Common MRA myths debunked!

Sandlicker · 2013-09-26T09:32:36+00:00

The feminist studies on false rape accusations are all intellectually dishonest. Here is their methodology:

1 - Define the conditions under which a rape accusation is clearly false according to the author. This varies by author but the conditions are always very strict. For example the accuser recants their story and the police drop charges. Or their is conclusive proof the accuser and the accused could not have had sex during a time frame remotely consistent with the accusers's story.

2- Divide the number of clearly false rape accusations by the number of rape accusations

3 - Report this percentage as the % of rape accusations that are false.

Step 3 is ridiculous. What is being computed is a lower-bound on the false rape accusation rate. But they present it as the rate itself. The implicit assumption is that all rape accusations that are not obviously false are true. This is propaganda not science.

This is the methodology used in all of the feminist sources on the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

Notice when you change the methodology to include things like lie detector tests, threats of lie-detector tests or thoroughly investigate all rape complaints you get rates of 20-42%.

By my count there are less than 10 well known studies that tried to measure the rate of false accusations with reasonable (not necessarily even good) methodology. So I find it difficult to have any strong reasons to believe any particular number.

xXCptCoolXx · 2013-09-26T05:47:33+00:00

Wow, that pamphlet was just plain sloppy. The arguments were either demonstrably false, did not address the actual myth they claimed to debunk, and were completely unsourced.

I could go through why each one's wrong, but if I did I'd be putting more effort into my critique then they put into actually making the pamphlet. The bottom half of one of the points in the section on conscription is actually part of the false rape section. If they're not even going to proof-read these things then why should I bother?

Edit: I wrote this before actually looking at the rest of the article so kudos to you Woden. This pamphlet is so bad it barely deserves recognition, let alone the analysis you gave it. Glad to see someone so committed to addressing this stuff.

WodensEye · 2013-09-26T05:37:04+00:00

I would actually encourage feminists, particularly those who made up the pamphlet, to comment on my critiques. I'm all for discussion.

asmartgoat · 2013-09-26T09:59:55+00:00

Wow. Just wow. I thought there would be something intellegent on that pamphlet.. haha was i wrong.

"1. Men Commit suicide more often"

'Men may commit suicide more often but women ATTEMPT suicide more often than men' (loose quote)

Just wow.

CosmicKeys · 2013-09-26T08:14:09+00:00

For a second I thought suicide was being auto-linked like on those dictionary sites... such a good job /u/WodensEye, thanks for this write up. The pamphlet was pretty poorly done. Their DV claim of course would never include how many men felt they lashed out defense either.

PerniciousOne · 2013-09-26T15:09:23+00:00

Remember this pamphlet is not to refute any of the issues that men's rights actually want to accomplish. It is only to incite emotion saying that men are violent, whining thugs.

They could care less that it is about the underachievement of boys, young men, and men. I could refute every point that they bring up but it has been done countless times here. It is all about the money, and they do not want to give it up.

JoinThePatriarchy · 2013-09-26T19:56:43+00:00

>A woman needs a PhD to earn as much as a man with a bachelor's degree

WodensEye · 2013-09-26T07:42:41+00:00

Fantastic article, but just so you know, you don't convince people in a rally (or similar) with statistics or logical arguments, but with emotions.

So I wonder if we could try to go through all the myths and find the emotional argument to use?

MS2point0 · 2013-09-26T10:03:39+00:00

Definitely gonna save this link. Really good work.

eDgEIN708 · 2013-09-26T14:24:44+00:00

Counter-rallying a "Men & Boys In Crisis" rally with a pamphlet that talks about misogyny.

Someone hasn't been taking her pills. (I mean, in her defence, though, she probably hasn't been taking them because patriarchy.)

oneiorosgrip · 2013-09-26T12:16:43+00:00

Not only is the presumption that women are better caregivers discrimination against men, it's discrimination for which feminist advocacy deserves significant blame.

The legal presumption that women are naturally better caregivers, used as a determining factor in the decision of child custody, is rooted in a single feminist's mid 19th century activism. When Caroline Norton wrote the bill which would become The Custody of Infants Act of 1839, followed by her "plain" letter to the Lord Chancellor regarding the bill, she probably had no idea that her writing would end up as the inspiration for a court doctrine which would cause for fathers in multiple nations to suffer exactly the indignities she was trying to eliminate in her own life and the lives of other women, but that is what occurred.

The Custody of Infants Act was the start of what is now referred to as the Tender Years Doctrine, the basis upon which it became traditional to place custody of children in divorcing families with the mother. The argument that mothers are better caregivers is put forth in Mrs. Norton's "plain" letter, in which she stated that fathers have to hire nursemaids to replace their wives' involvement in the lives of children during their "tender years," and therefore it is natural that the child should be placed in the custody of the mother. Over the years, this doctrine, originally intended to prevent divorce from keeping women from their children, has been pushed and twisted into an every-case imperative, making maternal custody the default in divorce cases, even now, when it is no longer cited as the reason for the decision.

Today, while some protesters claim that feminist groups do not want fathers to lose custody of their children, mainstream feminist lobbying groups have actively fought to prevent custody from being handled evenly, with genuinely shared custody as the default from which a case would begin.

It is interesting to note that some of the objections to the bill, addressed in Mrs. Norton's letter, have in the end turned out to be true, at least in the United States. With no checks in place to prevent female adultery, abandonment of marriage, or unwed motherhood, divorce and never-married single motherhood here have skyrocketed. Not that these are reasons why women should never have custody of their children, but it's apparent that if everything is arranged to make single parenthood attractive, a significant number of women will choose to be single mothers. As it stands, courts are backing them. And while child abduction by mothers is not standard behavior, parental alienation has been enough of an issue that it's becoming common to place language in the divorce decree stating that each parent agrees not to slander the other to or in front of the children. Custodial interference is a fairly common behavior among custodial and primary residential mothers, as well.

Title	Common MRA myths debunked!
Author	WodensEye
Upvotes	80
Comments	45
Date	September 26, 2013 5:03 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1n5pi6/common_mra_myths_debunked/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/common-mra-myths-debunked.1162874 https://theredarchive.com/post/1162874

Comments