Yes, it did happen.

And women are not lying liars.

Why, when reading the catalogue of abuse and harassment that is the @everydaysexism feed – is there a group of men who in spite of the reports from 10’s of 1000’s of women from all over the world. In spite of not knowing the women concerned. In spite of being no where near the reported events, feel the need to conclude:

It never happened

Here are some examples.

What reason do you have, what TINY shred of evidence that this woman is lying. Why on earth would you not just believe her.

That tweet was followed by this – which I will conclude the answers to here:

Really? You wandered around for a few hours and didn’t see anything, and from this you conclude that thousands of women reporting this stuff must by lying liars?

Lets put aside the fact that many perps of this sort of behaviour tend not to do it in the presence of watching bystanders. Or that the location makes a difference, or the time.

You realise there are around 32 million women in this country – living in their skin 24 hours a day. How many 1000’s of women do you think you would need to watch, for how many 1000’s of hours for your sample to become statistically relevant do you think?

Er, yes I do.

1 – 1000’s of women reporting it. You DO realise that women don’t lie any more than men do? So how do you conclude that all these people are lying liars?

2 – Let’s take project guardian. One city – one transport system in that city. One week. 16 people arrested for sexual offences. That is more than 2 every day – on ONE system in ONE city. And these are ONLY the arrestable offences for which sufficient evidence could be produced to identify the perp, and make an arrest. It doesn’t include the many more with no video coverage – or witnesses – or even more where the victims don’t even report because the behaviour is so normalised and expected. Then if there are this many serious sexual arrestable offences – how many more of the less serious cases of harassment must there be.

3 – According to the office of national statistics there are around 85000 people raped annually in the UK alone. (Around 9000 of these are men). That figure represents mans there are about 230 rapes every day – nearly 10 every hour. Again – how many more lesser crimes of sexual assault – and even more of harassment and intimidation must there be – every hour and every day in this country.


So yes, Mr SL. When a woman reports low level harassment. Or intimidation. Or Assault. Or Rape. #ibelieveher.

Because this stuff happens all the time. There is no need to invent it. And women are not lying liars.

No, your tweet had not been ignored “because you are a man”

Disclaimer – I am not associated with the @everydaysexism account in any way, and have no inside knowledge. This post is a response to the ongoing and irritating drip drip drip of “@everydaysexism is sexist” tweets, and is simply based on my observations from more than two years of reading the account and tweets sent to it.

So why might your tweet not have been retweeted?

If you are generally supportive of the @everydaysexism account, and have posted an example of sexism that is relevant to how men experience sexism*, then you have probably not been re-tweeted for the same reason that 97% or more, of tweets sent by women are also not. Less than 3% are retweeted, and then only the most significant or relevant.

If, on the other hand you are tweeting copycat tweets such as the examples below – or you show your agenda by following up with a whining “I was ignored: @everydaysexism are sexist” / “why are men never retweeted” – or you’ve ever used the word “feminazi” or tags such as #feministfail, #feminismisawfull etc etc – or your timeline is filled with misogynistic bullcrap, then you’ve most likely been ignored because you are only tweeting to try to “prove” sexism from the account, and/or you have an anti feminist agenda, and/or you are a hoofwankingbunglecunt.

Not, because you are a man.

You might think you are the first to have tried this, but you are wrong. Similar tweets are made pretty much every week, and they are easy to spot. Furthermore, there are so many of these compared to genuine reports of sexism by men, that it is pretty difficult to filter out the genuine ones from the crap – which may be another reason so few from men are retweeted compared with when the account was set up.


Copy Cat Tweets.

*Men experience sexism differently from women. Something which is sexist when directed at a woman is not necessarily sexist when directed at a man. Therefore simply parroting tweets you have seen from women is a sure fire way to be ignored.

Some examples:

Not too bad, until followed up with:

With this in the TL:



OK, Next!

And, oh look, followed shortly after by

And more recently a whole series of tweets telling women why the sexism they experience isn’t sexism.


Followed imediately by:

Of course, he wasn’t. He was blocked 8 or 9 months before that tweet for another series of disparaging tweets.

And here is an example of 2 in 1:

Oh, yes – AND his TL was filled with misogynist bullcrap.

Update October 2015 – another classic example

Followed (literally) less than 10 minutes later by…



I could go on. These sort of tweets re-occur every few days or so – but I think you get the picture.

No, an acquittal is *not* proof of innocence.

And it is not evidence of a false accusation.

Lets see if I can make it easy for you. Imagine the following:
A neighbor comes round (lets call him Billybob) knocks on the door, and uses some pretext to get you to invite him in. While there, for apparently no reason Billybob lands a massive right hook to your face breaking your cheekbone. You go down. He walks calmly out of the door and goes home.

Baffled, you report it to the police. They go to see him and he says he’s never been to your house let alone hit you. You know he did it, he knows he did it – but he flat out denies it. His attitude is all off though, and the police are pretty certain he is lying. Only there is no evidence, no video, no witnesses.

Nevertheless, the police think you are a credible witness, he clearly isn’t and so it goes to court. The jury also think he is shifty, unreliable, and probably lying. Unfortunately the Judge (rightly) instructs them they have to be sure before they can return a guilty verdict. They cannot be certain based on your word alone against his – so the verdict comes back not guilty.

Amazingly – after this, your broken cheekbone doesn’t miraculously heal – he still did it. Innocent in the eyes of the law, but guilty in fact. And you certainly didn’t make a false accusation.

The important thing to remember is this is happening all the time. It is normal in cases where the only evidence is the word of the victim. Innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) is built on the premise

Better to let 10 guilty men go free than send one innocent man to prison


So no, your example – or a thousand of them – is not proof, or even evidence, of a false accusation. And found “not guilty” is not equal to “proven innocent”

What might consent look like?

Here is the text of a comment I contributed to a Guardian comment thread recently:

Come on guys – it really is not complicated

Verbal explicit consent: Yes / Yes Please / Oh my god, take me upstaris / Come here and F**k me big boy / etc / etc
Non verbal explicit consent: Removes clothes, removes yours, grabs you, pulls you in. (Or any other unambiguous willing, wanting participation – this is what “enthusiastic” means) Consent must be ongoing – if at some point she seems less into it, and there is any doubt “You OK babe?” or “You still into this?” or similar. If the answer is “no” then stop, and without making her feel bad.

Non Verbal Non consent: Flirting / Revealing clothing / being a “party girl” / going back to hotel room or house / Being drunk / Having sex with your friend (seriously, it staggers me that some men need to be told this – if your friend is with someone, dont FFS think it’s OK for you to join in) / Passively “allowing” you to do stuff (non resistance). This one is important, you cannot tell the difference between “passively allowing” and “submitting/frightened/frozen allowing” If she is passive or unresponsive STOP.

If you take any of these or similar as “implied” consent, you are seriously risking being a rapist.

All verbal or nonverbal explicit consent is invalidated if the individual is so intoxicated by drink or drugs, he/she is unable to make rational judgements. No consent can be given if the person is unconscious or asleep, but the law also recognises it is possible to be conscious and interacting, but still too drunk (incapacitated) to give a valid consent. How drunk is that? – if you are asking the question, then STOP.

A couple of notes:
1 – If you’re involved in “hooking up” or one night stands. You need to be aware that if you don’t know your partner, then you are MUCH less able to judge non verbal cues. You need to be MUCH more careful if relying on non verbal consent that it is totally unambiguous.

2- in response to some comments: Consent when not really wanting it. Consider these two examples.

Partner lovingly participates even though not totally into it, because she *wants* do to something nice for you. (But why would you want to if she doesn’t?). This would (at least in my opinion) be a valid consent.

She gives in though being nagged, coerced, bargained with etc etc. This would not – she does not want it and if she is only agreeing to prevent something worse or more annoying, that is not consent.

Press freedom and tits.

I made a tweet – it was re-tweeted 87 times, a record for me. Obviously I got some replies.

1 – Pointing out that women are being objectified, is not objectifying women.

2 – And this is important:
Freedom of the press is not important because tits. Press freedom is vital in a well functioning democracy so that the press can hold the rich and powerful and those in authority – like the government and police – to account for their actions. This can help moderate the worst excesses of those powerful people, and protect the rest of us from those excesses.

The arsewipe of a rag that The Sun “newspaper” is, is an unfortunate consequence of press freedom, not  a reason for it.

The predictability of rape apology.

The predictability of Rape Apology part 2

I wrote the first part of this post (below the line down under) at around 1:00am this morning. Approximately 10 hours later, EXACTLY as predicted, our friend @facerealitynow came back with his list of reasons why the CPS study is flawed (screenshot below).

You are predictable
You are a rape apologist
You are wrong

You are predictable

Sort of goes without saying – see below the line.

You are a rape apologist

I’ve seen 1000’s like you over the last 2 to 3 years. One of the common factors is an overwhelming compulsion to understate prevalence of rape, while overstating the prevalence of false allegations. This is rape apology pure and simple. It harms victims, it helps rapists, and it makes it more likely for women to be raped.

You are wrong

Lets put aside for a moment the extremely high level of qualification of those carrying out the study, which pretty much out of hand, invalidates any rebuttal you might make.

You correctly point out that the study counts prosecuted false allegations of rape. What you failed to notice (Comprehension? Willful ignorance? Or inability to face reality?) is that the study compares that count with the number of cases prosecuted as rape. The nature of rape cases (mostly carried out in private without witnesses) will mean that it is approximately equally difficult to evidence a false allegation as it is to evidence an actual rape. It is therefore a reasonable position to take that the ratio of false allegations to rapes, in the cases not prosecuted, will be approximately the same as those that are prosecuted.

Those figures are 5651 prosecutions for rape and 35 prosecutions for false allegations of rape. At face value those figures would suggest a false rape reporting rate of around 0.6%.

Before you try to state that the ratio in the unprosecuted cases is not going to be the same (for whatever fabricated reason you can pluck from your imagination): The figure used elsewhere on this blog of 3% ALREADY allows for a 500% (Factor 5, 5 times) error in that assessment.

Don’t bother posting a reply – you are very unlikely to meet the criteria for having it published, and my patience is much thinner now than when I set those criteria. Feel free to respond on twitter – but don’t expect a reply. As far as I am concerned this is not up for debate. Further, as you’ll see from my twitter bio, I am no longer debating with the willfully ignorant.

And rape apology is ALWAYS willfully ignorant.


The tweets:
Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 19.34.07


The predictability of Rape Apology part 1


I’ve just posted this series of tweets (in reverse order, sorry):
Screen Shot 2015-01-12 at 23.50.25

In response to the “can you argue against those facts please?” in this sequence:
Screen Shot 2015-01-12 at 23.51.54

At some point, he’s going to read the study report and come back with a list of reasons why it is invalid – despite the legal credentials of those carrying out the report. In this way he will demonstrate his agenda of rape apology.

I’m posting this in advance to demonstrate to him the predictability of his agenda of rape apology.

Those Tweets – and why they are meaningless.

Update October 2016:
After a referral to the court of appeal by the criminal cases review commission, Evans has now been acquitted of the crime of rape. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that situation, in the eyes of the law, Evans is now innocent of the crime of rape. I leave the text below as a record of my thoughts on the case as it stood at the time of writing.


One of the favourite memes of the rape apologists and supporters of rapist Ched Evans is a series of three tweets alleged (only by Evans’ site, supporters and family) to have been tweeted by his victim in between the rape and the trial. The so called “win big” tweets.

The tweets are totally irrelevant to the case – here is why.


If we believe the tweets existed at all, and are not a total fabrication, it is claimed they were unearthed by a New York firefighter from a text google cache on the French twitter server. A New York Firefighter. Not a forensic computer scientist, just someone on the net looking through google cache files. There are at least two ways they may have been faked.

The Firefighter himself could have fabricated the whole thing – either on his own or at the request of Evan’s supporters.

One of the very many rape apologists abusing the victim and supporting Evans could have easily created an account using the victim’s name, and made the tweets – ensuring they were cached, and then deleted the account. Note that without support of twitter themselves, it is not possible to verifiably link tweets to an individual.


Even if the tweets were made by the victim as alleged, they are still completely irrelevant to the case.

They make no reference to the case, and discuss only the possibility of a big win. Just about every person who has ever played the horses, or the lottery etc will have had similar conversations, including yours truly. And what more natural time to dream of something good happening than in the aftermath of an awful life changing event, and subsequent build up to a trial.

One of the “damning” aspects of the tweets in the minds of the apologists, is that they were deleted. In fact the whole account was deleted. This is entirely unsurprising, given the way the victim has been bullied and threatened all over the internet eventually being forced to move home and change ID. No wonder that she felt she needed to delete her account. I would have done the same – in fact I have deleted the first 3000 tweets I made, due to a stalker.


The alleged tweets were made after the rape. The key fact of the case is that it was proven in court that the victim was too drunk to consent to sex. The evidence that proved this is not changed one tiny little bit by the tweets – whether or not they exist, and whatever their meaning. They do not change the fact that she was raped.

The tweets real or not, mean nothing.