Friday, January 2, 2009

Follow-up on Public Enemy Number One, Rus Funk

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.