Feminists know for a fact certain things that no reasonable person can say with certainty. For example, they know for a fact the exact number of women actually raped each year. They know for a fact the exact percentage for underreporting of rapes. And they know for a fact the exact percentage of false rape claims. (The "facts" that the feminists "know" do not comport with even reasonable estimates proffered by objective observers, but that is beyond the scope of this post.)
But when they are confronted with irrefutable proof that no rape occurred, they lose all ability to speak with feminist infallibility and quickly and solemnly proclaim that "no one will ever know for a fact what happened in this particular case."
This, of course, is intended to suggest that a rape very well might have been committed. It is a common tactic of theirs (we saw it in the Duke lacrosse case, we see it now in the Hofstra false rape case, and we've seen it in numerous other less well known false rape cases), and it is dishonest in the extreme.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
76 comments:
Facts are interesting Pierce.
I've been around IT since the dinosaurs, and I was always against the encroachment of the database.
I used to quote Scott McNealy (Sun) who said "forget privacy" basically.
I had some *very* good fortune today, when I discovered data in a database of unimpeachable quality that proves beyond all possible doubt that my accusers are perjurers.
(Obviously I cannot go into more detail, sub judice still)
The point is, I KNEW THIS DATA existed, but forgot about it, and even if I had remembered it at some later stage, I still would not have remembered the fine details such as date and time that make it so precious.
"FACTS" is an interesting word.
"FACTS" are our friends people.
"STATISTICS" are not facts, nor are catchphrases or soundbites.
For example, until we see (youtube?) the video of the hofsra girls saying "It'll be hot" we do not know for a fact that she said that.
All we know for a fact, all ANYONE outside the case knows for a FACT, is that she published a confession.
Damn, that should have been signed
AfOR
The confession was signed under oath -- I have a copy of it, and over the weekend I linked to it.
Under legal principles settled in New York and everywhere else in the U.S. beyond even a cavil, Ms. Ndonye's sworn statement is presumed conclusive of the facts stated therein. The truth of its contents are as certain as anything we can know. The clear and unambiguous words of that document, signed under oath, are not open to my interpretation, or to the feminists' interpretation, or, respectfully, to Anon at 4:17's interpretation, or anyone else's. The issue is not properly open to debate based on each person's subjective beliefs based on their take on the infamous video. It is, in fact, imrpoper for any of us to rewrite, under the guise of interpretation, Ms. Ndonye's sworn statement. In short, we know what happened beyond peradventure because she's told us in terms the law regards as final, complete, and fully integrated. There is nothing more to discuss on that point.
And THAT'S the point. We are bombarded with feminists insisting that certain stats showing that rape is supposedly rampant are absolutely "true" (when, in fact, those stats are concoctions of their politicized imaginations), but any time a rape claim is shown, with unassailable proof, to have been false, the feminists insist, in tones both solemn and wildly insincere, "no one will ever know what really happened."
There is a legal term for such a double-standard: bullshit. And with all due respect, this is not an issue that can be reasonably disputed.
Pierce, I'm waiting for the dopey false rape denialists to say, "Duh, but she could say she signed the contract under duress." I suppose that's true, but she hasn't argued that and it's funny how the dopes always see fit to make the false accusers' arguments for them.
Anon at 4:55: The "dopes" will say anything to make it appear a rape occurred. The good thing is that under law, all those wagging tongues don't matter.
The idea that the video is going to provide definitive proof or that it's going to satisfy everyone is a pipe dream, too. Even if she's shown to be moaning with delight and having a great time, the "dopes" will insist she did that only because she feared for her life, or maybe because the video doesn't show every second of their encounter so it left out the boys' threats, etc.
While no fact can ever be known with absolute certainty (perhaps I'm not really awake right now), our jurisprudence has developed over the course of hundreds of years a remarkable body of law regarding contracts, and statements made under oath. Absent evidence of fraud in the inducement or other proof that the agreement is not legally operative (and Ms. Ndonye has neither presented such proof nor even made such argument), the question is not open to dispute.
You misunderstand me Pierce.
1/ It is indeed a fact that Ndonye signed a confession under oath.
2/ It is indeed a fact that the text that appears in that confession is what appears in that confession, and nothing else.
however...
3/ It is also a fact that Ndonye said (presumably a witness statement / complaint to the Police in the USA is also signed on oath?) she was raped.
4/ It is also a fact that US law features things like plea bargains, where I confess, in writing, in fact, to manslaughter, even though I comitted murder.
5/ I'll lay GOOD money not one of the five accused of rape consider that the Ndonye confession tells even part of the story.
--------------
So, my point here.
FACT is what occured, fact is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So 99.999% of the whole truth is not "fact"
Let me give two examples.
1/ No-one has ever even attempted to prove, much less proven, that fingerprints are unique.
2/ DNA, eg your specific DNA in your cells, is not immutable from the time you were conceived until the time you die.
Yet these two facts are routinely not merely ignored, but treated as though they were false.
--------------
If my account of my innocence was FACTUAL, what does it become when I descover more evidence to support it, as I did today?
I hope you see the point I am trying to make here.
AfOR
AfOR, I hear you, but none of that matters in the legal world (pregnant pause while you prepare to ridicule the legal world). The truth and the facts are what the sworn statement says, nothing more, nothing different. That document overrides and whitewashes all doubts and uncertainty as to whether Ms. Ndonye made five false rape claims. She did, as a matter of law. It is not open to dispute.
I can't believe you, of all people, would be adopting the rad feminist line here.
Feminism is about faith that men are evil, not about facts.
Feminism is a religion, and a religous cult. The core doctrine of their faith is that men are evil and women are good. Hey, isn't that what the book of Genesis says too? They think they have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowing what happened to Adam when he swallowed it, maybe that explains why some of the rest of us are less willing to swallow what they are trying to feed us.
Pierce, allow me to explain.
I am NOT adopting the rad feminist line.
"legal facts" eg sworn statements are what produced the injunctions that have kept me from my children, caused my life to be turned upside down, and arrested for rape.
In this sense, "legal facts" are a lot like facts in advertising, until challenged, they stand.
I like empirical facts, facts that have been verified BEFORE they are declared factual.
For example, the empirical fact that I am legally innocent until proven guilty.
--------------------
If "legal facts" like sworn affidavits that I have been buggering the goldfish were put to some measure of proof BEFORE injuctions etc were awarded, THEN, when Ms Ndonye signs a statement admitting her culpability, THAT DOCUMENT WOULD ALSO CARRY FAR MORE WEIGHT.
I submit to the honourable gentleman that "legal facts" should not be called "legal fact" until a trial has found them to be such.
Legalese already has a term for such "facts", and that is "affidavit"
"he has declared upon oath" is not fact.
--------------------
My point here is this.
I does not matter that in US law Ndonye only commited a "misdemeanour" which a maximum sentence that would be fairly light.
ONCE CONVICTED AFTER A (FAIR) TRIAL you have something that in reality is as close to fact (lacking 24/7 CCTV in 1080p with dolby sound) as you will ever get.
Her statement is NOT a conviction, before a jury of her peers.
You follow?
Anon at 6:01: Right. I urge everyone to read one of the articles we've linked to under False Rape Primer -- called "Date Rape's Other Victim" by Katie Roiphe. Here's how it starts:
"One in four college women has been the victim of rape or attempted rape. One in four. I remember standing outside the dining hall in college, looking at a purple poster with this statistic written in bold letters. It didn't seem right. If sexual assault was really so pervasive, it seemed strange that the intricate gossip networks hadn't picked up more than one or two shadowy instances of rape. If I was really standing in the middle of an 'epidemic,' a 'crisis' -- if 25 percent of my women friends were really being raped -- wouldn't I know it?
"These posters were not presenting facts. They were advertising a mood."
A great article and as true today as when the NY Times printed it in 1993. Sadly, very little has changed.
Which is why a feminist DA would prefer what has happened.
It denies us FACT, also known as CASE LAW.
It leaves the ability for the opposition to argue, just like a good advocate it court.
AfOR
6:11: Please be patient with this explanation. It's simple once you get the basic concept.
The difference between the sworn statement used against you and the one signed by Ms. Ndonye is that the latter concerns a statement against her own interest that refutes her own claims concerning her own actions and motives. It is akin to a judicial admission. Once that statement was made, there is no longer any dispute over any facts that occurred in the restroom.
In contrast, the statement made against you was subject to factual challenge by you.
Example: in a lawsuit, when a litigant admits some factual matter against himself or herself during pre-trial discovery, that admission is deemed conclusive and it will be be very difficult thereafter for that party to refute that admission. If the admission is material on a critical or dispositive point, the other litigant can file a motion for summary judgment or other pretrial motion asserting that there is nothing left for the jury to decide so, therefore, there is no need for a trial and judgment should be entered in his favor.
THAT is different from the case where one litigant makes an allegation AGAINST THE OTHER LITIGANT, and the other litigant refutes it, even under oath, in the pretrial discovery phase of a case. In that case, if the other litigant denies the assertion, there is a dispute over facts that must be sorted out at trial.
If there are no disputes over issues of fact, or the facts are agreed upon, then there is no need for a trial. That's the Ndonye case.
See the difference? There is absolutely, positively no necessity for a trial when a party admits that the facts don't support his or her claim. A trial would be superfluous. THAT'S what we had here.
Please forgive me if I seem impatient, but this is so fundamental to what I do that it's just second-nature. In civil law, the battle at each step of the litigation process leading up to trial entails one party trying to convince the judge that one or all issues should not go to trial.
Pierce.
Thank you for the explanation.
Can I suggest something.
You are a lawyer, you get this stuff, it is your daily bread.
I'm a victim of false rape claims, and I STILL DID NOT GET THIS DISTINCTION, and I don't think that is just because of a different legal system.
I think maybe this is a point that is obvious to you, the professional, that is non obvious to everyone you are trying to convince.
I think perhaps if you have the time, so linked to legal explanations here may do the cause a lot of good.
I knew *dick* about this shit 4 months ago, I wasn't even aware it was a problem.
cheers
AfOR
Thanks, AfOR. I think that television and the news media have done much harm in mystifying our legal system.
"feminist infallibility"
I love it!
Pierce, this would be a good point to thank you for all the hard work and time you put into this very important issue. I cannot imagine that it is adding to your income, so it must be driven by a passion for truth, or justice, or a sense of service.
As tiring and taxing as it may seem at times to deal not just with your opponents in this cause, but sometimes those who would seem to be your allies, please know that your work is vitally important and deeply appreciated.
Pierce said
"Thanks, AfOR. I think that television and the news media have done much harm in mystifying our legal system."
Amen brother.
In hindsight, I got 99.9% of my legal "knowledge" prior to this from television shows about lawyers and stuff.
Retrospectively, I guess this has strong parallels to preparing yourself for a chronic MRSA infection by watching re-runs of ER.
I'm learning, slowly, always behind the curve.
What I am aware of more than anything else is just how fucking LUCKY I was / am compared to what many other innocent men endure... staring with having liberty and being able to do research on the net and so on and so forth.
Frankly, knowing what I know now, if my accusers had had the smarts to stick to once single accusation instead of the buckshot approach with a tissue of lies that ties itself in knots, I would still have been innocent, but in MUCH deeper shit, and may not have made police bail.
Please remember Pierce, while most of your commenting readership is people like myself, I reckon you have a huge readership of "related to accused" or "friend of accused" where "accused" is in custody, such as CBgirl.
These are the people that really need this blog, and, by extension, some expert legal adice, from an expert, in plain english, explaining the often confusing and counter-intuitive thing that is rape law.
cheers
AfOR
These are the people that really need this blog, and, by extension, some expert legal adice, from an expert, in plain english, explaining the often confusing and counter-intuitive thing that is rape law.
I understand your point, but consider it unfair to Pierce and potentially quite dangerous. Change the word "advice" to "perspective" and I can agree with it somewhat more.
I would not consider medical "advice" gained from an internet source to be an adequate substitute for engaging the services of a qualified medical practitioner. If I have a serious health concern, the only practical course of action is to seek out the services of a professional, and provide commensurate compensation for those services.
Pierce is providing a service of unestimable benefit - which is to raise awareness that there is a large problem which needs to be addressed. I see no evidence of any means of receiving compensation for his time, down to there being no ads on this blog. His legal expertise is his source of livelihood, acquired at great expense - for which he is entitled to be compensated at fair market value.
Any actual "advice" he might give here would by necessity be incomplete, not based on an adequate understanding of the circumstances of the case, and a disservice to both him for giving away a product that he charges for in order to live and the freebie client who might be tempted to cut corners and proceed from an understanding of the issues based more on wishful thinking than Pierce's actual input.
I do agree that Pierce's expertise in providing perspective is invaluable to those who are actually going through a false accusation, but I think it has even more value in contributing to changing the environment in such a way to diminish the problem in the future.
((HUGS AfOR))
I know my husband's accuser accused another also. Where can find this data base?
I can email false rape society with my email address if you would do that for me:)
CBGirl
I finished reading the comments.
What I don't understand is how the law works at all. I did not realize how ignorant I was until this all happened.
What significance is the Grand Jury. My husband was NOT indicted. What does that mean? They will not be back in 'session' until next April.
The other man who has been falsely accused in our area WAS indicted and was arrested just days before the Grand Jury recessed or whatever that's called.
Can they hold him another 6 months? Can he go to trial without being indicted? What does indicted really mean? I understand it to mean that if you are indicted then there is enough evidence to go to trial. If that's the case, how can they hold someone indefinately with a 500k bond and refuse to reduce it.
What is the difference between District and Superior Court?
Who do I send a complaint to about a corrupt county government?
Those are the questions I have and can't seem to get any answers. I look online and cannot find anything clear, at least to my little brain. The PD office isn't even polite to me anymore. The secretary slammed the phone in my ear last Monday when I was trying to figure out what it meant when I learned he was NOT indicted.
I just wish our farm would sell so I could pay for a real lawyer. I wish I would wake up and find out this was a nightmare.
CBGirl
I thank everyone for their kind words. Yes, this site is very taxing. It takes up a lot of time and is mentally draining because the issues are so emotional. We are always looking for good writers who have a passion for this area to help.
CBGirl,
I can answer one of your questions: what does indicted mean? It basically means that there's enough evidence to justify bringing a case to trial. It does NOT mean guilt; it just means that there's enough there to try the case in a courtroom. Here's a more official definition of the word, indictment.
Secondly, a site that may be of use to you is Nolo.com. They have an online legal dictionary, helpful articles, stuff like that. The first link was to their online legal dictionary. Hope this helps...
MarkyMark
I read where one Democratic politician said in a debate about DV, "that doesn't mean nothing happened...it just means we can't prove it happened."
A truly Orwellian mentality.
You know, the Democratic party has doing everything in its power over the last several decades to alienate white men. Sorry to change the subject.
Thank you MarkyMark, I have been reading there already this morning.
Norm- you are right!!!
CBGirl
"There is a legal term for such a double-standard: bullshit. And with all due respect, this is not an issue that can be reasonably disputed."
So why do you dispute it?
Your post here betrays your unwavering biases and your own politicized agenda. Based on your language this seems less about giving a voice to those who legitimately need and deserve advocacy and more like exploiting those individuals to pursue a personal vendetta against a group whose specific actions get under your skin.
I'm not here to debate the ecclesiastic significance of the fifth and sixth amendments and the rights of a victim but suffice it to say your argument for the legal and social rights of individuals falsely accused may have merit if it were not shroud in a veil of anti-feminism.
You engage in the same allegedly under-handed tactics of those you accuse, namely cherry-picking your data.
From your front page:
"objectively verifiable data indicates that close to half of all rape claims are false."
Objectively verifiable data also indicates there is no link between smoking and cancer.
I'm sure, as the comments indicate; those you have helped on a personal level are very grateful for your your assistance, but your language alienates those of us who understand that individuals and not ideologies are what contrive statistics with facts.
All else aside, this one glaring omission is VERY unprofessional.
Furthermore, I've seen no evidence to indicate that the false reporting rate is statistically more significant than for any other crime. In many cases a report may indicate a false positive when the burden of proof is set too low and due diligence is not carried out, sensationalist media gets involved, the mandatory reporting requirements are too stringent, or other intricacy is involved such as a teenager who is legally unable to grant consent.
In none of these instances is the alleged victim the accuser. In every case the right of choice to prosecute is taken out of his or her hands.
How is this blatant omission any less factually important?
You talk about the objectivity of facts, yet ignore them and vindicate your argument by marginalizing the experience of other independent parties.
I fail to see how attacking feminism is a productive means to petition legislature and instigate positive social change.
Anon at 9:28: You obviously are a new reader here. You have come to pick a fight with preconceived notions that simply aren't true. The fact is, we have discussed every major false rape study and all other known data on false rape claims. The fact that we don't repeat it in every post does not support your argument.
For example, "I've seen no evidence to indicate that the false reporting rate is statistically more significant than for any other crime."
Sigh. We've cited FBI data that shows its four to 8 times higher. Puh-lease! You obviously do not follow this area closely.
Then you say this: "In many cases a report may indicate a false positive when the burden of proof is set too low and due diligence is not carried out, sensationalist media gets involved, the mandatory reporting requirements are too stringent, or other intricacy is involved such as a teenager who is legally unable to grant consent."
You must believe we are idiots to classify those things as "false" reports. Seriously. For you to accuse of us of making the mistake you cite suggests you know absolutely nothing about this site. You have pegged us as just another angry MRA site. In reality people like Prof. Alan Dershowitz are our heroes. You would do well to spend several days studying the objectively verifiable data that we cite instead of blithely, and self-righteously, deigning to attack us with no support beyong your serene ipse dixit.
You can imagine how seriously we take your uninformed rant, which has done more to hurt the cause you think you are advancing than anything we could ever say.
Anonymous9:28 - Crawl back to feministing or whatever shithole you came from. You proved one thing, feminsts can write like they know what they're talking about if you don't read it closely, but a little friendly advice, don't mess with Pierce and Steve. They are smarter than you and will cut you a new asshole.
Anon at 10:31: I'm not out to cut anyone a new anything. I am tired of being begged a misogynist by people who read one post. Everything in that post has been discussed here in excessive detail. I think that some people can't stand the fact we are challenging the myths they've clung to.
I don't like uninformed opinions. I also don't like people asserting things for which there is not universal agreement as "fact." That's why we always so no one can ever say with certainty how many false rape claims are made. We have every reason to believe its more than 25 percent and may be over 50 percent. Sorry if that shocks the angry commentator. My guess is she'd say, for a fact, it's two percent.
Your post here betrays your unwavering biases and your own politicized agenda. Based on your language this seems less about giving a voice to those who legitimately need and deserve advocacy and more like exploiting those individuals to pursue a personal vendetta against a group whose specific actions get under your skin.
**********
BINGO! It's about (drumroll, please)......
PUNISHING FALSE RAPE ACCUSERS!
Duh!
objectively verifiable data indicates that close to half of all rape claims are false.
"Objectively verifiable data also indicates there is no link between smoking and cancer."
I provide as evidence of the former the Kanin and McDowell studies. The latter was proven with finality to be wrong. Can you do the same for the former? I propose that I can look at any study you cite, and debunk it with just those 2 studies.
comparing MRA's with radical feminists is absolutely ludicrous. It's like comparing 60's civil rights activists with the Ku Klux Klan.
". . . and more like exploiting those individuals to pursue a personal vendetta against a group whose specific actions get under your skin."
Thanks for pointing out that part of it - I skimmed it the first time and missed that gem.
The crazy feminist has it backward. If guys who are falsely accused weren't being hurt by false rape claims, I wouldn't bother with this. I've got better things to do. I don't worry about being falsely accused because I'm happily married. The feminists bother me because of their indifference to the falsely accused, which has translated into some pretty nasty laws and polices (I won't repeat those here because I know the writer has read our site very carefully).
So you skewer feminists because they give estimates about rape victims who don’t report their rapes and what they think the percentage of false rapes are and yet you say, “We have every reason to believe [false rape accusations are] more than 25 percent and may be over 50 percent.”
And feminists have every reason to believe what they believe. You utilize the statistics you like, and feminists do the same. Nothing says that you guys are right. I don’t see how you can make fun of feminists with a straight face when you have your own estimates.
Anon at 9:28 had very good points, FYI.
Norm, when you say, “comparing MRA's with radical feminists is absolutely ludicrous. It's like comparing 60's civil rights activists with the Ku Klux Klan”, you mean that feminists are more like civil rights activists and MRAs are like the KKK, right?
And I know that you consider every female who is capable enough to hold a job and support herself and survive without needing to rely on a man a “radical feminist.” Which makes your statement the ludicrous one.
The difference is that feminists just make up their statistics, while we refer to objective measurements of phenomena such as recidivism rates.
And how exactly do you explain the very low recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders, without admitting that one third of men convicted of rape are innocent?
Well, first, I don�t think that one third are innocent. And second, I don�t think the recidivism rates are that low. You guys are the experts with the data (and I�m lazy) so tell me, if you take date rapists out of the equation, aren�t recidivism rates pretty high? At least as high as for other crimes?
And really, what do recidivism rates have to do with it?
Jeana, what the fuck is wrong with you? Feminists don't give "estimates." They cite things with certainty like two percent that have been repeatedly debunked with objectively verifiable information. This shit is not a matter of personal opinion. Quit being such a fucking jackass. Seriously.
For everybody else: I seriously don't have time to respond to the nitwits who refuse to read the stuff I put up. How often do you see me cite an MRA leader? Not very often. I cite law review articles and other stuff that is transparent in how they reach the conclusions they reach. But we have so many trolls now that I think I am going to have to switch to a moderation policy. I cannot have things left unchallenged by the trolls, and I don't have time to respond to every one.
jeana said...
Well, first, I don't think.
Truer words were never spoken.
I suppose that Descartes would say you don't think, therefore you aren't.
But we have so many trolls now that I think I am going to have to switch to a moderation policy. I cannot have things left unchallenged by the trolls, and I don't have time to respond to every one.
Sorry to hear that, but it probably will be the best course of action. I have been surprised that you have been able to leave commenting open as long as you have.
I know you are married and have a generally positive view of women, but our trolls are far more characteristic of modern womanhood than you may realize. Reaching the point where he longer cares at all what creatures like them think of him is very liberating for a man.
Anon at 4:57: what I don't want is to have somebody wander on this site and see all Jean, Renee and Atom refuting everything with their standard snarkery -- and no facts. What really pisses me off about Jeana is she seems to read the site, she's smart, and she sees all the stuff we put up about the prevalence of rape. I've dissected that issue every which way -- yet she still makes comments like that. She knows better.
I hate the idea of not having free comments here, but I don't know if we can take this site to the next level with all these goofy assertions being posited.
And, yes, I've lost all patience with them. And I'm PROUD of it.
I remember when I first took an interest in Men's Rights issues about 4 years ago. The few MRA sites that were out there were absolutely infested with trolls. Occasionally several of them would land at once on one site like a swarm of locusts, then disappear a day or two later.
But in those 4 years, they have largely stopped plaguing these men's free expression. I can think of several reasons for this, not least of which being how capable they found so many of these men to be in dealing with their hostility and unreason, in a way that many women never see in real life.
There are more trolls on this site now than I've seen on any site for a long time. That suggests to me that they fear this site as an unwelcome development, much as they did several years ago when MRA sites first appeared.
Glenn Sacks always had a handful of resident trolls though, Jeana being one of them.
I would take it as a mark of distinction Pierce. My guess is there aren't that many women who have the time and inclination to make such nuisances of themselves, so they're targeting those sites they believe to be most threatening to feminist privilege. You have been singularly honored.
Pierce,
The ONLY thing feminists and non-feminists alike have EVER quoted was that 2% false rape figure. I defy you to find even one instance of a feminist saying something like, "In 2008, there were 292,450 rapes and 988,021 additional rapes that were unreported." This thread talks about feminists who "know" exactly things like that. I say that it's not true beyond the 2% oft-quoted figure. Why are you getting so huffy? You seriously need a hug.
And keep in mind, Pierce and others, that what you consider to be a "real" rape doesn't include lot of things that others do consider to be rape. So you wind up with a lot of apples-oranges comparisons. And you people get mad when you're challenged. And somehow, I'm a troll for questioning you and not believing 100% what you say.
But if you don't ever want to be questioned or challenged or have any other points of view brought up, then by all means moderate and delete comments. Just like at Glenn Sacks and your crazy friend Marky-Mark and all those feminist sites you complain about.
Jeana, I get PISSED, not huffy, FUCKING PISSED, because I don't have time to repeat this stuff. You supposedly read this blog.
The feminists claim to know that "one-in-_______ women are raped." Of course, that the number is a moving target. Some feminists insist that one-in-three women in their lifetimes are raped; most tell us it's one-in-four; many tell us it's one-in-four college women; some tell us it's one-in-four Freshmen college women before Thanksgiving break; some tell us it's one-in-six women in general; some tell us it's one-in-seven women in general. And I could go on and on, but you get the point. I have cited authority for all of them. Pick a single digit number and you'll find some "support" for it among the politicized purveyors of misandry in the rape industry. It doesn't seem to bother these zealots that they can't even get their stories straight. Nor do they seem to notice that that there is one hell of a difference between one-in-three women overall and one-in-four college women before Thanksgiving and one-in-seven women overall. But, hey, why allow critical thinking to get in the way of a good feminist victim metanarrative?
They also claim to know an exact figure for underreporting: Compare that figure with the figures feminists typically toss out as the rate for underreporting. Not surprisingly, this, too, is a moving target, but feminists often claim that just forty percent of rapes are reported. Others claim that only thirty-three percent are reported. Some claim the number is really sixteen percent.
And guess what? THAT figure can't be reconciled with the first number in any universe. I've proven it -- but you know that since you read this blog, right? RIGHT?
And then the two percent crowd has gradually crept to eight percent since I've started. I wonder why.
I don't have time to do a private post for every fucking troll.
PIERCE HARLAN
You MRAs as well quote a variety of figures for false rape accusations. You quote 8% from the FBI, then sometimes 40%, sometimes 50%, "probably more than 50%", 80%, etc. You do it too. So what? You can't know. Feminists don't know either. Different people say things according to the information they have. I don't see what the major deal is.
And you don't need to respond since that obviously tires you out.
"I defy you to find even one instance of a feminist saying something like, "In 2008, there were 292,450 rapes and 988,021 additional rapes that were unreported."
You defy him? What makes you think he's accountable to you?
"And somehow, I'm a troll for questioning you and not believing 100% what you say."
You're not a troll for either reason. You're a troll because you are disingenuous. Your "questions" always lead in one direction only. Your disinterest in justice and better law for men couldn't be more clear.
The only reason you're at this site is to stunt its progress. Same reason you were at Glenn Sacks.
If you like asking "questions", head on over to Feministing and challenge Jessica Valenti in the same way you do here.
Could you actually do that?
We here on this board have always quoted the Kanin and McDowell studies, the two scientifc studies which have been done on false rape accusations. We have not said, '5%, 80%, etc.' Where have you seen those numbers? Not on this board. We are not responsible for what you think you heard someone else say. It's as if you said to an astronomer, "I have evidence that you are wrong about Jupiter being bigger than Mars - I have heard other people say it is not."
Science is science, that's the bottom line. There's no such thing as 'MRA stats'.
Actually, I wish I could talk to people who I disagree with or don’t understand. I do like to see how other people think. It makes me expand the way I think about things. I go to liberal blogs and places like Feministing, but I usually agree with what they say. Why would I challenge someone if I agree with them? But if I didn’t agree, I do say so, although I don’t get very many “Liked this comment” points, but so what? I don’t go to blogs to make friends. Nor do I go to them to upset people. But just the name “jeana” upsets MRAs. I bet if I had a boy’s name I would be treated far better.
It’s kind of amusing that you think that someone disagreeing with you or asking a question is stunting your progress. It should actually make you stronger. But if your contentions are that shaky that someone as inoffensive and nonthreatening as I am bothers you guys so much, I don’t know what to say. I am only in one thread. That’s apparently too much for you guys.
Perhaps you need to just be all-MRA all the time. Then you can gleefully trash women and despise feminists and blame females and non-MRA males for everything under the sun and talk about how we should lose all our rights and become your slaves. Hate hate hate. And then feign ignorance and shock when you’re accused of the hate you display. And then claim it’s the feminists who are nothing but a hate group.
And you wonder why feminists don’t bother with you. Bye.
"There are more trolls on this site now than I've seen on any site for a long time. "
Really? Who else besides jeana and a couple of the anonymini? I need to know so I can psychoanalyze and diagnose them, or at least give them a hard time.
should say 'anonynimi'.
though it's probably not a real word anyway.
The only reason you're at this site is to stunt its progress. Same reason you were at Glenn Sacks
And that is the whole story. She is pretty good at being disruptive until people stop taking her even the tiniest bit seriously. Like all feminists, she derives the only power she has from her skills at being obnoxious.
It is a good sign, however. It shows how threatened they are by us. They have deployed a whole bunch of rear guard saboteurs because they know they are losing big time and want to delay the inevitable collapse as long as they can.
The more desperate and shrill she gets, the more worried we know we have them.
Bye.
Promises, promises.
I stopped reading and responding to Jeana, and I hope she never, ever comes back. And that goes for Atom and any other trolls. I will no longer respond to them.
I stopped reading and responding to Jeana, and I hope she never, ever comes back. And that goes for Atom and any other trolls. I will no longer respond to them.
Probably a good strategy. It's just so much fun to be nasty to them, but it probably is a character flaw. ;)
If there's no longer any point to responding to them then why don't you just ban them?
Banning will require comment moderation, which require a greater investment of time. I've conferred with Steve and we both feel that moderation is a last resort.
Pierce Harlan said...
Banning will require comment moderation, which require a greater investment of time. I've conferred with Steve and we both feel that moderation is a last resort.
You mentioned in a previous thread that you welcomed writers interested in the subject. If you and Steve simply start ignoring the trolls and let other commenters deal with them, you can save a lot of time and energy and lower your blood pressure at the same time. :) There may not be a lot of people who are informed enough to write well enough to be featured here, but there are lots of people who have experience in dealing with internet trolls. Maybe they can volunteer here in that way.
I think it is useful to observe their tactics. The ways they attempt to confuse the issues are the very same ways these laws got passed in the first place. Political and legal change will not come from "reasonably and rationally" convincing people, but from political and social action. Those actions will have to take place in the face of resistance from a lot of people just like them.
If you and Steve will just consistently ignore them, and refuse to respond to their tactics to change the subject and control the discussion, and give the other commenters free license to harass them, and keep yourselves focussed on your message, their tactics can be defeated.
The need you feel to respond to even totally obvious nonsense indicates why these tactics are so powerful and effective. That is why it is so important to learn to defeat them.
Anon,
I can't say that's a bad idea. We will try to keep the conversation more on topic. I only ask one thing. Like Glenn's site, I would ask that it be kept clean. I know what we do here is emotionally charged, but I really don't want us to become the mirror of sites like feministing.
So, to our readers, please, feel free to challenge those who want to derail the conversation.
As always, thanks to our readers. We truly appreciate the support that is given to those falsely accused.
All the best.
Anon, since you raised it, I will use your comment to give you my opinion on advocacy, and commenting. Here is how I feel. The trolls make an inflammatory comment and all of a sudden the thread is veered down some strange and wondrous path like a runaway freight train -- 100 comments on some goofy, unrelated point. Why? Because there are not enough people who are capable of of cutting through their crap and putting them in their place in a pithy, and yes, I am fine with vituperative, or more accurately, scathing, way.
For my taste, when dealing with them, the more vituperative the better -- and sorry if you all don't like that. Every time a judge chides me for being vituperative, I know I'm about to win the case. I was mentored by one of the preeminent lawyers in America whose client roster read like a Fortune 500 listing. The man was scary he was so smart, and he was vituperative. He scared his own clients he was so ferocious -- but they loved him. They knew they had a real advocate. I am a pale imitation of him, but I know it works. (And I don't care about clean either.)
What I do care about is good advocacy. Vituperative has to be coupled with a knowledge of the subject. I mean this with all due respect: everyone who comments on sites like this is an "authority" on false rape or the other issues. Sometimes - not often, but sometimes -- I cringe at some of the statements that can't be supported or that are just wrong. On the other hand, we have at least two readers, and probably a lot more, who know more about the "men's rights" movement in general than I do. But when it comes to false rape issues, I know what I'm talking about. And, to be honest, that's why I jump in a lot of times.
The goal here is to get mainstream media respect. Preaching to the MRA choir isn't going to help the problem in the long-run. I am not going to waste my time doing this just so a guy who's had a bad time with women can come on and vent amd fume and generalize about womenhood. Won't do it. We need to be the source that newspapers call when they are looking for a counter-opinion to those espoused by sexual assault counselors. We will need a less-in-your-face name to do that, and -- yes -- comment moderation. I do not think this blog can ever go to the next level with a no-moderation policy, but right now I don't have time to moderate.
Pierce Harlan, on the annoyance of trolls continually asking the same dumb questions, or proffering the same unsubstantiated nonsense over and over - "I don't have time to repeat this stuff."
And that is precisely why they keep using the same tactics.
My suggestion would be to number the items in the False Rape Primer side-bar; then, when ever the same bit of inanity comes up, the simple response would be to "see no. XX". No need to even insert a link, since all they need to do is go to that number in the list and click on the existing link.
Those links are already there, in every single post, but they are listed by title alone - which requires specifying the entire title, or inserting a link. Putting numbers to the listed linked items would, in my opinion, greatly simplify refuting those "canned" posts by trolls.
Also, the Primer list might be expanded, or an Addendum list created to include new (numbered)explanations/refutations to any possible new attempts at misdirection by current and future trolls.
Frequent readers/supporters could become more familiar with the content of each listed item, and could serve the roll of responding to apparent trolling by simply pointing out the identifying number of the appropriate items which should be read in response.
Just my $0.02
Thanks slwerner. Good ideas. By the way, you were one of the readers I was referencing as knowledgeable.
We need to be the source that newspapers call when they are looking for a counter-opinion to those espoused by sexual assault counselors. We will need a less-in-your-face name to do that, and -- yes -- comment moderation. I do not think this blog can ever go to the next level with a no-moderation policy, but right now I don't have time to moderate.
This is the first time I've seen you lay out your vision for what you are trying to accomplish.
A standard blog format is not a universal tool. It does not work for every purpose, no matter how much of a convoluted plan you work out for it. A blog is essentially a social networking tool, not an information management tool. It is meant to allow discussion, but most blogs are personally-oriented stuff on issues which are not nearly so contentious.
If you are looking to be an authoritative source, then you need to have complete control over all content. There is nothing to be gained, and many problems associated with, allowing open commentary. Like it or not, different people will have different reactions to the issues, and choose different ways of responding to them. Among sexually active young men, for example, the lessons of Duke and Hofstra will result in a lot more sexual encounters ending up on video.
Rather than wasting a lot of time and energy trying to police the comments on your blog, simply closing them off completely would give you back complete control. If you want to allow continued discussion, a message board with actual moderators and mechanisms to manage contentious posters and deliberate disrupters would be a much more effective way to do it.
I am always amazed when I hear this rule about what blogs are "supposed" to be, etc. Most bloggers got into it in the "early" days (circa 2004) because it was a free website. In any event, many major blogs have comment moderation to keep the comments on track. I do agree with most of what you say, though.
I am always amazed when I hear this rule about what blogs are "supposed" to be, etc.
The comment was not about what they were "supposed" to be, but rather what they work best at due to their structure. Saying that it works better to use a hammer to drive a nail than a screwdriver is simply a statement of effectiveness, not saying that one is "supposed" to use a hammer to drive nails.
A true Content Management System (CMS) would allow catgorization and instant organization of all posts, building a library of organized material that is searchable, and the grouping of posts with related content. A separate discussion board would allow containment of the noise away from the content, even if it remained unmoderated.
Choosing the right tool for the purpose does often make things easier and less work.
Let me put it this way: if Blogger didn't offer these sites at no cost that are made so that an idiot like me can operate them, how many bloggers do you think there would be? Good luck getting someone as stupid as me to set up a CMS.
Pierce Harlan said...
Let me put it this way: if Blogger didn't offer these sites at no cost that are made so that an idiot like me can operate them, how many bloggers do you think there would be? Good luck getting someone as stupid as me to set up a CMS.
Pierce,
Suggestions are not attacks. It appears that your little effort has outgrown its humble beginnings and is now becoming quite burdensome for you to manage. I can't imagine how you find the time to bill any hours with all the time you put into the site.
I have seen lots of good people burn out over the years as the seeminly simple effort they started out with grew beyond what they had expected. I would hate to see that happen to you, because what you are doing is so important. I am concerned that the time and energy this site is taking away from your work and family could cause you to give it up at some time in the future.
Yes, there are lots of bloggers, but only a few people whose goal is -
"to be the source that newspapers call when they are looking for a counter-opinion to those espoused by sexual assault counselors."
It sounds to me like you need to give yourself a break and some breathing room. Why don't you just shut off all comments for a while and take a break? Do you really see open commenting as adding much value to your voice and vision?
It has recently been taking up a lot of time. Building the audience is crucial, and so long as the audience seems to want the comments, we've got to keep them.
"It sounds to me like you need to give yourself a break and some breathing room."
I agree Pierce, maybe you need a break. Can't the other archivists handle it for a while? Then when you come back, one of them can take a break...etc. Or, you could just post one story per day or something.
I notice there are a lot of 'dead' blogs out there. The average life span of the ones that have died seems to be about 1 - 2.5 years or so. Some of it's probably due to loss of interest, but some must be due to burnout also.
Pierce,
check this page ('Bloggers Suffer Burnout') (it has a couple of annoying ads but the site is okay):
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/07/64088
oops,
for some reason I can't paste the whole link. Google on 'bloggers suffer burnout' without the quotes, and it should be the first hit. (wired.com)
I think it ought to be up to Pearce to say if he's burned out. Ive have follow this blog since early this year and have noticed a very positive trend the past several months. I don't want to offend Pearce but I think that earlier on he was too careful to be diplomatic. Sometimes readers would jump on him about it and question his MRA credentials. In the past several mmonths it seems he's finally figured out that he needs to cut loose and its a huge improvement. For my money he's the numnber one men's rights advocate going right now. I would not want to tangle with him if I were in the other sides' camp. Again, not wanting to offend anyone, but Glenn and Robert try too hard to be diplomatic. Pierce seems fed up right now, and maybe that's good. He's not saying anything they can refute and it's still the same carefully thought out message its just he's developed an attitude that it's time to win this war, fellows. No more messing around. I personally like what he's doing.
I'm all for Pierce taking a break. I know that I can at least manage to keep new articles posted. :)
I just won't have the great insightful articles that Pierce is so good at.
Anon,
As for the CMS issue, I work IT, so I do have some ideas that Pierce and I will be discussing regarding the site, and the possibility of hosting our own.
Norm,
I was able to copy and paste just fine. Highlight from the start of the url and go to the line just below it. It works for me.
Glenn and Robert try too hard to be diplomatic.
While they certainly are more diplomatic, their main subject matter (fathers rights), currently only affects a certain segment of the male population, as not all men are fathers.
False rape accusations, on the other hand, can hit any man, any time. So there is much more emotion to it. Dealing with highly emotional content, when you have people who wish to minimize those emotions (feminist posters), gets tiring.
I agree, that Pierce and I should probably comment only when something is specifically egregious. But when you have a passion for what you do, it's hard to sit on the sideline and watch.
False rape accusations, on the other hand, can hit any man, any time. So there is much more emotion to it. Dealing with highly emotional content, when you have people who wish to minimize those emotions (feminist posters), gets tiring.
==============================
That didn't come out right. I'm sure that the emotions one goes through being separated from your child is excrutiating, and I didn't intend to minimize that.
"I'm all for Pierce taking a break."
I don't think I like this comment at all.
Anon at 12:03 AM: ". . . he's developed an attitude that it's time to win this war, fellows."
Please write to me. You "get" it.
Too many people developing this permanent victim mentality, content to "analyze" all the bad things happening, almost dispassionately, and insisting it's just the way it is. Aren't the feminists terrible, etc. I swear some people take a perverse pleasure in it. Or maybe they're like every post-WW II president until 1981 who were resigned to have "peaceful coexistence" with the USSR. Then finally we got a president who'd been saying for years that we need to WIN the cold war -- that the USSR is an evil empire. When the Berlin Wall came down, it was something essentially no one had expected. That's us, guys: the Berlin Wall of oppressive feminism needs to come down. I hope you're all with me on this, and if not -- no hard feelings. I'm sure there are other blogs that satisfy your needs.
Post a Comment