As I’ve pointed out before, the vast majority of Men’s Rights Activists aren’t really activists at all, if by “activists” you mean people who occasionally get off their asses and try to engage in political activity in the real world. As I put in in my piece for the Good Men Project on misogyny in the Men’s Rights movement,
Men’s rights activists aren’t much like any other activists I’ve ever run across. For one thing, for supposed activists they are almost completely inactive. Sure, they complain endlessly about things they see as terrible injustices against men. They just don’t do anything about them. While some of those who consider themselves fathers’ rights activists—a slightly different breed from your garden-variety MRAs—try to influence laws and legislatures, MRAs do little more than cultivate their resentments.
MRAs seem to be good at one thing, and one thing only: posting angry comments on websites, whether their own or on those of their many enemies – whether that’s on blogs like this one or in the comments section on various mainstream media sites they consider “misandrist.” (Actually: that’s not entirely fair – on a few occasions, MRAs have been moved to make threatening phone calls as well.) They don’t raise money for anything but their own web sites and their pet projects. They don’t organize demonstrations that involve more than a tiny handful of people. Like, for example, this one, involving one dude dressed like Batman who climbed up onto a highway sign:
Or this one, which involved a dude dressed up as Batman and a dude dressed up as Robin, climbing up on a bridge.
If your protests typically involve fewer people than, say, the line of people waiting to use the Redbox video rental kiosk outside your local supermarket on a Friday night, I think it’s safe to say that yours is not a mass movement, at least not yet.
Am I being unfair in demanding MRAs actually, literally,get off their asses before I consider them to be activists? Perhaps.
But, as it turns out, MRAs aren’t much good at sitting-on-your-ass activism either. Case in point: For quite some time – weeks? months? — MRA elder Paul Elam has been urging readers of his blog A Voice For Men to sign a petition to disbar a District Attorney he and other MRAs have decided is corrupt. But despite his repeated pleas to his readers to sign the thing, it has not yet garnered the required 1000 signatures, even though at least a few of his readers have talked about signing it more than once. [Edited to add: it has now gotten more than 1000 signaturesd.]
Today, this particular example of internet inactivism prompted Elam to lash out at his non-signing readers. Declaring himself “tired and frustrated” and “sick of this shit,” he once again begged his readers to sign. Then he went a step further, suggesting that he might limit commenting on his site to “activists that are contributing to this site in one way or another” as a way of encouraging activism and discouraging those who are “sucking up air and doing little else.”
I don’t think further exhortation on his part – or limiting the comments there to “real” activists only – is likely to make much difference. [Edited to add: Nagging a few more people to spend two minutes signing an online petition is one thing. Actually transforming them into real activists is another.] Elam is running up against the inherent paradox of Men’s Rights “activism” – the fact that most of those complaining the most about alleged injustices against men are not in fact interested in changing anything. Their “activism,” as it were, is little more than an excuse to wallow in their own bitterness, and to blame others for their own problems.
If MRAs really cared about domestic violence against men – as opposed to using the issue as a rhetorical weapon against feminists – they would be raising money and devoting their time to actually building shelters, like the (mostly) women who built the first shelters decades ago, and the (mostly) women who keep these shelters going today. If MRAs were really interested in stopping prison rape, instead of simply complaining about it, they’d be donating money to or working with the advocacy group Just Detention or other groups concerned about the treatment of prisoners. If they were really interested in helping those falsely accused of rape or other crimes, they’d be working with The Innocence Project or some other group fighting for the falsely accused or convicted. Or they would be starting real organizations of their own.
But that’s not, at heart, what the MRM is about. For all but a tiny handful of real activists, it’s not about changing the world. It’s about creating a space where men can kvetch and blame and cultivate their own sense of martyrdom. Actually trying to change the real world would involve , well, going out into the real world, a place where their assertions about the alleged oppression of men are seen as the nonsense they are, a place where their bitterness and hatred of women is seen as bitterness and hatred rather than the righteous anger they like to imagine that it is.
When MRAs do venture out of their self-created bubble they tend to either make fools of themselves – like Batman on the highway sign in the video above – or to reveal themselves to be the angry fanatics they are. Elam, for his part, sometimes even has trouble making his case in the relatively sympathetic environment of the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit, and is quickly reduced to sputtering rage when anyone disagrees with him. In the end, sputtering rage seems to be what the MRM is really all about.
Bee
Might want to bite your tongue till the outcome, you lot ended up looking like fools and asses with your staunch public defending of another false accuser called Crystal Magnum a while back. Like Magnum, Fillers wife is a domestic and child abuser and false rape accuser and like Mike Nifong, Kellett is corrupt but unlike Nifong who went down for just one case, Kellett is being perused for at least 20 cases.
Scarecrow, I’m not surprised that, after nagging from Elam and a few other MRA sites, got more than 1000 signatures, especially given that at least a few of these signatures are the same people signing twice and people from other countries signing it. What I am saying — and this was sort of the main point of the post — is that it’s extremely unlikely that most MRAs will become actual activists, in large part because most of them don’t actually seem to care about the issues they pretend to care about, or to really want to change the world. Spending 2 minutes to sign a petition is not the same as real activism.
[EDITED TO ADD: I’ve put a note in the OP about the petition getting more than 1000 signatures, and added a little bit more to make my point here completely clear.]
Bee, just so you know, SAVE services is basically an ideological group aligned with the MRA views; I believe it was started and is basically bankrolled by the owner of a “mail order bride” business.
@Bee. I did not misunderstand you one bit.
There is a D.A. whose conduct seem fishy. There is a petition online to perform an investigation into her conduct.
“you’ve reached out to 100 deluded, bitter crazypeople”
Those are your words. I did not misunderstand them at all. And, it is not 100, it is more than 1000.
People who sign such a petition are “bitter” and “crazy”.
Labeling people who sign such a petition as being “bitter” and “crazy” sure makes it sound like you are passionately opposed to it to me.
Then, you go off topic, and say this, “What’s next? Writing major news outlets and telling them they’re wrong because they wrote articles in 2003 that said Osama Bin Laden is at large?”
Then accuse ME of being the troll?
No, I am on topic. David criticized MRA’s and their activism. I point out, that he is wrong.
Instead of accepting this, you say that only 100 people signed it, and since they signed it – they are “crazy” and “bitter”, then you start talking about Bin Laden, then accuse me of being a troll.
I spent days searching on YouTube and Google, trying to find people with common interests – and pointed the petition out to them. I spread the word to encourage others to do the same (remember me mentioning the E-mail to the president of the NCFM?).
Sorry, but 1000 seems like a very valid number.
Oh, and by the way. False accusations of rape do happen – and they destroy the lives of men and women.
You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that people who want to correct that injustice are also “bitter” and “crazy”.
It seems to me that anybody who pursues justice in your mind is simply “bitter” and “crazy”.
@David Futrelle:
Funny, when I go to view the signatures, I cannot see all of them – only the most recent.
So, how did you come to the conclusion that some people used the same name twice?
“Spending 2 minutes to sign a petition is not the same as real activism.”
Then prey-tell Dave, tell us all what “real activism” is.
And once again, ScareCrow P-Man:
You said: “The false rape society at the beginning of the year had only 60 followers – now it has more than 100.”
I responded: “That’s totally awesome that you’ve reached out to 100 deluded, bitter crazypeople, though. Keep up the good work.”
Do you get it now? In very simple language:
People who follow the False Rape Society are idiots.
God, good luck to you in understanding anything in life. No wonder the world frightens you so much, with your inability to understand even very simple concepts.
No surprises here: I’m sorry, but what the hell? Please point me to where I made any firm claims about anything, took a firm stand on either Mrs. Filler’s or Kellett’s veracity or competency, or claimed to have or be affiliated with a, um, “lot.” I’m just saying that Elam and his, um, “lot” are a ridiculous, freakish group of ranty little baby-men, and he appears to be dead wrong about pretty much everything he holds dear. That’s all.
David: Wow. I guess I’m not surprised, but thank you for bringing that up. I glanced at their site briefly, and it didn’t immediately trigger any alarm bells, although being literally the ONLY non-MRA group to support Elam’s cause seemed, well, suspicious.
Scarecrow, I concluded that at least a few of the signatures were probably doubles, or outside the US, because commenters on AVfM were talking about signing it twice, and giving info on how people outside the US could sign.
And real activism: organizing demonstrations, setting up hotlines, volunteering to assist, for example, male victims of DV; raising money to build shelters for men or to support organizations that work on issues that affect men (eg, Just Detention), becoming involved in local politics, organizing boycotts in a real and practical way, lobbying the government, etc etc.
An online petition in which none of the names are verified and which may contain duplicate names or people outside the country is pretty weak, especially for a case that involves a local prosecutor. If you guys had organized a real-world petition drive in Bar Harbor, that would have had a much bigger impact. Of course, that might have involved people getting in cars and driving there, or trying to link up with local groups, or, well, about a thousand other things that activists in the real world do all the time.
Spreading the word online can be part of real activism, to be sure, but simply kvetching about how evil women are rather than taking real steps to help men, not terribly impressive.
Eventually, people who spread hate-inspiring lies will be revealed for being just that – hate mongers.
I think for you that’s already happened, big guy.
“And real activism: organizing demonstrations”
Done. And we will do it again. Hello the movement for disbarment of Mary Kellett: http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/05/11/live-update-on-the-movement-to-disbar-mary-kellett-in-maine/
“setting up hotlines, volunteering to assist, for example, male victims of DV; raising money to build shelters for men or to support organizations that work on issues that affect men (eg, Just Detention)”
We already offer support for men, there are many online sources for men today because of our efforts, and I’ve personally helped men online and in real life. Even Reddit/MensRights has links to forums for divorced men to get help.
Of course, when the government is unwilling to fund domestic violence organizations that help men, not just women, it’s a bit difficult to help the very common male victims of violence. That’s why I’ve donated to SAVE.org, which is pushing for making domestic violence shelters accountable, and ensuring that they help REAL victims.
Have you donated to SAVE?
“becoming involved in local politics, organizing boycotts in a real and practical way, lobbying the government, etc etc.”
We are already doing so. And the activism will only expand. You may be in denial. I will be advocating in my state capitol soon, and there are others who will be advocating in Washington.
We are few today, and many tomorrow.
And most importantly, we are ENOUGH.
And we will not shut up.
Why? Because justice is our motto.
Off topic slightly but I found out where NWOslave got his original comments on porn, men and women…from “Rules of the Game” that Neil Strauss wrote…it was practically word for word and I am fairly sure that Strauss stole it from yet another person.
Amazing what one learns when mocking the “Game” on a date.
PFKAElizabeth: Do tell. Please?
Wow, this thread has got off to a very strange place… I’ve read through some of the documents that Bee put up, and boy the Filler trial is a mess. But Captain Bathrobe is exactly right: the defendants produced evidence that was denied, and the prosecutor’s main closing argument was to point out this lack of evidence. The decision for a new trial seems exactly right.
This is a very, very complicated and foggy case though, and based soley on evidence given to the public, you can’t really decide for sure one way or the other. The short story is that it certainly isn’t the poster case the MRM should be looking for…
It is very interesting reading the documents, though. I’m interested in law on occasion, and I don’t often get to see real cases playing out. I’m gonna keep reading this one.
@Bee
“People who follow the False Rape Society are idiots.”
Really? Are they also stinky and eat their own bougars too?
“God, good luck to you in understanding anything in life. No wonder the world frightens you so much, with your inability to understand even very simple concepts.”
I understand way more than you do. The world does not frighten me at all. You should have just said, “you’re stinky and you eat your own bougars.” It would have made you look more intelligent.
“Please point me to where I made any firm claims about anything, took a firm stand on either Mrs. Filler’s or Kellett’s veracity or competency, or claimed to have or be affiliated with a, um, “lot.” I’m just saying that Elam and his, um, “lot” are a ridiculous, freakish group of ranty little baby-men, and he appears to be dead wrong about pretty much everything he holds dear. That’s all.”
Elam and his lot are ridiculous freakish… That sounds like a firm STAND to me. Also, claiming that people who sign an online petition are all bitter and crazy – that is also a firm stand. Claiming that people who follow the falserapesociety blog – that too is a firm stand.
“Ranty little baby-men”. Uh huh. You have completely failed to address any of my points.
@Dave:
“And real activism: organizing demonstrations, setting up hotlines, volunteering to assist, for example, male victims of DV; raising money to build shelters for men or to support organizations that work on issues that affect men (eg, Just Detention), becoming involved in local politics, organizing boycotts in a real and practical way, lobbying the government, etc etc. ”
I guess you found that one example of activism (the petition), and criticized it, since it didn’t have 1000 signatures. Nice propaganda Dave.
I’ll have you know that in addition to this petition, Elam and others request writing letters to senators, congressmen, British parliament, news channels.
And yes, I have written letters to these people – and gotten responses.
Also, He frequently points out the links to various organizations like “The Innocence Project” – which I regularly donate to.
As far as demonstrations go. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the media SELECTIVELY shows ONLY the nutcases dressed up as batman – rather than show so-called “normal people” protesting?
Pecunium, well, one of the things is that this program is more manipulative then I thought it was. I mean I had heard about it being so but wow, takes the cake.
Second, many of the same things we tell guys to do to improve their chances, he tells them. But apparently coming from someone you pay $1500, it means more. *rolls eyes*
ScareCrow P-Man: Has it occurred to you that if there were enough people, it would be news? If 500 people showed up in Maine to protest, it would make the local news. That’s because the out of the ordinary makes news.
The fact of the matter is that the sort of agenda driven prosecution Elam (and all the “false rape” conspiracists) claim is driving the system, is really rare.
Why? Because the appeals process, arcane as it is, works to prevent the sorts of allegations you make from being affirmed. Which, in turn, works to keep people from prosecuting really weak cases.
How do you feel about this: only 58 percent rate of conviction in reported rapes Or that a huge backlog of rape kits exists.
I presume you would favor a faster turnaround, so that the innocent might be exonerated, and the guilty convicted.
Actually, I presume no such thing, because I’ve not seen one whiff that you actually care about rape being prosecuted. I see you making special pleadings that some accuser is impeached because they were involved in some relationship with the accused, and so the accusation should just be tossed out because, “she had reason to lie”.
Which ignores the counter-argument, “He had reason to attack her.” That sort of interpersonal conflict isn’t tidy. It’s not so cut and dried that only one party has incentive to lash out at the other.
But you don’t believe that. You argue, not that rape is less pervasive, but rather women lie about it. Never mind that most rape accusations are dismissed. That reporting a rape leads to an invasive; and by all accounts traumatic, examination. That the defense will call the accuser a slut, a tramp, etc. That people who hear about it will ask, “what she did to encourage it?” (e.g. did she have a drink, wear “provacative” clothing, “lead him on”, etc.), and then, to top it all off, MRAs will say she lied about it, because she has a grudge; if not against him in particular, against all men (as is alleged against the prosecutor here).
In the face of all that you want us to believe that the odds are stacked against the men.
Please, pull the other one.
PFKAElizabeth: I was more wondering about how the Game came up on the date. As to the pay money for it… yes. It’s not that it’s more true, but it’s that what one gets for free, one holds more cheaply.
The act of shelling out hard earned cash means they listen, and accept, more. Vast swathes of the, “self-help” industry work on that very principle. Stuff everyone knows, packaged slickly and sold for dollars not pennies; et. Voila!… revelations.
Mod – Please ignore the first version thats in the moderation list, this one is an amended version
Pecunium
Did you know that rape is the only crime with a conviction rate thats measured against the attrition rate and when the conviction rate is measured in the same way as other crimes rape has just as successful a conviction rate? Its another one of the rape frauds.
Besides, a crime that falsely reported more than any other would hopefully have a poor conviction rate.
Anyway, you can learn about the fraud works here.
How the panic over rape was orchestrated
TAGS: VIOLENCE, HOME OFFICE, CRIME
For years the Home Office and the former Lord Chancellor’s Department have misled the media about rape statistics – and allowed the media to misinform the public.
Anxiety has grown as a result of the apparent increase in rape offences and the inability to successfully prosecute offenders. Women have been needlessly alarmed for their safety, when the actual threat is much smaller than has been pretended.
Congratulations, therefore, to the Radio 4 programme More or Less and its reporter Ruth Alexander, who have put into the public domain what some advisers engaged by Whitehall committees have known for some time.
This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda….
Follow the link for the rest.
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestrated
No surprises indeed. Do you realise you have compared apples to oranges and expected us to think they are cherries?
Because the stats I referred to were for the US, so referring me to a Home Office report for the UK, and then telling me that makes my reference incorrect… is bollocks.
I was conservative in my quoting too. I didn’t take the “6 percent of rapists actually go to jail” part, because that presumes all the backgrounder stats (which includes an estimate of unreported rapes which isn’t really provable). The more interesting point is the low number of convicted rapists who actually end up in prison (i.e. 31 percent get, “time served”, if any).
As to the conviction rate. Hogwash. Given the large number of people (such as, it appears, yourself) who believe that rape is over-accused, falsely accused, etc., the nature of the trials (in which, more often than not the accused is pilloried as a tramp, who [in some way] asked for it, the imputation that it’s a simple disagreement about who said what when, etc.) and the cases where passed out women, or mentally handicapped, or otherwise incapable women are gang-raped; on film, and the jury acquits… no I don’t buy the argument that all the acquittals are of innocent men.
They are, legally, not rapists, but that doesn’t change that women were raped; any more than than acquitting someone of murder means it didn’t happen.
Scarecrow, I found that video of “batman” on the youtube channel of an MRA who goes by the name of, er, MGTOW. If he had bigger protests to post videos of, he would. But there really aren’t any; all the protests are tiny.
Nor are there many in which the protestors DON’T dress up as superheroes. Dressing up as superheroes seems to be the default demonstration tactic of fathers 4 justice, and they seem to be about the only MRA group that organizes demonstrations. And obviously they are terrible at it.
Pecunium
“who believe that rape is over-accused, falsely accused”
I think that you are confusing belief with fact, its a fact that rape as a politicized crime that is completely overblown (go to any feminist site “rape rape rape”) and that studies that record cases where the accuser has admitted that they falsely accused show high rates.
I don’t think that anyone assumes that all acquittals are innocent men either, thats not possible.
Here is a bit on false accusations, I contend that false accusations are worse than rape, the rational for that is that false accusations cause death of the victim more often than rape does.
Anyway, here is a bit on false accusations.
Internationally acclaimed attorney, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz published an article in the Boston Herald (8/6/94) in which he discussed a nine year study by a Purdue Univ. (female) Sociologist, reported in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, conducted in a large metropolitan area, including two large universities, in which the data showed that 40% of the sexual assault allegations were false. The only definition of “false” was the admission by the supposed “victim” that she had lied. Another study reported in Dershowitz’s article was done by New York City sex crimes prosecutor, Linda Fairstein in 1987. Fairstein [the author of “Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape”] found that, of 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan, “about HALF simply did not happen!” To paraphrase the Jerry Lee Lewis song, there’s “A whole lot of lying going on!”
http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9247223
In an investigation of 556 rape cases, reported in Forensic Science Digest, Vol.11, no.4, Dec. 1985, it was found through DNA testing that 33% of the accusations were false. Another 27% in the same study were shown to be false when the women involved admitted lying, or were shown to be lying by lie detector tests. That’s a total of 60% false accusations.
Washington Post reported it’s own study, in June, 1992, wherein 30% of allegations of rape were proven false.
Domestic abuse: Does money fuel false allegations?
http://blog.moschettilaw.com/2006/12/domestic_abuse_does_money_fuel.html
About Half of Rape Allegations are False, Research Shows
http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php
False Domestic Violence Claims Raise Concerns.
http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9247223
A study by Hugo Adam and Micheael Radelet, reported in Stanford Law Review, 11/87, found 350 cases where DNA proved the accusation false. Sadly, 23 of the men falsely accused had already been executed, and eight more had died in prison; quite a high price to pay for promoting the false notion that women don’t lie about sexual assault.
Little bit more here for Pecunium
“During my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made…Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is.”
(Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman)
Despite the controversy, many family law professionals agree that false claims of domestic violence are often used as custody maneuvers in divorce cases. For example, an article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explained: “[Domestic Violence] Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody… [they are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person.”
An article in the November, 2007 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains: “If a parent is willing to abuse the system [by making false DV claims], it is unlikely the trial court could discover [his or her] improper motives in an Order of Protection hearing.” Domestic Violence Protective (aka “Restraining”) orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
http://www.mediaradar.org/
I read what I could The first 404s, so I have no idea what it says
The second one is harder to evaluate, as many of the source documents it refers to also 404.
The Air Force Study is 26 years old, and I can’t read the source.
The second has no date, and the source is 404.
The third is sourced to the same docs, ergo 404.
The fourth.the one about the DNA evidence… The data are all old: the most recent case in the study was in 1991, i.e. 20 years ago. More to the point is they weren’t cases of “false accusation” but of the wrong person being convicted. A distinction with a most important difference.
Examples: Factual background. In the early morning of June
23, 1984, a woman and her boyfriend were sleeping
in their car on a rural roadside when a man
approached, pretending to be a police officer. He
ordered the two out of the car, brandished a gun,
and ordered the boyfriend to run into the woods.
The assailant forced the woman into his truck,
drove to a secluded area, and repeatedly raped her.
The police compiled a composite sketch of the
assailant from the victim and her boyfriend. A
woman was later raped 100 miles away, near Edward
Honaker’s house. She said the assailant resembled
Honaker, her neighbor. Honaker had an alibi and was
never charged with this second rape. The detective
on the second rape case, however, took a picture of
Honaker and showed it to the first victim and her
boyfriend.
So the boyfriend was in on it too?
Factual background. Early in the morning of August
24, 1985, three women left a nightclub and sat
talking in their cars. A man came between the two
cars and ordered a woman out of one of them. He
then got into the car with the victim and ordered
her to drive away. After driving to a different
section of town, the assailant asked the woman for
her name and address. She supplied him with a phony
name and number; then the assailant raped her.
All three women made it up?
Factual background. On October 4, 1980, police
found a woman dead in her apartment, face down and
naked, except for a nightgown around her neck. Her
head was covered with blood, and her body had many
visible wounds. She had also been sexually
assaulted.
Linscott was a neighbor of the victim and was
questioned by police during a neighborhood canvass.
He later remembered a dream he had the night of the
murder, which seemed to parallel the incident.
After reporting his dream to police, he gave
several recorded interviews with police officers.
He also gave saliva, blood, and hair samples to
police.
and
Factual background. Two men stole a van and drove
to a parking garage in the hopes of committing a
robbery. They accosted a woman when she came into
the garage and forced her into the van. The two men
allegedly sexually assaulted the woman repeatedly,
pulled out a knife, and choked the woman to death
with a piece of cloth.
and
Factual background. In the early morning of January
24, 1984, a woman was sexually assaulted and
murdered in her home by an assailant who had
entered the home through the victim’s basement
window. The woman died from asphyxiation by
hanging.
Got it… the dead women made it all up.
Factual background. In the early morning of July
29, 1990, the victim was at home alone when she
heard a knock at her door. She looked through the
peephole and asked the man to identify himself. The
man said he was with the victim’s friend, who was
parking the car. When he said this, the victim
thought she recognized his voice as belonging to a
man named Tim or Tom, who had been in her house
before. The victim let the man inside; he
immediately pulled out a knife, cut the victim on
the neck, breast, and stomach, and then raped her.
She was so interested in framing this guy that she slashed herself.
Factual background. Two women, in separate
incidents, were abducted at knife point in a
shopping mall parking lot. Both times the assailant
wore a ski mask and forced the victims to close
their eyes throughout the attack. In the first
instance, the attacker drove around in the woman’s
car, repeatedly raped her, and stole a gold watch
and $5. The victim opened her eyes briefly to note
that the assailant wore brown pants and was
uncircumcised. In the second case, the man
repeatedly raped the woman and stole a gold watch.
This woman was able to note the man’s boots,
jacket, and hair color. She also noted that he was
uncircumcised.
Two women, separate incidents. Did they get together and say… “Hey, I know, lets get some random guy convicted of rape.”
The point of this… your abtracts aren’t supported by the actual papers.
The last link… woman makes rape claim to get day off of work this one isn’t a false accusation, just a false report. She never said who it was she claimed was there. It first fails to meet the actual claim you are making and second says, Marlow_Rape is a traumatic crime, and when police get a call reporting sexual assault, it’s taken very seriously. Police want to make sure that the person responsible for the crime is locked up and prevented from attacking anyone else, but 2% of all rape cases reported are discovered to be false accusations. Two percent.
Yep, that puts me in my place all right.
There was no attempt to “put you in your place”.
It just counters your claim that the problem with false accusations of rape is a belief, something that’s imaginary.
As for the feminist claim of a 2% false reporting rate, its yet another lie about rape. “Lets convince the world that there isn’t a problem with women lying about rape, by lying about it”.
“THE TRUTH BEHIND LEGAL DOMINANCE
FEMINISM’S “TWO PERCENT FALSE
RAPE CLAIM” FIGURE
Edward Greer*
I. INTRODUCTION
For at least the last decade, Legal Dominance Feminism (LDF)1has been the predominant voice on sexual abuse within legal academia.2 However, many of its empirical claims regarding the sexual abuse of women are erroneous.3 Unlike the exemplary scholarshipof other feminist academics,4 LDF has in recent years promulgated a series of social science myths about rape in the American legal system. Often resting upon a highly problematic methodology…..”
“II. AT THE HEART OF THE TWO PERCENT FALSE CLAIM FIGURE
A. The Overwhelming Consensus
One highly respected legal academic, elected by her peers as
president of the prestigious Association of American Law Schools,
recently reported that “the overwhelming consensus in . . . research relying on government data is that false reports account for only about 2 percent of rape complaints.”9 It is indisputably true that,
largely through the efforts of legal dominance feminists, there now exists a consensus among legal academics that only two percent of rape complaints are false.10 This purportedly empirical statement is
ubiquitously repeated in legal literature. Dozens of law review articles reiterate that no more than one in fifty rape complaints is false.11 This empirical fact, however, is an ideological fabrication.12…”
http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/rape/greer.pdf
No surprises here: Yes, and here is an extensive piece that David put together containing links to articles about why Kanin’s study is laughably unreliable, why false rape claims are difficult to quantify, and other issues surrounding the MRM’s love of the false rape boogeyman. We’ve had this discussion before; you’re late to the party.
Scarecrow P-Man: I’m sorry for not taking your wild claims and silly belief system more seriously and treating it and you with more respect. You’ll have to excuse me for not wanting to waste much time and effort with someone who repeatedly and doggedly misreads my words and is unable to understand simple concepts. It’s just not worth it.
Still no surprises: I think that you are confusing belief with fact, its a fact that rape as a politicized crime that is completely overblown (go to any feminist site “rape rape rape”) and that studies that record cases where the accuser has admitted that they falsely accused show high rates.
That is why I said you were “trying to put me in my place” (i.e. make it plain I am in some way deluded).
I’ve looked at your, “evidence” and it’s not what you claim it is. You’ve, obviously, not read what I said. I’ve (in this very comment thread) said I don’t believe the stats based on “unreported rapes”. That doesn’t mean there aren’t unreported rapes. It means they aren’t quatifiable.
But your citations disagree with your position. That means that (even if I take them at face value) your arguments fail. That’s not even considering that you are looking to documents some 20-30 years old, which is problematic in a changing social environment.
The short version. I know what you believe. I also know you don’t have a clue about what constitutes decent research, nor compelling argument.