A Dose of Stupid v.60

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

When is a false allegation of rape actually rape? When a men’s rights activist warns other men how to avoid being victims of false allegations.

Manboobz tried to spin Ken Kupstis’ article about preventing false allegations into preventing rape. He claims that Ken was actually giving anti-rape advice, but Ken’s comments only read that way if one heavily edits them to remove all context, which Manboobz did.

The comments were more interesting as they reveal the disconnect feminists have with this issue. Trying to explain why men may worry about false accusations to feminists is like trying to explain to feminists why a woman having non-consensual sex with a man or boy is rape. They may agree to an extent, but they will not admit it happens and they will not attempt to understand why it is a legitimate concern for men.

While there scores of exceedingly misandrist bigotry, Holly Pervocracy provided the most curious take. She began with:

It’s worth pointing out that the DURING A FALSE ACCUSATION section is, pardon my misandrist slur, creepy as fuck. It’s basically pseudo-legal advice for abusing a woman.

Yes, talking about a man being falsely accused is exactly like giving advice for abusing a woman. Just like saying you were abused by a feminist is exactly like giving advice for raping children. Perhaps there was something in Ken’s statement that set her off. She took issue with this statement from Ken:

If your woman fights with you verbally, that can be grounds for Nuisance, especially if she’s loud enough to be overheard by neighbors.

Holly replied with:

“Careful, disagreeing with me is against the law. The law against First Degree Mouthiness.”

Except the full context of Ken’s statement is the woman may be attempting to get others to support her false claim, which is clear from his preceding comment: 

Note that if she does threaten you in this manner: “I’ll tell the police you did such and such…” you will probably want to take steps to sever all ties with her. It may have been a heat-of-the-moment threat, but she can’t ‘un-make’ it, and she’ll realize that option will always remain open to her. Calmly reply to her threat with “If you do that, you leave me no choice but to charge you with Wanton Endangerment*, making a false police report, and sue you for defamation of character.”

Holly went on to object to Ken’s statement about “smashing a phone,” but like Manboobz she edited out the part that provided context so that she could write this:

In what goddamn scenario are you smashing a phone to avoid a false accusation? That’s so clearly not what this is about.

In context, Ken stated:

As unpalatable as it may be, imagine yourself accused of misdemeanor domestic battery, and the police have been summoned. The phone call alerting them serves as probable cause to enter any establishment. Note that in many areas, interference with such a phone call…disabling the phone, for instance…can constitute a felony in itself.

If someone called the police and claimed, while you stood there, that you assaulted or threatened them, a person’s normal response would likely be to either shout over the woman so the police could hear you or try to take the phone away. I am unsure whether doing the later counts as a felony, but it can certainly count as domestic battery if you attempt to or succeed in taking or disabling the phone. And for the record, Ken never stated “smash the phone.” That was something Holly added.

Holly also took issue with this statement:

Before leaving, inform your accuser that telling a police officer that you abused her when you didn’t warrants a criminal charge of making a false police report and will be grounds for a separate lawsuit of Slander.

To which Holly replied:

In other words, try and create the MRA fantasyland of court as a “someone’s going to jail today, who will it be?” situation in which failure to secure a conviction leads directly to punishment of the accuser. Or at least convince your victim (who may be quite unsure she’s been “really abused,” as is common in people even with bruises on their faces) that she’s in that fantasyland.

Where did the bruises come from? Ken never mentioned any bruises. What he actually stated was:

If she refuses to leave, it may be in your best interest to leave the area, even if it’s your own domicile, before the police arrive. Take whatever you can with you; your wallet, house and car keys at the very least. Before leaving, inform your accuser that telling a police officer that you abused her when you didn’t warrants a criminal charge of making a false police report and will be grounds for a separate lawsuit of Slander. If she or the officers in question make a written statement accusing you of battery, there will be an additional lawsuit for Libel. This warning in itself may be enough to convince her to withdraw the accusation, but if the police are en route they will probably follow through with an investigation anyway.

Perhaps in Holly’s world women never make false accusation. In the real world, plenty of women make false accusations. Many of them do not realize that they can be charged for making false accusations and they can be sued for defamation. Ken’s advice is pretty good in this regard. Telling someone who wants to falsely claim you abused her that she can be held civilly and criminally responsible may deter her from making those charges.

One place where Holly does get it kind of right is her response to Ken’s claim that warrants must be “fresh.” As Holly noted, warrants do not just go away. Warrants remain “fresh” unless the person is arrested, the prosecutor requests for it be revoked, or a judge revokes it. This is why people can be arrested years later on “outstanding” warrants.

However, Holly jumps right back to misrepresenting Ken’s comments. Ken stated:

There is a possibility that, by communicating calmly and reasonably with the officers, you can convince them that the dispute is not or should not be treated as a domestic situation. This possibility is unfortunately slight. Flattery and bribery generally don’t work and should not be attempted. Apologies, however, have been known to work. “I’m sorry you were put to all this trouble, I know you’re just doing your jobs, but I really would rather not answer any questions without a lawyer present.”

Holly then stated:

This is pretty much Abuser 101 here. Nothing about this advice requires the accusation to be false.

Again, the comment is out of context. Here is the parapgraph before it:

Once the police begin asking questions, it is in fact an interrogation. Keep your voice audible, but calm and low. Memorize the time, the location, and the names and badge numbers of the officers. Police are looking for any evidence that a crime is committed, so even sarcasm will work against you (“Oh yeah, just look at her, I beat her to a pulp, that’s why she doesn’t have a hair out of place.”).

Ken’s advice is simply that if you do not behave as a normal person would who is being falsely accused of a crime would, by say vigorously saying that she is lying, perhaps the police might actually listen to your side of the story. If that does not work, you should refrain from talking until you have a lawyer.

Holly is correct that nothing in the advice is specific to being falsely accused, but that does not change that it was given as part of general advice on how to deal with false accusations. Holly’s response is like someone saying that only a guilty person would ask for a lawyer. No, if the context of the discussion is avoiding being suckered into signing a false confession, then it is solid advice to tell someone not to talk to the police without a lawyer.

This is not to say that some of Ken’s advice is not ludicrous. Some of what he wrote is out there. However, only one of things that Holly took issue with was off. The rest was just her, like many feminists, playing the “false accusations never happen, and any man who claims it does is a rapist” game. That stupid, bigoted nonsense has the same impact as the “men are never raped” crap that comes from feminists: It keeps the victims of those crimes from coming forward and from being taken seriously. Of course, that may be the intent.


2 thoughts on “A Dose of Stupid v.60

  1. I do find it fascinating, that addressing sound legal advice of how to deal with risk factors is attacked.

    I have seen more or less the exact advice provided in training courses for employees who travel abroad as part of their work, with country specific advice included. I wonder if that would get attacked in the same way. Funny how it had to be done after a spate of false accusation cases occurred – and there wasn’t even any inkling of sex being proposed. The false accusation scenarios were being used for blackmail and it was even happening on a gang basis in hotels used by international business travellers.

    Cases from the US are known about.

    I also find it odd that I have seen more or less the same advice provided to women in addressing such things as sexual assault and domestic abuse.

    Ah well – it would seem that some want their cake and to eat it – and then want no-one else to have any cake at all!

  2. David Futrelle has less contextual awareness than a high school aged teenager. He could be given advice for how to avoid being run over by a car and all he’ll do is cry that you’re trying to kill him.

    Sadly, this kind of “missing the point”, selective reading and general attempts to find things to mock simply because they’re posted by the “other side” is typical these days in the blogsophere. Democrats do it, Republicans do it, MRA’s do it, Feminists do it, and even poor little ol’ David Futrelle. (Notably however, you avoid doing in for the most part Toysoldiers.)

    Polemics I call it. Disappointing I says. But what is a man to do? Follow the advice given and never tell anyone about it in public for fear of being mocked by ignorant individuals such as the Feminist blogosphere.

    Or mock the mockers. Maybe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s