There are a lot of men out there who really hate women. I mean really, really hate them – want them suffering and/or dead hate them As with a certain class of racist, they prefer to blame every woman for any slight – real or imagined – done to them throughout the entirety of their lives. I have been appalled lately by the tone and tenor of rhetoric flying around especially as regards the subject of rape.
I posted on this issue – here, and at a variety of other web sites, most of whom were either discussing the Oregon Case, or the anniversary of the Canadian Massacre. You would think that, universally, rape would be considered wrong – along with all violence against women. Well – evidently that’s not the case. Many men went beyond mere paternalistic chiding that we woman were too `fixated’ on the subject; I read posts overflowing with name-calling, venom spewing gender specific hatred; some of the comments tipping the scale so far into the red, alarms went off.
Why? Why do you feel this way? It is perhaps simplistic to assume the men who made those comments are or were rapists and molesters themselves; perhaps they do indeed enjoy inflicting pain on the helpless – the elderly, children, animals. I don’t know. The only yardstick I have for men like these are those who perpetrated acts of violence towards me; and the single common factor there was cowardice. The need to molest a child, a young girl – they were not the sort to take on an adult woman out of fear she’d have the strength to repel them. So what is it motivates these computer nihilists – flinging their offal like so many monkeys – hoping the stink will somehow injure those in its path?
Here is what I am talking about. The person being ridiculed is me. The reference is regarding the possible rape of a 17 year old girl. I was commenting on an article by James Joyner in Outside the Beltway. The poster left his name, Steven, but of course no trackback information. What he put in italics are snippets of my original response to Mr. Joyner. I am leaving in the grammatical errors and misspelling that seems to characterize all missive of this sort in place.
Let’s break this down a bit shall we?
“My only response to your lauding of what you call a more even approach is this: you obviously have very little empathy for women “
I must have missed you at the “Not In Our Name” anti-rad-fem rally where you decried false accusations that imprison men, subject THEM to rape, and destroy who sections of their lives.
Just because a person says a system must have balance and not cater to ONE gender does not mean the person is without empathy.
But, this is a typical rad-feminist response: put the person asking for balance and fairness on the defensive.
Sorry, didn’t you get the memo? The P.C. 90’s are over and the USA is more sophisticated as to rape.
She continues in her one sided argument:
” you automatically do what you chide Shakes Sis and Arthur Silber for; concluding the rape was bogus, because the justice system said so.”
Ahhh, and when a man is pronounced guilty you are the FIRST one to stand up and say: “just because he was pronounced guilty doesn’t mean he did it … there is a lot of questions to this case” – right?
She seems to conveniently forget women who molest boys in this part:
” You also seem to indicate the girl (girl not woman. No matter how much a certain class of men would like it to be 17 is still a child) would only get a slap on the wrist, so who cares right?”
You mean how Mary Kay LeTourneau was only sent away for SEVEN years after repeatedly sleeping with her 12 year old student?
Or how Debra LaFave was given NO jail time.
Plz DO post links to where you were up in arms about this ….
Showing your blatant sexism is EASY when you wear it on your sleeve.
She continues to make excuses and ignoring the double standards:
“Well, unlike you, I actually did a little research before stating my opinion. The facts of the case are in dispute the childs mother may have had some complicity, and the adult men involved could have been charged with statutory rape, as that is current Oregon law. But they werent only the girl (now 19) paid any price at all. Well I guess that’s OK by you; after all, its not like it was anyone you gave a damn about (assuming there are females you give a damn about). I noted many responses just like yours men getting up on their moral high horse decrying what we pesky feminists considered an egregious miscarriage of justice.”
Feminists consider justice to be giving one standard for men and another for women. It’s no different than “white justice” for blacks back in the day.
You decide guilt, innocence, mitigation of circumstances or lack thereof purely based on genetics. How does that robe and hood fit by the way?
The “men cannot understand” cannard:
” Ah well its not like you will ever have to suffer through the mind-numbing violence of rape; unless of course, through some egregious miscarriage of justice you end up in jail with the wrong cell-mate. But then only true criminals ever get convicted of crimes right? I mean, its not like the justice system is ever wrong?”
The Prison Rape Reform Act of 2003 was enacted due to 10% of all prisoners being raped REPEATEDLY. Consider: there are 2.5-2.7 MILLION men in prison. That’s 250K-270K men raped REPEATEDLY – and the feminists are doing … WHAT exactly to spread the word and stop it?
And as far as the justice system being wrong .. how about men spending 5, 10, 15, or 20 years in prison for rapes they didn’t comnmit – being later freed by DNA.
Do the feminists think that the women who have done this should go to jail for the SAME AMOUNT OF TIME!?
Not one of those women who put men in jail is serving a DAY … never mind that we need a National False Accuser Data Base to track these predators.
The P.C. 90’s are over cupcake. Women will start going to JAIL for false accusations. No longer can your shrill cries that espouse one sided sexism be taken at face vaule.
And stomping your dainty little foot no longer works.
Whew!!! Sorry to inflict that endless, rambling diatribe on you, but I think it needed to be seen in its entirety, as it illustrates my point to a `T’. This man is practically foaming at the mouth in his need to attack and belittle me, and every other woman within reach of his limited vocabulary. He HATES – virulently. He refers to women as predators, and seems to assert they all belong in jail or worse by virtue of gender alone; much like the hardened racist, who hates the skin tone without concern for the person in it. How sad.
Want to see another? This verbal diarrhea was attached to an article Shakespeare’s Sister did regarding rape and violence. The man called himself `A Raped Father’, and his overweening hatred for women almost swamps his keyboard. Some of his harangue was directed toward me – though most was intended for Shakes Sis. Either way, its enough to really make you wonder just who’s out there. Again I have left the excerpt intact.
The reality is that at a MINIMUM 45 to 50% of all rape allegations filed by women are false. And transversly, as all of our laws are gender neutral, how many women have ever been charged with raping juvenile boys??? Instead boys as young as 12 are paying CHILD SUPPORT for a child that was the result of a crime. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!! All of you guys defending this TROLLUP take off your aprons and skirts. Be a MAN !!!!!!!!!!!!
He followed that with:
It’s alot to risk?? There are far more ” SHAM ” Domestic Violence and Rape cases then there are actual assaults. Women are also more likely to use violence against a partner and also more likely to be believed in court, especially when backed up by the FEMALE LINEBACKERS from the local women’s shelter. It is a very profitable industry, these FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
I did not address him directly – only abjuring the other posters not to feed the trolls. This was his response. Way over the top and out in left field:
I bet fat lady sings for more welfare handouts and child support money, Oh hold it that is automatic even though she dosen’t allow DAD parenting time and fully has the children alienated and abused.
??????? And there you have it, I’m afraid. I won’t inflict any more examples on you – suffice it to say the Canadian responses to women bloggers memorializing the Montreal Massacre were treated to more of the same. So I want to know why it is some of you hate us so damn much? Is your loathing so great you’d prefer you had never been born? For that’s the only alternative available to you were we all to be eradicated. Or is it that you really hate humanity as a whole? I am asking these questions because I just don’t get it. I have never understood the lure of violence in the first place – I guess I just don’t hate anyone sufficiently enough. So – answer my question. Why do so many men hate women?
We have the question – but are there any answers?
So – answer my question. Why do so many men hate women?
The answer is that “so many men” do not hate women. Two idiots do not a gender make.
Would you want a man to characterize all women based upon the statements of only two? I suspect not.
FLS — I understand your hurt and confusion, but perhaps you could have phrases this question a bit better:
For example:
Do any of you have any insight into what makes men like this tick?
That way, both men and women would feel included in the discussion without having to feel like they need to defend themselves against generalizations that they had no part of.
Just a thought.
I haven’t run into any women-haters here in the pond (of either gender), I have however run into DavidByron ALL over the internet and that sounds exactly like him. Fortunately, there are less than “many” of him!
I have no idea why there are a few idiots out there who ruin it for the rest of you guys…
Hey, let’s make a list of the men at this site who DON’T hate women (in no particular order, and everone, please feel free to add any I might inadvertently leave of, as there are so many!):
boran2
supersoling
ghostdancers way
infidelpig
manEegee
BooMan
BroFel
Egarwaen
Madman
Ductape
ejmw
Knoxville Progressiive
growthrate
StevenD
BostonJoe
ask
melanchthon
jerome a paris
okay someone else’s turn, my fingers are getting tired…
I haven’t encountered any here so it would be easier to work on the idea that the men that post here do not hate women.
Besides I don’t want to overlook any of our wonderful guys by trying to make a list.
The haters might be here – but so far they’ve been silent. Let’s hope they stay that way.
A much beter idea SallyCat, and so true. (Plus there are so many posters whose gender I don’t even know)!
I’m glad we haven’t encountered much of what FLS has been seeing.
ah…cabingirl…….I know the name I chose is French and could be thought of by some as Femme..but.. I’m just sayin’….
Of course, in cyberspace things are not necessarily what they seem. 😉
See, SallyCat was right and so much wiser than me…I just get upset when I think I see genders (either mine OR my sons’) getting bashed and go off without thinking first…
You’re all good. 🙂
So Sallycat knew I was a dude? Is that her white cat I see all of the net? Love it. I think Diane and CSI know I was a He. I don’t really think it matters. But if need be..I got your back.
Good – and I know that; I wasn’t being specific to Booman, either – my comments were general. I just wanted to prompt discussion on the subject. The examples I cited were two of many – the issue seems to attract negativity like flies to honey.
I see you’ve found DavidByron — his missives to this effect over on MyLeftWing were very similar….I’d go get you some so you wouldn’t feel alone, but when MSOC banned him, they all went bye bye.
If this wasn’t DavidByron, they really need to meet and jack each other off for a while (sorry to be crude).
I take comfort in the fact that in my RL, I have encountered very very few of these men…
Glad to see you back. 😉
heh. back? did I go somewhere?
I took my 12 hour break, what more do you want! 😉
…numerous places, often for his unreconstructed misogyny but also for his inability to understand the difference between totalitarianism and plain old rotten government.
Sounds like you found yourself some MRAs — Mens’ Rights Activists. They are off the rails. They don’t respond to reason, logic, or frequently even to kindness or compassion. They seem to me to represent only a very small fraction of men, but they are particularly prevalent on the internet and seem to suddenly appear from the ether any time there’s a serious feminist issue being discussed.
I’m happy to debate with reasonable people of any sex or gender, but these guys are never reasonable, so I always just try to ignore them so they don’t derail the whole conversation — which, I suspect, is largely their intent.
Good advice.
Misogyny (women-hating) is the cornerstone of patriarchy. Therefore, everyone who lives in a patrarchal society (i.e. all of us, both male and female) has been indoctrinated in women-hating.
When you talk about “men who hate women,” what you are really talking about is men who are most obvious or vocal in their expression of patriarchal principles. Men, and women for that matter, who are less extreme devotees of patriarchy still, on some level, devalue, and deride much of what is associated with the feminine, and therefore women – which also implies a degree of hatred. It’s just that being so much a part of our culture, this “background noise” doesn’t really make it above the radar as actual “hatred.”
There’s a ton of stuff written about this subject, by much more articulate people than I am. I therefore refer you to the writings of Robin Morgan, Mary Daly, Susan Faludi, and Marilyn Frye – for starters.
It is interesting to note, the there is no corolary to misogyny (which would be “misandry”). For “man-hating” does not really exist other than as a weapon to put uppity “man-hating bitches” back in their “place.” Cludgles don’t need the cloaking niceities of erudite greek terms.
Thanks for the book references – I will look them up.
Patriarchy, I agree. It was illegal to teach a slave to read, etc., etc. — it seems there’s always lots of laws to make it more difficult for the weaker people to get stronger. All the laws that had women as property and it was a big fight before women could vote and men-only clubs fought tooth and nail to keep it that way. And there’s lots of Jane Crow laws being proposed and passed.
It seems to me that most cultures and religions are misoginistic about female biology: it’s unfortunate that nature is sexist (women are biologically compelled to expend resources for the next generation & men aren’t), but culture/religion is going to be sexist, too.
I know “the problem of evil” is something theologians wrestle with frequently. Is there any equitable religion or philosophy that deals with the problem with female biology, specifically that (for the most part) the male contribution is active and the female is passive (orgasm not necessary), and it’s the passive participant that gets assigned the biological expense?
But I could comment to him that if men in prison are so terribbly victimized by rape, could it be that the prison rapists are some of the same guys who, when they were roaming the streets, were attacking women? Oh, I see, that was okay.
And am I expected to believe that 45%-50% of the police reports documenting alleged rapes are false? Goodness, what’s wrong with the mostly male police forces in this country? Do they hate men?
Finally, I’m just flummoxed by this sentence.
Huh? As opposed to naive? bucolic rather than urban? having more developed tastes? What the hell is rape to get “sophisticated” about?
There are obviously some posters who have “Garbo brains “– one neuron and it wants to be alone.
…contentious.
Statistics on false rape reports range from 2% to 60% depending on whom you ask.
According to a Department of Justice report covering 10,000 rape cases during 1988-1995, DNA tests excluded the accused suspect in 2,000 cases, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. Linda Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape who once headed the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, has been quoted as saying “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.”
In the report, “Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000” put out by Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2002, it was noted that when perpetrators of completed rape are current or former husbands or boyfriends, the crimes go unreported to the police 77 percent of the time; when friends or acquaintances, 61 percent; when strangers, 54 percent.
So, well over half the rapes that occur in the United States go unreported each year.
According to a Department of Justice report covering 10,000 rape cases during 1988-1995, DNA tests excluded the accused suspect in 2,000 cases, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.
This doesn’t speak to the issue of whether the rape reports were false, though; what it means is that the wrong suspect was accused, which is a very different thing to say. It is frequently difficult for folks to make accurate IDs when they witness crime even when they’re not directly traumatized by it. And sometimes the police just get the wrong guy based on nothing to do with the victim’s report.
Is there any study from which Linda Fairstein draws her conclusion that “half [the reported annual rapes in Manhattan] simply did not happen” that I could access, or is it just her opinion that these rapes didn’t happen? Seems like there should be some data somewhere to back that kind of statement up.
…are being used by Fairstein. I’m assuming her time prosecuting sex crimes informs her view on this.
Thanks for the response, Meteor Blades.
I spent well over an hour last night trying to track down any kind of data for it, but came up with nothing. All I got was that quote being repeated ad nauseum, mostly by sites that are exceptionally hostile to women. Given that “arguments from authority” are not considered valid (i.e., we wouldn’t trust what George W. Bush says to be necessarily accurate just because he’s spent time being the President), it seems reasonable to consider that liberals ought not to spread that Fairstein quote about unless it can be properly sourced to some kind of study or something.
For example, by contrast, consider this recent report in The Oregonian, also linked by the diarist as it was relevant to her topic. This is in connection with a case where a young woman has been convicted (the decision is being appealed) of filing a false rape report:
I was unable to find this study online, and it does appear to be old data (possibly from 1990, but I couldn’t find out for certain), but it does at least credit a source where it can presumably be verified by someone industrious enough to do the follow-up.
…the statistics are contentious. I’ve not read Fairstein’s book, but perhaps some of those data can be found there.
With respect, Meteor Blades, statistics are not contentious just because someone says they are, no matter how many books they may have written. Statistics are only contentious if there are valid studies with statistically significant different results.
I agree with IndyLib. I wrote this diary because in my opinion far too many men prefer to believe that rape and other violent crimes toward women (I referenced the massacre of 14 women in Montreal) either don’t exist, or are some figment of our feminist imaginations. Just because you would like rape to be falsely reported, doesn’t make it so. Claiming statistics are ‘contentious’ is a very familiar way to marginalize this topic. Frankly, Meteor Blades, I found your entire tone throughout this discussion to be dismissive and paternalistic. It is obvious you want to believe that the higher 60% figure of false rape reports you quoted is true. Let me tell you statistics don’t hold knives to your head while ripping away any sense of safety you could ever imagine. Though I’m guessing this is all just academic to you. Nothing personal, right? Well it is very personal to the women and children who represent those numbers you seem so eager to embrace.
…but during my 23 months incarceration at the Industrial School for Boys in Golden, Colorado, which I’ve written about elsewhere, I was raped more than once by other boys. Authorities did nothing even though I was 11 years old. Three women I have known since college were raped, one of them gang-raped. Before I met her, my wife was raped. So don’t tell me this is nothing personal.
Just because you would like rape to be falsely reported, doesn’t make it so. … It is obvious you want to believe that the higher 60% figure of false rape reports you quoted is true.
And you complain about my tone?
Both of these comments of yours I’ve italicized are insulting, outrageous lies. I have zero interest in claiming reports of rape are false when they are true. And I do not “believe” the higher figure cited is correct; I merely pointed out that some people – those who have actually done studies or been involved in prosecuting rapes – have come to different, widely varying conclusions.
There is nothing “dismissive” about this, and there is nothing in my comments or my history – which includes years of work in pro-feminist activities – that could possibly be interpreted to indicate that I think rape or woman-hating is a “figment” of feminist imaginations.
Then it is obvious I misread your intent and your opinions, and for that I apologize. The impression I came away with was as I stated. You evidently were saying one thing, and I was hearing another. This subject is not one I consider an intellectual exercise – I called it as I saw it and I am very glad I was wrong. I too speak from experiences I would rather forget, but can’t. That makes this subject intensely personal – as it seems you can also understand. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
…were misunderstood. Sometimes, I condense too much and thus am not as clear as I should be. We really are on the same side.
I really apologize. This subject just shreds me. For some reason you pushed some buttons that I seem unable to turn off even after all these years. It’s amazing how it all has the power to keep hitting. I guess I have read too many callus replies lately. After a while, everything begins to sound the same. You and I just seem to misunderstand each other on occasion. I didn’t mean to push your buttons either.
…there are a few studies on the subject, with statistics for false rape reports ranging from 2% to 50%+, I’d say “contentious” is a reasonable conclusion. Fairstein can scarcely be considered anti-woman since she started prosecuting rapists in 1972 at a time when rape cases were considered career-killers in the DA’s office.
An excerpt from a 1997 interview with her:
Since first being reeducated by feminists in the late ’60s, I’ve always been on the side of changes in the law and guidelines for law enforcement that treat accusations of rape seriously and punish the convicted severely. I reject forcing women to reveal their sexual histories or asking questions about what they were wearing when they were attacked, or assuming that they couldn’t be raped by someone they have already had sex with.
As a onetime reporter on a police beat, I know that many male cops used to take the point of view that the woman is lying or that it’s no big deal even if she was raped. I assume this is still true.
That being said, as is always the case, we should never let our ideology trump the facts – if we can ascertain the facts. Some women who say they were raped weren’t. Unfortunately, there seem to be no recent studies of the subject, and having a couple would be wise.
But here’s an exceprt from Cathy Young’s piece in Salon a few years back (her whole article is worth reading):
Does the fact that some women claim they were raped when they weren’t justify woman-hating? Absolutely not.
My original post to you was not to argue the notion that the stats are contentious — I agree that they are, although I had not said that until now — it was to argue that you had not presented any evidence to support that claim.
Up until this most recent post, you had presented exactly no evidence regarding the prevalence of false rape reports at any percentage. You had only presented an argument from authority, which is invalid no matter who’s making it, and some DOJ statistics — that I accept as valid, btw — on unfounded cases, which, as I have already explained, is a different concept than false reports. If you look at the results of the Portland study, you can see that the “unfounded” percentage is almost twice that of the “false” percentage, demonstrating the difference I am talking about. “Unfounded” doesn’t mean the same thing as “she made it up”, regardless of the percentage.
I never said Fairstein was anti-woman, only that her quote is just a quote. It’s not evidence. Initially, the only position I took was on how claims ought be supported with evidence, which is an objective position based on academic standards and which is not contentious in the least.
As to the actual issue of false rape reports, Ampersand over at Alas did a great post back in the spring that more or less reflects my feelings about that. Summarily, as I already said up top, I agree that the number is contentious. I don’t think it’s as broad as you seem to think, but I am aware that that is an opinion and that there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion either way. Personally, I think more studies need to be done before we’ll know for certain, but I think the analysis at Ampersand’s site is much better than in Cathy Young’s article, and that when one considers the number of rapes that go unreported along with all the rest of the data from all of the valid studies available (including the Kanin study Cathy Young references), one can reasonably hypothesize that the overwhelming majority of women are honest about rape reports. Again though, that’s a hypothesis, not a conclusion on my part, because I fully recognize that the data are insufficient to draw a conclusion either way.
I certainly have never denied that some women lie, and I have gone nowhere near letting ideology trump facts. Quite the contrary, I have been very rigid about demanding empirical evidence before drawing any conclusion. And just to make sure I communicate my primary point as clearly as possible, I will reiterate: I wasn’t arguing that the statistics are contentious (even though it’s also true that I think they’re less so than you do based on the available evidence, which we seem to agree is inadequate), I was arguing that you had initially presented no evidence of that.
Finally, I thank you for generally being very fair regarding your interpretation of “women’s issues”. I’ve been reading your work at dKos for a very long time (although not recently) and have always enjoyed it very much.
…Ampersand makes a strong case.
I, too, believe that a large majority of women who say they were raped were raped, and that most rapes are not reported for a variety of reasons, including, ironically and maddeningly, the choice by many raped women not to call the cops because they don’t want to endure not being believed.
I never said I believed Susan Brownmiller’s 2%, the FBI’s 9% or Kanin’s 41%. I don’t know who is right. Somebody’s obviously wrong. We need a cross-cultural study whose methodology is such that something as close to the truth as possible can be obtained. Maybe there’s no way we can obtain a wholly accurate count because of situations, for example, in which women decide to give the boyfriends who raped them another chance and recant their original (and true) accusations. Or change their story because they fear retaliation.
You’re absolutely right about Fairstein’s quote, it isn’t evidence, just her say-so. But I don’t think she is without valuable credentials: she’s a woman who actually prosecuted cases and has some experience that presumably none of those of us engaging in this discussion here have. So what she says is not worthless. But it would certainly be helpful to know more of her context, whether she’s just tossing a roundish number off the top of her head or has objective data.
And it would certainly be useful for us to know how exactly the cases she’s talking about were determined to be “unfounded.” Obviously, mistakenly identifying a rapist is not the same as concluding there was no rape.
For the record, I want rapists caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to hard time and reeducation. I want rape victims treated fairly, and that means being given the benefit of doubt as in the case of any other crime, unless and until there is clear evidence of falsity.
I really appreciate you being so reasonable about this. I know how emotionally charged it is for many of us here in the thread, including both you and myself, as rape survivors. And we share common goals.
My point throughout this conversation has been that it’s not about which numbers to believe, it’s about sourcing what you say. Because you still haven’t sourced your original claims, and that was what was concerning me. You claimed as high as 60% and you haven’t even come close to sourcing that. The most you can source is 41%, which is 19% less than you originally claimed, and which, in statistical terms, is an enormous difference. And really, all I’m trying to say is that if you can’t source it, then you shouldn’t say it — particularly when it’s about something as serious and emotionally charged as rape.
I thank you for this exchange; I think it has been difficult but productive.
…figure. This and widely published claims of 2%, 8%, 41% and 50% are the reasons I consider the statistics to be contentious. (Once again, let me say that I am not a “believer” in any particular statistic regarding false rape allegations, nor do I have any stake whatsoever in “proving” a higher figure. My objective, as always, is to know (as much as we ever can) the truth.)
Link.
My objective, as always, is to know (as much as we ever can) the truth.)
Then we have the exact same agenda, but my standards are far more rigorous.
I appreciate your at least trying to source the figure you used, but that is not a peer-reviewed journal, and it is thus an invalid source.
I am not saying this to be an asshole. Academic standards exist for a reason and the primary reason is so that some random moron and/or bigot can’t get his/her ramblings accepted as “science”, as they so often have in the past regarding issues of racial inferiority, for example. Any source must pass academic standards, including peer review, and that one isn’t even close. That article would never be published in a scholarly journal, and all I’m suggesting is that we all take our facts from scholarly journals. Seems simple enough.
This is really bothering me, that you think this article is valid. I don’t know why, maybe because I’ve trusted your judgment in the past. Anyway, look, this guy is playing a rhetorical trick, and you’re falling for it. Here, I’ll show you how he’s doing it:
He starts off talking about the McDowell study and citing the actual study so as to sound legit. He cites the actual study number as 27%. High, in my opinion, but polygraph results were used and are unreliable in trauma cases (as explained by the other colleen below), and the sample was restricted to women in the armed services (specifically the Air Force, I believe) and there is significant and well-documented undue pressure for women to recant rape charges in that climate. Surely you’re aware of that and wouldn’t disagree that that contributes to inflating the number. But that isn’t where he’s being tricksy, that’s just poor interpretation of data and a poorly conducted study.
The next thing the article writer does is blur the line between reports that couldn’t be proved and reports that were recanted, and subtly suggests that the 27% number is actually higher by conflating two concepts that he has no business conflating. Again, that’s bad social science.
And THEN, he talks about a followup study outside the military environment and interpretation of the data extrapolated from it, which is where he says 60%. And that’s where he’s tricking you. Because the 60% number isn’t sourced to the McDowell study, or even to the followup study. In fact, you can see from your own post where you quoted it that it’s cited to Warren Farrell’s personal interpretation of the study results in Warren Farrell’s decidedly non-academic book The Myth of Male Power. That, by definition, is not scholarly research. It’s just Warren Farrell’s opinion, couched in language to make it look official when in fact it is not, by definition.
Don’t fall for it. If you care about truth as much as you claim to, then demand real research, settle for nothing less, learn to identify this kind of dishonest abuse of social science and then speak out against it whenever you see it, on any side. I strongly recommend that you poke around at the websites of a few legitimate universities and peruse their standards for publishing, which will clarify the matter for you far better than I can, and then apply those standards to every study you think is valid and make sure it passes the test.
…is that, despite my disclaimers, you can still write This is really bothering me, that you think this article is valid. Quoting people is not validating their research, their biases or anything else about them.
What I have been saying from the beginning of this discussion is that the statistics regarding false rape allegation are “contentious.” The very debate we have been having is prima facie evidence of that. Ampersand, at the link you so kindly provided, agrees: “I haven’t said much because I’ve looked into the research and found it very inconclusive.” And thus, contentious.
As both you and I lament, we have too little firm data on the subject. On what we do have, however, people with credentials disagree. Studies and interpretations of those studies disagree.
Yet, I have been accused (not by you) of trying to marginalize women for even raising the issue that different people – including newspaper teams that did their own investigations and including peer-reviewed academics dating back to 1956 – have very different takes as a result of their studies/investigations. In other words, contention.
BTW, I’ve tussled with men’s groups that are little more than clubs to bitch about women, and I am no fan of Mr. Farrell, nor he of me since I penned a book review about his veiled misogyny in 1988.
I’m fully aware that there is a difference between a newspaper probe and a valid peer-reviewed academic study. And between a study with good methodology and good interpretation and one not so good. As well as one that seeks objectivity as opposed to a reinforcement of ideology. But, I get the feeling I wouldn’t have been challenged here if, from the get-go, I’d only cited Susan Brownmiller’s oft-stated 2%, which has zero academic studies backing it up. Note: Brownmiller’s Against Our Will was for me, like others of my generation, an epiphany, so I am not trashing her. But that 2% statistic of hers can be found everywhere, even though it is backed up only by the experience 35 years ago in New York after female officers became available to question victims. Is Brownmiller more worthy of being treated unskeptically than Fairstein? If so, why?
A couple of comments about specifics:
In writing about the McDowell study, the cited author raises many of the same objections you raise: results of polygraphs of subjects under stress are problematic; the military population is probably atypical, et cetera. Nor, in my view, does that author take a stand one way or the other on whose, if anybody’s, statistics are accurate.
My take on the author’s comment regarding the 27% is exactly the opposite of yours:
To me that says pretty directly that ALL of the 256 excluded cases could have been actual instances of rape. Therefore, instead of 27% false allegations, (80 of 300), the figure would be 14.4% (80 of 556).
But, I get the feeling I wouldn’t have been challenged here if, from the get-go, I’d only cited Susan Brownmiller’s oft-stated 2%, which has zero academic studies backing it up.
A statement which pretty much verifies the attitude that’s been bothering me. So, I guess we’re all bothered, MB.
I have already agreed that the statistics are contentious. That is SO NOT the point. And Susan Brownmiller isn’t the point either. I haven’t cited her work, so you can kindly drop that needless tangent and your offensive and groundless speculation about my intellectual integrity.
FYI: You are wrong about what it means to cite an article. When you cite a study or an article as the source of a number that you maintain is possibly true, then yes you are giving it validity. You are not accepting it above all others by citing it, but you are suggesting that it is a legitimate source of potentially valid information. If you don’t believe me, again, I strongly encourage you to peruse the websites at legitimate universities, which will confirm everything I’ve been saying to you in this thread.
The point is simple enough: DO NOT EVER CITE NUMBERS WITHOUT PROVIDING A SOURCE, AND DO NOT EVER CITE SOURCES THAT YOU CAN PROVE TO FALL SHORT OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
That 60% cite failed on both counts, because you cited no source initially, and then when you did, your source turned out to be Warren Farrell’s woman-hating screed. So your reponse to me should have been something more like, “Hey thanks for pointing that out! I hadn’t realized that guy got that number from Farrell, or that that journal wasn’t peer-reviewed and was therefore an unacceptable source. I’ll stop using that 60% figure, and I’ll persue my cites and sources more carefully in the future to make sure they pass academic standards before I use them.” I do not even begin to understand why you’re being so defensive with me.
But after an entire weekend of arguing about it, I can only assume that you are refusing to engage my primary point, which again, is this: DO NOT EVER CITE NUMBERS WITHOUT PROVIDING A SOURCE, AND DO NOT EVER CITE SOURCES THAT YOU CAN PROVE TO FALL SHORT OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
And the tone that you’re picking up from me is profound sadness, not anything else. The simple truth is that I expected better from you, and I am deeply saddened by this whole exchange. I will leave this conversation now with another strong encouragement for you to read up on academic standards, because you clearly do not understand them as well as you think you do, since you wound up citing Warren Farrell and not even realizing it.
Hear, Hear. I too am sad – about the tenor of replies in general. Some of those who felt compelled to bash me here, followed me back to my blog to continue it there. This is not directed any any single respondent – but I have to say I am very disappointed this subject was treated more as ‘man vs. woman’, than violence as an entity unto itself, and the trauma it induces. Thanks for putting the focus where it belonged. I’m glad you survived your attack – I too am a survivor, and it does color your world, as I’m sure you know all too well.
but I have to say I am very disappointed this subject was treated more as ‘man vs. woman’, than violence as an entity unto itself, and the trauma it induces.
I am too. I’ve a good many men friends and we often have conversations in which the question of your diary’s title is explored. I did not see you making a general statement about the male gender but, rather, asking a question lots of other thoughtful people ask. The extreme defensiveness and the unfortunate tendency to lable and stereotype that occurs whenever these subjects come up on left blogs contains, I believe, part of the answer.
Switch it around, if a guy was to ask ‘Why do some women hate men’ the thread would be full of women using soothing and conciliatory language with a few pointing out some of the developmental influences which might lead to the always grotesque bigotry of hatred for half the human race. What there would not be is a lot of people getting all huffy thinking that some means all or believing you’re talking about them personally and defending themselves and their gender. There also would not be people insisting that only two people on the blogs fit that description.
When I talk about why some men hate women (and there are a great many more than two) with my men friends in the Real World the conversations are lively and full of humour and insight. Inevitably on blogs thses sorts of discussions become unpleasant and unproductive. And yet I also find the sorts of people like the two you’ve highlighted (and more than a few women) highly disturbing to read. Sometimes I save the conversations to read to actual men friends and they’re disturbed too.
I don’t know what to say about the inability of most men and a good many women on political blogs to respond constructively or, often, even particularly intelligently to these sorts of questions and I’m not sure why that happens. But it always does, every time.
I too have had these discussions with my friends – hell, my husband read the replies and just shook his head; he couldn’t believe the direction the comments tended toward. Of course I wasn’t accusing or attacking anyone; just pointing out something that had disturbed me. I appreciate your insight. Thank you for truly understanding my point. And if you think the participants here went a bit off the deep end, you should have seen what happened when I posted this diary elsewhere. Many more comments of the sort I featured.
It is an important subject – one men and women should be able to relate together on. So – thank you very much for taking the time to really read what I wrote and respond thoughtfully and with civility. I will be addressing this subject again. I think it is too important to allow a few shrill voices to silence.
…will be treated as defensive and my attitude no different than that of the commenter which the Diarist originally complained about.
Nonetheless, let me engage one more time.
We’re talking past each other on citations.
I probably shouldn’t have even used the word “statistics,” because, correct me if I’m wrong, that to you implies some validity per se. If the gathered and interpreted data don’t derive from peer-reviewed source meeting strict guidelines, then they can’t properly be called “statistics” and calling them such gives them clout they don’t deserve. OK. I can accept that interpretation.
But I was using “statistics” in the vernacular, as in “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
My SOLE purpose was to point out the wide range of percentages that people – including academics, cops, prosecutors, rape counselors, the FBI and men’s rightists – use when they discuss the issue. People use 2% and people use 60%, and my saying so did in no way whatsoever mean I was suggesting that it is a legitimate source of potentially valid information.
My original comment merely gave a range of percentages offered by various unnamed, unvetted sources that average people with very different perspectives use to back up their arguments. I made no judgment on their validity. My point was to say that data on this unthoroughly studied subject are not firmly set, so the “statistics” which get cited range all over the place.
I then took note of the Bureau of Justice statistics. You pointed out that these are problematic. I agree. But then ALL the studies, ALL the “statistics” on this subject that I have seen are problematic.
So far – I’d love to be wrong about this – we don’t have any published peer-reviewed studies that meet academic standards which everyone finds acceptable. Kanin’s are criticized, McDowell’s are criticized. I accept some of the criticisms as justified, especially since McDowell’s grotesquely misogynist comments elsewhere tend to give one good reason to believe he slanted his study’s criteria to maximize “false” allegations.
But if we throw these studies out, we are left with studies by police departments (such as the Portland one you described but that neither of us can access) and by newspaper probes, whose methodology is often suspect – from the rigors of interviews to the acquisition of target samples. Finally, we have the comments of prosecutors, whose views range widely. Without a database on which to judge what these prosecutors mean by false allegations (say, mistaken identity vs. unfounded accusation), we still have no firm data.
Where does that leaves us? Based on the conversation here, which has upset both of us and gotten our backs up, it would seem we would be better off not talking about the subject at all. I find that a terrible solution.
Although I think I do have a reasonable understanding of academic standards for valid studies, I am going to follow your advice and read some specifics at university Web sites.
I then took note of the Bureau of Justice statistics.
And this is where you made your first mistake, and you continue to misunderstand the nature of my complaint about it. The BoJ statistics are not about false reports, they’re about unfounded reports, which, again, are two different concepts. Here’s the text from your own post, emphasis mine:
According to a Department of Justice report covering 10,000 rape cases during 1988-1995, DNA tests excluded the accused suspect in 2,000 cases, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.
This is not about false reports. False report means “she lied”. DNA tests excluding the suspect means 20 different things, none of which necessarily add up to “she lied”, same with inconclusive. So I realize that you think you posted BoJ stats on false reports, but in fact, you did not.
So far – I’d love to be wrong about this – we don’t have any published peer-reviewed studies that meet academic standards which everyone finds acceptable.
Please note, I have agreed with you about this consistently.
McDowell’s are criticized.
Yes. But here’s the trouble — you seem to continue to mistakenly believe that you cited the McDowell study for the 60% when in fact you did not. You cited a random writer with no academic affiliation in a non-peer reviewed journal who cited Warren Farrell on the 60%. And there is simply no standard by which that is ever appropriate, certainly not in academia, but not even in casual conversation. Citing Warren Farrell, which you did, is no better than me citing Jane’s ManHating Website of How All Men Are Rapists as a source — which, btw, I have not and would NEVER do.
Because please note, while I indeed have criticisms of the McDowell and Kanin studies (and of others we’ve not discussed with different numbers), I have not categorically rejected your citing of them. Near as I can tell, they are up for legitimate debate. That article, however — which is what you named as the source of your 60% — is a whole different ballgame, and university standards should make clear to you why.
I am going to follow your advice and read some specifics at university Web sites.
Excellent. I cannot thank you enough for being willing to do this. I think if you pay them careful attention, then you will find independent verification of my complaints about your citing habits, and you will see the precise nature of the trouble I have with your continued use of that 60% number. Hopefully, you will find youself no longer wishing to use it on your own, once you understand that it’s trash. Hopefully, you will also come away better informed as to how to gauge a source and determine whether it constitutes valid research up for legitimate debate or whether it constitutes trash which should be rejected out of hand.
on the BoJ stats. Those DNA evaluations obviously lump in false allegations with all kinds of other reasons the DNA didn’t match, and we have no idea how many of each are included.
You can be sure I will avoid the 60% figure in any future discussions unless underpinned by the gist of our conversation here.
But I didn’t cite a “random writer,” rather a writer whose article appears in a journal which claims that it is peer-reviewed: Issues in Child Abuse Accusations. Without knowing exactly how they operate, I can’t know how high their standards are.
I did think the McDowell study claimed a 60% figure, but not because of the link to Farrell. The author mentions independent reviewers first, and only cites Farrell in the parentheses of the last sentence of the paragraph:
I took those to be two separate references, one cited, one not. I may have erred in that regard.
Having gone to the library and looked up The Myth of Male Power, I found this quotaton directly from McDowell himself on page 322:
Once again, I don’t buy McDowell’s viewpoint, and the more I learn about him and the criteria he set for determining when a woman is supposedly lying about rape, the more repelled I am.
OK. I’ve got my work cut out for me checking out those academic sites. And other issues as well.
Thanks for being patient enough to have returned one more time – against your better judgment, I’m sure – to engage me.
I’m so pleased to know that you’re digging deeper and learning more.
One final note from me, too: the author you cited was listed on the article thusly: Frank S. Zepezauer is a teacher and writer at 1731 Wright Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94087, so it is true that he is affiliated with no academic institution or other research facility — which is almost always a red flag, just so you’ll know. And while I did poke through the website and I could not find any evidence that that journal published by The Institute for Psychological Therapies undergoes a proper peer-review process, it is certainly possible that I missed it. If that’s the case, then I apologize and retract that portion of my criticism.
Once again, your preference is to focus your comments on false reports. You come armed with studies, quotes from ‘women’ professionals (and doesn’t that just ice the cake?) who of course back up the high numbers you once again trot out. As with quotes from the bible, anyone anywhere can find a set of statistics to bolster any claim they would like to make. Rush Limbaugh does it all the time. Are his statistics generally correct? He certainly seems adamant about them. Do you believe what he tells you? The intent when proffering up numbers such as yours is to push someone to say, ‘Well of course there will be false reports’. Then you can say, ‘ah, well – you see!’, and feel that you came away from the exchange secure in your beliefs and with your moral superiority intact.
I know my diary had little effect – that is obvious from the tenor of the comments – both here and elsewhere. I did receive some personal emails from women who didn’t feel comfortable posting – and they indicated they shared my observations. I had hoped most men wouldn’t spend their time trying to prove that the majority of women lie about violence. That is what that original 60% figure you quoted meant, you know; that more women lie than tell the truth about rape. I’m sure it makes many men feel better – or safer; I’m not sure which. Violence isn’t ideology, or politics. What it really is – is blood, and broken bones and torn skin. Unless you have been on the receiving end, I guess it is easy to dismiss it with a few numbers. I have to say I have been extraordinarily surprised by the overall reaction this subject has engendered. Saddened as well. As one of my sister bloggers remarked – it really makes you revaluate your personal safety when walking down the street.
I hope you will follow the link I just posted over to Ampersand’s post back in April about this subject, where he analyzes the available data and comes to a very different conclusion than does Cathy Young. Ampersand is a male feminist, and in my opinion he does consistently excellent analysis. Every once in a great while he steps in shit, but mostly he’s very good, and he’s very demanding about facts, which I love about him. I think you would like his site very much; he also has a couple of female co-bloggers.
Could real victims have recanted under pressure from sexist cops? The town’s police used the controversial practice of lie detector tests, which have been attacked on scientific as well as political grounds (the test rarely misses liars but may have a high error rate with truthful subjects). But Kanin also analyzed police files from two state universities — where lie detectors were not used and all victims were interviewed by a female police officer — and came up with similar results. Moreover, when a specific man was accused, the details of the recantation always matched his story.
Because I live in a state where, in some localities, women are subjected to polygraph tests after they are raped and it is legal to do so to determine if a ‘rape has occurred’ I know a couple of women who were indeed raped and who failed the polygraph and thus their cases would fall under this woman’s category of ‘rapes which did not happen’. I likewise know polygraph experts who believe this practice to be nuts because the truth or dishonesty of a subject’s statements aren’t accurately measured when the subject is emotionally upset as women (and I daresay men) tend to be when talking about beng raped.
Second, a female police officer doing the. Indeed, women who survive and succeed in male dominated professions like police work or politics are often exceptionally closed minded and simplistic in their thinking and vicious when confronted with inequities experienced by their gender. see Ann Coulter or Concerned Women for America as examples. They’ve managed to make careers at this sort of things. It’s a strategy I see adopted everywhere, not just on the right.
The problem with this is that the rate of sex crimes is increasing. Perhaps the prosecuter whose understanding you respect needs to rethink the effectiveness of the ‘war’ she is engaged in because, while I do know a few women who have falsely reported rapes, I know many, many women who were not believed and/or didn’t report being raped to the police because they would have been subjected to the indignity of a polygraph, to being called a liar, to parsing of what constitutes rape. We work to require rape kits in hospitals, the justice system finds other funding priorities besides DNA testing untill the SOL runs out. We work to make saying ‘no’ a defining characteristic and Kobe Bryant is exonerated.
and on and on.
I have no faith in the justice system when it comes to rape and particularly when it comes to the rape of adult or adolescent women, none whatsoever.
Fwiw, I completely agree with your criticism of the Kanin study. Everything you say resonates with my experience as well.
I did not report my rape because I was drinking, and that would have been used to discredit me, and because the rapist (who was my boyfriend at the time) was a popular boy in the neighborhood with powerful connections to local law enforcement. I knew that I would be torn apart and that nothing would happen to him. Further, I lacked family support, was only 15, didn’t know about rape crisis resources at the time, and was emotionally unequipped to go through having my character assassinated alone.
Damn-it, those people!
But fortunately, the men here – they’re not the women haters. It’s those, out there, they’re the one’s who hate women. Us, we’re the righteous and clean. So what do we do about them?!?!?!?!
——-
OK. So my point is that I’m reading an implicit US vs THEM mentality from the diary author down through the various comment threads. But none of this solves the real – criminal – problem of rape and other forms of violent assault. Questions I would have preferred the author to ask (and try to answer) are:
——-
I bet many of these questions have already been answered by criminologists and the psychiatric community. And in these answers I think you’ll find that most men – in general – are not violent or prone to rape. Men, like women, are individual; each with their own foibles and weaknesses. Some women also murder, assault, steal, commit adultery, drink excessively, and even use words harshly. I have a professor who likes to say, “humanity is a self predatory species.” And when left unchecked by strong social convention – unfortunately, he’s right.
Not trying to be harsh, but I found the generalization a bit too much.
I have a question that I have never been able to figure out. Why is the crime called rape when it is a teenage or older woman, but called molesting if it is a child? When a small chaild is raped, it is still called sexual abuse, sometimes and child molestation other times, but we don’t see it called rape. I understand that some of what goes on with children is not actual penetration, but often it is and it still is not referred to as rape. Sort of like it isn’t as violent or as bad if it is a child.
The reason I ask this, is because even as bad as “sexual abuse” or “molestation” sound, they have nowhere the impact the word “rape” does. It is like the terms we use for this act are not so “bad” because it is a child.
Certainly here in backward Idaho, when actually convicted, the court gives no or very light sentences to “child sexual abusers.” Six months is a common ultimate sentence, and if the perp is a prominant business man or known in the community as an “upstanding” fella, it is usually a 6 months probation sentence.
The sentencing thing is a great puzzlement. A child’s life has been altered in a way people not ever having experienced this trauma can comprehend. Even with great therapy and years of healing counseling. . .the “act” is always there, it jumps up in the face of the victim through the rest of their life, often coming out of nowhere, it blindsides them. Yes, many learn how to live healthy, happy and productive lives. But lurking beneath it all is the memory of that violent attack on their bodies when they were totally defenseless.
You are never over it. If you are fortunate and have good therapy, you learn to deal with it, but you are never over it.
Current statistics tell us one in 4 girl children are sexually abused. . .and trending toward one in 3. I don’t understand it. Anyone have stats on young boys? I am sure plenty of them are being abused as well. And I know it is often dismissed with boys because, well, they are boys and boys like sex no matter how young they are, right?
Human beings have a long way to go.