Radical Feminism: Back On Brand

The Russell Brand affair sees Radfems get back to lying basics.

“Public confidence in the criminal justice system is central to the rule of law. 

If the CJS does not inspire confidence there is a fundamental risk to how society views the effectiveness of justice.”

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, 2021 

---

Radical feminism has enjoyed a revival of late, switching targets from patriarchy, men, the family, and heterosexuality to supposedly defending “women's rights” against the bushfire of transgender ideology. This isn’t a fight we asked them to take on, they appointed themselves as fire wardens, which is a bit rich when it was them who started the bloody fire in the first place! (For how this occurred, read this.) 

This week with the Russell Brand hullabaloo, radfems went right back to brand basics: dismantling the patriarchy, or as I prefer to call it, western civilization. For feminists, patriarchy is the superstructure on which female oppression rests. Since they believe it is socially constructed, by their logic, they believe it can also be dismantled. What it should be replaced with is anyone's guess. (For more on the feminist conception of patriarchy, read this.)

The British justice system has always been a favorite institutional target; rape and violence against women are where they have succeeded most in undermining it. Not to its foundations, yet, but that is the goal. 

And why not? It is a well-established fact that the justice system lets victims of sexual violence down. Every other day we are reminded of this in the press, the media and Eastenders. The headlines say it all. The statistics are shocking! Well, we all know you shouldn’t always believe what you read in the papers. 

Except this isn’t just in the papers. It’s reported by the BBC. It is shouted across the dispatch box in the House of Commons. In The Guardian especially. “Rapists are getting away with it!”

“Don’t trust the patriarchal justice system!”

Same again in 2019.

And same again this week

Except the justice system isn’t failing us. 

In these articles, spanning 17 years, the statistics haven’t changed for Bindel. Rape prosecution is always at an “all-time low”; if she were a victim she would not go to the police. She even makes the following extraordinary claim (without reference of course):

“Consider the statistics: one in four women in England and Wales have been sexually assaulted or raped.”  

To put this in context, if this were correct, rape and sexual assault would surpass that which occurred in the Rape of Nanking or when the Russians ‘liberated’ Berlin. Were these numbers accurate, we would be living under martial law.  Why are we so credulous in the face of such obvious nonsense?  

Feminists come up with these ridiculous stats by sleight of hand, by routinely misrepresenting numbers of rape claims with rape convictions. Only rape is misrepresented in this way. Were all crimes to be calculated by the same methodology, “shockingly” less than 8% of all crimes would end in a conviction. The fact is, when compared to other crimes rape has a higher conviction rate at 62%, than manslaughter and GBH. 

It’s no secret that only a small amount of reported crimes end in a conviction. For instance, a 2004 report¹ listing crimes against people and property logged only 1 in 300 of those dockets ending in a custodial sentence.  Further, every claim does not represent a unique individual. Nor does every crime represent a unique criminal. The same criminals regularly commit numerous offences and the same people regularly file numerous complaints. If we compare 1 in 300 to Bindel’s shock rape stat of “1 in 100 rape claims”, rape conviction is doing pretty well. Even better, if we consider that in 2019, when she sensationally claimed in The Guardian that “rape is being decriminalised”, the rape conviction rate was 72%, 10% higher than it is now. 

I've written about this in far more detail here for an abridged version and here for an unabridged version. The level of duplicity coming from feminists on this issue is frankly beyond belief. Especially when they claim they are doing what they do to help women and victims of sexual assault at large. What they actually do is destroy victims' confidence in the justice system. Why? Because victims are the currency of feminism. Without helpless victims of “patriarchy,” there is no need for feminism. It’s a classic ideological circle jerk. Even worse, feminists know that these misrepresentations of rape convictions could have the effect of emboldening rapists themselves. This was just a hypothesis of mine based on deterrence theory until I found a Julie Bindel article which, though bathed in sarcasm, stated exactly the same thing.

Here are feminists, knowingly disseminating messages to the general public that they know are false, and, more shockingly, understand that these messages could cause more rape. That is truly unconscionable. Bindel later asks, “Why, they should ask themselves, is there such little faith in the justice system meant to act as a deterrent for would-be rapists, that speaking anonymously to a journalist is as far as these women dare go to feel heard?”

Perhaps, Julie, there is so little faith in the justice system because feminists keep lying about it. To these women I say, stop putting your faith in lying feminists when it is clear that you are nothing more than ideological cannon fodder to them.

Feminist Myths about Rape Myths

Bindel is clearly a believer in the rape culture pyramid which states that tolerance of behaviors such as rape jokes and locker room banter inextricably leads to misogyny, violence against women, and rape. 

There is ZERO evidence for this. It’s a myth. Just like there is zero evidence for one of Bindel’s most egregious claims in her latest op-ed for The Mail, 

Bindel’s “feels” about rape are nothing more than hyperbolic propaganda. As for the claim that a rape victim is more likely to end up in prison than her attacker, she pulled that one right out of her ideological arse. 

Bindel asserts to any person thinking about going to the police, that they have the smallest chance of being taken seriously only if they fit the profile of the “perfect rape victim”;

“I know that unless a woman fits the profile of the perfect rape victim — sober when it happened, conservatively dressed and assaulted by a stranger; ideally a masked marauder, who used additional violence, and isn’t going to stand in the dock looking handsome and plausible; and preferably with some witnesses or CCTV footage to back up her account — then reporting it is likely to lead to a situation that only compounds her feelings of helplessness and despair.”

These are what feminists call rape myths and they claim that not only are the police and justice system in thrall to them, but also juries and the population at large. 

“One of the big problems with rape cases is that juries are notoriously reluctant to convict if a victim knew her attacker, which is the case in around 80 per cent of attacks…if she was raped by her boyfriend, her boss, a neighbour or a bloke she went on a date with, it’s unlikely to ever go to trial.”

In fact, juries convict more than they acquit and feminists themselves are the main disseminators of “rape myths”.  Their data comes from mock trials or opinion polls with self-selected participants. The only empirical studies done with real jurors show the exact opposite of what feminists claim.*(reference below)

Let’s look at some supposedly pervasive feminist rape myths and compare them with the results of this study (which was in response to a feminist petition to parliament - for more info read this)

In relation to Bindel’s fantasy of the “perfect rape victim” needing to be conservatively dressed, and attacked by a stranger who uses violence, these were the results:²

• 83% of jurors disagreed that being provocatively dressed is an excuse for rape

• 63% of jurors disagreed that stranger rape was the normal case of rape

• 87% of jurors disagreed that violence must have occurred for it to be rape.

Further:

• 85% of jurors disagreed that if a victim doesn’t fight back it isn’t rape; 

• 87% disagreed that a woman going out alone at night is putting herself at risk of rape 

• 77% disagreed that previous sexual banter, verbal or digital, was a mitigating factor in rape 

• 73% disagreed that if rape isn’t reported immediately it’s difficult to believe 

• 77% agreed that rape can take place in a relationship and over a long time before it is reported

• 77% agreed that giving evidence in court is difficult for the plaintiff

• 80% agreed that there are good reasons why a person might not tell anyone 

  about the assault or report it to the police.

  Source: [2020] Criminal Law Review, Issue 11, 987-1011 1 The 21st Century Jury: Contempt, Bias and the Impact of Jury Service Cheryl Thomas Professor of Judicial Studies, UCL; Director, UCL Jury Project

This is unequivocally good news. Yet feminists and the mainstream media do not report these results. Why? Can we not expect an answer to such a simple question? Bindel, I ask you directly. 

So, feminism is back on brand fighting the eternal panchrestonal nemesis of “patriarchy” now that Elon has taken the heat out of much of online transgender activism by allowing free speech. Thanks to Musk, talking about pre-2016 biology is no longer hate speech. I’d say Elon Musk has done more for women’s rights in that one move than radical feminism has ever done in its entire existence. Regardless, rad fems, once again, self-appoint themselves as defenders of women and victims of sexual assault, meaning: they lie & scaremonger & misrepresent rape statistics in order to justify their existence as self-appointed defenders of women and victims of sexual assault...They knowingly disseminate messages to the general public that they know are false, and, more shockingly, understand that these messages could cause more rape. Bravo feminism! But really…you’re not helping. Just stop.

Undermining due process and the presumption of innocence; using sexual assault to bring down political enemies, (as may or may not be happening with Brand);  feminists using sexual assault to prop up their atrophying ideology…all undermine the credibility of real victims of sexual assault and rape.  All are unconscionable and none are advocates of women’s or victim’s rights.

NEXT ESSAY COMING SOON: The Return of the Lavender Menace.

---

1. Crime, persistent offenders and the justice gap. Richard Garside. 2004

2. [2020] Criminal Law Review, Issue 11, 987-1011 1 The 21st Century Jury: Contempt, Bias and the Impact of Jury Service. Cheryl Thomas Professor of Judicial Studies, UCL; Director, UCL Jury Project)