyone else.
>@LexieDi:Compared to the other countries that were examined in the government report that I cited, Sweden does have a disproportionately low conviction rate, and therefore, in a reasonable evaluation, a disproportionately high rate of false allegations. A defendant's innocence of a crime is consistent with a more difficult prospect of convicting that defendant, since all the evidence weighs in his favor.When police investigate, when prosecutors examine, when cases are tried, when witnesses testify, when evidence is submitted, and when juries evaluate, and when the entire thing amounts to an extremely low one percent conviction rate — after all this, why is it so difficult for you to accept the perfectly reasonable conclusion that the accused was innocent from the start? So do you believe that even a not-guilty jury verdict doesn't exonerate a defendant? And you're telling me in your conspiracy-laden mind that 99 percent of the time all of those citizens were dead wrong, and your ideology was right? And you accuse me of "writing some bull?"Lastly, it seems to me that it hasn't occurred to you that in addition to all of these third parties weighing the evidence and concluding that it was not warranted to either arrest, prosecute or convict — in addition to their judgment — the defendant also declared his innocence. And still, you are trying to make the case that a lower conviction rate has nothing to do with a higher rate of innocence by defendants.What if 1 out of 1000 were convicted? 1 in 10000? Is there any point at which you start to wonder if too many people are getting unjustly caught up in the criminal justice web?I'm getting tired of this uninformed conversation with you. I like to deal in facts. I look at the facts and I make a reasonable conclusion based on them, especially when the facts are reinforced by the judgment of people who have evaluated the evidence themselves, such as police, prosecutors and juries. If you have a point to make, then support your point with credible evidence, not just college-grade snark. You suggested earlier in this thread that a low conviction rate for rape in Sweden in particular may be due to inadequate law enforcement practices or resources. Do you have any evidence to support that suggestion?
>John Dias:Did I say I thought all 99% of accused rapists were guilty? Hm. No. In fact, I didn't make ANY assumptions about anything other than I do not believe that 99% (or a "disproportionate" number) of dismissed cases are dismissed because of lying alleged victims. But thanks for speaking for me. I'll take it from here. The ONLY thing I'm saying is that it is not likely, just due to friggin' chances, 99% or even a "disproportionate" number of those rape cases are dismissed due only to false accusations. I don't see why you don't understand that there could be any number of reasons a case is dismissed. It's also extremely difficult to try a rape case as rape is a very muddled subject. So, yes, I think that some (perhaps not very many) dismissed cases had a victim who honestly feels as though he or she was raped and/or a defendant who feels he or she got away with it, just because it's so hard to have a clear picture of what happened and evidence doesn't always help much.You like to deal in facts so much but you go around making uninformed assumptions that you are totally okay in spewing, but when I do the same, you get all sorts of uptight. My conclusions are just as reasonable as yours. Either way, all of our conclusions are speculation. My reasons for there being a low conviction rate come from the exact same place your reason does- the statistic we have and my head. (I'm just smart enough to realize that there are lots of reasons a case may be dismissed.) And my reason is, therefore, no less true or false than yours is.Lets see… do YOU have any evidence other than speculation that there are more false accusations of rape in Sweden in particular? Do you have any evidence to support that suggestion?
>"My conclusions are just as reasonable as yours. Either way, all of our conclusions are speculation."@LexieDi – Let me break this down into terms you can understand:I have ten shiny red marbles. I put those marbles into a bag with an unknown number of dull blue marbles. Each of those red marbles resembles one false rape accusation.Follow? Good.Now, the United States has a 15% rape conviction rate. Let's assume all of the convicted actually raped a woman – men are more likely to be exonerated for rape than any other crime, but we're trying to keep it simple for you. So, we have 17 of 20 dropped rape cases.Now, let's look at Sweden. They have about 15 times, or 255 bags of pretty, shiny red marbles.Now, which country, the United States or Sweden, most likely has more of those nice red marbles? No, no counting on your fingers.
>IR: Resembles? That marble looks JUST LIKE false accusation.Jesus, I hope you're not a teacher. Sweden wouldn't have 15 times more red marbles, they'd have 15 times more marbles period. You don't know the ratio. There could be a billion blue marbles, which would mean that false accusation is extremely rare (which may or may not be true).All that I'm saying is that there are too many variables. You can't make a blanket statement about why cases were dropped because there is an UNKNOWN NUMBER OF BLUE MARBLES.Was I supposed to go "OOOH! Pretty AND shiny?!"
>LexieDi said… @ Yohan: Really? Feminists just want to be able to accuse men willy-nilly of rape? This is not what I said.I said:It's not acceptable, that a malicious woman is allowed by law to pick out any man and is accusing him for not-existing sex-crimes solely out of her bad mood and remains unpunished……A man might face – innocent – many years in prison, while his accuser remains anonymous and unpunished for creating sex-crimes out of fantasy.This is a good story, link below, and if you read it you will understand what I mean and what are the concerns of the MRAs.We MRAs want laws to be changed that such a case, see below, cannot happen again, however feminists strongly oppose that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287534/Innocent-Warren-Blackwell-served-3-years-false-rape-claim-fantasist.html
>"All that I'm saying is that there are too many variables. You can't make a blanket statement about why cases were dropped because there is an UNKNOWN NUMBER OF BLUE MARBLES."This is a typical tactic feminists use to derail a legitimate conversation or question. They will, in the face of overwhelming evidence (in this case a 15:1 conviction ratio) claim that the topic has become "too complicated" for their understanding. They will proceed to project this self-imposed incompetence on everyone else.With a scientific background, I understand the basic laws of causality. For example, if I were to connect two different batteries to a voltmeter and one read 15x the voltage of a second one, I would understand that it is most likely the second one has less electrical potential.There are many different variables – the conductivity of the wires or terminals, the accuracy of the voltmeter, etc. However, I can acknowledge that in the face of all of these different factors, the most likely truth.Humans aren't batteries? True, and the analogy remains – two clear factors with a few minor ones leading to two clear causalities. The fact is, in something like false rape cases the number of dropped rape charges will be proportional to the number of frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, a feminist will, out of spite or just blind ideology, attempt to bring the conversation to a halt using the methods outlined. I recommend in this case to call them out on their clearly deceptive – which they may be so well programmed or dependent on their ideology that even they do not notice – and use this to help them see the error of their ways. Other examples include David misrepresenting the Men's Rights Movement or feminists injecting emotion and irrationality (MISOGYNIST! WOMAN-HATER! GAY!) into a simple discussion. Once again, keep a level head, brush off their insults and see this as a good opportunity to give the public (or even the feminist) a case study of feminism.Hopefully this has been an… educational experience for anyone reading. Either way, I had a little fun.
>Yohan:I was referring to this, "However feminists want to change that, and the accused man should be seen as guilty from beginning on in case of sex-crimes, and HE has to prove to his expenses that he did not do that crime."Uhm. I've never heard of any feminist who wants to do that and, I, as a feminist don't want to do that.I understand that false accusations happen and they're horrible and anyone who makes false accusations should be thrown in jail.I get that you're worried about false accusations happening and people going to jail for them. However, rape and sexual harassment still happens too and you and MRAs don't seem worried about that at all.
>It wasn't too complicated for me to understand, you just word things extremely badly. Seriously, take some English lessons.I don't know what you're trying to project onto me. All (as in the only thing) I am saying (nothing more) is that there are more reasons than just "the alleged victim is a liar" for that one statistic. Why is it so difficult for you to get that through into your brain?
>"It wasn't too complicated for me to understand, you just word things extremely badly. Seriously, take some English lessons."Such charisma. Surely you only have my best intentions in mind, much like any feminist nitpicking a man. I'll sign up right away, and take some women's studies classes while I'm at it! Oh, and I've also been told to "go gay" by feminists, though that might be more difficult."All (as in the only thing) I am saying (nothing more) is that there are more reasons than just "the alleged victim is a liar" for that one statistic. Why is it so difficult for you to get that through into your brain?"I acknowledged there were other factors. I also acknowledged that the most likely explanation. Obviously if there's more dropped cases in a court of law, and rape is seen as an equally vile act in the US and Sweden, and both have similar jury and investigation systems – then there must be some cause for those 14 extra dropped cases. At least some of them will be false accusations.Either way, any accusation with a 1% conviction rate and a heavy social stigma attached warrants some scrutiny.
>"Compared to the other countries that were examined in the government report that I cited, Sweden does have a disproportionately low conviction rate, and therefore, in a reasonable evaluation, a disproportionately high rate of false allegations." Er, no, one does not follow from the other. Let's accept that Sweden does have a lower conviction rate compared to other countries. What exactly does that tell you? It tells you that Sweden has a lower conviction rate compared to other countries. You need actual evidence that the causal explanation you give is better than any other random explanation someone pulls out of their ass. I'm from an area where there is a disproportionately low rate of white men being convicted for assaulting a black person or stealing the black person's property. Is that, in your mind, proof that black people lie and falsely accuse others of crimes more often? After all, that's what you are asserting, isn't it? That a disproportionately low conviction rate proves the accusations are false at a higher rate? Because, as someone who knows the actual social factors involved, I will assert that black victims 'loose' far more often because it is an area with a lot of racism and juries are found based on land ownership, ensuring that virtually every jury is all white. The low conviction rate alone shows nothing in either case, because failure to get a conviction alone is not good evidence that the person was not actually a victim of a crime.@IR, I love how your own links are enough to refute your claim "The study identified 199 murder exonerations, 73 of them in capital cases. It also found 120 rape exonerations." Now, let me ask, in what universe is 199<120? The article you link to does not say what it you think it says, even in terms of generalities. Critical reading skills, like math, do not appear to be your strong point.
>"Surely you only have my best intentions in mind, much like any feminist nitpicking a man."LOL!! Perhaps LexieDi is just returning the favour, as clearly you only have our best intentions in mind:"I recommend in this case to call them out on their clearly deceptive – which they may be so well programmed or dependent on their ideology that even they do not notice – and use this to help them see the error of their ways."
>@Cat – such snark. And I suppose you find the remaining 85-99% of the accused weren't exonerated as well? Either way, it seems I misread. It's alright, it wasn't exactly a world-ending mistake, and the misstatement was not far from the truth either. Regardless, I should have written "second most exonerated crime." Unlike a feminist, I can acknowledge my errata and issue a correction. My mistakes also are never happy accidents, as for feminists who claim that "1 in 4 college women are raped." Funny how their mistakes always result in the appropriation of billions in taxpayer dollars to their organizations.Take, for example, Gloria Steinem who claimed that "in this [America] alone, about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year." This is malicious deception – imagine if an engineer falsely claimed that a certain material was exponentially stronger than it actually was? Even if the damages were only monetary – misappropriated tax dollars in the case of Steinem – he'd have his license revoked and possibly serve jail time! Why do we tolerate this just because the source is a feminist?
>Shall we also ascribe malicious intent to Christina Hoff Sommers in her own errata when repudiating the death-from-anorexia statistics that appeared in Naomi Wolf's book, "The Beauty Myth" (which was from whence Gloria Steinem obtained her information)? Why do we tolerate this just because the "feminist" source is one that MRAs commonly promote?Naomi Wolf has admitted her error, Christina Hoff Sommers has not.Sommers stated in her book, "Who Stole Feminism?", that the actual number of deaths from anorexia is "less than 100 per year." This figure is based on a count of death certificates which list anorexia as the cause of death, and does not take into account deaths which occurred due to complications arising from the pre-condition of anorexia, such as heart failure.If we looked at the death certificates of persons who had other diseases (AIDS, for example), we would find that very few people die from AIDS, as the actual cause of death is usually due to something else (pneumonia, for example) that was brought on or exacerbated by the pre-condition known as AIDS. So does that mean that we should take AIDS less seriously because very few people die from it?
>IR:"Such charisma. Surely you only have my best intentions in mind, much like any feminist nitpicking a man. I'll sign up right away, and take some women's studies classes while I'm at it!"Trust me, I'd say that to anyone- man or woman- who wrote badly. It's not just because you're male.I don't expect you to take women's studies.. but hey, more power to ya.
>IR said: "@Cat – such snark"Hilarious. Cat directly refutes an error on your part, in one of many carefully argued substantive comments she's made here, and this is the best response you can come up with?