Sunday, February 04, 2007

Bindel Joins the Lynch-mob Against Blackwell

The problem with radical lesbian feminist views of heterosexuality is that there is literally nothing which does not count as rape.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic"Judith Levine

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist". Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." Sheila Jeffrys.

This is one of my particular favourites:

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

Perhaps she ought to try telling that to Warren Blackwell.

This is the school of thought which informs feminist thinking - and now, government thinking - about rape. These people simply don't like the idea of men and women having sex.

The logic is simple but poisonous. They are members of the gay community. They notice that they are in the minority. They believe strongly in the social construction of human sexuality, along with everything else in human psychology; people are not straight or gay because of biology (Get thee behind me, Darwin!). They are straight or gay because of their cultural environment. Therefore, as most people are heterosexual, it must be due to the fact that we live in a 'heterosexual dictatorship'. The existence of a heterosexual majority can only be the result of political oppression against gays. They have made it their mission to undermine that dictatorship. This is a dogma of the 1970s Left, one which has remained substantially unchallenged.

The tactics used to undermine the heterosexual dictatorship are basically, to undermine what they see as ‘the institutions of the heterosexual dictatorship’, most notably marriage and the family.

In characterising all heterosexual sex as rape, insisting on ever-harsher punishments based on ever-flimsier evidential criteria, and condoning false accusations, they seek to undermine the - as they see it - oppressive political regime. It is not rape that these feminists are trying to eliminate; it is heterosexuality itself, along with men and the family. Yes, people do actually believe this stuff. It is, arguably, bordering on the clinically psychotic.

In zoological terms it could be regarded as a mating strategy based upon the elimination of competition. A female friend of mine was told by a male admirer "You shouldn't trust those other men - they only want to use you. I'm the only one you can trust". When lesbians tell women that all men are rapists and abusers, exactly the same thing is going on. By undermining the competition, one can attempt to maximise one’s pool of potential mates.

The radical lesbian feminist Julie Bindel is a regular contributor to the Guardian, and she can be virtually guaranteed to argue a puritanical, heterophobic and misandrist position on every issue. Her latest article on rape is no exception.

She cites the kind of spurious, inflated figures beloved of feminists everywhere. "Research published yesterday by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Home Office Inspectorates estimates that of the 50,000 rapes thought to occur each year, between 75% and 95% are never reported".

The number 50,000 is an extrapolation based on the number of actual reports plus the assumption that between 75% and 95% are never reported. How can anyone possibly know that? Is this another one of those feminist advocacy 'studies' in which most of the supposed 'victims' don't even realise they've been 'raped' until the feminist researcher informs them of it?

There is evidence that rape has substantially diminished since the 1970s, but some people see little to gain from acknowledging the truth.

“And despite changes to both legislation and court conduct over the past 30 years, conviction rates continue to plummet. How can that be? …What is going wrong? …Despite feminists heaping praise on the police since they improved their approach to victims from the bad old days of the 70s and 80s, response to rape is still patchy and, at times, unacceptable.”

The conundrum that Bindel and her associates find themselves faced with is this: In the late 1970s, the conviction rate for rape stood at around 33%. Feminists insisted that rape complainants should be treated much more sympathetically by the police and judicial system. Thirty years later, the number of rape complaints has massively increased, but the conviction rate has dropped to around 5%. What has happened?

The answer seems obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology. As women realise that no stigma attaches to making a rape complaint, as they learn that that, even if they lie, nothing will happen to them, they feel much more prepared to make false accusations, and as a result, the huge spate of false accusations has skewed the statistics. The courts apply more or less the same standards of evidence as they always have, but the number of false accusations has increased while the number of genuine rapes has decreased. Hey presto! A lower conviction rate.

Instead of exploring this obvious possibility, the radical feminist lobby sticks to its ideological mission. Women are not capable of telling lies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a misogynist. The conviction rate is too low, so men must be getting away with rape on a daily basis. Therefore the conviction rate must be artificially raised. This can be done by biasing the court system against men, lowering the required evidential criteria, and placing the onus of proof on the defence rather than the prosecution. In other words, the courts should just bang men up on a feminist’s say-so.

This is cynical and vindictive in the extreme, but also profoundly destructive, not only of the lives of the men directly affected, but of the wider society too. The onus of proof has historically been given to the prosecution for a reason – to prevent miscarriages of justice. Attempting to reverse this principle is certainly audacious, even arrogant, but it is also deeply destructive of legal structures developed through centuries of testing. What the feminist lobby is demanding is profound cultural vandalism. However, that is a good thing from their point of view; the hetero-patriarchal-capitalist system must be destroyed to make way for a bright new feminist utopia. The radical feminist lobby is the last unchallenged bastion of Twentieth century totalitarianism. It is high time we challenged it.

“Police deal with rape within a culture of suspicion”, intones Bindel. This is because front-line police know the truth. They are faced with false accusations of rape every day, and recognise them for what they are. Click here to read one policeman’s experience.

Bindel continues to deny the scientific evidence about false rape accusations. Of course, it simply doesn’t suit the feminist political agenda to acknowledge it. She propagates the usual myths: “the most up-to-date research on this shows that false rape allegations are no higher than in any other crime, and stand at around 3%, although police officers questioned in the same report assumed 23% were false. One academic who has written extensively about false allegations of rape says his students believe that half of all rape complaints are false”. We are encouraged to assume that this academic, or more especially his na├»ve little ‘students’ must be wrong, but she does not give us his name, so we cannot check.

She works the crowd by feeding them a string of Patriarchal atrocities against wimmin: “Some women who report rape can end up in the dock”. They do not end up in the dock for complaining about being raped; they end up in the dock for lying, wasting police time and perverting the course of justice. There is an important difference. And the fact is, most false accusers do not end up in the dock, even when there is clear evidence of their criminal behaviour. Shannon Taylor is a good example. Maria Marchese only ended up in the dock after she started threatening a woman, and a CPS lawyer at that. If she had stuck to terrorising men, she would in all probability still be doing it now, just as Taylor is. Feminists want to make sure that women like Marchese and Taylor are allowed to continue their activities without restraint. They are seen as storm-troopers in the war against men.

She disingenuously refers to the Blackwell case. “Last year a Labour Peer, Lord Campbell-Savours, used parliamentary privilege to name a woman during a debate on rape legislation, calling her "a serial and repeated liar" after a man found guilty of raping her had his conviction overturned. The woman neither admitted nor was charged with making a false allegation.”
What she neglects to mention is that the man’s conviction was overturned because there was not a shred of evidence against him – his appeal was not even contested by the CPS - and the police and CPS had withheld the facts from the defence in order to secure a conviction. Lord Campbell-Savours only took this extraordinary step in view of the seriousness of the case, and its implications for the public interest. Moreover, having previously argued that rape complainants should never face criminal charges, she then offers the fact that Taylor was not charged as evidence of her innocence!

I’m sure that Bindel is familiar with the facts of the Blackwell case, and knows perfectly well that Taylor is a mentally ill serial false accuser, and that Blackwell was innocent. The fact is, she simply doesn't care.

Bindel and her associates want to make sure that the world remains a safe place for false accusers. False accusers are very good at destroying men and demonising heterosexuality. That is the real radical feminist agenda.

In my view, Warren Blackwell has been through enough already. Let us not forget that he is the victim in this case, not Taylor. The fact that the feminist movement continues to hound him is an absolute disgrace.

Then comes the stunning conclusion:
“One victim of rape, the feminist writer Andrea Dworkin, once said that women and children were not protected by the law as it stood from "men who rape, rape, rape", and would have to take the law into their own hands if justice was ever to be done. "Women should get guns and should be allowed to use them to defend themselves," she said. If women continue to be denied justice, there will be many who agree with her.”

Firstly, Dworkin was never a victim of rape. She was in fact a false accuser. Feminists like Dworkin and Bindel regard false rape accusations as a perfectly legitimate weapon in the war against men, and there is authority to be gained within the feminist movement by being able to claim to be a victim of 'male violence'. Besides, Dworkin believed that all heterosexual sex is rape. As such, as she clearly had no meaningful or plausible understanding of the concept of rape, it is difficult to take any allegation of rape seriously without corroborating evidence.

“Dworkin alleges that, last year, at the age of 52, she was drugged and raped in a hotel room by two men, whom she believes - no, knows - to have been the hotel's bartender and a serving boy.
In the New Statesman she was precise about the town, a European city, and the date (although to be pedantic, the date she supplied did not, as she said, fall on a Wednesday). All the police need, then, is the name of the hotel and the men can be questioned. But Dworkin has not been to the police. She came round from the assault to find a "big, strange bruise" on one breast and "huge deep gashes" on one leg which would not stop bleeding.
For some reason she did not call a doctor to staunch the bleeding; neither did she call hotel security nor the police.”

However, the truth of her rape or otherwise is irrelevant. It is Bindel’s reference to Dworkin’s (undeniably American) view of the gun which is interesting here. Dworkin lived in a land full of gun nuts, and her statement must be seen in context. Bindel does not. To advocate that women should carry guns is risible, verging on incitement to murder.

No comments: