Joseph, you are right that there is a pandemic of women lying about rape, and that innocent men are being convicted. The law seems to me to currently be a battleground, in that it has a heritage of procedural fairness (due process, presumption of innocence, right to confront one's accuser, etc.) that still remains, even in family court which is the most distorted to favour women.) But under the influence of the Matrisensus, we no longer have attitudinal fairness, so the people involved in the process, the judges, lawyers and clerical staff - and the police - have compassion for women without accountability, and accountability for men without compassion, so they want things to come out with women being innocent and men being guilty, so that's what they try to make happen, despite the procedural fairness that is built into the institutional structures.
A good point about the "attitude". Here in the UK the 2010 Equality Act effectively means all subsequent legislation is "gender neutral" in its wording. However just as you describe the operation of the law via the many agencies involved reflects the attitude you describe. So the outcomes are manifestly not "gender neutral". The power of this is due to the sheer "taken for granted" nature of this basic gendered attitude. Even those who identify unfairness in outcomes seem unable to imagine how it could be different. Both men and women. I sometimes wonder if deep down we simply can't/won't see it because we know if men aren't held accountable and responsible, then no one is and there really is chaos.
OK David, I owe you an apology. You obviously have a grasp of what's going on, I didn't get that from your initial article. I'm going edit my comment and post an apology to you in my critique. Perhaps because you are very sophisticated, I missed that you have a grasp of what's going on. Again, my apology for being hard on you
Joseph, you are right that there is a pandemic of women lying about rape, and that innocent men are being convicted. The law seems to me to currently be a battleground, in that it has a heritage of procedural fairness (due process, presumption of innocence, right to confront one's accuser, etc.) that still remains, even in family court which is the most distorted to favour women.) But under the influence of the Matrisensus, we no longer have attitudinal fairness, so the people involved in the process, the judges, lawyers and clerical staff - and the police - have compassion for women without accountability, and accountability for men without compassion, so they want things to come out with women being innocent and men being guilty, so that's what they try to make happen, despite the procedural fairness that is built into the institutional structures.
A good point about the "attitude". Here in the UK the 2010 Equality Act effectively means all subsequent legislation is "gender neutral" in its wording. However just as you describe the operation of the law via the many agencies involved reflects the attitude you describe. So the outcomes are manifestly not "gender neutral". The power of this is due to the sheer "taken for granted" nature of this basic gendered attitude. Even those who identify unfairness in outcomes seem unable to imagine how it could be different. Both men and women. I sometimes wonder if deep down we simply can't/won't see it because we know if men aren't held accountable and responsible, then no one is and there really is chaos.
OK David, I owe you an apology. You obviously have a grasp of what's going on, I didn't get that from your initial article. I'm going edit my comment and post an apology to you in my critique. Perhaps because you are very sophisticated, I missed that you have a grasp of what's going on. Again, my apology for being hard on you
Thank you, Joseph. I appreciate and admire your willingness to revise your position as a result of new evidence. Well done.