~ archived since 2018 ~

A study compares likely true rape stories with false rape stories and concludes significant differences. Many of the false story factors mirror what feminists insist is typical behavior for rape victims.

w1g2

October 3, 2018

139 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1889186116300026

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	A study compares likely true rape stories with false rape stories and concludes significant differences. Many of the false story factors mirror what feminists insist is typical behavior for rape victims.
Author	w1g2
Upvotes	139
Comments	29
Date	October 3, 2018 3:02 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9kxeaq/a_study_compares_likely_true_rape_stories_with/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-study-compares-likely-true-rape-stories-with.892798 https://theredarchive.com/post/892798

Comments

[–]Mens-Advocate 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mons7er 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Nobody except the craziest fringe of MRAs is interested in McDowel's work. He started a rape defense legal business, calling himself as an expert witness and citing his own extremely biased research.

556 rape allegations. The initial research categorized 220 of those allegations as true, 80 as false, and 256 as inconclusive. When they announced their initial results, they'd categorized 46% of their data as inconclusive. This strongly suggests that their approach was cautious and objective. Advocacy researchers know the answer they want before they even start. It's unheard of for advocacy researchers to announce that the largest portion of their data was inconclusive.
I have not seen any research giving conclusive and inconclusive results. Just convictions and false reports.

The McDowell team then did a followup analysis. They recruited three independent reviewers to evaluate the inconclusive cases based on a list of criteria that were common among the women who had acknowledged they lied. (See below for an example of the sort of criteria that were used.) In order for any of the inconclusive cases to be recategorized as false, all three independent reviewers had to agree that it was false. The end result: 60% of the 556 rape allegations were determined to be false.

This bit is insane and is why nobody references this guy. Of the 256 inconclusive cases 99% are reclassified as guilty leaving two inconclusive. Why have three independent researchers applying objective standards? He could have had ten and made it look super duper objective. With unanimity required there likely would have been a few more cases classified as inconclusive which would make the results ... still obviously laughable.

The only way to produce that sort of result is to apply an inflexible scoring strategy. It would make sense to give the flags on the list different weights depending on their significance. Some cases would get multiple flags. You count up the points for each case and say whether it crosses the threshold you have set to call it probably false. You can produce any % false you like by adjusting the threshold.
But what kind of madman would set it so low as to reclassify 99% of the undecided cases as false?
What result would he get from applying that test to the "true" cases? That experiment would show how unrealistic his threshold is but the original research is not obtainable. There has been a lot of talk about this holy grail of rape research, I reckon it is hidden in Area 51 because so many ~~raving cranks~~ amateur rape enthusiasts want to find it but nobody has.

The original investigators found 80/556=14.4% false, a higher rate than most studies but not beyond plausibility.

I have read elsewhere that 27% of the 556complainants retracted their complaint rather than do a lie detector test, or did one and failed then retracted. That % would be more useful if we knew what portion sat and failed, and also what inducements and punishments were threatened. Without that the 27% is not interpretable at all, if it is indeed the figure found.

It is not explained why a simplistic mechanical method would be more trustworthy than experienced specialist investigators.
Me, I'd set the threshold to give say 20% and use it to flag cases to have a second look at from the angle of false reporting. But those cases would just be regarded as flagged, not false at that stage. And that would only be useful as a guide for the original researchers who talked to the complainants in person. A later researcher knows nothing except the fraction of evidence which can be captured in the file so they are never going to be in a position to second-guess the original investigator. Same goes for Kanin's analysis of old case notes.

(Also lost and from the same era is the New York Rape Squad's work which produced the 2% false report rate which ended up requoted in Brownmiller 1975. It is also only of historic interest now but there has been so much sweat and spittle expended over that requote it would be nice to know the story. My guess is it is the rate of provable false complaints, since that matches modern results and is the only plausible thing that could fit that number).

[–]Mons7er 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You missed the cutest bit of all: The alleged results are not reproducible nor reviewable because the research is hidden in Area 51, or somewhere. It's gone, Jim.
That happens with research from that era, I gave you another example that people have tried mightily and failed to find.

I called a holy grail for that reason. There is a book with a summary in it but you can not evaluate the data, e.g. by doing the test I suggested on the "true" cases or by tweaking the sensitivity or weights for scoring the cases.

If you want to be one of the scores of people who has tried to find the study, my advice is you start by purchasing a genuine Akubra Federation IV hat. These are pretty close to the original Indiana Jones hat and are of high quality, they will endure the rigours of your search and will age gracefully to match your increasingly rugged and weatherbeaten face during your quest.
I gave up without a serious effort, I still have my sanity and all of my limbs.

https://hatsdirect.com/pages/the-federation-iv

Seriously, if you can't read and reproduce for yourself my kiddy level arithmetic on the results quoted, then you are not going to be able to critically read the summary when you do find it. I'd send you a copy but I lost it in a hard disk crash. It can be found, it might be easy or hard now. It was printed in an old version of a book but dropped from later editions. This research is obscure for a reason.

The "censored" thing has some foundation. The list of behaviors noted in false complaints was being applied by frontline cops and investigators far too simplistically, they were sending genuine victims away. Possiby McDowell's super high false report rate got around too. It went on for a while then the instruction went out to withdraw the list of 12 symptoms, I think. They did not have the resources to teach it properly and the list on its own was dangerous in the hands of untrained cops.
This of course was and is interpreted as a feminist plot. If only we could return to the Golden Age before the natural wisdom of the Ancient Ones as suppressed!

I believe the same stuff is taught now, but more carefully.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a Golden Age theory.

The study was done on files from US airforce bases around the world collected during the 1970s and early 1980s. The relevance of these to modern civilian life is unclear.

For example, was there an industry whereby bar girls in the Philippines and South East Asia can retire with a fortune if they can pull off a rape case against a US Airforce guy?

Was there a loophole where US airforce women were perversely incentivised to make false reports e.g. to get out of the airforce, to end an overseas posting, to get moved to another base, to get a lump sum compensation or something like that?

What about the base commanders, did they have incentives to manipulate their recorded rape prevalence downwards?

The world has moved on, you need to learn to live in the current world. The truth and the light were not packed up in a box of data from the 1970s and hidden away.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Difficult to find originals.

He worked for the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations and compiled his reports over a number of years, over several topics: provably false reports, likely false reports, criteria to distinguish likely true from likely false, etc.

He was forced to stop his work by politically-correct military superiors under pressure from Congressbeotch Schroeder. Copies of his work have gradually disappeared, either through time or through feminist pressure on the military. You can try several approaches:

Write to the USAF.
See if a men's org (NCFM, Radar, Cotwa, etc.) or FIRE have copies of his USAF studies.
Try to find the one public sociology/criminology journal in which he was allowed to directly publish an article, the Forensic Science Digest.

Here's another indirect reference:
https://np.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/2oqtdo/how_common_are_false_accusations/cmpx48n/

Here are more indirect references:

1992, McDowell Studies Suspended: https://apnews.com/eaf3a9c6699fddcba0c580ab41ec84dd
Due to complaints from feminist Schroeder who built her career on her husband's grave. The characterisation of the McDowell questionnaire misrepresents it severely.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/OCADVSA_RapeAndFalseReports_2010.pdf
Notes that the article, from 1985, is McDowell CP, “False Allegations,” in Forensic Science Digest, vol. 11, no. 4."

http://fathersmanifesto.net/mcdowell.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3693227/posts

https://falseallegations.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/21/

Charles P. McDowell, a researcher in the United States Air Force Special Studies Division, studied the 1,218 reports of rape that were made between 1980 and 1984 on Air Force bases throughout the world (McDowell, 1985). Of those, 460 were found to be “proven” allegations either because the “overwhelming preponderance of the evidence” strongly supported the allegation or because there was a conviction in the case. Another 212 of the total reports were found to be “disproved” as the alleged victim convincingly admitted the complaint was a “hoax” at some point during the initial investigation.
The researchers then investigated the 546 remaining or “unresolved” rape allegations including having the accusers submit to a polygraph. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. (It should be noted that whenever there was any doubt, the unresolved case was re-classified as a “proven” rape.) Combining this 27% with the initial 212 “disproved” cases, it was determined that approximately 45% of the total rape allegations were false.

The numbers given by summaries vary as the team progressed through the ambiguous cases. Their decisions were not arbitrary but were the product of a team of men and women using consistent, conservative criteria.

His much-attacked checklist was a further work in progress and was not the basis for his team's true/false estimates. Rather, the checklist was a starting attempt to discern commonalities among those proved false by individual examination, recantation, etc.

You'd do a great service obtaining his reports from a men's org or from the USAF or from a large library and putting it online.

Perhaps a research library such as at major unis or NYC Central would have the Forensic Science Digest, then a publication of a professional forensic science organisation. This may or may not be the same as published in 1985:
https://www.nfstc.org/about/resources/forensic-science-research-digest/

I note the suppression of his work corresponds also to the suppression of DV symmetry work and the stifling of professionals such as Suzanne Steinmetz and Erin Pizzey and R L McNeely.

[–]Minimal_minimal 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi_win 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Re: the 1987 Penthouse comment - Linda Fairstein later said it was a misquote, Ben Stein agreed. I guess it would be standard practice to archive the tapes of interviews for this sort of reason.
The tape could become another holy grail, a whole vitamin supplement website could be built around theories about where the tape could be and why it is being hidden.

Yes the "half of them" comment was printed. If taken literally it was wildly anomalous. The NY rape squad had researched it, other research had been done, 50% false is so radically different from what was understood at the time it is not realistic to claim it was her literal, correctly quoted opinion that she just happened to casually mention once then never again.

The NYT has variously cited the non-match rate of DNA samples submitted to the FBI by local law enforcement as 25% to 36%.

I remember something like that, I downloaded the report. It was from the age of being typed on a typewriter and a photo taken of the typed page IIRC. I did't get around to trying to understand what significance it had. It was nothing like a random sample so it did not seem to mean anything like what was bing claimed to be.
DNA methods had changed a lot so its relevance to the modern world was unclear.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry, you're bullshitting.

I've seen no retraction by Stein and wouldn't believe one; he'd not have noted and published a comment out of thin air. He's eccentric, not stupid.
When a men's rep used the figure on a public panel of which she was a part, she did not retract. Only later did she change her story.
Jovanovic cited Fairstein in court filings opposing her prosecution directly. She failed to contest the citation before the court.
The 50% figure is commonplace among defence attorneys.
"Relevance to modern" world is more bullShit to try to exclude the figure (35% to 50%) which comes back over and over: Kanin, McDowell, Fairstein, FBI, Silverman, .....
Your rejection of McDowell above as the "craziest fringe" above should have forwarned us - the crazy fringe is you, with your pretexts as to why every substantial figure must be rejected. Crazy, or else a feminist plant.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I've seen no retraction by Stein and wouldn't believe one

I have, published years ago on here I think, by another enthusiast on this subject. Of course they accused him of covering up for his friend Fairstein.

Only later did Fairstein change her story.

Is that not a retraction? When was it?
She wrote a book in 1993, what was her position at that time?
If she has expressed a consistent belief for the last 25 years it is kind of desperate to cling onto something implausible she was claimed to have said longer ago. She and the rest of the world appear to have moved on.

The 50% figure is commonplace among defence attorneys.

I don't know about this but I find it hard to imagine a defense attorney would degrade their own credibility by citing such ancient and poorly-regarded research. A prosecutor could simply ask him to produce a copy of McDougal's research. That would stop that one dead, unless the attorney wants to get into a story about how the Feminist Rape Industry is actually in control of the US Airforce and is able to retroactively censor its publications and internal files going back to the 1970s.

Kanin 1994 is an irreproducible outlier curiosity with a small sample size, being an analysis of case files from one small town in the 1980s.

Two prosecutors out of hundreds sounds like a couple of mavericks, if that is all that can be found.

I've not seen the FBI claim the false report rate could be above 8%. I've read their guide on how they would like the unfounded category to be used, in an ideal world. The actual uses in the real world have been looked at for several states. As usual policies vary. And that is just the official policies, never mind actual practice.

A prosecutor could provide a bunch of more recent, larger, more credible studies. This would leave the defense attorney with a credibility problem which would not help their case.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It has been observed since the first lists of behaviours found in false accusers were produced in the late 70s or early 80s that there are no unique or definitive behaviors to point out false accusations. There are warning flags, and some cases have more flags than others.

Training is important.
It was found that frontline cops often had internal lists of behaviors they thought were and were not found in genuine victims. But real victims have a wide range of responses, they can present as distressed, in disarray, calm, tidy and well groomed, immaculate make up, detached, distant, cold blooded, clinical, absent minded. There are common and unusual responses but the natural range is very wide. I don't recall anyone saying they were jokey but it would take a lot more experience than mine to say it doesn't happen.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link