Sexual Harassment and Assault - Sturm und Drang by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
Sexual Harassment and Assault - Sturm und Drang by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.| EJF Home | Find Help | Help the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| Domestic Violence Book | DV Site Map | Data tables | DV bibliography | DV index |
| Chapter 8 — Domestic Violence And The Patriarchy |
| Next — Chapter 8-Domestic Violence And Politics |
| Back — PC feminism and the DV courts by David Heleniak, Esq. |
January 4, 2018 — Radical feminists have successfully used false ideology and dogma to promote their goal of destroying the patriarchy and reinstituting the more primitive matriarchy. A major weapon in their arsenal has been the introduction of draconian laws circa 1994 to punish the crimes of domestic violence and abuse, as defined by them. Built on the debris of the War on Drugs, domestic violence laws have successfully destroyed virtually all civil liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights.
However, in the more than two decades since current domestic violence laws were passed, men and women have taken many steps to defend themselves, their careers, and most importantly, their children. Finding their ideology and dogma being destroyed by science, the Internet, and social networks, feminists needed new methods to further their cause.
As they did with domestic violence, radical feminists have wisely chosen innate human problems and built their current propaganda campaign on the foundation of sexual assault and harassment.
Since due process has become a quaint artifact in our current justice system, proof, evidence, witnesses, and truth are no longer necessary. We are mandated to “believe the victim.” Mere allegations, often supplemented by false memories, now suffice to convict patriarchs of sexual assault and harassment, at least in the public press.
However, the present feminist campaign, too often based on slander and libel, is likely to be short lived, but will almost certainly result in undesirable complications for women and society in general.
Domestic violence (DV) and no-fault divorce laws, though based on false ideology, have proven to be powerful tools in the radical feminist assault on the patriarchy over the past 30 years. Although it has now been conclusively shown that women are as, or more violent than men in intimate relationships, men are still at least three times as likely to be arrested for DV and a warrantless arrest is mandatory in most states if domestic violence is alleged.
Arrests of adults for domestic violence amount to about 60% of all adult arrests for interpersonal violence in the U.S. In 2010 there were ~1 million domestic violence arrests in the United States. Given that DV laws were mainly enacted in 1994, extrapolating to the present suggests over 20 million men have been arrested for domestic violence.
The numbers are even more staggering when we consider domestic abuse restraining, or protection orders. Extrapolating from Colorado data there were 2.4 million restraining orders issued in the United States in 2010. Across Walls estimated that in 2008 courts issued 1.7 million domestic abuse restraining orders. They further estimate that on any given day, roughly 1.2 million people are subject to domestic abuse restraining orders. Therefore, and very roughly, somewhere around 40 million domestic abuse restraining orders have been issued since 1994, almost exclusively to women against men. Note that, as in my personal experience, a restraining order can be issued immediately after a defendant is acquitted of domestic violence at trial or the case dismissed. And if the restraining order is dismissed in one county, another can be issued in another, or by a different judge in the same county or judicial district. Judge shopping is widely practiced in DV cases.
Restraining orders issue from both civil and criminal proceedings but violation of a civil order is a criminal offense. Both civil and criminal restraining orders forbid contact between the parties and, commonly, a man's children as well. Other draconian penalties are also imposed, e.g., men are commonly evicted from their homes and lose their gun rights.
Civil orders are issued ex parte so a man has no warning or chance to defend himself. The duration of a civil order varies from state-to-state, usually from a minimum of one year to lifetime in states like Colorado. In criminal cases the court issues the restraining order at the defendant's first appearance, or before the man is released from jail.
Domestic violence laws are astonishingly broad. What constitutes “family or household members” eligible for such protection includes:
• Persons living together or who have lived together;
• Persons who are having sexual relations or have had sexual relations; or
• Persons who are dating or have dated without sexual relations.
These definitions of an “intimate relationship” extend far beyond common understanding of family or household members. Included are individuals who have merely been sharing the rent or had a one-night stand, for example. Also, there are generally no time limits on when past relationships may have occurred.
The success of the feminist use of domestic violence and abuse for support, funding, and the passage of draconian laws was basically dependent on their dogmatic claim that only men are violent in intimate relationships. The DAIP group in Minnesota proposed that men socialized in a patriarchy used domestic violence to maintain power and control over their female partners. They developed the Duluth model of a cycle of violence that suggested if a couple remained together the violence would repeat and increase over time. That model was used for decades to destroy marriages and families when the man and woman wanted to remain together. However, even co-founder of the DIAP group, Ellen Pence, has finally realized that model doesn't match the observations and admitted that: “Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find.”
But men have developed countermeasures to this onslaught. Today it is a rare man who has not been subjected personally to allegations of domestic violence or abuse, especially in a divorce or child custody case, or has had a friend go through this hell. So the surprise factor is not as evident today as when I went through it in 1997. Also, the devastation wrought on children raised by single mothers after feminist ideology has destroyed the biological family seems self-evident today.
Thus, new weapons against men, marriage, and children are essential to the feminist campaign to destroy the patriarchy; especially before any semblance of chivalry completely disappears.
Fortunately for them, feminists can use the results of their previous performance to further assault our civilization. Based on draconian domestic violence laws, that evolved in part from the War on Drugs, arrest and search warrants have largely become a quaint relic of the past. And society has accepted the theft of a man's assets and children on scant or no evidence based on the feminist mantras that “women never lie” and we must “believe the victim.” The fact that perjury and subornation of perjury are acceptable in these cases is frightening. Frequently, hearsay is admitted as evidence and men must be considered guilty until, and unless they can prove their innocence. So due process has been scuttled and evidence, witnesses, and proof are considered irrelevant. Today allegations are taken as proof and opinions carry the same weight as scientific evidence. In our dysfunctional courts and legislatures emotions and feelings are paramount.
But many men, including me, have successfully defended themselves against the “he said/she said” allegations so commonly used in domestic violence and abuse cases. Forced by the 2004 Crawford v Washington decision to actually allow cross examination of the “victim,” as mandated by the Sixth Amendment, juries have generally not been impressed by the weeping and wild tales told by many women claiming to have been “abused,” and only rarely convict in these cases. Consequently, prosecutors have taken two approaches to this reality:
• Enlightened prosecutors (there are a few) have initiated pre-trial reviews of sketchy cases and agree not to use evidence gathered for the report in trial, as distinguished from evidence gathered by their criminal investigation. That saves taxpayer's money and children's and men's lives.
• Unenlightened prosecutors (too often female) push, confine, threaten, and even torture males to coerce a guilty plea bargain in such cases in order to minimize feminist ire and maximize their conviction rate. In the process they are destroying ~1 million men's lives, families, and children every year.
Mandatory arrest is not as effective as it used to be either. Far too many policemen, or their fellow officers have been arrested on bogus domestic violence charges or had restraining (protection) orders taken out against them that cost them their jobs. Worse, from the feminist standpoint, is the fact that police have become ever more willing to arrest females for domestic violence. The case for mandatory arrest was not helped by Iyengar's 2007 study that found states with mandatory arrest laws had 60% more domestic homicides than states without them.
In the military the problem is so common that these charges and orders are commonly ignored. It is also of note that military veterans with post traumatic stress or other hidden wounds are commonly arrested for domestic violence. In hearings and trials in these cases veterans are addressed as trained killers, not a wise thing to do when there are veterans, or the wives and children of veterans on the jury.
In 20 years of dealing with these issues I have rarely, if ever, seen a case where a man was using power and control over their female partners. Conversely, I have seen a number of cases where women were using power and control over their male partners, most commonly to gain custody of the children if the man doesn't obey.
Like the claims of most zealots, feminist dogma is not supported by science. Literally hundreds of scientific studies from 1972 onward have clearly established that in intimate relationships women are as, or more violent than their male partners. The mantra that only women are “victims” and all men are, or potentially are “batterers” has proven over and over to be simply a myth, and not even good propaganda which must contain an element of truth. Worse, lesbian relationships have been shown to be the most violent of all. Pastors Sam and Bunny Sewell have prepared an excellent summary of this sad and destructive situation.
Today, such false allegations of abuse have devolved into what is regarded as lynching in the 21st Century.
As the difficulties of proving domestic violence or abuse have been challenged by juries and centuries of English and American law, feminist ideologues have responded by continually increasing and changing the definitions of what constitutes such acts. In Colorado, and many other states “domestic violence” is an add-on charge to any criminal act. Today, one can be arrested and charged with “domestic violence” for jaywalking, straining the credibility of feminist ideology and dogma past the breaking point.
All this is not to say there are not real and ugly cases of intimate partner violence, but the reality is often hidden under the ideology. Unfortunately, research suggests that, if there is real violence in the relationship, getting a restraining order against their partner can be very dangerous, even fatal. However, studies have repeatedly shown that the safest place for a woman is in her home married to the biological father of her children.
Attorney Carolyn Graglia's 1998 book Domestic Tranquility - A Brief Against Feminism should be of basic interest to anyone concerned about, or fighting the ravages of unchecked feminist ideology. Extensive documentation for the above can be found by clicking here.
As the folly and dangers of the feminist ideology became apparent, they have responded by trying new tactics. Desperate for a revival of their efforts to destroy the patriarchy it was essential to develop new weapons to destroy families and men.
Before going further let me state that I am quite aware that harassment, sexual or otherwise, is clearly against the law. I am also against rape in any form. My concerns, expressed here, are that there are no consistent definitions of these crimes at present and that proving these crimes to a jury of one's peers is often impossible. I further note that common law intentionally makes it difficult to prove guilt and places a considerable burden on the prosecution to do so. However, those difficulties are no justification for throwing out all of the protections provided by due process and a defendant's civil rights. As as result I am adamantly opposed to feminist's using allegations as a substitute for evidence, witnesses, investigation, and a jury trial. I hope the following adequately documents my concerns and objections to current practices.
Since the draconian domestic violence and abuse laws have virtually eliminated the protections of common law it has become quite easy to substitute unsubstantiated allegations for “proof.” And in the Puritan tradition it is easy to have men shunned if a woman alleges he is crude and rude, and has gone so far as to try and steal a kiss, take her by the elbow, ask her for her phone number, or touch her on her bare back in an attempt to console her, to name but a few current examples. And what better way to promote these new tactics than agitprop that has always been noted for its cardboard characters of perfect virtue, always female, and complete evil, always men, and its coarse ridicule.
Note that sexual harassment of both women and men does occur. Some years ago I quit one job because of unwanted attentions by a woman. When I was a professor a female student slid her hand down into my groin and I recall going to the vice chancellor about that incident, although nothing was done. I learned quite quickly never to be alone with a female. But, like domestic violence, allegations of sexual harassment of a woman make good headlines and serve the propaganda machine of radical feminists very well. Of course, in feminist propaganda it is only women who suffer from such harassment despite all evidence and experience to the contrary.
First, there is the problem of attempting to define what constitutes sexual harassment. One definition states that it is intimidation, bullying, or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. But consider the problem of having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the action was taken willfully, knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally (mens rea) to a jury; and that such attention was not invited? Any reasonably intelligent individual is aware that women have been using sexual favors and the promise of them since long before Delilah seduced Samson.
• Since allegations of sexual harassment work so well, women have taken to using claims of harassment if her boss has the gall to expect her to do her job as instructed, show up for work on time, or fail to treat her like the princess her narcissism tells her she is.
• Of course, if she wants a man to do something special for her, there is always the promise or performance of sex. To gain her objectives in passing she will rub her breasts, accidentally of course, against him, dress provocatively, or use the many other ploys women throughout the ages have developed to tantalize and bedazzle the hapless male.
• In many cases sexual favors are deliberately used to influence or coerce a man into doing what she wants. A well-known example is the “casting couch” so many women have used for decades to obtain acting roles. The equation is quite simple: She gets what she wants if he gets what he wants, and vice versa. In the main such transactions work quite well. Such prostitution is the world's oldest profession!
• Then there are the multitudinous cases of women imbibing a few too many drinks and becoming amorous with an available male. That has been going on since wine was invented. It is also of note that in many cases where the woman later reported she had been raped, she was underage and drinking illegally. That obviously sounds like “victim blaming.” But if a woman can't take responsibility for her actions and obey the law then she should, at least, be responsible for the consequences.
This is not to deny that some men are crude, rude, make outrageous advances on females, or take advantage of them. The reverse is also true. Further, the use of force and violence is not unknown, but forcible rape by a stranger is quite rare. Pre-feminism, if a man got “fresh” with a woman she would often slap him or verbally dress him down on the spot, and that was usually the end of the problem.
Laws have evolved over centuries to try and control intolerable acts. But criminal law in America requires evidence, witnesses, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of the man's peers. That high standard is quite unreasonable in the eyes of radical feminists. Recall, we have been indoctrinated to “believe the victim” and accept the presumption that “women never lie.” Thus, unfounded allegations are expected to act as “proof.”
Inasmuch as current legal standards were much too stringent for feminist purposes, it was necessary to enlarge and modify the definition of what constituted these crimes. After all, that tactic was quite successful in expanding the legal definition of “domestic violence.” Unfortunately, in the process chivalry has been virtually destroyed, and the credibility of female accusations have increasingly come into question.
Fortunately for feminists, domestic violence and abuse laws and practices have almost completely eliminated the requirement for due process. That has made it possible for feminists to claim that virtually any contact with a male, whether she initiated it or not, can be turned into a claim of sexual harassment. Since there is no longer a requirement for proof or evidence, and the allegation suffices, a woman can use sexual harassment for many other purposes, e.g., revenge. One is reminded of the ancient nursery rhyme: “Georgie Porgie, pudding and pie, kissed the girls and made them cry” by the current childish feminist outrage about “sexual harassment.”
Ignore the fact that for millennia men and women have joked and played around with each other, often physically such as hugs, kisses, e.g., under the mistletoe at Christmas, a pat on the back, etc. As Denise McCallister points out in her essay Can We Be Honest About Women, women love the sexual interplay they experience with men, and they relish men desiring their beauty. However, it has now become dangerous for a man to be alone with a woman, or even close enough that a harpy can overhear what men are discussing. What these crones demand is a complete end to the banter, kidding, jokes, and play that once made working with women such a joy.
The recent cascade of allegations of sexual harassment suffices to prove that radical feminists have now adopted the tactic of alleging sexual harassment or assault on a large scale. That has proven quite effective in destroying men's lives, careers, marriages, and children in furtherance of their destruction of the patriarchy.
• First, the sexual harassment is never immediately reported as there may be witnesses or evidence that refutes her claims. Thus, it is essential to wait at least a year or more, sometimes decades, before making a complaint so that all involved have largely forgotten details about the time and place. It is also useful if other women join in making a complaint about the same man, no matter how ridiculous her and her girlfriend's claims appear.
• Second, it is of little value, and often counterproductive even if real, to pursue allegations against underlings or a man she has had a sexual relationship with that was widely known to others. Her target should be a public figure or a supervisor, at least. An even better target is a prominent patriarch, e.g., a politician, judge, CEO, etc. Further, her allegations must be published as far and wide as possible; for which social networks have proven of great value when even the liberal media won't touch the story.
• Third, her complaint, though false, must be credible. For example, to claim her supervisor told dirty jokes in her hearing at the company Christmas party, she should first be sure he was actually there; and not accompanied by his wife or girlfriend who might be witnesses in his defense. It is also important that she be able to show she was present, coherent, and sober at the time and place the alleged harassment occurred. It won't do if others remember her doing a striptease and dancing on the tables, or passed out in a corner, for example.
• Fourth, if she claims the harassment was in the form of an email, or other written communication, with dirty jokes, sexual innuendo, or filthy pictures, she must be able to produce the documents and, at least nominally, establish the communication came from the man she is accusing. After all, most of us have seen emails from faked sources, forged memos, etc, in this computer age.
• Fifth, she should not have a past history of repeatedly making unproven claims at other times and places. And a criminal history may be an impediment to her game. Further, if her target is a political figure she should belong to the same party. A Democrat accusing a Republican, or vice versa, isn't going to sound very credible close to an election. However, such petty details have not deterred any number of deranged feminists from making false or petty allegations.
So a successful allegation of sexual harassment is basically a one-off game and should not be undertaken quickly without forethought and planning. Unfortunately, these are not attributes that one usually finds in women likely to make such false allegations; but radical feminists have proven only too willing to assist.
Before considering sexual assault it is necessary to understand some basic biology. Allow me to present a very simplistic and condensed version of how we got to the present.
Reproduction is a basic and essential function for the survival of any species. While some species are able to reproduce asexually, sexual reproduction is far and away the most popular and successful means of propagation in multicellular plants and animals.
Nature is not fussy about how the sexual reproduction occurs. In some animal species the male is killed after mating. I have seen drakes raping a female duck. Many other examples of animal rape exist. For survival, it isn't the means but the results that matter.
Fortunately, in homo sapiens conventions have evolved from the primitive matriarchy where women enjoyed coitus with any convenient male when they were in the mood, equivalent to estrus in other mammals. But matriarchy provides little protection for the young from other males, and a man feels little obligation to protect a child who is not of his loins, or to support the mother of that child. And it is always alpha males women prefer to breed with; lesser males only getting the leftovers, or when the alpha isn't present. The meme today, and probably in the past, is that 20% of the males get 80% of the females. Uncontrolled, that leads to an unstable and violent society.
As humans moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture and settled communities, passions and jealousy undoubtedly led to battles for available females. That behavior is seen among many other species today. At some point alpha males in the villages presumably decreed that women would only belong to one man for breeding purposes, and the concept of patriarchal marriage evolved.
That would present problems if females were only available for sex at fixed and limited times each year. Eventually, however, human females no longer went through an estrus cycle and became available for sex at any time and patriarchal marriage became a stable institution. Even then, in most societies an alpha male had more than one wife, and possibly concubines. Polygamy continues today in many cultures and serial polygamy is widely practiced in America as one result of no-fault divorce.
Somewhere in the evolution of societies it was learned that, if paternity were clearly established, men would risk many dangers and go to great effort and expense to protect children known to be the issue of their loins. As human children develop very slowly, it also became critical for the father to protect and support the mother of his children and the concept of family emerged.
In patriarchal societies the issue of paternity is paramount and female infidelity became a heinous crime. Also, when men took women not their wives by force, coercion, or other means it was, and is regarded as rape or illicit carnal knowledge; often a capital crime even today. Note that within a marriage, rape was not defined.
However, such narrow and culturally defined definitions, still held by many, are not consistent with radical feminist dogma and their stated intent to end the patriarchy and return to the primitive matriarchy. That dogma has been supported by no-fault divorce; The Pill; safe and legal abortions; and destructive, ill-informed laws based on false dogma and emotions and feelings that allow many feminists to lead essentially a matriarchal lifestyle even today.
Since broadening the definition of “domestic violence” worked so well decades ago, feminists have naturally used that technique again to move from rape to “sexual assault.” Things get really ugly when a woman claims she has been raped, i.e., “sexually assaulted.” However, one quickly runs into the problem of what defines “sexual assault”? Today it is virtually impossible to find a consistent definition of what constitutes sexual assault. However, such ambiguity well suits the feminist objective of destroying the patriarchy and men.
Probably the best summary of problems with the current Sturm und Drang is Wendy McElroy's book Rape Culture Hysteria where she outlines how the problems might be fixed, primarily involving government reforms. But, however unlikely government reforms might be, they could put an end to many radical feminist goals and are, thus, opposed by these shrews.
Initially, however, we first need to look at definitions of what has constituted the crimes now included in “sexual assault:”
The most consistent and enduring definition of rape that I'm aware of is the one that was in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Chapter 10, Article 120 prior to 2006 that states:
A. Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
B. Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a person -
1. who is not his or her spouse; and
2. who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
C. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.
In a prosecution under subsection (B), it is an affirmative defense that -
• The accused has the burden of proving a defense under subparagraph (B)(1) by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The person with whom the accused committed the act of sexual intercourse had at the time of the alleged offense attained the age of twelve years, and
• The accused reasonably believed that the person had at the time of the alleged offense attained the age of 16 years.
• That the accused committed an act of sexual intercourse; and
• That the act of sexual intercourse was done by force and without consent.
• That the accused committed an act of sexual intercourse with a certain person;
• That the person was not the accused's spouse; and
• That at the time of the sexual intercourse the person was under 16 years of age.
It is of interest to note that the UCMJ in this simple and concise definition does not consider spousal rape and only sexual intercourse with one's spouse is condoned. Further, the victim, typically a female, was considered an adult after age 12, although the accused had to reasonably believe she was at least 16.
Unfortunately, as part of the fiscal year 2006 Military Authorization Act, Congress amended Article 120, effective for offenses occurring on and after October 1, 2007. The plain and straightforward Article 120 is now entitled, more politically correctly, Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.
• Indecent acts or liberties with a child
(1) Indecent language communicated to another - other than when communicated in the presence of a child — remains punishable under Article 134. If the language was communicated in the presence of a child, then it is an Article 120 offense.
(2) Pandering (having someone commit an act of prostitution) is still an offense under Article 134, but if the pandering is “compelled” it becomes an Article 120 offense.
The change also adds a new Article 120a, “Stalking.” The feminist influence in these changes by a pandering Congress to such a basic standard as the UCMJ is evident. However, I find it difficult to understand how such actions might be enforced in barracks, at sea, in combat, or any field exercise even in today's petticoat military.
By the patriarchal standard outlined above, and in the UCMJ, any sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex not one's spouse is illicit carnal knowledge. However, any time that young men and women intermingle there is a biological imperative for them to breed. The forms that intercourse may take in different cultures and times are virtually infinite and The Joy of Sex is just a primer. But social mores appear to be more effective in controlling human sexuality than laws, particularly where those mores promote marriage and families.
Criminal rape is typically associated with a male vaginally penetrating a female with his penis, but forcible sodomy is commonly also prosecuted as rape except in the military. Note that sodomy is a lesser crime than rape in the military. Forced oral sex may be punished as sodomy or under separate statutes. Digital penetration, or with another object, e.g., a vibrator, also add complexity to any definition.
The social acceptance of homosexuality and resultant rape of both males and females does not seem to have been given much attention. In lesbian relationships females may rape other women with a dildo or similar device. Women have also been known to rape men anally and orally with dildos or similar devices.
In the military there are more male on male rapes than male on female ones simply due to the disproportionate number of men compared to women in the services. Of course, little is said about the male rapes in prison.
Research about male-victim rape first appeared circa 1990 and was mostly focused on male children. Studies of sexual assault in correctional facilities focusing specifically on the consequences of male rape only became available circa 1980. Kaufman et al. (1980) found that male victims of rape, as a group, sustained more physical trauma, were more likely to have been a victim of multiple assaults from multiple assailants, and were more likely to have been held captive longer. For example, see this story.
Likely these definitions and actions are not what comes to mind when you think of rape. And even today a charge of rape will require evidence, witnesses, and substantial proof to obtain a conviction. For that, and various other reasons, many actual rapes go unreported. Conversely, getting drunk and having a one-night stand doesn't rise to the level of rape even though a woman may later have regrets and be infuriated that he never called her afterward. However, revenge and false memories initiated by regret are common factors in false allegations of rape. And the excuse that she was raped may be used to cover up an affair.
Then there are the feminists like Andrea Dworkin (now deceased) who consider all intercourse “rape.” Or consider the thousands of men (and some women) who have been convicted due to sloppy, or even criminal incompetence in police labs, incompetent judges and deeply-flawed courts, attorneys, and prosecutors who withhold critical evidence from the defense, e.g., a recent case in Oklahoma. And sadly, the thousands of rape kits that go unanalyzed after traumatized women and men have gone through both the trauma of rape and the indignity and embarrassment of clinical examination and testing.
Does sexual abuse of children occur? Of course it does! But how quickly we have forgotten the hysteria surrounding alleged sex abuse in day care centers in the 1980s and early 1990s. The panic appears to have begun in Kern County, California. The cases involved claims of a pedophile-sex-ring performing satanic ritual abuse, with as many as 60 children testifying they had been abused. At least 36 people were falsely convicted and most of them spent years imprisoned. Thirty-four convictions were overturned on appeal, the last not until 2008. Two of those falsely convicted died in prison. The district attorney responsible for these convictions was Ed Jagels who was sued by at least one of those whose conviction was overturned, but he remained in office until 2009.
Another case occurred in Manhattan Beach, California, in the McMartin preschool day care scandal. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial dragged on from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained; all charges were dropped in 1990; and this was rated as the most expensive criminal trial in American history.
Other cases involving false allegations of child sexual abuse have been reported in Louisiana, Minnesota, West Memphis Tennessee, and Oak Hill Texas, among many others.
In England scandalous false accusations of child abuse apparently began when a 1987 wave of suspected child sexual abuse cases were reported in Cleveland County. A new law passed in 1987 had little impact on the issues. On February 27, 1991 social workers and police removed children from their homes on the island of South Ronaldsay, in Orkney, Scotland, because of unfounded allegations of child abuse. The children denied that any abuse had occurred, and medical examinations did not reveal any evidence of abuse. But predawn raids were mounted and more children taken. However, when the case came on for trial all charges were dropped after the judge found the case was fatally flawed and the children were returned to their parents. Reflecting what we commonly see in such cases is that the social worker, Liz McLean, who led the interviews with the children, had also been involved in the 1990 Rochdale satanic abuse case.
A common thread through these false allegations are deranged feminist covens alleging satanic ritual abuse of the children combined with overzealous, press-hungry prosecutors. There are numerous other cases in various countries, e.g., the 2004 Outreau trial in northern France, where satanic ritual abuse was alleged or proven, often to be later overturned. Truly a witch hunt that makes the Salem witch trials pale in comparison.
The Meryhew Law Group has provided an excellent summary of the false allegations they regularly defend:
“It is easy to accuse someone of child molestation or rape, and once the accusation is made the damage is done. We see false accusations in these cases against our clients on a regular basis, and we understand the dynamics that often lead to these accusations being made.
For example, you have been going through a long, drawn-out child custody battle with your spouse. One day, out of the blue, a detective shows up at your office and says 'Sir, we want to ask you a few questions about your daughter.' Then the horror begins-the detective speaks the unspeakable-your young daughter has allegedly told your ex-wife that you have been touching her on her privates. With little more than a brief interview of your daughter and your ex-wife you could be charged with a Class A sex offense with the potential of life in prison.
Or, you have just moved in with your romantic partner of two years, who has a teenage daughter. The daughter is out of control, staying out late, partying, using drugs and alcohol, skipping school, dating multiple boyfriends. You decide to enforce boundaries with this teenager, there is an argument and she runs away. Before you know it, you are getting a phone call from CPS, who is at the school interviewing the teenager about allegations that you forced her to have sexual intercourse with you while her mother was at work.”
The point here is that false allegations of child sexual abuse are common and demand an exhaustive and expensive investigation, rather than a hysterical press campaign against the alleged perpetrators, i.e., what used to be called due process.
Many of these cases depended on testimony of young children, teenagers, and even grown women who claimed to have later recalled incidents of abuse. However, Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham threw a monkey wrench into the madness when they published their book The Myth of Repressed Memory in 1994. In an early chance experiment (p. 94-96) Loftus demonstrated that in less than five minutes a false memory could be implanted in an 8-year-old girl. She then began assigning students in her clinical psychology classes the task of inducing false memories, which they did with considerable imagination and success.
But the false allegations continue, much to the detriment of real cases, and men's, women's, and children's lives are destroyed with impunity. For those caught in this black hole the 2002 book Elusive Innocence, Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused by Dean Tong can be quite helpful.
Biologically, after a girl begins menses she is a woman and well-able to bear children. In times past, when she could only expect to live about 35 years, it was essential that she begin bearing her children by about age 16 if she was to live to see them grown. Even today a woman may marry at age 12 in Colorado, and in many other states. However, the age at which a woman can legally consent to sexual intercourse is 17, but feminists and their fellow-traveler legislators see no conflict in such logic.
While a boy physically becomes a man after puberty, usually by age 14, he doesn't become an adult legally until age 18. However, following puberty he is now well able to sire a child but is usually ill-equipped to support a family in our modern world. However, should he engage in sexual intercourse, at say age 16, with a woman younger than 17 it is statutory rape even if he marries her. Likewise, if a woman over 18 is sexually active with a boy under 17 it is also statutory rape, which frequently occurs if newspaper reports are to be believed.
The conundrum is bolstered, or confused, by putting qualifiers in the statutes that take into account age differences between young men and women in these cases. But young women instinctively gravitate towards older men who are capable of supporting them and their children. But is a 26-year-old man who marries a very willing 16-year-old woman a criminal guilty of child sexual abuse?
It should also be noted that children begin exploring and playing with their genitals even as babies. Boys and girls “playing doctor,” or similar games with members of the opposite sex have always been part of growing up and that play certainly continues into their teenage years.
All this is not to say that an adult man or woman who engages in, or more properly forces a girl who hasn't reached menses, or a boy who has not gone through puberty to engage in sexual activity are not guilty of sexually abusing a child if proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of their peers. But a man, or woman, are not guilty simply because some dogmatic feminist alleges they are.
Another late term for sexual abuse is what used to commonly be called
“feeling up”
a girl. Let's see, you and your girlfriend were parked in a dark, secluded spot to watch the submarine races. The kissing and hugging got passionate. You slipped your hand under her blouse and bra and she moaned. But today you are
“groping”
her even if she is cooperating and even inviting the attention. 
Today, what I've heard from feminists is that she must give clear and informed consent prior to such actions. Of course there is no clear and concise definition of what constitutes “consent.” Also, if once given, can consent be withdrawn and under what circumstances? I note that in the height of passion many women say “No,” often repeatedly, when they mean exactly the opposite. So “No” commonly does not mean “No.” Ben Shapiro addressed this ambiguity in a recent article.
However, I understand there are now smartphone applications to be used in these situations to document the consent.
Should such “groping,” once known as “foreplay,” lead to coitus, the man must be able to prove she was not incapacitated (drunk) and gave her consent willingly and knowingly, or he is guilty of rape. Again, today he is guilty unless and until he can prove his innocence.
Clearly there are cases where a man grabs a woman's breasts against her will, or a woman runs her hand up his leg and into a man's groin. However, such actions usually amount to simple assault and would be better treated as such under the law.
Circa 1895 Thomas Brackett Reed, once Speaker of the House, pointed out that: “One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.” That has certainly not stopped legislators from trying; although even their definitions of “evil” are often confused, inconsistent, swayed by ideology, emotions, feelings, and “belief,” while science is commonly ignored, i.e., Sturm und Drang.
These problems are magnified when governments attempt to legislate or regulate morals and mores. Laws attempting to control “domestic violence” are a prime example of the disasters that often result as documented here. But radical feminist attempts to destroy the mores of the patriarchy that underlies our civilization have gone a long way under such laws. Abusing women and children has always been taboo but current laws, in the main, appear to have destroyed many families and children rather than protecting them, undermining the foundation of our society.
But our patriarchal society has proven resilient and radical feminists have sought new weapons in their destructive campaign. Ironically, they have used the remnants of Puritan morality to claim that even normal contact and interactions between men and women constitute sexual harassment or assault.
Both the War on Drugs and “domestic violence” laws well serve the new feminist campaign against sexual assault and harassment, having undercut or eliminated most of the protections once offered by common law and our Constitution. Thus, it has become both possible and commonplace to destroy a man, his career, family, and children by a simple, unsupported allegation of sexual harassment or assault; acts for which biologically-consistent or logical definitions in criminal law are not to be found.
Feminists have successfully adopted and used the agitprop methods of the Soviet Union and Joseph Goebbels would be proud of their success. Clearly, they have also used Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda with only the slight modification of substituting men in general for the Jews targeted by Goebbels.
But just as men have learned to avoid marriage after the advent of no-fault divorce, coupled with the ease of a woman claiming domestic violence or abuse, it is likely they will adapt to the new wave of feminist claims of sexual assault or harassment. The ready availability of smartphones and surveillance cameras offers one means of protection. The use of prostitutes for sexual gratification is almost certainly going to increase, among other defensive actions.
The basic objective of feminists, as they have repeatedly stated, is to destroy the patriarchy in order to return to the more primitive matriarchy. In order to do that they must destroy families, marriages, and patriarchs like me.
In order to accomplish their goal, feminists have masterfully used the Marxist techniques of agitprop and fellow travelers in our legislative bodies to demonize all men with the bogus claim that they batter their wives to maintain power and control in order to support the patriarchy.
Erin Pizzey,
who really brought the problems with domestic violence, both by
males
and
females,
into the public eye in the 1970's, has outlined how that issue was hijacked by Marxist feminists to gain financial support. These feminists have persuaded lawmakers to pass draconian laws under the umbrella of
“domestic violence;”
making it possible for a woman to take everything a man and his children have strived to achieve with an unproven claim that she is in
“fear.”
In doing this virtually every protection of a man's rights under the Constitution have been cast aside or ignored.
Between DV arrests and restraining orders, coupled with no-fault divorces, somewhere between 2 and 3 million men, their families and children are destroyed every year in the United States. One doesn't have to dig very far to find that patriarchal families are the bedrock of our society and civilization; and to realize we can't go on doing this and survive.
• We now have the largest prison population in the world by far;
• Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed and now run upwards of 50% of all live births;
• Black families have all but disappeared and white families are on their way out;
• The entire rule of law is under extreme stress with dysfunctional courts, uncountable and incomprehensible laws, and the virtually total destruction of due process and civil liberties;
• Under the guise of “political correctness” we have de facto censorship;
• Under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child;
• The birthrate has fallen to ~1.8 births per woman, far below the minimum sustainable rate of 2.1 births per woman;
• Life expectancy is beginning to fall.
All of this has not gone unnoticed and the feminist dogma that brought us to this point is quickly losing favor, particularly as science and experience disproves their claims. But feminists are ideologues at their core and, of course, blindly refuse to accept responsibility for these outcomes. Instead they want more, and so the current Sturm und Drang of sexual assault and harassment.
Professor Janice Fiamengo, in her Fiamengo Files, has tabulated what she refers to as a feminist wish list that would further their goal:
• Force courts to believe every accuser;
• Immunity for false accusers;
• Allow retroactive withdrawal of consent;
• Repeal a presumption of innocence;
• Convict men on zero evidence (absolute power).
If you think this could never happen here may I suggest a review of how Title IX cases of campus rape are being mishandled. Accused men are often denied the right to face their accuser; police are not notified; “investigators” are appointed from campus staff; guilt is often decided based on the lowest possible standard, i.e., the preponderance of evidence; no consistent procedures or rules are followed, and so on. A Star Chamber proceeding at best and a kangaroo court at worst, with the accused man standing little chance of a fair hearing. I submit that this is prima facie evidence that in these cases the feminist wish list is satisfied.
And while writing this the editor of the
Huffington Post,
Emily McCombs, tweeted December 29, 2017, about her desire to
“kill all men”
as part of her 2018 New Year's Resolutions.
Ms. McCombs, who serves as the “Editorial Director of Parents” for the Huffington Post, previously wrote a misandric rant in November 2017 titled I Don't Know If I Can Raise A Good Man, apparently based on the “shitshow of female adolescence” she claims to have endured as a teenager; as though her experience was unique and exclusive to females.
Further, feminists have found they can control the courts by the subterfuge of harassment, sexual or otherwise. I know of three judges, two state judges in Colorado and one federal judge in Washington State, who have been forced off the bench by unproven female complaints. Likely that is the tip of the iceberg as feminists have been using judge shopping for decades. State legislators who don't conform to the feminist agenda are also easy targets.
Feminists are also using unsupported allegations of sexual harassment or assault in attempts to sway elections, the most notable being the nineteen women who came forward a month before the 2016 presidential election claiming the Republican candidate had behaved like a man at some point in the past. These women claim incidents like asking for a woman's phone number constituted sexual harassment. Any day now feminists will claim that Marines use of their favorite word constitutes sexual harassment and the entire USMC must be condemned under Article 134 of the UCMJ.
The feminist push for denying the biological and physical differences between men and women largely persists only by bureaucratic fiat. Despite their dogmatic push for unisex, boys continue to act like boys, girls like girls, men like men, and women like women. It seems impossible to convince these ideologues that men and women are different, both biologically and physically. And such differences as feminists will admit are used to force men into subservient roles. Recall, if you can, the last time you saw a female collecting your trash? Men have generally responded by refusing to be underdogs or servants. One result is that birthrates have fallen below replacement rate, an ultimately fatal problem with any species. Countering that, liberals, fat cats, and feminists have flooded the country with illegal immigrants to fill the gaps. Unchecked immigration is also fatal for any society on an even shorter time frame.
Given feminist success with the useful idiots in our legislative bodies, Congress, and the courts, attainment of their wishes should be considered probable. What begins on campuses often transmits in a few years to the general society. Many of them are, de facto, already in place, if not de jure, in many courts.
The solution to most of our current problems is obvious. As I've noted previously, the number of societal problems that can be solved by passing a new law is virtually zero; the number of problems caused by existing laws is virtually infinite. But the least likely future outcome is that the Congress and state legislatures will realize that laws and regulations attempting to dictate mores and morals are generally disastrous. Sanity would suggest they be eliminated, or at least brought into compliance with biology and science.
Likely feminists will find their latest foray self defeating. Men only need women biologically for basically two things: sex and reproduction.
Alpha males can usually find sex for the price of a dinner and a date, if not simply a casual pickup in a bar. For the rest, sex dolls are constantly improving, and porn or masturbation often suffices. As noted, prostitutes are, and will always be available. Other means of sexual gratification are likely to come along or are available today if one does an Internet search. And many men are simply packing up and moving to countries where the women haven't capitulated to feminist lunacy.
There is little sense for a man to sire a child with a female, particularly when the State is likely to remove the child from him. Further, as cloning, in vitro fertilization, and artificial wombs continue to develop, females will likely become less and less essential for reproduction.
Until sanity can be restored men are well advised to refer to attorney R K Hendrick's book How To Avoid “Getting Screwed” When Getting Laid. And for those men who are new to the game, or reentering it, the Hot-Crazy Matrix should be viewed and understood. Obviously, men will put up with a lot of crazy for a hot woman; and women will put up with a lot of ugly for a wealthy man; but there are limits.
Of course, feminists can have the matriarchy they apparently so ardently desire today. Quickest way would be to move to the Navajo Reservation, a well-known matriarchal society. There are others as well. Or feminists could form their own settlements as the Amish, Mennonites, and others have done.
I might note one drawback, however. In searching for existing matriarchal societies I did not find one that had advanced beyond Stone Age technology on its own. And feminism seems to embody at least two pathetic attributes of Puritanism: self righteousness and lethal incompetence; and clearly they are unable to deal rationally and reasonably with our patriarchal society.
I would like to thank two reviewers, one in Scotland and one American, both veterans, who reviewed an early draft of this essay. I incorporated most of their comments and their suggestions led to significant additions. However, responsibility for any errors or mistakes, as well as the bellicosity, belongs solely to the author.
| EJF Home | Find Help | Help the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| Domestic Violence Book | DV Site Map | Data tables | DV bibliography | DV index |
| Chapter 8 — Domestic Violence And The Patriarchy |
| Next — Chapter 8-Domestic Violence And Politics |
| Back — PC feminism and the DV courts by David Heleniak, Esq. |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.