Some rants of mine during a discussion about rape
1. It is not possible to have a 'scientific' study on 'rape' because it is not possible for anyone to determine what was going on at the time of the 'rapes' - except in those relatively few cases where it is absolutely obvious what happened; e.g. woman was abducted by stranger or woman admits to false accusation. Thus, ...
2. As far as I am aware, the most rigorous 'scientific' studies exclude all those 'gray' cases where not enough information is available.
But these 'gray' cases are the majority.
As such, it is NOT POSSIBLE for these 'scientific' investigations to reflect what is **mostly** going on when it comes to 'rape'.
3. Michael Nifong (the lying US official in the justice department
who tried to get three young men incarcerated for a rape that he knew
they had not done) was not an exception. On the contrary, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of government officials (probably most of them) involved with rape who are very determined to get as many successful prosecutions as possible. They will fudge the figures, bend the evidence, lie and lie and lie in order to do this.
Those who would **not** do such a thing do **not** get the jobs.
EXAMPLE: Let's say that I wanted to hire some journalists to write for Angry Harry. Do you really think that I would hire journalists who would not
find evidence to buttress my anti-feminist points of view?
Of course not. I would hire journalists who would support MY agenda.
Similarly, do you really think that high-flying 'rape' advocates (and departments) in government are going to hire/promote people who will undermine the very reason for their existence?
On the contrary, they will hire/promote people who will do their level best to keep their self-serving empires and the funding growing.
And this means hyping up all the figures, fudging the definitions, obscuring the details etc etc etc; and, of course, downright lying.
4. What is all too often missing from the MRA debates about such issues is the failure to recognise just how dishonest and self-serving and utterly callous with regard to the welfare of others are those who work for governments.
These people have an AGENDA.
As such, you can trust NOTHING that they say.
I used to think that politicians, officials etc etc simply used to spin a bit here and there in order to
further their ambitions.
They lie through their teeth.
On and on and on it goes.
And there are now so many BILLIONS of dollars dependent on the notion that, for example, sex-assault and DV are common events, and so many MILLIONS of people being empowered (and funded) by such a notion - including all women - that what we now have is a positively, unimaginably enormous and persistent force pushing forward the view that men are, basically, scum.
Michael Nifong was no exception.
He just got caught.
Let me put this another way.
When it comes to 'abuse' issues such as 'rape', it is probably best to look carefully at WHO is making a fuss about it and at HOW they stand to benefit from making such a fuss.
When you do this (rather than, say, worry about the true incidence of rape) you begin to realise just how many MILLIONS of people profit by stirring up abuse hysteria and, hence, a hatred of men.
And until MRAs tackle this head on - instead of debating the merits of this study or that study - absolutely nothing will
Wolfman ""Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail,"
But don't kid yourself that this notion was ever a reflection of a 'noble' sentiment - when everyone behaved like gentlemen.
The powers-that-be knew damn well that if THEY prosecuted and punished too many innocent people then they would end up undermining their very own system of control, and that 'the people' would eventually descend on them (i.e. on the judges) with weapons.
'Justice' had precious little to do with it.
'Control' (not necessarily a bad thing) had everything to do with it.
But now, governments have huge power compared to what they had in the past - i.e. they have far more 'control'.
As such, they can 'afford' to prosecute and punish more innocent people without too much fear that 'the people' will rebel.
As such, it is "Better that **100** guilty men etc etc" has gone out of the window.
George Orwell spent three DECADES studying how governments worked. His conclusion was this.
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."
In other words, 'justice' has got NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
The world does not work on the basis of 'justice'.
It probably never has!
And - as per my previous post - this is why MRAs must look beyond this most noble idea of 'justice' and focus more on understanding WHO is behind all the propaganda and WHY they are behind it.
What they will find is not people seeking 'justice', they will find people seeking power, wealth, promotion, funding etc etc etc. and they will find people prepared to lie, cheat and deceive in order to acquire these things.
As such, and for example, the official 'rape' figures are completely bogus. And they will mostly reflect the maximum that the officials can get away with
- without losing too much credibility in the eyes of the public.
Indeed, I can assure you that if officials in the 'abuse' industry could get away with the claim that 90% of women are raped every year, then this is exactly what they would be claiming.
(Let me remind you all that it was only a few years ago that those working in
the abuse industry - such as for the NSPCC - were successfully convincing
the public that right across the country there were devil-worshipping
syndicates that sexually abused children, killed them and ate babies.)
The academic "research" on rape will not help the MM.
1. Social science research is extremely limited, both in terms of what it can discover and in terms of how long (in time) it remains even remotely valid - e.g. research of 1 year ago is already SIGNIFICANTLY out of date.
One change in the law. One influential TV series. One large campaign. One large court case. And it can all change.
2. No research can properly assess ANYBODY'S feelings. Furthermore, feelings are all relative. (A sharp slap on the backside for one women might be "DV". For another woman it might mean absolutely nothing. Besides which, women can always lie about their true feelings - especially if something like money is involved - e.g. compensation, the house, the kids etc etc
3. Some five years ago I looked very closely at the rape "research" and I **promise** you that I could have found almost any result you wanted - fudge the definitions, change the questions, change the sample, re-jig the statistics.
One example .... "Have you ever felt pressured into having sex with a man?"
Is this rape, or isn't it?
For some of the Home Office research studies, a Yes to the above question means 'rape'.
What is officially counted as rape is *almost* infinitely variable.
For example, for some women the VERY FACT that a woman reports a man as having raped her means that she has been seriously 'abused' by that man EVEN IF she is LYING about the incident.
In other words, even if she is clearly lying it is still
the case that he must have done something equally evil.
In other words, you are ******never****** going to get the public to agree with what rape actually is unless, that is, you are able to exert a huge psychological force across the country that, somehow, moulds people's minds.
And it doesn't matter how many alleged facts you have, nor how noble are your views, the truth is that unless you have huge psychological power, very people will even notice you.
And talking intelligently about this study or that study carries very little weight IN PRACTICE.
Indeed, and for example, there are loads of studies pointing to the fact that women are just as bad as men when it comes to DV.
Did this change anything?
MRAs can sit there pouring over the academic research all they like.
It won't get them anywhere. Well, I'm exaggerating. My point is that it won't get them very far.
Anyway. Here are my thoughts on activism - for those who have nothing better to
The law concerning rape revolves around the issue of consent - which is very often indeterminate. In most cases, the question of consent cannot be adjudicated in a courtroom to a very high degree of accuracy. Only the parties involved really knew all the details - and even then, they are unlikely to view those details in the same way. As such, in most cases, the verdict - guilty or not guilty - often depends on which party gave the better performance in the courtroom.
Furthermore, how on Earth do you effectively define 'consent' THESE DAYS unless you formalise it? - e.g. insist that the woman signs a document and/or, for example, has had no alcohol for the past 48 hours etc etc.
In the olden days it was easier. If she was wedded to him, she had consented!
Furthermore, when it comes to the academic research, I can only repeat what I said earlier. I could LEGITIMATELY give you ***almost*** any numbers that you want from the type of data that is customarily gathered when it comes to rape. The extremes - at either end -would be difficult to fudge, but 60-80% of it would be a doddle to twist in either direction without tarnishing any academic credentials.
Thus, and for the sake of argument, if the TRUE false allegation rate was around 50% in any given sample, it would
probably not be too difficult to swing this up to 90% or down to 20% -
given the way that the "research" is done.
I think that the point being missed round here is that the academic researchers were not present when the alleged 'rapes' happened. So they mostly only have the testimonies of the parties involved.
So how on Earth can they hope to extricate the truth about such issues? How can they possibly adjudicate with regard to 'consent'?
Marc ... "By comparison [to the rape studies]. the 50/50 DV research has so many consistent studies that we don't need
Agreed. But the differences between the DV studies and the rape studies are manyfold.
For example, ...
1. DV is not a particularly heinous crime compared to rape. Indeed, many women are quite prepared to BOAST about the fact that they whack their partners. Indeed, it is often a source of humour for them; as is often the case on the TV. They will, therefore, more readily admit to DV than they will, say, admit to making a false allegation of rape on any given questionnaire.
2. DV studies are more often carried out on both sexes. Rape studies usually derive only from the testimonies of women. If the rape studies were mostly carried out by only interviewing men then, I presume, the false allegation rate would be found to be 99.9%+!!!
3. DV studies do not really need to address the tricky issue of consent. In other words, if you whacked your partner, then this is clearly DV as far as the researchers are concerned. The same sort of thing is not true for rape research. Thus, the fact that you had sex with your partner does not necessarily constitute a rape!
The issue of consent ALONE makes the whole area of rape research HUGELY malleable. You can come up with *almost* any answer that you want.
Finally, more MRAs should look very closely indeed at HOW rape research is done by looking at the research papers themselves, rather than at the summaries of them. I think most MRAs would be aghast if they saw just how flimsy they were.
Well, I have looked at many of these papers over the years, and
I have yet to see even one of them that comes anywhere near to countering the
view that the vast majority of rape allegations made to the
police are false.
Indeed, as far as the UK is concerned, the best evidence that we have
strongly suggests that most women who currently go to the police alleging rape
are, quite simply, lying.