The publication date is taken from the Amazon UK website. It is appropriate because you’d have to be an April fool or a common or garden one to swallow all this.
The author is an attorney, clearly a feminist, and has written on related subjects from the usual feminist victim narrative perspective.
Her book is not total rubbish, she isn’t too fond of the odious Catharine Mackinnon, for example, but she buys into so much feminist dogma it is difficult to take her seriously. Incredibly, she defends the ludicrous Mary Koss. Click here to see just how worthless is the Koss so-called study.
We hear the words “rape denial”, an utterly dishonest phrase because no man in his right mind denies the existence of rape, what rational people of both sexes do is examine the statistics, and dissent from feminist propaganda.
On pages 29-30 she attacks Angry Harry, whom she calls an extreme activist. Check out his rape statistics video on the Timeline at September 26, 2008 and ask yourself honestly if he isn’t a lot more convincing than Koss.
Sadly, she is right when she says Koss has been influential, but so has Ted Bundy: influence comes in many forms, including the pernicious. Yes, Koss did fudge her data; she didn’t actually ask women if they had been raped for that specific purpose. And listen to her dishonest rhetoric:
Question 8: “Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?”
Let’s rephrase that. Did you have sex with this guy after he bought you a drink or drinks? Did you ask him to buy you a drink? Did he buy other people drinks? Did you buy him a drink? Did he suggest having sex later in the evening and you agreed even though you weren’t entirely in the mood, or because you wanted to see him again and was afraid he would dump you if you said no?
Koss is utterly dishonest, and Raphael must surely know this. No attorney can be that ignorant.
She discusses the Kanin study, which of course doesn’t go down very well at all. She gives a lot of attention to the Duke lacrosse case, obviously hoping to give the impression this is one of very few campus false rape cases. The reality is that the majority of campus rape cases, probably the vast majority, are false, certainly in the United States, and this for a number of reasons, one being that nowadays young women appear to be unable to distinguish consent from desire.
She cites false rape statistics from Canada and the UK, attempting to minimise them, but the 8% top figure she gives is deceptive, because as will be clear from this database, a lot of cases don’t actually find their way into the crime statistics, see in particular Freedom Of Information requests which amplify this.
On page 153, she mentions the case of an American woman working in Baghdad who was gang-raped by her co-workers. What she doesn’t mention is the name of that woman: serial false rape accuser Jamie Leigh Jones.
One valid point she does make is that men are also acquitted of rape when they shouldn’t have been, even allowing for feminist bias. This is what is known as due process, and is something we all have to live with. It isn’t nice to be the victim of a crime or even a witness, to turn up at court and be branded a liar, then have the jury or the bench reject your evidence. But the alternative is what? As Raphael surely know, it is far, far worse.
Finally, here are a few pages from this overtly dishonest, hysterical book.
Back To False Rape Timeline