hedda wrote:
Barney wrote:
Hedda - do you know what's happening in the George Pell trial(s)?

All very quiet on this side of the world - including Rome.

Can't see anything coming out of Australia either!





nothing will happen until the second half of 2019 as each charge (the "worst' were thrown out as either improbable or impossible) is to be tried separately. The current charges are more "minor" (such as allegedly groping a boy in the 70's while tossing him in the air in a pool when he was hosting a group of boys at a swimming pool). The problem for Pell is a couple of his defence witnesses are in their 80s.

However..the Prosecution asked for a complete ban on reporting, allegedly after a court official was found to be trying to sell confidential court documents about the trial to Italian newspapers...and for other reasons not stated and this was granted so there will be no reporting at all even when the trials happen.


There's been some woeful and highly inaccurate reporting by "serious" newspapers & TV stations such as claiming Pell was being sacked from his Vatican position when he fact he had to retire because of age and had no choice.

It's said the Prosecution were so worried about inflammatory reports..I've seen really dodgy prejudicial claims on Twitter etc by well known journalists who should know better and were appalling in the way they were so sure he is guilty of something seemingly because they hate his extreme conservative outlook..that they wanted the delay for all the clamour to die down.

I have a funny feeling ..not wishing it..he may not live til then. He has a very dodgy ticker.


Thanks Hedda.

wjlmarsh,


FAKE NEWS I can not find any age noted re Mary and as to Rebecca and noted birth only in a list of children that had been born no ages or birth dates. So like most historical allegations stories abound but facts are in many cases unattainable. Thus opportunity for the FAKE NEWS media and so on.

The age is not noted Re: Mary which is why historians believe she was about 13 since at that time every girl was getting knocked up at 13. If she had been knocked up at a later age then it would have been remarked upon, as it would be somewhat unusual. Of course that brings us to the interesting historical fact that sex below 18 was historically NORMAL. As for Rebekah her age is deduced based on our knowledge of the age of Isaac at the time Rebekah was born and at the time he married her. Please read the link I gave as it explains it.

Also this paedophilia age thingy is a modern UK obsession as no doubt you are aware that older times, cultures and countries all need to be taken into account when ages of consent are considered.

Yes, the fact that it was normal historically - and still is normal by the way - is why the age of consent needs to go. It is a brutal consequence of lunatic matriarchal feminist oppression. Anyway, you are wrong that it is a "modern UK obsession" as it has actually become a global obsession. I often feel like I'm a Jew in a world in which Hitler conquered all the countries.

What is shown that most of the human race consider that we need protecting more so at a younger age including ourselves. We need guidance and rules but they should be set practically and administered sensibly (Not UK style)

"protecting more" is rather a vague use of language. I've noticed a key component of the SJW movement is lack of precision of language. In general they use bad sounding words to describe something a lot less bad. I hardly think anyone needs to be protected from a penis. And I don't think most of the human race do think we need protecting more, it's just certain special interest groups have a rather large megaphone.

The media we know is hungry for any paedophilia stories and in general "rightly so" as the fear of all parents is the worst cases that do happen. But what I have noticed "in current time" that real evil cases that do arise are far and few indeed. That is the only reliable evidence of what the extend of the problem is and not the historical cases as not way to tell fact from fiction.


Another example of the vague use of language. You deliberately attempt to conflate a man banging his 15 year old girlfriend with a person (who, by the way, could be a woman) who hacks a child into lots of little pieces of meat and dumps them in a ditch. The two are not comparable! Your desire to use the same word to describe both is at best idiotic and at worst pure malice.


Finally, some countries are working at mending broken souls and rehabilitating criminals and need looking at as I gather it makes for a better society all round and individuals should also take a good hard look at themselves and if honest will find they have the seeds of possible criminality or not been so good as the self deception believes of oneself. That is also part of the christian message to be aware of one's own weaknesses and not so quick to condemn others while at the same time standing up to wrong doing.

It is my view that the number of "criminals" in prison is more a reflection of that society than the individuals in there. It's not just about "rehabilitation" it's also about not locking people up for no good reason. And even if there was a "good reason" the person who committed the crime probably committed the crime for a good reason, it just made sense in their particular situation. If you orientate society so you don't lock people up for no good reason and you seek to remove the reasons why people would want to commit the remaining crimes then you'd probably have very few people in prison. But, as it is, half the prison population are locked up for victimless crimes and many of the others have reasons why it ended up that way.

holocaust21 wrote:
Barney,

Your interpretations are, at least, bizarre and unusual...

Look, whether God got out his metaphysical dick and banged Mary or whether she was "truly" a virgin who magically got impregnated by God is beside the point. The point is God made an innocent 13 year old girl pregnant. A girl for whom, "being pregnant at that age would likely result in all kinds of horrible risks" (according to so-called feminist "science").

Another more explicit reference to paedophilia in the bible is discussed here: discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/14/bible-...e-times-paedophilia/

Isaac married Rebecca when she was just THREE YEARS OLD and they BANGED like anything!

So I'm afraid your views are invalidated and my pro-paedophilia views are correct: Paedophilia is a recent term that has arisen as a consequence of feminist man-hating which seeks to pathologise normal male sexuality. All major religions are supportive of paedophilia in their texts: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

Recall JK's retort (and he was correct) that he was not a pedophile (mind you it came from MWT which isn't saying much these days) because a real pedophile is only interested in pre-pubescent children and it's that innocence they so love (for whatever reason). Real pedos go off children as soon as they hit puberty.

In Days of Yore..pre-Victoria ( God Bless The Queen) when the sad case of Oscar Wilde was used as a cover to usher in a most boring era ( I bet London was real fun before that) 13 year olds were at it because ( they were randy) & most people didn't live past 50 and young lads were exhorted to get a useful wife asap (preferably one with a cow or two).

And then along came the campaigning newspaper editor W.T.Stead who really invented The News of The World type tabloid and Good Stories and all that followed with exciting tales about Child Prostitution (admittedly awful) and Britain got it's first taste of Naughty Vicar stories for the next 100 years. (
For his sins Stead went down on The Titanic (even though a clairvoyant warned him not to travel on the ship)

Did they even have a word lie Pedo then?... and in the last 30 years Fleet Street has successfully purloined the word to mean just about anything that involves abuse on anyone under age 87.

As for The Bible..Perhaps Barney has read the writings of the late Aussie academic Barbara Elizabeth Thiering who studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and proclaimed everyone has got it wrong ie : "Virgin" just meant at the time an unmarried girl (probably 13 years old) so when Joseph married her it was nothing unusual.

Other matters she reckons : Walking On Water was nothing unusual and Rabbis routinely did so by building a small platform beneath the water and sort of blessed the fisherman by "walking on water" but Jesus, not an ordained Rabbi outraged everyone by walking on the platform and doing the same.

The truth is usually much more mundane and easily explained.

(Mind you how he Rose The Dead is beyond me but for all we know Lazarus was just some old drunk who had passed out and his folks thought he had snuffed it or in a coma and with Great Timing..as so often happens in real life..Jesus was there at the Right Time and the rest is history)

holocaust21 wrote:
wjlmarsh,


FAKE NEWS I can not find any age noted re Mary and as to Rebecca and noted birth only in a list of children that had been born no ages or birth dates. So like most historical allegations stories abound but facts are in many cases unattainable. Thus opportunity for the FAKE NEWS media and so on.

The age is not noted Re: Mary which is why historians believe she was about 13 since at that time every girl was getting knocked up at 13. If she had been knocked up at a later age then it would have been remarked upon, as it would be somewhat unusual. Of course that brings us to the interesting historical fact that sex below 18 was historically NORMAL. As for Rebekah her age is deduced based on our knowledge of the age of Isaac at the time Rebekah was born and at the time he married her. Please read the link I gave as it explains it.

Also this paedophilia age thingy is a modern UK obsession as no doubt you are aware that older times, cultures and countries all need to be taken into account when ages of consent are considered.

Yes, the fact that it was normal historically - and still is normal by the way - is why the age of consent needs to go. It is a brutal consequence of lunatic matriarchal feminist oppression. Anyway, you are wrong that it is a "modern UK obsession" as it has actually become a global obsession. I often feel like I'm a Jew in a world in which Hitler conquered all the countries.

What is shown that most of the human race consider that we need protecting more so at a younger age including ourselves. We need guidance and rules but they should be set practically and administered sensibly (Not UK style)

"protecting more" is rather a vague use of language. I've noticed a key component of the SJW movement is lack of precision of language. In general they use bad sounding words to describe something a lot less bad. I hardly think anyone needs to be protected from a penis. And I don't think most of the human race do think we need protecting more, it's just certain special interest groups have a rather large megaphone.

The media we know is hungry for any paedophilia stories and in general "rightly so" as the fear of all parents is the worst cases that do happen. But what I have noticed "in current time" that real evil cases that do arise are far and few indeed. That is the only reliable evidence of what the extend of the problem is and not the historical cases as not way to tell fact from fiction.


Another example of the vague use of language. You deliberately attempt to conflate a man banging his 15 year old girlfriend with a person (who, by the way, could be a woman) who hacks a child into lots of little pieces of meat and dumps them in a ditch. The two are not comparable! Your desire to use the same word to describe both is at best idiotic and at worst pure malice.


Finally, some countries are working at mending broken souls and rehabilitating criminals and need looking at as I gather it makes for a better society all round and individuals should also take a good hard look at themselves and if honest will find they have the seeds of possible criminality or not been so good as the self deception believes of oneself. That is also part of the christian message to be aware of one's own weaknesses and not so quick to condemn others while at the same time standing up to wrong doing.

It is my view that the number of "criminals" in prison is more a reflection of that society than the individuals in there. It's not just about "rehabilitation" it's also about not locking people up for no good reason. And even if there was a "good reason" the person who committed the crime probably committed the crime for a good reason, it just made sense in their particular situation. If you orientate society so you don't lock people up for no good reason and you seek to remove the reasons why people would want to commit the remaining crimes then you'd probably have very few people in prison. But, as it is, half the prison population are locked up for victimless crimes and many of the others have reasons why it ended up that way.

Agreed and it is tragic. Serious crimes and dangerous people get overlooked while many get locked up pointlessly. You ate sadly right. Saw some BBC media on empty army homes and some other similar items. The waste of money, time and opportunities missed is astounding. Austerity and yet so wasteful - I can only think the UK education system must be handing out degrees for successful stupidity, just joking what else can I do but have a laugh or maybe cry. I don't really know what it is, at a lost, just on a daily basis can not believe what I hear and see. So much positive action could be done. My real hope is before my number comes along I can get to a position where I can help myself, then my family and finally others.

holocaust21 wrote:
wjlmarsh,


FAKE NEWS I can not find any age noted re Mary and as to Rebecca and noted birth only in a list of children that had been born no ages or birth dates. So like most historical allegations stories abound but facts are in many cases unattainable. Thus opportunity for the FAKE NEWS media and so on.

The age is not noted Re: Mary which is why historians believe she was about 13 since at that time every girl was getting knocked up at 13. If she had been knocked up at a later age then it would have been remarked upon, as it would be somewhat unusual. Of course that brings us to the interesting historical fact that sex below 18 was historically NORMAL. As for Rebekah her age is deduced based on our knowledge of the age of Isaac at the time Rebekah was born and at the time he married her. Please read the link I gave as it explains it.

Also this paedophilia age thingy is a modern UK obsession as no doubt you are aware that older times, cultures and countries all need to be taken into account when ages of consent are considered.

Yes, the fact that it was normal historically - and still is normal by the way - is why the age of consent needs to go. It is a brutal consequence of lunatic matriarchal feminist oppression. Anyway, you are wrong that it is a "modern UK obsession" as it has actually become a global obsession. I often feel like I'm a Jew in a world in which Hitler conquered all the countries.

What is shown that most of the human race consider that we need protecting more so at a younger age including ourselves. We need guidance and rules but they should be set practically and administered sensibly (Not UK style)

"protecting more" is rather a vague use of language. I've noticed a key component of the SJW movement is lack of precision of language. In general they use bad sounding words to describe something a lot less bad. I hardly think anyone needs to be protected from a penis. And I don't think most of the human race do think we need protecting more, it's just certain special interest groups have a rather large megaphone.

The media we know is hungry for any paedophilia stories and in general "rightly so" as the fear of all parents is the worst cases that do happen. But what I have noticed "in current time" that real evil cases that do arise are far and few indeed. That is the only reliable evidence of what the extend of the problem is and not the historical cases as not way to tell fact from fiction.


Another example of the vague use of language. You deliberately attempt to conflate a man banging his 15 year old girlfriend with a person (who, by the way, could be a woman) who hacks a child into lots of little pieces of meat and dumps them in a ditch. The two are not comparable! Your desire to use the same word to describe both is at best idiotic and at worst pure malice.


Finally, some countries are working at mending broken souls and rehabilitating criminals and need looking at as I gather it makes for a better society all round and individuals should also take a good hard look at themselves and if honest will find they have the seeds of possible criminality or not been so good as the self deception believes of oneself. That is also part of the christian message to be aware of one's own weaknesses and not so quick to condemn others while at the same time standing up to wrong doing.

It is my view that the number of "criminals" in prison is more a reflection of that society than the individuals in there. It's not just about "rehabilitation" it's also about not locking people up for no good reason. And even if there was a "good reason" the person who committed the crime probably committed the crime for a good reason, it just made sense in their particular situation. If you orientate society so you don't lock people up for no good reason and you seek to remove the reasons why people would want to commit the remaining crimes then you'd probably have very few people in prison. But, as it is, half the prison population are locked up for victimless crimes and many of the others have reasons why it ended up that way.

I did read the article and looked up the Bible and this is what I found as stated in my previous comments - no age or date of birth just Rebekah included in a general listing. And the article made a quote but no reference for the crucial assessment of Rebekah's age. This is how the prosecution in historical cases present things. They use anything factual (when it falls into their lap that is as the "just believe" means no need to investigate) Age 3 and sex does not make for believable story telling, nor the later narrative in the story. Thus I tried to follow the article writier's logic and so far found it misleading.

Genesis 22 "....And Abraham lived at   Beersheba. 20Now after these things it was told to Abraham, “Behold,  z Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21 a Uz his firstborn,  b Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram, 22 Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel.” 23( c Bethuel fathered Rebekah.) These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother.
It's the essential part of the argument that lacks any direct reference and at this stage is just made up.

wjlmarsh wrote:
holocaust21 wrote:
wjlmarsh,


FAKE NEWS I can not find any age noted re Mary and as to Rebecca and noted birth only in a list of children that had been born no ages or birth dates. So like most historical allegations stories abound but facts are in many cases unattainable. Thus opportunity for the FAKE NEWS media and so on.

The age is not noted Re: Mary which is why historians believe she was about 13 since at that time every girl was getting knocked up at 13. If she had been knocked up at a later age then it would have been remarked upon, as it would be somewhat unusual. Of course that brings us to the interesting historical fact that sex below 18 was historically NORMAL. As for Rebekah her age is deduced based on our knowledge of the age of Isaac at the time Rebekah was born and at the time he married her. Please read the link I gave as it explains it.

Also this paedophilia age thingy is a modern UK obsession as no doubt you are aware that older times, cultures and countries all need to be taken into account when ages of consent are considered.

Yes, the fact that it was normal historically - and still is normal by the way - is why the age of consent needs to go. It is a brutal consequence of lunatic matriarchal feminist oppression. Anyway, you are wrong that it is a "modern UK obsession" as it has actually become a global obsession. I often feel like I'm a Jew in a world in which Hitler conquered all the countries.

What is shown that most of the human race consider that we need protecting more so at a younger age including ourselves. We need guidance and rules but they should be set practically and administered sensibly (Not UK style)

"protecting more" is rather a vague use of language. I've noticed a key component of the SJW movement is lack of precision of language. In general they use bad sounding words to describe something a lot less bad. I hardly think anyone needs to be protected from a penis. And I don't think most of the human race do think we need protecting more, it's just certain special interest groups have a rather large megaphone.

The media we know is hungry for any paedophilia stories and in general "rightly so" as the fear of all parents is the worst cases that do happen. But what I have noticed "in current time" that real evil cases that do arise are far and few indeed. That is the only reliable evidence of what the extend of the problem is and not the historical cases as not way to tell fact from fiction.


Another example of the vague use of language. You deliberately attempt to conflate a man banging his 15 year old girlfriend with a person (who, by the way, could be a woman) who hacks a child into lots of little pieces of meat and dumps them in a ditch. The two are not comparable! Your desire to use the same word to describe both is at best idiotic and at worst pure malice.


Finally, some countries are working at mending broken souls and rehabilitating criminals and need looking at as I gather it makes for a better society all round and individuals should also take a good hard look at themselves and if honest will find they have the seeds of possible criminality or not been so good as the self deception believes of oneself. That is also part of the christian message to be aware of one's own weaknesses and not so quick to condemn others while at the same time standing up to wrong doing.

It is my view that the number of "criminals" in prison is more a reflection of that society than the individuals in there. It's not just about "rehabilitation" it's also about not locking people up for no good reason. And even if there was a "good reason" the person who committed the crime probably committed the crime for a good reason, it just made sense in their particular situation. If you orientate society so you don't lock people up for no good reason and you seek to remove the reasons why people would want to commit the remaining crimes then you'd probably have very few people in prison. But, as it is, half the prison population are locked up for victimless crimes and many of the others have reasons why it ended up that way.

I did read the article and looked up the Bible and this is what I found as stated in my previous comments - no age or date of birth just Rebekah included in a general listing. And the article made a quote but no reference for the crucial assessment of Rebekah's age. This is how the prosecution in historical cases present things. They use anything factual (when it falls into their lap that is as the "just believe" means no need to investigate) Age 3 and sex does not make for believable story telling, nor the later narrative in the story. Thus I tried to follow the article writier's logic and so far found it misleading.

Genesis 22 "....And Abraham lived at   Beersheba. 20Now after these things it was told to Abraham, “Behold,  z Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21 a Uz his firstborn,  b Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram, 22 Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel.” 23( c Bethuel fathered Rebekah.) These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother.
It's the essential part of the argument that lacks any direct reference and at this stage is just made up.


Or they had a different way of measuring ages, seen as there are references to people living for a hundred and fifty years, which is unlikely.

Barney wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
You are quite entitled to regard some crimes as beyond the pale Barney; as are we to consider lack of forgiveness to be beyond the pale. Ruining people's lives is indeed a terrible crime, whatever the reasons may be - although some (like condemning people to eternal damnation) may not be as obvious a crime as others. Simplicity Rools OK.

I did type that forgiveness may be possible - after all, Jesus Christ gave it from his cross. But, in my opinion, it comes well behind/after other necessary occurrences.

Such as repentance, punishment, retribution, apologies etc. The bible, I think, says something similar - and that no man is irredeemable.

However, some may disagree in the cases of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Agusto Pinochet - who all murdered millions.


Were their mass atrocities not outside the pale?

Is is even possible to forgive someone who isn't sorry for - and doesn't remotely regret - the abhorrent crime(s) they committed?





I should think that type of person needs forgiveness and understanding even more, though it isn't always easy.

holocaust21 wrote:
Barney please stop abusing the English language like a typical feminist. Catch phrases like "sexual abuse of children" is such an unsophisticated, deliberately inaccurate use of language. If you are referring to priests having sexual relationships with children below the arbitrary age of 18 then say that. And when you do say that, then my response is: That's a crime beyond the pale!? Are you kidding me? Not only that, but you start comparing men who fuck young people with Hitler. Dude, seriously? WHAT THE FUCK (!!!)

Anyway, my personal suspicion is that the whole "paedophile catholic priest" thing is protestants hating on catholics, who are also then joined by secular feminists who always love to lock up some blokes for rape and get the chance to bash religion while they're at it. What more could you want!? Unfortunately, the catholic church are too cucked to realise what is happening, so they are just falling on their own sword. Instead, they should be pointing out that in the Bible God banged a 13 year old girl (Virgin Mary) and made her pregnant (or at least that's the most famous instance of paedophilia in the Bible). I believe there are more, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

I really dont see what feminists have to do with abuse in the church.
Nearly everyone is horrified by someone harming a young child, or abusing a position of trust with someone older.

I really dont see what feminists have to do with abuse in the church. Nearly everyone is horrified by someone harming a young child, or abusing a position of trust with someone older.

Feminists have EVERYTHING to do with it because it involves:

1. Making an allegation and automatically having it believed.
2. Deliberately imprecise language calling it "rape" or "abuse" when it's actually underage sex for example. Much like what you were trying to do in that very sentence of yours.

holocaust21 wrote:
I really dont see what feminists have to do with abuse in the church. Nearly everyone is horrified by someone harming a young child, or abusing a position of trust with someone older.

Feminists have EVERYTHING to do with it because it involves:

1. Making an allegation and automatically having it believed.
2. Deliberately imprecise language calling it "rape" or "abuse" when it's actually underage sex for example. Much like what you were trying to do in that very sentence of yours.

honey!oh sugar sugar has raised a fair point and I see that feminists in general receive a lot of the blame for false and exaggerated accusations (In recent times quite a number of vocal, acknowledged feminist, some in the Labour party are definitely flouting the very principles of equality and fairness they supposedly advocate).

So to refresh my understanding of the general idea of the feminist movement I read some of the Wiki article.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

But clearly the individuals advocating the "just believe and condemn" are male, female, opportunists, fantasists, politicians, media people like actors and actresses, judges, CPS, fraudsters the list just goes on. Yet the feminism movement is all about equality and fairness so any who promote otherwise have moved from the core movement and are only feminists in name. The police who do not investigate by taking all reasonable steps are acting outside what is their duty. The CPS who "just believe" who may even take the "credible sounding part" of their rules but at the same time ignore the instructions on checking for "reliable evidence" and to "be objective" have moved away from their duty and obligations and start acting criminally themselves. So groups and churches all are open to move away from what they are expected to be. So I suggest women who exaggerate, lie. just believe or even when truthful but no evidence available are speaking for themselves and certainly not the core feminist movement of equality and fairness.

So I see many from all areas acting in way that none would want to happen to themselves.

The Wiki article on age of consent is quite enlightening as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Mending souls, age of consent, human rights, justice and juries (how to achieve justice, fairness - a jury / no jury a mixture other things) I now see, are not really understood. Objectives/ procedures development is in the infancy stage still. We have laws but I see little to no guidance to what the objectives are. Or acknowledgment that people lie, are dishonest and governed by emotions among other important things.

I see a real need for age of consent, open discussion, education about sex and relationships. All huge topics.

holocaust21 wrote:
I really dont see what feminists have to do with abuse in the church. Nearly everyone is horrified by someone harming a young child, or abusing a position of trust with someone older.

Feminists have EVERYTHING to do with it because it involves:

1. Making an allegation and automatically having it believed.
2. Deliberately imprecise language calling it "rape" or "abuse" when it's actually underage sex for example. Much like what you were trying to do in that very sentence of yours.

My language is not imprecise,thank you! .
I said exactly what I meant to say.


Have you not noticed the thousands of false allegations from MEN?
They are believed too,and it is most often men who doing the believing.

Well honey if you meant exactly what you meant to say then I very much doubt there are many (or any) priests who have seriously abused anyone. Most of it will be minor stuff or age of consent related and so not harm or abuse. Or, I suspect in many cases, just lies.

wjlmarsh you claim feminism is about "equality" but it is not. The only people who think feminism is about equality are 1) people suffering from autism 2) feminists and 3) people who haven't thought about it and/or don't care and so just accept the generally held narrative.

The reason I say people suffering from autism think it's about equality is because they have a tendency to go "ooh look a dictionary says its equality, so that's the rule and thus it is about equality" but what they don't realise is that there's a difference between rules that are stated and rules in practice. In practice feminism is about female supremacy. The psychology of feminists is that "women are victims of the patriarchy" that is literally what they all believe. Ask any feminist and she'll tell you that women have been victimised throughout history at the hands of men. Yet they will then go on to tell you that "feminism is an equality movement". The thing is any feminists definition of equality comes from a certain perspective i.e. that women are victims and men are perpetrators. As a consequence it is conceivable that a feminist might not even be lying when she says "feminism is an equality movement" yet at the same time she is actually seeking female supremacy. Why is she seeking female supremacy? Because she has the factually incorrect view that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Historically men have always been sent off to die in war, some 95% of work place deaths are men, 95% of the homeless are men, men commit suicide at 3-4x the rate of women, 95% of the prison population is men, 30-40% of domestic violence is against men (and this could be an underestimate), men die earlier than women, men work longer hours than women, MGM is tolerated but FGM is heavily criminalised. The list goes on and on. The consequence of someone who believes that women suffer more than men when it is actually the other way around is that in practice they end up engaging in female supremacy.

What I do agree with both wjlmarsh & honey on though is that it is not all women who make up rape allegations. Some men do make up allegations, and some men support and create laws that get other men locked up for rape. It's hard to say with any certainty as to the extent it is "feminists" but it's hard not to put a large part of the blame on that collectivist movement. And even for those who might sit outside of what you would call a "feminist" they'll often still be seen making feminist-style arguments so regardless it would seem prudent to smash the feminist identity politics movement so at least then people will be forced to actual think and make rational individual arguments rather than feed off the hive mind with tautological garbage like "she can't consent because she can't consent" or ageism like "he was much older and more powerful than little me" etc etc.