But then come studies and articles in the USA like this one. The important and shocking points are as follows:
Over 5 completely different surveys and reports show that the percentage of false rape accusations range from 25% to 60%. In most cases a false accusation means that the 'victim' actually recanted or that evidence proved contrary to claims, not that the 'rapists' were merely released.
To those who think women recant due to shame, one of the surveys includes the US Air Force who got 60% of women to recant due to lie detector tests, and many women freely admit it was due to spite or revenge. It's also perfectly logical to assume that even if some recant falsely, others are simply not recanting their false accusations.
The system has responded to feminists that want to shield victims who are ashamed to come forward by disallowing sensitive personal evidence (among other things). This is an admirably sensitive law but what do some women do with it? They use it to protect themselves and get away with repeatedly taking revenge on men who angered them. Previous records of false rape accusations and even cases of sexual abuse by the 'victim' are inadmissible in court, thus turning the defense impotent and helpless against female wrath.
All this makes me think twice about crime statistics that show the USA has over 200% rape cases of their nearest competitor (England).
Are you expecting me to say that rape is indeed a horrible crime and that there are too many real rape cases and that these statistics shouldn't distract us from these facts? Well I won't. When women stop lying and ruining men's lives and taking advantage of a system that is trying to protect them from rape, then I'll show more respect.
Until then, women can keep crying wolf until they're blue in the face and the best we can do now is approach the victims with a huge grain of salt before offering help. Now men have themselves to protect against angry women who feel guilty and embarrassed for agreeing to sex and who can't face their own choices. Instead of working for peace, women are merely escalating the war.
Yes, poor women are being raped all the time. But this shows that if you give a woman power, she proves just as amoral and nasty as men, if not worse.
Some say gun control would hurt women the most and deny them the one weapon that would give them a fighting chance. But it's not the guns, it's the society and education. Michael Moore is wrong by attacking K-Mart for selling bullets - he's terrorizing businesses and he won't get real results with gun control*. In my opinion, the cause is the American over-emphasis on selfish personal rights and a basic lack of respect for other people's lives. I say give US women guns and encourage them to shoot the men they hate instead of abusing their own protectors. At least then maybe we can have them arrested for murder... if we're lucky.
* In Bowling for Columbine, Moore blames it all on lack of gun control or a general history of fear in America. He himself showed that lack of gun control isn't the real issue however. My take on Moore's challenge is that it's due to several combined issues: glamorizing guns and violence, an empty society that is too weak to teach social values and respect in schools and that has almost no culture to be proud of, and a general attitude of selfishness, arrogance and anger. In other words, the USA is a spoiled, violent teenager.
By the way, statistics show that the USA is NOT the most violent country in the world by far, only that it has one of the highest amount of rape and murder cases and definitely the highest amount of murders with guns.