A review of Michael Naughton’s article: Misanthropic Feminism

The full title of Michael Naughton’s article is: ‘Misanthropic Feminism: How and Why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Sexually Discriminates Against Men in Uncorroborated Rape Cases where the Complainant Claims that they were Voluntarily Intoxicated’ 

It critically examines the failure of the CPS in England and Wales regarding rape allegations, especially focusing on cases where the complainant was voluntarily intoxicated. It outlines how the CPS discriminates against men in cases of uncorroborated allegations of rape, treating the voluntary intoxication of male defendants and female complainants differently and, in so doing, violates not only the various international agreements on human rights, but even the CPS’s own ‘Code for Crown Prosecutors’.

The Case of “John”: A Microcosm of systemic failure in the criminal justice system

The article is framed through the lens of “John,” a pseudonym for an individual Naughton describes as an innocent victim of a false allegation and wrongful conviction. John and his complainant were colleagues and friends who engaged in consensual sexual activity. Crucial to the case is the fact that both parties had been drinking alcohol voluntarily. The allegation of rape emerged only after the complainant’s partner discovered she had spent the night with John and, according to trial testimony, pressured her to report the encounter as an assault.

Despite evidence suggesting a consensual encounter—including a neighbor hearing only “pleasurable moaning” and a “jovial” text message from the complainant the next morning—John was convicted of rape and sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison. His case highlights a “legal loophole” where a voluntarily intoxicated man is held fully responsible for his actions, while a voluntarily intoxicated woman is deemed legally incapable of giving consent, even if her actions during the event suggested otherwise.

The CPS and the Erosion of Impartiality

Naughton argues that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales routinely acts in direct contradiction to its own governing document, the Code for Crown Prosecutors (CCP). The CCP mandates that casework decisions be taken “fairly, impartially and with integrity” (Section 2.5) and that prosecutors must not let “personal views about… gender” influence their decisions (Section 2.7).

However, in cases like John’s, the author contends that the CPS fails these imperatives by:

• Prioritizing Conviction Rates: Treating cases differently based on sex to “get the numbers” of rape convictions up, driven by political pressure regarding low conviction rates.
  
• Failing Even-Handedness: Violating Section 2.8 of the CCP by viewing the complainant as a “victim” from the outset rather than scrutinizing the possibility of a false allegation.
  
• Ignoring Human Rights: Breaching Section 2.10, which requires the application of the Human Rights Act 1998. Naughton points to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits sex discrimination, arguing that the CPS’s differential treatment of male and female intoxication is a direct violation of this principle.

This institutional bias is further solidified by the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities not to discriminate based on protected characteristics, including sex.

The Legal Distortion: Misinterpreting Consent and Intoxication

A significant portion of the article critiques how the CPS interprets Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which defines consent as agreeing “by choice” with the “freedom and capacity to make that choice”. The CPS guidance suggests that capacity “evaporates” when a person is intoxicated, often implying that any degree of voluntary intoxication renders a woman unable to consent.

Naughton identifies a critical error in how the CPS cites the leading case, R v Bree. The CPS guidance selectively quotes the part of the judgment stating that capacity can evaporate before unconsciousness. However, it omits a crucial caveat from the same paragraph: that a person who has voluntarily consumed “even substantial quantities of alcohol” but remains capable of choosing and agrees to sex has not been raped. By omitting this, the CPS creates a standard where the mere fact of intoxication is used to invalidate evidence of consent, such as pre-planned sexual encounters or positive post-sexual interactions.

1. Increased Convictions for Rape Discourse (ICRD): This side operates on the assumption that almost all rape allegations are truthful. It views low conviction rates (which were approximately 53% in 2023/24) and the high number of unprosecuted allegations (over 70,000 in 2024) as evidence of the “decriminalization of rape”.
   
2. False Allegations Discourse (FAD): This side views the same statistics as evidence that a vast number of allegations are false. It emphasizes the devastating impact of the “allegation as punishment,” where an accused man’s life and reputation are ruined regardless of the trial’s outcome.

The “Culture War” of Discourses: ICRD vs. FAD

The article identifies two dominant, opposing discourses that dominate the public and legal response to the “A said, B said” nature of uncorroborated rape allegations:

The author uses the concept of “misanthropia”—a dislike of humanity—to describe the current state of these debates. He argues that both ICRD and FAD are “intrinsically misanthropic” because they ignore the collateral damage caused to the “other side”. For instance, ICRD proponents often disregard the pain of the mothers, sisters, and daughters of men who have been falsely accused.

Naughton argues that both discourses are problematic because they rely on the criminal justice system’s flawed decisions to prove their own “truth”. Neither side acknowledges that the system can fail both groups: failing to bring genuine rapists to justice and failing to protect the innocent from false accusations.

Misanthropia and the Concept of “Misanthropic Feminism”

Naughton specifically critiques what he calls “misanthropic feminism”. He defines this as a form of activism that seeks law and policy reforms designed to make it easier to convict men, regardless of the risk of convicting the innocent. By treating all men as a “generalized enemy,” this ideology harms not only innocent men but also the women who love and depend on them. He notes that if a man is wrongly imprisoned, his entire family suffers financially and emotionally, illustrating that “any form of oppression… based on sexism will impact both sexes”.

He further challenges the traditional “patriarchy” model (as defined by Sylvia Walby), arguing that it is too divisive. Instead, he suggests that “patriarchy” should be seen as institutionalized sexism that divides and oppresses all of humanity, regardless of gender.

The Shared Humanity Approach and the Need for Reform

As an antidote to misanthropia, Naughton proposes “philanthropy”—the love of humanity. He advocates for a “shared humanity” approach where men and women work together to ensure the justice system treats all citizens equally before the law.

Michael Naughton’s full article can be read here – Misanthropic Feminism, by Michael Naughton (Critical Perspectives, pp 75 – 100), 

The article concludes with a call for urgent reform:

• Reform of CPS Guidance: The CPS must accurately reflect the full judgment of R v Bree, acknowledging that voluntary intoxication does not automatically equal a lack of capacity to consent.
  
• End to Uncorroborated Convictions: Naughton argues that uncorroborated allegations alone should not be sufficient for criminal charges or convictions.
  
• Discouraging False Allegations: The system must implement appropriate penalties to discourage the “weaponization” of rape allegations for nefarious purposes.

Unless these changes are made, the author warns that the criminal justice system will remain a “false allegations charter,” continuing to produce wrongful convictions and perpetuating a “culture war” that harms the fabric of society.

---

The full text of Michael naughton’s article can be read here: Critical Perspectives: Misanthropic Feminism and an excellent, annotated examination is here –  Misanthropic Feminism by Dr Michael Naughton – annotated response by Sean Bw Parker