We should thank the men's liberation movement for telling lies in a really obvious way, it helps us grow

Blauwpetje · 2020-10-04T16:40:36+00:00

What this article ignores anyway is that you don't have to be convicted to be destroyed by false accusations of rape or sexual assault. Just enough people believing it will make your (social) life impossible.

Blauwpetje · 2020-10-04T16:26:44+00:00

Feminists and menslibbers have told so many lies the last decade, if you were right we should run the world by now.

a-man-from-earth · 2020-10-04T23:36:37+00:00

It is hard to get good statistics on this, as shown in that article. Many feminists cling to the lowest possible number for rape accusations that have been determined false, for obvious reasons. Personally, I go with FBI numbers for the USA, as they have a reasonable methodology. They state that 5.5% of rape allegations that are reported are determined false. Meaning there is enough evidence to make the determination.

I am not sure of the number of determined true, but I'm under the impression that is single digits as well. Of the ones that go to court, only about 2% lead to a conviction.

That leaves us with a majority of 80-90% of rape allegations that are not determined either way. Feminists jump to the conclusion that they must be obviously true, since they haven't been determined false. But that is really not warranted, and clearly poor logic. It is more reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of those are also false.

And then there are all the allegations that never make it to the authorities. Many lives have been destroyed without evidence and without fair trial.

Feminists really ought to do more to prevent false accusations, because they hurt real rape cases.

ShortTailBoa · 2020-10-04T23:27:55+00:00

Why the fuck would a movement that's supposed to support men do something like this?

It's so blatantly obvious that they have no interest in protecting the rights of men that it's almost sickeing.

Moronic-Simpleton · 2020-10-04T14:59:03+00:00

From his post:

Compare this to the fact that 6.4% of men openly admitted of committing the strictest possible definition of rape and 23% of that 6.4% admitted of multiple rapes.

Is that true? I clicked on the link but it didn’t get me anywhere. Can this actually be disproven?

Kuato2012 · 2020-10-05T11:13:21+00:00

View that link via ceddit to view the comments their mods didn't want you to see.

The linked article is pseudoscientific trash, but that didn't stop the menslib mods from immortalizing it in the sub's sidebar. Their mods chose to delete my criticisms without explanation the first time around. My comment was deservedly critical of the post, but it wasn't impolite, meanspirited, or snarky (which I certainly could have been... instead I went out of my way to actually soften it). So I guess I'll just repost my response in its entirety here:

I appreciate that you went to a lot of effort to put this post together, but I hope it will be OK for me to criticize some of your conclusions and methodology here. I don't like the way reddit lends itself toward posting commentary in sub X if you agree with something and posting commentary in sub Y if you disagree. That creates echo chambers.

My first critique is that your data looks cherry picked on the basis of whether or not it supports your conclusion. I say that because your criteria for accepting or rejecting a study are inconsistent. This is a major problem that separates good methodology from pseudoscience.

You rejected studies on the basis of their age when they counter your argument, such as McCahill 1979 (n = 1198). From the list of rejected studies, it looks like 2006 is your threshold for study age. But you include data from 2001-2003 and 2002 when it supports your argument.

Importantly, you also rejected small sample studies that showed high rates of false allegations, but you included small sample studies when they showed low rates (e.g. Lisak 2010, n = 136, or the figure that only 18% of false accusations name someone and only 0.9% end up in court (n=216)).

In other cases, you've also ignored data in the studies you did select, when that data didn't suit your argument. e.g. Cassia 2012 determined that 10.9% of accusations were unfounded (n = 5031). That sample size and publication date appear to be above your thesholds, but you seem to be pushing for a lower figure.

(to put a more human face on that, that's up to roughly 100 men per year, just in LA)

Also, one of your linked studies is incorrect. Lonsway 2009 is about Nigerian data, not US. I think you meant to link to the Lonsway 2009 article in The Voice (judging from the references here). I'm unable to bring up that journal, but I don't think it's peer reviewed. Whether intentionally or not, you sort of woozled that one in.

Now I think I need to stop and reiterate that I'm not picking this apart just to be a contrarian MRA asshole. If you're going to bring a slew of data into your argument in order to lend it credence, especially to make an argument about rates and incidence and, you know, numbers... then not being dodgy with the numbers is extremely important! And cherry picking supporting data points while arbitrarily declaring others to be outliers is super dodgy. The defining feature of pseudoscience is that it looks credible on the first pass, but it falls apart when you skeptically dig into it. So I'm digging into the methodology, and some pieces are crumbling off. On the basis of your data selection, my impression is that your argument is actually ideologically driven, rather than data driven.

I imagine a critic of my own post might say I'm being overly dogmatic or harsh. It's not like you're submitting this analysis for formal publication, after all. But in the second half of your post, you come out with your thesis, and why I'm compelled to respond. Your main point appears to be that MRAs have purposely overblown the issue of false rape allegations, and so they must be pushing a regressive agenda of gender segregation.

However, that conclusion does not follow from what you've presented.

Whether the figure for false allegations is 2% or 50%, that's a problem that warrants consideration and needs some kind of protections in place for the victims. That makes it a worthy topic of conversation for anyone interested in the rights of men (or justice in general, though this issue undoubtedly affects men predominantly). So we can't use that as evidence against those evil MRAs.

If your contention is only that the problem is overblown, then that's where being honest with your numbers and methodology becomes extremely important. That's why I held your feet to the fire a little bit above... if it's an argument about the numbers, then you can't cherry pick and massage your own numbers and present that as an argument. That's dishonest.

You also present the argument that MRAs don't care about the rape of males. That's very tangential to your main argument, and it certainly doesn't follow from an examination of mensrights posts. Anyone who has poked around a bit over there knows that MRAs are overwhelmingly in favor of equalizing legal definitions and social attitudes about rape and sexual harassment to include men.

Your data analysis of mensrights posts and karma scores doesn't exactly support your argument, either. There's nearly a 50/50 split in the graphs you posted, yet you gloss over that. There are technically more posts and upvotes about false allegations, but it's a little disingenuous to conclude that MRAs don't care about male rape from such data. Also, post count and karma count are proxies for interest level, but they have their own flaws. And of course it's not a zero-sum game; a person can be justifiably incensed by both ideas.

In the next section, you bring up the idea that some men are scared of false allegations. Again, being honest with the numbers is important here if your main thrust is that the problem is overblown. There's also a tricky issue here which you didn't mention: when it comes to false accusations, the legal system is the weapon used against the victim, rather than the system to protect them. People get a little paranoid when they feel like the legal system is out to get them. So how does one get around that problem? You seem to propose the presence of a third party but also scoff at the idea in the same breath. Are men justifiably concerned, and a third party system is warranted, or not? And if the answer is "no," then what? Do we regard men as disposable once again? Even here in menslib?

The section about proposed sentencing of false accusers is kind of unfocused and doesn't seem to support any of your arguments. There should probably be some kind of penalty for false accusation, but I don't know what it should be, how to protect non-false accusers, or what the purpose of this section is, other than to further tar and feather MRAs.

To conclude, it seem like you had two main purposes. One was to massage the data downplay the incidence of false allegations, which is a little strange to see in a forum dedicated to helping men. The other was to smear MRAs through leaps of logic (or perhaps that was the primary motivation, and the rest of the analysis, such as it is, was incidental). And while that is a common enough pastime here, I don't think it particularly advances men's liberation or their rights.

Blauwpetje · 2020-10-05T09:51:25+00:00

A very good video about this, making the link between feminist legal theories and practices and 'cynical theories'. In general, Diana Davison is excellent when it comes to false accusations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpgA8OAm2o

Oncefa2 · 2020-10-05T13:43:46+00:00

u/Egalitarianwhistle made a big post with reference debunking this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e6w4yc/i_call_bullshit_on_the_false_rape_accusation/

manumiss1on · 2020-10-06T21:42:16+00:00

The linked to post is extremely confused (or mendacious). Among the major 'mistakes':

confusing attempted rape and sexual assault on the one hand with rape on the other
taking only proven false allegations as false allegations, and assuming all others are valid (if you take only proven rapes as true allegations then 96% of rape allegations are false)
taking only proven false allegations that are filed as "false allegation" and not those filed as "no crime"
confusing statistics about lifetime occurrences with per incident statistics
quoting the rate of convictions for giving false allegations (zero) as the rate of convictions for rape following a false allegation
taking statistics about proven false allegations (e.g. whether the suspect was arrested or charged), as representative about false allegations that result in convictions. Obviously the police are less likely to arrest/charge a suspect if they know the allegation is false
ranting about a sample size of <100 as being "a meme" then taking a sample size of 6 as being valid
repeating lies about the Kanin study (these are common feminist woozles) - see http://www.mediaradar.org/mcdowell_kanin_credible.php
double counting factors
cherry picking statistics from different sources (e.g. the home office study cited for statistics about subjects gives a false allegation rate of 16% but he uses stats from feminist sources that say 2-10%)

Those are just the immediate problems that leap out at me

A better overview is here: https://masscentral.com/false-rape-allegations-explained/

Note even if you take his lowball figure of 10% FRA rate, then that means approx 200 men are falsely accused to the police each year in the UK alone. And many more accused on social media, to their employers etc.

The % chance of any given man being a victim seems irrelevant to whether false accusers should be prosecuted. Using the same logic he used (only convictions are real crimes) then a woman has only a 0.0005% chance of being raped per year.

Or to put it the same way he did:

Which mean out of all the men you meet you have a 0.0005% chance of being Raped.

I'm sure no one would argue that is a reason not to prosecute rapes

fcsquad · 2020-10-08T08:34:09+00:00

One of the best studies on falsely-convicted men is the one done by the Urban Institute looking at DNA evidence which exonerated between 8 and 15 percent of men wrongfully convicted (not merely accused) of sexual assault.

The higher figure is more likely to be the actual rate of false convictions. The convicted offenders in this study fell into two groups: those where DNA would confirm or disprove the man's involvement in the crime, and those where DNA would not help either way. (The latter would include cases where the man agreed sex had occurred, but maintained that it had been consensual, for example.) The two groups were close in size. Where DNA was dispositive, 15 percent of the men were shown to be innocent. The 8 percent figure comes from assuming that none of the men in the second group had been incorrectly convicted and simply adding them in to the denominator. There's no way to know for sure, but it seems to me that a more reasonable assumption would be that the false conviction rate for both groups would likely be similar (and therefore the overall rate would be close to 15%).

Title	We should thank the men's liberation movement for telling lies in a really obvious way, it helps us grow
Author	czerdec
Upvotes	25
Comments	20
Date	October 4, 2020 2:24 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/j4zpv6/we_should_thank_the_mens_liberation_movement_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/we-should-thank-the-mens-liberation-movement-for.1194673 https://theredarchive.com/post/1194673

Comments