People believe men who come out years later about rape but don't believe women.

So a while ago there was a story about catholic priests raping children and a few of those children came out decades later to tell people they were raped. I don’t think I saw a single right winged article about how it was all a fabrication to sully the reputation of religious leaders/members. Now there are countless examples of women coming out in the same fashion claiming they were raped too. But, then typically right winged people go out and state they don’t believe them. Asking, why didn’t she say something when it happen, why all of a sudden would she accuse someone of rape. She just wants fame, she just wants money, she just wants notoriety. None of these questions or statements are directed towards males victims that come out years later. It is automatically assumed that the women are lying and the men are telling the truth.

Most notably with the recent police state anti-4th amendment judge being nominated, a women came out and accused him of raping her when she was 15 while intoxicated. It immediately became a bumper sticker politics situation where people are throwing out accusations of being a liar and having malicious intentions to ruin his career because she’s a libtard feminist leftist. I’m not sure if this is more of a bias towards women or if it’s just tribalism. If a women accused Obama of raping her I’m pretty sure the right would be all for her, and they would believe her. So it could be either probably a little of both I’d imagine. Just wondering what yalls opinion would be on this, I never thought about it much but it seems like the modern lack of belief for female rape victims is a symptom of a rape culture.

Is it because even the most die-hard rape apologist can’t bring themselves to say “The child was wearing sexy religious clothes, so he deserved it”?

I’m not disputing the possible validity of you premise about sexist attitudes, but surely abuse by Catholic priests is not something we can hold up as a shining example of how rape accusations should be taken seriously. For centuries victims were ignored and the crimes were covered up. In the context of our horror at the fairly recent exposure of the extent of the problem and the extent of the cover-up, it not surprising that there’s now a strong inclination to give accusers of priests the benefit of any doubt. There’s also the fact that they were children when abused. So it’s hard to untangle to what extent the fact that most victims are male is a factor.

If some right wing icon were accused of rape by a man, would it be more likely to be believed by people with the attitudes you describe? I’m not sure.

Well, Bill Donohue. But shitty takes on stories related to the Catholic Church is his whole deal, so that’s not really surprising.

I don’t think the victims being believed (or not believed) is so much because of their gender, as it is their age at the time the abuse (allegedly) happened. The boys were much more likely to be pre-teens or even very young children, whereas the female victims were often teenagers or older.

The women addressed in this thread were more likely to be in those locations with those people voluntarily, whereas the children, boys or girls, were not.

I may be missing something but there are certainly plenty of people who believe the women who have accused Brett Kavanaugh and Roy Moore. Certainly in my circle of acquaintances Kavanaugh isn’t someone who might have attempted to sexually assault Christine Ford he is someone who most definitely attempted to sexually assault her.

I certainly don’t believe Ford is lying and I find the women who accused Moore of sexual misconduct to be credible. However, I have a difficult time reconciling that with the general idea that I shouldn’t treat someone as having committed a crime based on accusation alone.

Because misogyny. Duh.

Under the assumption that your circle of acquaintances would not believe something to be definitely true in the absence of any evidence - what is the evidence they rely on here?

If the answer is “None”, your statement says something significant about your circle of acquaintances, and nothing at all about Kavanaugh.

It’s numbers. I think that it there is very little doubt that some of the priest accusations are false. Shoot, maybe even many are false. The thing is though that even if you go crazy and assume that a large majority are false, there are just so many that you can still clearly see an institutional problem. So, while the statement that Father Blah molested little Timmy Butterfield may be false, it seems incredibly improbable to the point of ludicrousness not to say that many children were molested by priests. There’s really no need to litigate every single case because the sheer number of them proves (OK, not PROVES, but the probability of it not being so is incredibly and ridiculously low) the point that there’s an issue with the Church, which is the conclusion that most people are trying to prove.

There’s also the reality that most of these cases are from the 70s and 80s and Father Blah is now dead, so there is no real reason to mount a spirited defense. On the rare occasions when the accusations actually make it to trial, they tend to be fought with much more vigor.

Could anti-Catholic bias be an issue? I honestly do not know

To the OP. Seriously? You don’t know about the decades of denials, threats, insults, and institutional suppression of abuse before the Priest abuse scandal broke in the late 1990’s and early 2000?

Prof Ford has her word and that’s about it. Many of the priests had multiple contemporaneous witnesses, medical records, police interviews and still got away with it.
Without going into merits of each claim, which has more prima facie evidence?
This is like the whole claim some people made after the US Open, that men never get punished.

I agree with the other posts. If you spend any amount of time hanging out on ex-Christian boards or reviewing accounts of Catholic rapists / pedophiles, there it is absolutely alarming how many parents and church authorities knew about the abuse but did nothing, either because they didn’t believe the accusation or they simply couldn’t bring themselves to accuse a priest of being a rapist.

Most sex assault charges are true. Some are false. There is no way to know which a particular charge is without examining the evidence. There is no reason to believe that all the people who claim to be molested by priests are telling the truth. Just as there is no reason to believe all women who claim to be sexually assaulted. Each case is individual and the credibility of one accusation has no impact on the credibility of a different case.
The Kavanaugh case had no evidence beyond a 36 year old memory and all four people who the accuser named as being there had no memory of the event.
In the Roy Moore case, there were multiple people who described similar events and there was documentation in the form of a signed yearbook. Thus those accusations are much more credible.

Just speculating here but could it have to do with number of boys who come forward? As in it is not usually one boy but several (or more) who all tell a similar story and/or if the priest was moved to a new parish, and boys there also tell a similar story, it lends a lot of credence to the accusations.

Also, sometimes there is evidence of the cover-up by church officials.

I think there are a few factors here that account for the difference:

  1. There is even more stigma for male victims than female victims, and so society thinks that if a man comes out as a victim, it took real courage and gumption for him to do so, and therefore he really must not be faking it,


  1. These boys in the Catholic church were being abused by men. Not only is the age difference an issue, but the perpetrators were also men. If a grown-adult man were to announce that he had been raped by a grown-adult woman, he’d probably be laughed at even today.

  2. The fact that the Catholic abuse was of a homosexual nature also makes it more believable in the eyes of people who think homosexuals are more likely to abuse than heterosexuals.

(Post of the day)

Well, not exactly.

It is true that there were no other direct witnesses other than (according to Ford) Kavanaugh and Judge, both of whom allegedly participated in the attack, and that no one specifically remembers the party after thirty five years. It is also true that sexual predators tend to try to isolate their victims in a way that there are no witnesses because that is what they do, and people don’t tend to have specific memories of a house party that occurred several decades ago unless they experienced some kind of remarkable event. However, Ford had nothing to gain (and much to lose) both personally and professionally in making such an accusation, and the fact that she spoke of the attack to a therapist and other friends several years prior to Kavanaugh’s nomination argues that something certainly happened that night. That there are two other accusers of Kavanaugh’s sexual misbehavior is not evidence of this specific event, but it does indicate a pattern of behavior that is, quite frankly, consistent with what one expects of a drunken privileged frat bro, and that Ford did not report the attempted rape is also consistent with the fact that in the 'Eighties it would almost certainly have been dismissed as “boys being boys”.

At any rate, Kavanaugh demonstrated plenty of other reasons why he should not have been confirmed to a lifetime appointment as a Supreme Court justice which were utterly ignored by Senate Republicans, which indicates that they really didn’t care whether Ford’s story sounded true or not. There were plenty of actual people who believe or at least accept that there is significant credibility in the claims made by Ford versus Kavanaugh’s needlessly aggressive denials and hyperbolic accusations of conspiracy against him, so the fact that fifty-one people made a partisan decision to support their political party rather than listen to a credible assault victim should not be taken as indictment of society as a whole, although there are obviously still major problems in dealing reasonably with accusations of sexual assault.


I’ve seen lack of belief in some men’s stories of being abused by priests (as a supposed ploy to get money), notably by Church supporters.

The idea that women’s claims of abuse years later are uniformly denied doesn’t seem to hold water either.

There’s a bit more caution now (or was up until the Kavanaugh mess) about accepting stories that could turn out to be false, as in the case of the Duke lacrosse players (I believed that allegation at the time) or the discredited UVA gang rape story.

I think you missed my point entirely as it wasn’t about Kavanaugh at all. It was my anecdotal evidence that the OP isn’t exactly correct as many people do believe women who step forward with accusations of assault.

This is the thirtieth time I’ve seen this argument online and I don’t understand it at all.

It took generations for people to believe the victims of priest rapes. Literally generations. People were born, raped as children by Catholic priests, grew up, grew old, and died decades before anyone was willing to believe what was happening. The extent of the mass rape problem in the Catholic church only began to be noticed in the 1980s, if really then, and denial remained the most common response fore years afterwards.

The idea that men were just immediately credited with telling the truth about being raped by clergy is, if I may be totally honest, ignorant, and we are here to fight ignorance, not promulgate it.