We found a blog post we had missed that merits our brief attention. A blogger named "Emily" took issue what our post about Rus Funk.
First, read our post, here.
Emily, who describes herself as a journalism student, seems to be a typically naive young feminist, and there is a legal term for the sort of criticism she levels at our post: horseshit.
First, let's summarize what we wrote. Mr. Rus Funk appeared at a college campus to make a speech, and a newspaper summarized it as follows: "A question from an audience member about false rape accusations provoked visible emotion to appear on Funk’s face. 'Rape and domestic violence have the lowest reporting rates of all crimes,' he said, 'and we do have a false reporting problem: too many women who have been raped say that they have not.' At this assertion, the audience, silent for most of the workshop, applauded. He closed this line of conversation with, 'The false issue of false reporting is misogynistic and a result of societal hatred for women.'”
We proceeded to take issue with Mr. Rus Funk's denial that false rape claims are a problem and with his angry labeling of anyone who even wants to discuss false rape claims as misogynists (women haters).
We did not simply stomp our foot and blithely proclaim that Mr. Rus Funk is wrong. Instead we painstakingly cited objectively verifiable, highly credible, non-MRA, scholarly sources that prove false rape claims are a significant problem for men.
How does Emily respond to our post? Does she mention even one time, much less discuss or attempt to distinguish or refute, the sources we cited that prove false rape claims are a significant problem?
Does she chide Mr. Funk for name-calling and denigrating anyone who even wants to discuss a problem that the objectively verifiable sources we cite prove is a significant one for men?
Of course not. She simply stomps her foot and blithely proclaims that we are wrong.
Emily is content to slink into her hermetically sealed, politically correct world where women are perpetual victims even when they aren't victims, and where men had better not try to lay claim to victimhood even when they are victims.
"The point of view [expressed in False Rape Society] is about as extreme as they come," Emily wrote with, presumably, a straight face, "claiming Rus overlooks the false reporting problem . . . ." (Emphasis added.)
And this is a journalism student? More like an incarnate insult to the Fourth Estate.
Let's run this by you slowly: Mr. Rus Funk denies that false rape claims are a significant problem for men despite the irrefutable evidence we cite to the contrary. He labels anyone who even wants to discuss the problem as haters. Yet Emily somehow concludes from this that our point of view is "about as extreme as they come."
We have entered Wonderland, a topsy-turvy world where the truth is turned on its head.
Emily proceeds to assert, without bothering to explain what the hell she's talking about, that our post "leave[s] out the nuances of the conversation that took place."
Which "nuances" are those, Emily? Do you mean the "nuance" where Mr. Rus Funk denied that false rape claims are a problem and labeled anyone who even wants to discuss them a hater? That "nuance," Emily? Did you even read the news article we cited, Emily? I mean, you being a journalism student and all, we figured you would.
People like Mr. Rus Funk and Emily are dead certain in their correctness, and nothing we say will change their minds. If either of them had an open mind, we would urge them to spend several hours studying the news accounts and other sources cited in this Web site so they would understand that we are not denying that rape is a significant problem, but we can't understand how they can deny that false rape claims are also a significant problem.
Disgraceful, Emily. Utterly disgraceful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Brief explanation of what the hell I was talking about when I said your post and the A-News left out the nuances of the conversation:
In your post on Funk you take issue with his statement quoted in the A-News that discussing false reporting is misogynistic and a result of societal hatred for women. The A-News article characterizes that moment as a pivotal moment in the conference where the audience was so moved they applauded. I don't think you're wrong to criticize Funk for taking the discussion of false rape reports off the table. I do think you're wrong to dismiss him as someone whose "shtick seems to be to preach to his choir of impressionable young women". During the conference Funk was deeply critical of women in the audience who made shallow comments regarding how men view sexual assault. He told them they were fighting a losing battle if they truly thought men were that simplistic.
I was wrong to say you "claimed" Funk overlooks false reporting, he does, but I never "stomped my foot" and said you were wrong wrong wrong. I find your viewpoint extreme mainly because you're writing style is so vitriolic. Effective maybe, but if you think I'm in some way the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the false reporting problem what do you think is accomplished by letting me know I'm a "naive young feminist" clucking her tongue and stomping my foot?
I mentioned in the first post on my blog that I work at a domestic violence shelter. I've seen a lot of women who've been severely assaulted by men. I've also seen women who themselves are violent and deceptive. I don't doubt that there are women out there who would tell a lie as a means to an end. But while you may do extensive research on false reporting I think your tone is too alienating to reach the people who would benefit from looking at false reporting more closely.
We stand by our comments that you unfairly attacked our piece without bothering to understand why we were outraged about Mr. Rus Funk's comments, as reported in a major U.S. daily. Men who don't rape, and women who care about men and boys who don’t rape, need to know the facts about the false rape phenomenon, because only they can combat the viral feminist canard that women don't lie about rape. For decades, their lie that only two percent of women lie about rape has been used to justify chipping away at the rights of innocent men and boys, and those rights are in even greater danger now. Hell, that lie was even used to justify passing VAWA. That's what we're all about. But based on your comments here, we don't think it is fair to lump you with Mr. Rus Funk. While you note that Mr. Funk did say some things in defense of men, our issue is false rape claims, and on that score, from what we can see, Mr. Funk gets a failing grade.
You are correct, we become "vitriolic" and "alienating" when people's lies are hurting innocent men and boys (most false rape victims are barely more than boys).
We become "vitriolic" and "alienating" when the people who call us names refuse even to discuss facts with us but insist we accept their non-factual view of reality that women essentially never lie about rape.
It is a pity you can't read the many -- and I mean more than we can answer -- heartwrenching emails we get from mothers, fathers, aunts and friends pleading for any help we can give them because a young man they love has been falsely accused of rape. Yet virtually every feminist Web site -- and it certainly sounded as if yours was one of them -- dismisses the problem as essentially non-existent and sees fit to accuse us of being rape apologists.
Here is an example of one of our numerous non-vitriolic posts:
It is better that ten rapists escape punishment than for one innocent man to be imprisoned for a rape he did not commit
After that was originally posted on our site, enlightened feminists saw fit to label us "rape denialists." So much for reason and moderation, and to hell with whatever those old Judges might have thought. We invite every one of these screeching haters to debate us on the facts but none of them have ever taken us up on it.
Archivist,
Well said. If feminism was ever to admit to the true number of fals accusations, the money flow would dry up. And they would lose much of thier power base.
It all boils down to power and money. They will never be willing to have an honest debate, as they have have financial reasons not to do so. Mr. Funk is the apologist and shows a level of Misandry that the MRM/MRA's could never emulate.
Emily states:
But while you may do extensive research on false reporting I think your tone is too alienating to reach the people who would benefit from looking at false reporting more closely.
Since the people who benefit are men, I think he is reaching his target audience rather well.
As an aside, since you work at a DV shelter, how many men are admitted to that shelter who have been abused?
You're right, Wolfboy. My target is innocent men, and women who are concerned about them. When I started this, I didn't expect to become such a lightning rod for the falsely accused. Now I feel a responsibility to the guys -- almost as if I can't quit because I am a voice for them on this issue. And if enough of us keep talking about it, with conviction, and even anger, the feminist canards will be discredited, and the falsely accused would be treated fairly.
And your work is appreciated. I have recommended several people to your site. I haven't seen anyone posting yet, but I feel they will, given time.
Personally, I am married, but a married woman my wife works for had an affair, and when her husband found out, cried rape. She ended up being a complete idiot though. She told several people at work that it was a false accusation (my wife included), and every single one of those people took the stand against her during the trial. All charges were dropped and the case thrown out against the guy she had an affair with, this lady was fired, her husband divorced her, and through friends of friends, she still doesn't understand why she was so persecuted (uhhh....because you are a lying, cheating slimbag?).
Oh, and every person who testified as to what she said at work? Female. There are women who are on our side on this issue. Now, if they will just step up and get more vocal about it, a huge leap forward could be made to combat this problem.
All the best.
Thanks for spreading the word, Wolfboy. We're watching the audience grow, and we've developed a real following. It's just amazing how many people we hear from who have a loved one who was falsely accused. Sometimes we read the notes and just want to quit -- we are all so powerless.
I personally think women take this issue more seriously than men -- I get notes from women who are very angry about some of these stories. I think men need to be more afraid of this issue than they are -- because it's about the worst thing that can happen to a man short of torture, or having a loved one be tortured.
Archivist, the use of "screeching haters" sums up your veiws for me. Until I read those two, degrating words, I didn't have a problem with anything you've written. I agree, a debate about it would be a good thing. But, if you go into it with such an attitude that you are dealing with "screeching haters"? That's not helping it - and also shows your close mindedness to their views.
Um, let me get this straight, Kiboko. I am closed-minded.
Let's see: I point out facts based on unimpeachable sources and invite discussion about them. They dismiss facts and declare that anyone who even wants to discuss false rape claims must hate women, the facts be damned.
And I'm closed-minded to their "views," Kiboko? Their "views" are that they would like to cut off my balls just for wanting to talk about this subject.
I wish to hell you or one of the to other false rape apoologists would tell me where I am wrong? Just once! Just one fucking time! Instead of just denigrating anyone who even wants to discuss this subject.
And notice how I give the trolls a forum here.
Archivist,
Kiboko proves that some women cannot be reasoned with. They will use anything as an excuse to close down the debate, because the truth is they dont want a debate, they want power.
with regard to Emily's comment above, weren't the earl feminists a little "vitriolic"? Men have every right to be angry in the current environment; I think the blog post was worded well. It's too bad PC feminists want us to play by their rules.
My post above shoud say "the early feminists.."
Post a Comment