SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.

The Patriarchy’s Perfect Weapon: ‘But What If She’s Lying?’

Andrea Grimes
by Andrea Grimes, Senior Political Reporter, RH Reality Check
February 5, 2015 - 10:46 am
Nowhere in this country do we have an apparatus that is set up to believe those among us who are sexually harassed, abused, raped, when we tell our stories. There is no perfect case. But there is patriarchy.
Nowhere in this country do we have an apparatus that is set up to believe those among us who are sexually harassed, abused, raped, when we tell our stories. There is no perfect case. But there is patriarchy. (Shutterstock)
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: But what if she’s lying?
That’s the gist of yet another take on yet another high-profile rape case, this time in the Daily Beast, whose writer Cathy Young trotted it out as the least counterintuitive of all possible premises when it comes to sexual violence.
This time, “she” is Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz, who has been physically carrying a dorm room mattress around campus in protest of her college’s handling (or lack thereof) of the rape case she brought against a Columbia senior. But “she” could be any number of other women, at any number of other American universities, who have had the courage to come forward to recount stories of sexual violence and seek redress from the collegiate entities that, ostensibly, are meant to ensure safety on campus—only to have their stories doubted because, well, doubt is the default when it comes to the way people hear stories of sexual violence. Because it is entirely too easy to suggest that if “she” were telling the truth, “she” would have done x, or y, or z, to prove that something really happened.
Of course, “she” needn’t be “she.” She might be he, or they. But one thing is consistent: Nowhere in this country do we have an apparatus that is set up to believe those among us who are sexually harassed, abused, raped, when we tell our stories.
Instead, we nitpick and hand-wring and wait and wait and wait for that perfect case, as if finding just the right scenario is the only thing gumming up the ever-so-slowly turning wheels of American justice. Oh sure, when we find that perfect case, we’ll be more than willing to rally behind a survivor. It’s really just that simple! Don’t get all bent out of shape about it!
The right case. The one where the cops were called immediately (but not too soon, you don’t want it to look like this is a set-up). The one where a completely sober victim (a white, cisgender woman who has never before had penetrative sex) consented quickly to a rape kit (but not too eagerly or too reluctantly, with just the right air of damaged comportment appropriate to a real rape victim). The one with the right kind of physical evidence (real rape victims immediately bag and label their clothing, and are careful to preserve bodily fluids and fingerprints with the skills of a CSI forensics expert). The one with records of text messages and, ideally, a phone recording in which the accused rapist admits wrongdoing (victims should, of course, take care not to be too confrontational in obtaining these messages, because crazy bitches are always asking for it.) The one without a promising athletic career at stake (won’t someone, anyone, think about the football program!?). The one with this, the one with that, the one with …
But there is patriarchy. A perfect, many-armed monster, which lives and thrives in this perfect universe of its own design. And it wields the perfect weapon: rape culture.
The longer we wait for the perfect case to try in the court of public opinion, the more opportunities this many-armed monster has to craft its ongoing attack on justice, to perpetuate a culture of shame and skepticism that silences those who would challenge it.
The monster is smart, and it knows where and when to hide and when to strike. Of course it does. The world is its playground, its lair, a welcoming cavern outfitted with comforting amenities like the phrase, But what if she’s lying.
They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he doesn’t exist; so too, this many-armed monster rarely manifests with gnashing teeth and bloody claws. Rather, the monster looks a bit like a beloved American film director with quirky views on modern romance. It looks like a goofy, all-American dad. It looks like a sports star.
The monster moves with a kind of vicious grace, countering every attack with cool, collected reserve. Just, you know, asking honest, innocent questions: Why was she wearing that skirt? What was she doing out so late? Didn’t he find her attractive? Wasn’t he aroused? But wasn’t he already in prison? Why did they have so much to drink? Why did they keep dating? What’s up with those text messages?
Couldn’t it all just have been … a misunderstanding?
We excuse, or even perhaps like, imperfection in our accused rapists. The monster offers us so many rejoinders to smooth out their stories, a call-and-response to any survivor’s attempt to define the terms of their own experience. Maybe they were just a little confused? Isn’t it easy to misinterpret signals in the bedroom? Couldn’t it just have been an awkward, bumbling attempt at romance? Don’t we all know that the human libido is an unpredictable thing?
From our victims, though, we demand perfection. We offer empowering language to them—we offer them terms like “survivor,” a good, strong word that hisses and strikes at the monster. It is one that I myself claim, perhaps in an effort to appear … more perfect. Less cowed by the monster. Less willing to succumb to its brutal grip.
But there are also, indeed, rape victims. Not just rape survivors, not just those of us who have experienced sexual violence and abuse and come out on the other side with the word “survival” on our lips.
There are those among us who do not survive, either in the literal or figurative sense of the word, the violence done to them. People who are irreparably bruised and broken by rape and abuse and harassment and sexual assault, and who are silenced and condemned by this many-armed, all-powerful beast of patriarchy. Those people need not be “survivors” to be loved and respected and believed.
There are no perfect victims. There are no perfect survivors. But the monster wants us to keep looking, to interrogate them rather than focusing our attention on perpetrators. This sends a message—nothing subtle about it—that to speak is to be at risk of awakening this monster’s ire when they don’t present the perfect case.
And of course, they—we—never do present the perfect case. This is the cruel catch: The monster has us on a quest for a reward we can never find. That’s what I mean when I say we are battling a beast that is both in and of this perfectly constructed universe, who wields the perfect weapon of doubt. The more we fruitlessly look for that perfect case, the less we look for ways to best that beast, who thrives on the search itself, a villain who is perfectly skilled in the art of finding new, exculpatory questions, who grows stronger every time we wonder: But what if she’s lying?
We must stop looking for that perfect case; we must stop trying to appease those who would demand it. We must believe survivors. We must trust their stories. Maybe that seems like a small step. An obvious step. But it is a tremendous intervention.
Then, and only then, might the scales of justice tip anywhere near a balance.
To schedule an interview with Andrea Grimes contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.
Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes
We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
× Comments for this thread are now closed.
  • fiona64 3 months ago
    There is a case currently in the news about a Stanford athlete who was quite literally caught in the act of raping an unconscious woman ... and still people are saying "Now his life is ruined" and "why was she unconscious" and "what if she consented before she passed out" and "why can't women take a little personal responsibility to prevent rape" ... and everything in the world *except* why did he rape her. Ugh. Because apparently, as you point out, there is rape and "real rape" in some people's minds. http://www.mommyish.com/2015/0...
      see more
      • Blue Orion > fiona64 3 months ago
        God, I hate the whining over the "Now his life is ruined". Well no shit, you commit a violent act against someone, your life is ruined, and you did it to yourself. Don't rape unconscious people period. It is rape and always will be. You don't get to kill people when they are asleep or drunk, why the hell would anyone find it okay to rape them? Getting drunk is not a crime. Being unconscious is not a crime. Doing sexual things to a person who cannot give consent is a crime.
          see more
          • Jonah Henry > Blue Orion 3 months ago
            An accusation ruins a man's life, whether it is true or not. It ruins his life even if he is found not guilty. Rapist are terrible, and so are false accusers.
              see more
              • MikeyArmstrong > Jonah Henry 3 months ago
                False accusers are extremely rare. Stop the false equivalence idiocy.
                  see more
                  • Avatar
                    This comment was deleted.
                    • MikeyArmstrong > Guest 3 months ago
                      Are you on crack, rapist? The FBI says false accusations make up between 2-3% of all reported rapes. Thirty percent of women report their rapes.
                        see more
                        • Avatar
                          This comment was deleted.
                          • Arekushieru > Guest 3 months ago
                            Wow, way to make ASSumptions, but I guess that's really all your type is left with, at this point.
                              see more
                              • Avatar
                                This comment was deleted.
                                • Arekushieru > Guest 3 months ago
                                  Uh, no, go back and re-read what he actually said. He MISREPRESENTED FBI statistics. The only reason someone would do that is to promote an agenda, an agenda that ONLY non-feminists have. Which he then went on to prove with the rest of his comment.
                                    see more
                                    • Mark Neil > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                      "He MISREPRESENTED FBI statistics. "
                                      Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, that doesn't make him a rapist. Not unless you assume anyone who dares to offer statistics you don't like (for whatever reason) is a rapist.
                                      "an agenda that ONLY non-feminists have. "
                                      Debatable. Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist, and she is just as adamant about addressing the feminist agenda of stripping away due process and spouting misinformation to promote that end.
                                      "Which he then went on to prove with the rest of his comment."
                                      Which still doesn't make him a rapist, as the accusation made asserted. I'm curious, are you so idelogically and agenda driven you can't even acknowledge when someone who doesn't share your ideology and agenda is wrongfully accused? You do realize, that he has falsely been accused of rape, IN THESE VERY COMMENTS, and rather than addressing that false accusation, you're trying to justify it, all while trying to deny false accusations are rare, despite it being used AGAIN, IN THESE VERY COMMENTS as a means to silence him.
                                      PS: You seem woefully unable to stay on topic.
                                        see more
                                        • Arekushieru > Mark Neil 3 months ago
                                          It does make him a rape apologist. Are you SO unable to distinguish that there is a DIFFERENCE between hyperbole and false accusations, now? I may not be able to distinguish between the two but I do know there is a DIFFERENCE, MRArsehole. In EITHER case, misrepresenting FBI statistics exposes one's agenda, and, gee, I wonder what that could be given the rest of his comments? The rest of your comments pertaining to this are simply whining about how UNFAIR it is that your privileges are being taken away from you. Offering statistics? NOT what he did. Can you even COMPREHEND what you read, now?
                                          Christina Hoff Summers does not sound like a feminist I want to know. She sounds like one of those people who believe that 'balancing' rights between religious beliefs and women's rights is anything more than favouring the ALREADY privileged even more over the underprivileged and who claim to be fighting for the marginalized.
                                          Also, YOU are the one who is woefully unable to stay on topic. You can't even read an article to see what it is ACTUALLY talking about, then you can't even comprehend what you DO read. AGAIN, the article was not about believing wrongful accusations CAN'T happen. Are YOU so ideologically and agenda driven that YOU can't recognize what you are ACTUALLY arguing against, that, when someone tries to STEER you back ON topic, you self-project your OWN ideologically and agenda driven blind spots onto others? He was NOT falsely accused of rape. He was accused of promoting an agenda that IN THESE VERY COMMENTS he's proven to endorse. That of the fact that women who accuse men of rape 'be bitches who be lyin' all the time'. BECAUSE he, AND you, use the women's BEHAVIOUR as 'evidence' at the SAME time you are making a FALSE EQUIVALENCE between that and 'feminists believing that no women can make a false rape accusation'. When you promote an agenda such as that, you support RAPE CULTURE and when you argue against OUR position, even, no ESPECIALLY, if you are ASSuming that our position is something else, that IS the default position. That you are a RAPE APOLOGIST. Not much distance, IF any, to becoming a rapist. None, whatsoever, to believing that that is the case, in MANY circumstances. TBSVFS.
                                            see more
                                            • catseye > Mark Neil 3 months ago
                                              Christina Hoff Sommers is a FAKE "feminist". REAL social activists know that the first step in dealing with ANY problem is to define it, and her ridiculous crap about how anybody who DOES talk about a problem is somehow either a "whiner" or "playing the victim card" has the INTENT to prevent the definition and discussion of problems.
                                              Q: Who Stole Feminism?
                                              A: Christina Hoff Sommers.
                                                see more
                                          • Avatar
                                            This comment was deleted.
                                      • GenderStatCheck > MikeyArmstrong 3 months ago
                                        Mod deleted this comment, but gonna try again: https://disqus.com/home/discus...
                                        That is a common myth. The FBI UCR in 1995 (sec 2, 24), 1996 (sec 2, 26), and 1997 (sec 2, 26) found false reports of rape at a consistent 8%, which was actually much higher than the general 2% false accusation rate the FBI found for other crimes. Note this figure only includes reports proven false during the investigation stage. It does not include reports that did not result in convictions, because they were disproven / shown to lack evidence in the court of law: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...
                                        Unfortunately, the FBI UCR stopped including false report statistics in 1998. I have found no other official data on false accusations from the FBI since then. If you have, please provide a direct citation/link to a primary source from the FBI. I would be very interested to see it.
                                        As for the 30% - what is your primary source? You must be very careful with statistics on "unreported" rapes, because they are normally alleged rapes that haven't been proven in the court of law.
                                        Mods delete comments with fully cited government sources, but let uncited stats remain? What is commenting policy??? Seems like RH Reality Check doesn't want reality to get in the way of the narrative it wants.
                                          see more
                                          • jovan1984 > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                            Actually, only 1 in every 20 rape claims are false, while 2 in every 9 women will be raped. What that means is that approximately 95% of all women and girls who are victims are telling the TRUTH.
                                              see more
                                              • Dana > jovan1984 3 months ago
                                                The problem is that, regardless of the statistics, each accusation of rape is an individual case. When Crystal Mangum claimed that she was raped by three men at the Duke lacrosse team party, you could say that there was a 95% probability that she was telling the truth, based on the broad statistic, but it developed that no, she wasn't.
                                                But, quite naturally, the visuals of the case -- poor black stripper claiming that she was raped by three rich white jocks -- were such that people jumped on the bandwagon, wanting to see the accused thrown in jail. The team, which was nationally ranked and one of the favorites to win the NCAA title, was shut down, and the coach fired, because people chose to take their decisions based upon he broad statistic, but the accusations were false.
                                                  see more
                                                  • Arekushieru > Dana 3 months ago
                                                    Oh, please. The people who are jumping on the bandwagon are people like YOU, who claim that strippers can't be raped, who whine about how this is ruining the MEN'S lives. Great job at proving the point of the article, BTW. When it comes to rape, and if the victim is female, the victim-blamers will come out of the woodwork. Crystal Magnum's claim was most likely only proven 'false' because the evidence, like your ilk FREQUENTLY does, was based on the victim's behaviour. Too bad YOU missed the entire point of the article, as well.
                                                      see more
                                                      • Dana > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                        The evidence is that none of the DNA matched any of the men on the lacrosse team, and the evidence is that one of the three men Miss Mangum accused was away from the house at the time she claimed the incident occurred; he was using his ATM card away from the house at the time, a solid record.
                                                        The three men accused were not just found not guilty, but the state Attorney General declared them to be actually innocent, and Mike Nifong, the local district attorney, was disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation."
                                                        Strippers certainly can be raped, and I never said otherwise -- that's something you made up -- but this one was not. Yet, because y'all just assume that an accusation of rape simply must be true, there was a rush to judgement -- perhaps you will remember the "gang of 88" -- and the accused have faced all sorts of personal and professional hardships that would not have occurred had they not been falsely accused.
                                                          see more
                                                          • Arekushieru > Dana 3 months ago
                                                            Again, basing it on victim's behaviour. Recall is not perfect. ESPECIALLY after a traumatic event. So using that as EVIDENCE is basing that on her BEHAVIOUR. Thanks for proving me right.
                                                            And please learn to read. We are NOT the ones who assume that an accusation of rape must be true but you ARE the ones who assume that every woman who accuses a man of rape is automatically lying. YOU are the ones, after all, who make a false equivalence between being advised on your part against using a victim's behaviour as evidence and an automatic assumption on our part that all women who claim rape are telling the truth.
                                                            Women who falsely accuse men of rape are hurt more by the false accusations than men who are falsely accused of them precisely BECAUSE even women who claim rape and are considered to have founded accusations are treated worse than the accused. Iow, sweetie pie, the ones who jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, are the ones who defend the accused as if his reputation matters more than the actual commission of a crime. The fact that rape apologists perceive a threat towards themselves when they can't control ALL of the media hype surrounding ANY part of a particular rape investigation, does not mean that people are all of a sudden jumping on the bandwagon of the accusers. SFS. Which you just DID assume, because you not only conflate a victim's behaviour with evidence but refuse to acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that those accused who are acquitted are not JUSTLY exonerated, further EXACERBATING that fact by moaning about the hardships that such men as these may have had to face without giving EQUAL consideration to what happens to even those women whose claims DO result in a conviction. I mean, things being EQUIVALENT and all.
                                                            Lol, the fact that the attorney general declared them to be innocent means absolutely nothing. No, I'm not the type of person that makes up the claim that strippers can't be raped. I'm the type that sees you and yours constantly making claims such as this and correctly ATTRIBUTES them to you and yours, though.
                                                              see more
                                                              • Dana > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                Gee, that's dumb! How is using evidence, demonstrable facts, basing anything on her behavior, beyond the fact that she reported what she claimed to be a crime? What part of none of the DNA evidence collected matched any of the lacrosse team members do you find to be based on her behavior?
                                                                You wrote:
                                                                We are NOT the ones who assume that an accusation of rape must be true but you ARE the ones who assume that every woman who accuses a man of rape is automatically lying.
                                                                Tell me: where, in anything you've seen me write, do you find me saying that I assume that every woman who accuses a man of rape is automatically lying. Please, be specific, and quote me directly.
                                                                Lol, the fact that the attorney general declared them to be innocent means absolutely nothing. No, I'm not the type of person that makes up the claim that strippers can't be raped. I'm the type that sees you and yours constantly making claims such as this and correctly ATTRIBUTES them to you and yours, though.
                                                                Again, please quote for me where I have ever said that strippers -- or prostitutes or anyone else -- cannot be raped? You have simply assumed that this must be what I believe, but, then again, you are the one who doesn't seem to need actual evidence to declare something to be true.
                                                                  see more
                                                                  • Arekushieru > Dana 3 months ago
                                                                    Nope, you seem to have difficulty reading for comprehension and remembering what you, YOURSELF, wrote.
                                                                    You ALSO SAID that it was based on the fact that one of the men the woman claimed was there and to have raped her was discovered through receipts and credit card transactions to have been elsewhere at that time. I guess you missed that whole discussion about rape being a traumatic event so perfect recall is unlikely, whether it be right after or a long period of time since the event occurred. Or even if it was dark or the woman was drunk, it doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen, it just means that someone else raped her. And it's not the woman's fault that she can't recall the who, the setting OR the events, properly. It's the RAPISTS fault. THEREFORE, claiming a rape didn't happen because of that IS basing evidence on the woman's behaviour.
                                                                    Uh, you do realize that the fact that you want me to be specific about instances of victim-blaming can BE used as proof that you are victim blaming a rape victim? If victim-blaming could only occur because of direct quotes that specifically stated that," I am blaming the victim.", rape culture would be a thing of the past, after all.
                                                                    Coming on to a blog that is SPECIFICALLY about the way the behaviour of the female rape victims is put under a scrutiny that no other crime ever receives, then posting a link to explain why you believe false rape accusations do occur is meant to prove WHAT, then? I would really like to know. Come on, tell me! It isn't supposed to mean that you think when we say that the behaviour of a rape victim receives an unusual level of scrutiny not seen anywhere else we are really saying that false rape accusations don't occur? If that's not it, I would really like you to tell me what you ARE saying by that, then? And if you ARE saying that then you are engaging in victim-blaming because you have inextricably linked victim-blaming and false rape accusations. And by doing THAT, you are claiming that all women who claim rape are lying.
                                                                      see more
                                                            • GenderStatCheck > jovan1984 3 months ago
                                                              Please don't use statistics without citing your primary sources. Unfortunately, people make up/miscite statistics all the time. Please provide the primary sources (and ideally links) for both your claims:
                                                              "1 in every 20 rape claims are false" - what is your source?
                                                              "2 in every 9 women will be raped" - what is your source?
                                                              Are they the exact same source? Mixing data from two different sources often produces unreliable results because of differences in methodology.
                                                                see more
                                                                • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                  I see that you self-project actions frequently associated with YOUR type onto others, as well.
                                                                    see more
                                                                    • GenderStatCheck > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                      My "type"? You mean the type of people that actually want proof of statistical claims?
                                                                        see more
                                                                        • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                          No, generally, the ones who don't have sources or cites for their claims is what I meant.
                                                                            see more
                                                                            • GenderStatCheck > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                              So you are not talking about me? Because I have cited and provided links to all my sources.
                                                                                see more
                                                                                • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                  I AM talking about you, because the people you associate with are precisely the ones who fail to cite and provide links when asked the majority of the time. The ones who regularly argue on sites such as these, tend to provide those links and cites the majority of the time.
                                                                                    see more
                                                                                    • GenderStatCheck > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                                      Again, you are making very strong assumptions about me. I doubt you know anything about the "people" I "associate with." Even if you did, it wouldn't matter. Who I associate with has no bearing on the validity of my points. I suggest you educate yourself on the Genetic Fallacy (and more specifically the Ad Hominem Fallacy).
                                                                                      You seem intent to clumsy jam me into some sort of archetype you have created, then suggesting I'm a somehow hypocrite for not fitting into it.
                                                                                        see more
                                                                                        • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                          No, please learn to read. That is NOT what I am doing. You are IMPLICITLY claiming that Jovan should have been expected to not provide his primary sources because he doesn't automatically assume that advising against using someone's behaviour as evidence is equivalent to claiming that every woman who makes a rape claim is telling the truth by failing to point out the shoddy lack of evidence provided by the OTHER side, the side that DOES assume a false equivalence between the two positions, in point of fact, by implicitly CLAIMING that the posters whose messages have been deleted are the ones that have cited their primary sources while none have been provided by the posters whose comments have been left behind, whatsoever. Thanks.
                                                                                            see more
                                                                                            • GenderStatCheck > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                                              No, I explicitly told Jovan that he needed to cite his sources for statistical claims.
                                                                                              My intention was never to claim that all other deleted posts were citing primary sources (and deleted because of it) - I haven't read the deleted posts. I was just expressing my surprise and suggesting maybe the mods had an agenda. Since they let me repost, maybe they don't. Maybe they thought my previous post was advertising my blog too hard. Its hard to tell because I don't know exactly why they deleted my comment and I can't find their comment policy.
                                                                                              However, you believe I "implicitly" claimed this. I guess someone could maybe come to that conclusion? Again, I think you are railing against your fantasy of what you think I am.
                                                                                                see more
                                                                                                • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                  Sorry, but you need to read my other replies to understand that this is not simply about fantasy, and then come back and give me your opinion.
                                                                                                  As for the rest, fair enough.
                                                                                                    see more
                                                                                                    • GenderStatCheck > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                                                      My opinion on what??? This comment seems somewhat nicer then your others, but honestly your posts are hard to decipher because (as I have pointed out) you keep trying to attribute motives and beliefs to me.
                                                                                                      You claimed it was a "fact" that I "don't seem to care" about female rape victims. I actually do care about rape victims. Caring about rape victims and asking for citations for statistical claims are not mutually exclusive. Nor is wanting accurate data on/discussing false rape reports.https://disqus.com/home/discussion/rhr...
                                                                                                      You took an innocent misunderstanding regarding citation and used it to create a completely unnecessary and juvenile paragraph-long ad hominem attack trying to paint me as a hypocrite.
                                                                                                      https://disqus.com/home/discus...
                                                                                                      My original point was that the FBI does not appear to have ever officially claimed that 2-3% of rape reports are false. Since then, I have been shooting the breeze with Timothy about false reporting stats. I feel like Timothy and I may disagree about somethings, but I also feel like we have had a fruitful dialog and his comments are actually intelligible.
                                                                                                      You just seem off the wall and needlessly insulting. If you really want my opinion on something, try asking me a simple question in a single clear, concise, logically-sound sentence that contains no insults, ad hominems and makes no assumptions about what "type" of person I am. Maybe I'll respond. However, at this point, I'm pretty sure I'm done with you.
                                                                                                        see more
                                                                                                        • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                          Tone-policing much? I was ready to give you the benefit of the doubt, then you had to pretty much go and prove me right.
                                                                                                          At this point, I can say you've used just about almost every tool under the sun that is usually blatantly ATTRIBUTED to MRAs.
                                                                                                          First of all, quibbling over how many percentage points can be attributed to false rape accusations, all the while ignoring the central POINT of the article, that being that when the victim's behaviour is portrayed as evidence, the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused more regularly than the accuser? Is pretty much saying that, while the article considers, statistically, at BEST, if at all, how rape claims are being treated affects the LIKELIHOOD of a conviction following, and the veracity of, a rape claim, you're only interested in cold, hard numbers, which makes it even harder to reconcile the idea that being concerned about rape victims and asking for citations for specific claims are not mutually exclusive. If you don't believe me, just take a look at whose company you're putting yourself in, when stubbornly remaining focused on the numbers rather than the actual content of the article, and I'm sure you'll notice that it hasn't included any of the regular posters on this site, simply put, because it's commonly viewed as a distraction rather than the hard look at what could essentially be considered the statistics behind the statistics that is being called for.
                                                                                                          Secondly, asking for citations for specific claims while completely ignoring the other side of the equation? Means it's become even HARDER to attribute somewhat altruistic motives to you when you can't seem to muster any effort to give equal weight to verifiable rape claims even when it comes to the bare bones statistics that you seem to find so fascinating, elsewhere.
                                                                                                          Thirdly, even when Timothy himself brought the idea up, you seemed to get all huffy and wondered why MRAs and unintentional vs intentional rape claims were 'suddenly' being introduced into the discussion, seemingly from out of nowhere. Then when he DID correct the erroneous assumption on your part, you just went back to your statistics and completely ignored the rest of what he said. These are NOT generally the actions of someone who considers rape victims and asking for citations of specific claims to not be mutually exclusive.
                                                                                                          Also, distilling what some have experienced down to semantics over statistical claims is highly insulting in and of itself, especially when you, yourself, have no stated 'skin in the game'. so to speak. Calling for others to respond rationally and logically, in that event, while refusing to evaluate your own actions, when it comes to perceiving others as being highly insulting, is a double standard at BEST and hypocrisy at its worst. It's also a common tactic of MRAs, if you were wondering.
                                                                                                          Fifth, berating me for what you perceive as insults under a comment that you, yourself, have said you consider to be one of my 'nicer' ones, seems to be intended to create a disproportionate sense of guilt. Yet another common tactic of MRAs.
                                                                                                          Sixth, operating under the apparent assumption that with just a little more effort, inherently implying that I didn't care to give that extra little effort, in the first place, that I can 'sufficiently' express myself to your satisfaction in a single, clear and concise sentence, or you'll no longer bother to respond to me, ignores certain factors. Specifically, that maybe there is a reason that, while my spelling and grammar may be upstanding, my thoughts seem a little disorganized compared to others. I mean, you don't even have poor grammar and spelling to blame it on. It's a deliberate assumption that MRAs, themselves, may make. That everyone is just as neurotypical as they are. You see, organized thoughts can seem just as garbled to me as mine can seem to yours. Or even run-on sentences, with poor spelling, disorganized thoughts and little understanding of how to connect them can seem even MORE illegible to me than to a neurotypical person. Yet, I don't demand that they explain themselves to my satisfaction or they'll be ignored. The other factor is that I give a shit that you are going to stop responding to me. It puts just as much weight on your opinion as a typical MRA applies to much of their own opinions.
                                                                                                          Seventh, you are engaging in abusive behaviour known as gaslighting. YOU emphasized the word fantasy, then when I responded as one would expect when you effectively dismissed my rational and critical thinking capabilities with that single, insulting word, not only do YOU go on a tirade, but you also effectively say that what I KNOW happened, didn't. Simply MORE behaviour similar to MRAs.
                                                                                                          Eighth, you are expecting someone who has not only had experience in dealing with people at least very much like you who often, despite their claims to the contrary, their assurances that they are only concerned with the accuracy of the claims of others, turn out to be EXACTLY what they had been initially claimed to be, but is also typically on the losing side of the game, already (meaning that they are therefore someone who already experiences exactly the obstacles and barriers that you are, indeed, so casually dismissing) to basically let themselves be tromped all over, again. without considering that they might have REASON (more reason than YOU, at least, anyways) to be a little more emotional than you THINK they should be? Let's not all say it, at once, now, then, yes, this, TOO, is typical behaviour of MRAs.
                                                                                                          Finally, you are expecting more from me than from yourself. If you couldn't understand something, why not ask me a simple question? You didn't do that, you simply got defensive (yes, as I did, myself, but not only do I admit that, I'm not using it to beat someone over the head with, either). I don't think I need to say it, do I? That this is a common tactic of MRAs, as well?
                                                                                                          The ONLY tactic that I can say for SURE that you haven't used, is to, at the very least, DIRECTLY blame the victim.
                                                                                                            see more
                                                                                      • GenderStatCheck > Arekushieru 3 months ago
                                                                                        How am I cherry-picking??? I think I'm giving an very accurate representation of the data I cited. Section 2, Page 24 of 1995 FBI UCR:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...
                                                                                        "As for all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies “unfound” the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. In 1995, 8 percent of forcible rape complaints were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."
                                                                                          see more
                                                                                          • Timothy Griffy > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                            How meaningful the UCR is on this point is open to question. Like all the other statistics reported, the FBI relies on the reports of local law enforcement authorities. What is left out here is how the local authorities determined the report is "unfounded." As the Wikipedia article on the subject notes, this is a problem that is endemic in attempts to quantify how prevalent false rape reports are.
                                                                                            The report itself also seems to impermissibly confound "unfounded" with "false." "Unfounded" can mean anything from a determination that a crime had not in fact been committed to a maliciously filed false report. So even saying 8 percent of forcible rape complaints were "unfounded" is a far different thing from saying 8 percent of said complaints were false.
                                                                                              see more
                                                                                              • GenderStatCheck > Timothy Griffy 3 months ago
                                                                                                Again, my main point was not the accuracy or methodology of the UCR, but whether or not the FBI actually every officially claimed 2-3% of rape reports are false. I only brought up the UCR because it was the most recent publicly available FBI research on false reporting. Even if the UCR was completely wrong, that doesn't change the fact that it seems like the FBI never claimed "false accusations make up between 2-3% of all reported rapes".
                                                                                                Unfortunately, the UCR could not likely describe in detail how all reports are deemed unfounded because it takes data from all U.S. law enforcement agencies, many of which probably have different investigation practices.
                                                                                                I have opinions about the UCR's strengths and weaknesses that would take too long to explain here. However, I think the claim that there is any truly significant difference between "false" and "unfounded" in the UCR is largely a red herring. The literal meaning of "false report" is not necessarily intentional or malicious, just false. I supposed an "unfounded" report could be literally a report without (suitable) evidence, whereas a false report could be literally a report that is untrue. Perhaps worth noting, but it mostly seems like splitting semantic hairs.
                                                                                                Again, all of this is tangential to my main point: The FBI appears to have never claimed that 2-3% of rape reports are false. If anything, it strengthens this assertion, since (as we both have pointed out) the FBI UCR does not literally record "false" reports, but records "unfounded" reports.
                                                                                                  see more
                                                                                                  • Timothy Griffy > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                    True enough. The person who claimed the stat came from the FBI is wrong, though the 2-3% figure does seem to be the consensus. The Wikipedia article cited the Department of Justice, so it is possible the alphabet soup gets mixed up a bit when the citation gets told and retold.
                                                                                                    The difference is significant enough if someone is using the figure as if we were talking about maliciously filed false reports. As that is often the case in these discussions, I disagree that it is splitting semantic hairs.
                                                                                                      see more
                                                                                                      • GenderStatCheck > Timothy Griffy 3 months ago
                                                                                                        I see 2% a lot, but that doesn't mean its true. I have never seen a reliable primary source cited for the figure. There is an examination of the history of the 2% stat in the April 2000 Loyola of Los Angeles Law review: http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/C...
                                                                                                        Ultimately, I don't think there is any consensus on the rate of false rape reports.
                                                                                                        I'm assume you are looking at the "false accusation of rape" wikipedia article. I'm very skeptical of its claim that the "United States Justice Department agrees, saying false accusations "are estimated to occur at the low rate of two percent -- similar to the rate of false accusations for other violent crimes."" It doesn't appear to cite a source.
                                                                                                        A source is cited for the next sentence: "However, other say eight percent or more of rape accusations are false, and as a scientific matter the answer remains unknown." So, this source could maybe apply to both, but the source is a book on sexual assault investigation that does not appear to be from the Department of Justice.
                                                                                                        Like I have said, unfortunately people just make up stats on this stuff all the time without any real data. I haven't found anything from the DOJ so far. If you can find an official source from the DOJ making the 2% claim please let me know and provide a link.
                                                                                                        I agree the FBI UCR unfounding stats should not be used to represent only intentionally made false reports. However, I don't think the FBI is representing it as such. As I pointed out, "false report" does not inherently mean an intentionally false report. However, false reports are still a problem and worth recording whether or not they are intentional. There is always more to data than just throw-away statistical one-liners. For example, the UCR would also not capture false reports that made it to trial or false reports that it "cleared by exceptional means" (such as when the accuser refuses "to cooperate with prosecution after the offender has been
                                                                                                        identified" -see FBI UCR 1995 Sec 3, pg 197) - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...
                                                                                                        This is why it is so important to cite primary sources - so people can educate themselves and make up their own minds.
                                                                                                          see more
                                                                                                          • Timothy Griffy > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                            I'm still reading the article you linked to. So far, it is only reinforcing my contention that we need to be absolutely clear about what we are talking about. And typically what we are talking about are cases where the false report was made knowingly and intentionally, with the paradigm case being a woman who supposedly consented to sex, later regretted it, and began "crying rape." Listening to an MRA would make one think that it is these such cases that are an epidemic. Indeed, those who believe Sulkowicz is lying are heavily implying this is the case here.
                                                                                                            So, for example, let's take this statement: "Even if we assume arguendo that all those convicted are indeed guilty, and that a full two-thirds of those acquitted at trial were also guilty, we would still wind up with a situation in which one-sixth of those actually tried are really innocent." Fine and well, but that still doesn't tell us much about the kind of case we are usually talking about--intentional false accusations. If we assume that figure is 10%--and mind you, I think that is pretty generous--that brings us back to the 2% figure that is already the consensus.
                                                                                                            What we need first is a clear idea of what we are looking for. Then we need a fairly uniform standard for making such determinations.
                                                                                                              see more
                                                                                                              • GenderStatCheck > Timothy Griffy 3 months ago
                                                                                                                Studies on false reports should ideally some how accurately divide the two. That being said, both unintentional and intentional false reports should be recorded, because both can result in wrongful convictions. False reports are still false and still a problem, even when they are unintentional. Knowing whether or not the majority of false reports are intentional or unintentional might help with prevention. However, when you look at the damage done, it really doesn't matter whether a false report was intentional or not.
                                                                                                                I don't see any reason to suddenly drag MRAs into this. After all the talk about the importance of citing sources and accurately using statistics you give a quotation with no citation and "assume" a bunch of figures. Really??? :-(
                                                                                                                We don't really know whether (intentional or otherwise) false rape reports are or aren't "epidemic" (what defines an "epidemic" is also very subjective) because the data is all over the place! Turvey concludes (pg. 284):
                                                                                                                "The literature the does offer rates and percentages is often unreliable, misreprented, or inaccurate, as can be seen with the elusive sources for the 2% false report statistic for sexual assault. The actual rates that have been garnered through research vary between 8% and 50% for sexual assault"
                                                                                                                Bottom line: We desperately need a lot more good objective research on the issue. Unfortunately, it has become so politicized that I don't think this will happen anytime soon.
                                                                                                                  see more
                                                                                                                  • Arekushieru > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                                    If you are so concerned about what hardships wrongful convictions may inflict on men regardless of whether or not they are intentional or unintentional then you should be equally concerned about the hardships that RIGHTFUL accusations of rape have on women REGARDLESS of whether or not they lead to a conviction. Which is, y'know, kinda what the article was about, if you cared to read it. The fact that you don't seem to care, that you dismiss the whole POINT of the article, simply because, apparently, it doesn't satisfy your all-consuming desire to argue STATISTICS, but ONLY when it comes to men, kinda proves my point, above as WELL as the point of the whole article. TBSS.
                                                                                                                      see more
                                                                                                                      • Timothy Griffy > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                                        I don't think we need to despair here. It is not like there isn't good objective research out there. By focusing on the methodologically rigorous studies spanning several countries, the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women found that somewhere between 2-8% of all reports were false--meaning the reported incident did not happen.
                                                                                                                        By contrast, Greer focused exclusively on Brownmiller. When it comes to figuring out how many false claims there actually are, he only cites Kanin and discusses cases where the accused was eventually exonerated. Kanin's paper should be considered discredited for it's own lack methodological sloppiness and other reasons. And eventual exoneration does not mean that the report itself was false. Greer was actually doing some impermissible confounding of his own. The data on exonerations do suggest law enforcement does need to improve their methods to make sure the right guy is caught, but it does nothing to clarify how many false rape reports are made. In fact, the NCPVAW report notes that false rape reports typically do not involve naming a suspect.
                                                                                                                        Dragging the MRAs into this isn't all that sudden. After all, we are are commenting on an article from those very MRAs and in my second post in our discussion, I did not the difference between "unfounded" and "false" is "significant enough if someone is using the figure as if we were talking about maliciously filed false reports." The MRAs have been part of the discussion all along.
                                                                                                                        I quoted the very article you cited in the midst of a discussion about said article. And I only assumed one figure. The rest of the assumptions were made by Greer. Did you not read the article you cited?
                                                                                                                          see more
                                                                                                                          • GenderStatCheck > Timothy Griffy 3 months ago
                                                                                                                            I have read Greer, I just don't have a photographic memory of it (would have helpful if you cited his name and page #). I wasn't sure whether you were citing that or maybe Turvey. Greer focuses on Brownmiller, because his research concluded Brownmiller's unreliable citation was the "genesis" of the 2% claim (Greer, 954). He cites Kanin, but the citation is not a large part of the article. I think your being a little over-critical of Greer, but I don't feel the need to defend his paper. People should read it and make up their own minds.
                                                                                                                            Again...please cite sources for you claims:
                                                                                                                            1) "National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women found somewhere between 2-8% of all reports were false"
                                                                                                                            2) "the NCPVAW report notes that false rape reports typically do not involve naming a suspect."
                                                                                                                            If you are citing the report I think you are citing, you a misciting it somewhat (although you wouldn't be the first). Is this the report you are citing?: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_vo...
                                                                                                                            If you are looking at different source, than please cite that source (I would like to read it).
                                                                                                                              see more
                                                                                                                              • Timothy Griffy > GenderStatCheck 3 months ago
                                                                                                                                Yes, I was referring to the report you linked to. I had intended to include the link but obviously I slipped up there. Sorry about that. And no, I did not miscite it; the language is quite clear.
                                                                                                                                If anything, I haven't been critical enough of Greer's paper. Some of the papers cited by the NCPVAW were available in Greer's time. He either didn't do his homework or he ignored it in favor of his agenda. And the irony here is that his arguments against transforming rape into a strict liability defense would largely hold no matter the exact percentage of false rape claims.
                                                                                                                                  see more
                                                                                                Disqus helps you find new and interesting content, discussions and products. Some sponsors and ecommerce sites may pay us for these recommendations and links. Learn more or give us feedback.

                                                                                                Also on RH Reality Check

                                                                                                Like
                                                                                                Like
                                                                                                You and 65,254 others like this.65,254 people like this. Sign Up to see what your friends like.
                                                                                                 
                                                                                                0%
                                                                                                10%
                                                                                                20%
                                                                                                30%
                                                                                                40%
                                                                                                50%
                                                                                                60%
                                                                                                70%
                                                                                                80%
                                                                                                90%
                                                                                                100%