>Remember all those outrageously sexist cartoons that used to fill the pages of our popular periodicals back in the good old days before evil feminism brought its blight upon the world? They’re having a sort of second life on the Internet, and apparently some people still find them hi-larious. I found this is on an Indian Men’s Rights site, which offered this little bit of commentary: “So so so true……………….”
EDIT: Apparently my not thinking that this cartoon is hi-larious makes me the “Cartoon Monitor for the Confederacy of Dunces,” or so says the often inadvertently hi-larious Paul Elam.
>And another one:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/31/ukcrime.immigrationpolicyAnd one dealing with the US:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/cbsnews_investigates/main5590118.shtml
>Obviously the feminists have exclusive access to millions of hidden cameras by which they are able to KNOW that most rape accusations are true. And yet they deny their poor sisters the evidence they could use to lock up their violators preferring, for some reason clearly beyond the limited comprehension of MRA's, to only use this vast network of electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering 100% accurate statistics.And for some OTHER reason, also beyond MRA comprehension, they will also not use this hard evidence to back up those 100% accurate statistics leaving MRA's to erroneously feel they have a point when they most maliciously and most brutally and most misogynistically and most insensitively and most chauvinistically dare to call feminists liars.
>David, has it occurred to you that in the cases where the suspect went free, that suspect claimed that he was innocent? He didn't plead out, he didn't confess. He said that he was not guilty, and he ended up going free. How do you prove that a rape allegation in a particular case is genuine when the suspect claims his innocence? How are you so certain?In 1985, the Air Force allowed a study of its personnel where hundreds of rape accusers were interviewed. 27 percent of them recanted. So here you have the opposite of a person who maintains their innocence; over one-third of the accusers recanted, and not only that, they gave the reasons why they lied.On the one hand, 85 percent of rape suspects maintains their= innocence and go free. On the other hand, 27 percent of rape accusers voluntarily recanted — not under compulsion — and going further, they also explained why they lied.How do you know that a particular rape suspect is lying? You don't. But don't tell me that 27 percent of those false accusers are lying by recanting their bogus allegations. That wasn't a lie; that recantation is the truth.Granted, just because a rape suspect goes free doesn't necessarily mean that he was innocent. But then don't say that the False Rape Society is on your list of enemies because they promote the "myth" that false allegations of rape are a serious problem. Saying that false allegations are a "myth" assumes that you have some sort of crystal ball or an all-seeing eye, which you don't. You only have your suspicions and feelings, just like I suspected.Source:McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.ISBN 0-444-01144-7
>Whoops, correction:Wrote: "Over one-third of the accusers recanted…"Meant: "Over one-fourth of the accusers recanted…"
>sexism:of or implying domination of one sex by the other.So – how exactly is that cartoon sexist?It shows a domination of men by women?
>I forgot. There are many brain-washed people here.Allow me to explain:1. Why is it up to that man to save that woman in the first place?Why does he have an obligation to save her?2. How did she get herself into that predicament to begin with?Why does he half to "remedy" her situation?Is it possible that whomever tied her there in the first place might get mad at him – thereby putting him at risk?Yeah – such sexism indeed…Frame 3 – I assume HE is paying for the dinner.Totally sexist.Frame 4 – Marriage – ah yes – he is signing over half his assets to her – all in the name of what most modern women call "love" ROFLMAO!!Such blatant sexism.Frame 4 – I assume he is paying for the wedding.Again, what sexism.Frame 5 – she is bossing him around constantly – nagging, yelling – such "Love" thanks to the marriage eh?Yup, that's sexist alright. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.Frame 6 – the humor – he ties her down to the tracks…The sexism is aimed towards the man, NOT the woman.
>John, the study you cite is the only one to claim false accusations in that range. The only other study to find something close (the Kanin study) has been widely discredited for its problematic methodology. The credible studies out there put the number in the single digits. I have never seen a link to the actual study (McDowell's) on the web. Have you actually read it? More on the study:http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/04/20/claims-about-mcdowells-research-into-false-rape-allegations-are-not-credible-rp/Recantations are frequently used by rape victims too traumatized to endure a rape trial as a way to stop their cases going forward. They do not necessarily indicate that they lied when they said they were raped.
>You are so gay Fag-trelle
>David, I too have had enormous difficulty in tracking down the McDowell study. I've seen plenty of citations of it, and some research papers allude to it, but it's not clear whether the authors of those citations actually read it themselves. So I tracked down one of the co-authors of that study, Dr. Neil Hibler, and spoke to him over the phone. He is the one who provided me with the ISBN number that I wrote in my comment above. To clarify, in my comment above, I referenced the name of the original publication that published the McDowell/Hibler paper. But the ISBN number is actually of a journal called, "Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach" edited by Robert Hazelwood and and Ann Wolbert Burgess. That journal has gone through several editions, and is now on its fourth. The McDowell paper was published in the first edition, but has been lambasted by feminist critics in subsequent editions. By now, the original McDowell paper has essentially been buried; if you search for the journal ("Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach") on Amazon, the search results only link to the 3rd and 4th editions, neither of which contain the McDowell study. But since Dr. Hibler gave me the ISBN number, I was able to do a more targeted search on Amazon.com. Using the following link, anyone can now purchase a copy:http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Aspects-Rape-Investigation-Multidisciplinary/dp/0444011447/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287434697&sr=8-1
>Incidentally, what was illuminating to me was the hostile reaction that Dr. McDowell and Dr. Hibler received in the academic community following the publishing of their paper. Dr. Hibler told me that after they conducted their study, they sent their findings to the FBI. Initially the FBI expressed interest, and the FBI kept a copy of the study's findings on hand. Years later, Dr. Hibler (who continues to work in the Washington, D.C. area, near the FBI headquarters at Quantico, Virginia) visited the FBI building to get a copy of the FBI's analysis of their study. Dr. Hibler told me that he was told by FBI personnel that they no longer had any records of the study. He pressed them on it, though, and lo and behold, after being pressured, they found a PDF of their analysis and sent it to him. Not only did Dr. Hibler run into such stalling by the FBI about their study, but he also told me that he made a couple subsequent visits to them, each time asking for the same thing. And each time, he told me that the mere mention of the McDowell study caused the FBI representative that he spoke with to tense up, eyes steeled, lips pursed. They didn't want to talk about it.And so from this information, coupled with the seemingly general unavailability of the McDowell paper on the Web in electronic format, I have started to suspect that the paper has kind of been buried. Maybe not covered up or concealed, but certainly buried. That is disconcerting. Maybe now that we know the ISBN number, the McDowell study can be scanned and put online. At the very least, anyone can now purchase a physical copy. I found a used copy for less than $3.00. Amazon's Kindle edition goes for $79.00.In any case, David, with the low conviction rate and (in the McDowell and Kanin studies) a significant recantation rate, you shouldn't be running around saying that it is a "myth" that false allegations are a significant problem. They are a significant problem. Certainly they warrant more research. What credible research, if any, have you found on the subject? Were the studies that you have found conducted in a scientific, methodologically sound manner? Or were they just based on conjecture and estimates?Science is our friend. The lack of inquiry into the phenomenon of false allegations of rape is, to my mind, indicative of a climate of political correctness that has grown more pervasive over the years, obscuring objective scientific inquiry into the subject. What researcher wants to risk being defunded for even asking about the subject (that is, if there is any possibility that the research findings don't jibe with the feminist party line)?
>"Glenn Sacks is on the enemies list because he does things like sending his fans to harass a DV shelter."I highly doubt that Glenn Sacks did anything of the sort, but I can't see your supposed evidence because Barry is a pathetic loser who can't pay his server bills.* Maybe I can see the details next month if he finally gets the site back online by then, but I'm not holding my breath.*For your benefit, that was me ironically mimicking the feminist/gynocentrist meme that men who are not financially successful have failed as human beings.
>Coldfire, aren't you here because some dude on a message board suggested you come here and harass me? (Or do I have you confused with someone else?)
>John, thank you for the info on where to find the McDowell paper; I've just purchased a copy of the book from Amazon. I've got a list of a bunch of pieces/papers about false accusations that I will put up fairly soon, and I'll be writing a piece on the subject myself afterwards.
>Why I'm here is completely unrelated to the fact that you have no evidence that Glenn Sacks sent people to harass a DV shelter. All you provided is a broken link, which is worthless. Therefore, by making this serious accusation against Glenn Sacks with zero evidence to support it, you are committing libel against him. If you like, you can try to argue in court that your libelous statement was actually ironic and from the POV of someone other than yourself, but I don't think the judge will buy it.
>@David Futrelle:"The credible studies out there put the number [of fabricated allegations of rape] in the single digits."What credible studies are those? Every paper that I have run across which asserts that false allegations of rape are in the single digits is not actually based on a scientifically-sound study, with a sample, subject to peer review and published in a respected academic journal. In my experience, not a single paper that puts false rape allegations in the single digits meets that definition. Instead, those papers trade on the professional status of the person who cites a low figure for false rape allegations. And that person is citing another academic, who in turn was quoting another academic, and on and on. Never do you get to a scientifically-sound study with a representative sample (let alone ANY type of sample).However, all of those academics had to start citing each other somewhere. And the source is just one single paper written by a feminist (i.e. biased) academic named Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller published a paper in which she claims to have interviewed a female police officer in New York's NYPD who was part of an anti-rape unit. That officer, Brownmiller says, cited a figure of 2 percent. But Brownmiller has never been able to substantiate that figure with any independent data, neither by the NYPD nor any other source. If such an interview occurred, and/or if the low figure was actually ever cited, to this date it has never been independently confirmed by research. What has happened, however, is that Brownmiller's unsubstantiated claim has been repeatedly cited by academics, who cite each other, until some bogus sense of "consensus" is achieved. But do show me these studies of yours, David. I'd sure like to read them.Source:"The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim'"by E. GreerLoyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf
>@David Futrelle:"Recantations are frequently used by rape victims too traumatized to endure a rape trial as a way to stop their cases going forward. They do not necessarily indicate that they lied when they said they were raped."The McDowell study didn't just indicate that they recanted. The women who recanted actually cited several different reasons for lying about being raped. That tells me that there is some substance to the notion that they indeed fabricated their allegations from the start."Thank you for the info on where to find the McDowell paper."You're welcome. I look forward to your upcoming review and its resulting discussion in the comments. Let's let the research do the talking (rare as it is).
>John –No time to respond in detail here now, but I will respond, first with citations, then an essay, in posts soon. I'll take a look at that pdf as well; Brownmiller is not the source of the figures I'm talking about. Coldfire: Follow these links, then click "text only."http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hFLBdJLvuQMJ:www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/04/domestic-violence-shelter-targeted-by-anti-feminists-some-of-the-vile-language-and-verbal-abuse-we-took-on-the-phone-was-horrific/+%22glenn+sacks%22+%22family+place%22+alas&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NOYD-mQUFFgJ:www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/04/the-family-place-to-mras-instead-of-bashing-womens-organizations-stand-up-and-help-somebody-yourself/+%22glenn+sacks%22+%22family+place%22+alas&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1
>ROFLMAO!!!You're SERIOUSLY claiming that Glenn Sacks asking his fans to contact DART about taking down some highly offensive and misandrist bus ads is equivalent to "sending his fans to harass a DV shelter"? He posts a bunch of contact information for DART but nothing for The Family Place except for the info that The Family Place themselves chose to put in their own ads, which have to be shown in order for his fans to know the subject of their complaints. He says NOTHING about wanting anyone to contact The Family Place in any capacity at all.If I were Glenn Sacks I would sue you. In fact, I should probably alert him to this libel you are posting so that he can see it and decide for himself what to do about you.
>Glenn said: "A sub-group of our protesters who I selected called over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads."He gets 50 of his fans to repeatedly call donors in an attempt to cut the funding of a DV shelter. That's pretty douchy. He apparently didn't even contact the shelter first to voice his concerns about the ads.
>That's still not "harassing a DV shelter", you libelous douchebag.Why the fuck would he waste his time contacting the shelter after its director already made it crystal clear that she was out to provoke and offend men? "Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink told Fox News in Dallas that says she designed the ads to provoke, saying 'I hope you are offended.'"After saying that she DESERVED to have her funding cut, end of story.
>ha·rass/həˈras/Verb1. Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation
>Couldn't resist sharing this from back in the good old days (true) before feminism REALLY DID bring its blight upon the world. You should consider doing a post about it next.
>If you want to argue before a judge that contacting donors and informing them that the recipient of their donations is using the money to put up offensive, misandrist advertisements constitutes "harassing a DV shelter", then be my guest. Did they not teach you ANYTHING in journalism school about avoiding legal liability?
>Coldfire, your ignorance of libel law matches your ignorance of, well, everything else.
>Poor Dave Futrelle! Hate the MRA trolls that come on here and nag like crazy! I think we need to tie them to a railroad track! You in?Also I suggest a game; we take a shot of liquor every time an MRA uses the word "mangina"