Victim blaming vs advice

[Rageaholic]

What is it with these SJW feminists lately? Just yesterday, I read this. A man in Canada might get 6 months in jail for "stalking" this woman on twitter. This guy used to be a friend of hers, but because he had a disagreement, she blocked him and then sued because she felt her life was in danger. When asked to give actual examples of how she was threatened, she responded,

There’s no perfect victim, Mr. Murphy, and no perfect way to respond to being stalked. Sometimes you have to fight back a little bit…. I’m sorry if I wasn’t a perfect victim — Stephanie Guthrie at trial

Did she seriously imply that wanting actual proof of threats on her life is victim blaming?

She's also a massive hypocrite because she sicked the internet on some other guy with the intent of warning employers not to hire him (I won't defend the "punch Anita Sarkeesian Game", but come on). This was the disagreement that ended her friendship with the defendant in this case.

The latest with Christina Hoff Sommers has attracted the same SJW assholery. They make extreme statements and then act as if anyone who even slightly disagrees are with their oppressors.

[Canarr]

Reading this article here:

http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/obe...rting-racists/

reminded me of our discussion in this thread.

When did it become okay to try and silence someone, just because they represent a differing opinion?

[Canarr]

predators plying women with alcohol*, and colleges saying "it's your word against his so we WON'T do ANYTHING"

Small update: there's a decent Wikipedia article on that particular story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

[HYHYBT]

But that would make sense.

[wolfie]

So an accusation is sufficient to result in permanent loss of firearms, even if it is later proven false? Although he'd probably be allowed to buy more after the accusation is proven false, that won't get Great Grandfather's hunting rifle back.

In a sensible world, the surrender of a suspect's firearms would be having them put in official (i.e. under the control of the authorities) storage UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED. Once it's resolved, if the resolution is one which would prohibit the person possessing firearms, they'd be forfeit. If it's one which would allow the person to possess them (i.e. they're acquitted), the stored firearms would be returned.

[blas87]

Gone as in, court ordered to be surrendered.

It's what happens if you have an injunction or a TRO/PFA slapped on you.

[wolfie]

Was he able to get his guns placed in secure (as in he can't access them until the case is resolved) storage, or are they gone for good? If the latter, it's effectively theft by the false accuser.

[blas87]

It sure is that way.

My coworker's ex probably won't even get charged with filing a false report after his lawyer is able to prove the whole thing was a revenge scheme, but he still lost all of his guns, and has it on his record that he has a PFA on him. SAD.

[protege]

No evidence to prove, just accusations from a female who wants her ex out of the baby's life for no good reason.

Then there are those that accuse...for revenge. Several years back, there was a teacher in my dad's school district that had a couple of his female students accuse him of sexual assault. Turns out the allegations came out because he'd failed them because they weren't doing their homework. Even though the charges turned out to be bullshit, they ruined the guy's life. He not only lost his job, but can't get another job. Did anything happen to those girls? They should have been busted for filing a false police report at the very least. No, they got away with it.

Things like that are exactly why many rape and sexual assault cases are so difficult to prove. I'm not saying it happens in *every* case, but it sure doesn't help matters

[blas87]

Stupid judges are even worse.

I can't imagine how some of these buffoons are still on the bench. No evidence to prove, just accusations from a female who wants her ex out of the baby's life for no good reason.

[kibbles]

Unfuckingbelievable.

This is why I don't always believe what girls say. Especially single moms with unnecessary axes to grind.

ITA blas, ITA!! Now I am not saying that everyone who makes a report is lying, but I so hate this assumption the public has that oh they are definitely telling the truth when that is not always the case. Yes, there are sleazy/dangerous men in this world, but there is also conniving women in this world as well.

[blas87]

You're not kidding on that one.

My former shift lead, and close friend, made a mistake by dating the wrong girl. She left him, while pregnant, for her ex husband, now will do anything it takes to keep him from seeing his son at all. Since he's kept moving forward with a lawyer and fighting for some custody, her next step was crying rape. As in, claiming he raped her when they were dating. This was a year ago.

The judge is a fucking idiot who instantly believes anything a female says, threw out the good old "Women don't always report abuse or rape right away, you know", and granted her a restraining order on him and now he has to give up all of his firearms and is pending charges. ALL FALSE.

Unfuckingbelievable.

This is why I don't always believe what girls say. Especially single moms with unnecessary axes to grind.

[Lace Neil Singer]

In fact, there aren't generally many convictions for crying rape; cps tends not to bother prosecuting. So basically the liar gets to remain anonymous while the falsely accused person has to live with the stigma.

[Lindsay B.]

"There is a difference between 'false accusations' and 'not enough evidence,'" said Dianne [Whitfield, from Rape Crisis England & Wales]. "False accusations account for only 5% of all reported cases."

Oh, the irony. Does anybody else realize that this woman criticized people for doing something, and in her very next sentence, she actually did exactly what she was criticizing people for?

In her first sentence, Ms. Whitfield was essentially saying, "A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack." We should not assume that a rape accusation is false simply because there isn't enough evidence to prove it's true.

Fair enough. But then, she asserts that only 5% of reported rapes are false. She doesn't say "only 5% are shown by sufficient evidence to be false," nor does she mention that the other 95% includes a large number of cases where the evidence was inconclusive, and the accused persons might (or might not) have been innocent.

She simply says that only 5% of accusations are false. Period, that's a fact, end of story, that's all there is to it. In effect, she was saying that the other 95% were all guilty - because they were never proven to be innocent.

What happened to distinguishing between "not enough evidence" and "false"? Apparently, in Ms. Whitfield's world, that only applies to the accusers, not to the accused.

If a woman says she was raped, it is wrong for people to conclude that she is lying simply because it can't be proven that she's telling the truth.

But if a man is accused of rape, it is perfectly okay for Ms. Whitfield to conclude that he is guilty simply because it can't be proven that he is innocent.

Well, at least Ms. Whitfield was open-minded enough to use 5% instead of the absolute minimum of 2%. Speaking of which :

I am given to wonder what the justification is for simply using the lowest percentage (2%) rather than attempting to reflect the actual range of 2%-8%.

they assume a 2% rate of false reports. Their own source lists a range of 2-8%, but they assume the lowest number, because...?

I presume that we're looking for an answer that's more sophisticated than, "These people had an agenda to depict false rape accusations to be as rare as possible."

The irony here is that they didn't really need to. A graphic with 5 (medium) or 8 (maximum) blacked-out figures out of 1,000 probably would have been almost as visually impressive, and it wouldn't have left them wide open to such an obvious criticism.

However, that would not have solved the most significant flaw of the infographic :

I've noticed that many people will cite that 2%-8% statistic AS IF it means that 92%-98% of rape accusations are true, which is simply not the case.

The infographic itself actually does that.



The two blacked-out figures are simply marked "Falsely Accused." That's all.

Just like with Ms. Whitfield's statement, the infographic doesn't say that those are only the reports that were proven false, nor does it mention that the other 98 accusations include some unsubstantiated ones that might have been false.

The infographic misleads the reader to think that the two figures marked "Falsely Accused" were the only ones who were, and the other 98 accused persons were all guilty.

It is fundamentally, intellectually dishonest.

The "trailblazing" research, the first of its kind, has discovered that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are "very rare", with only a very small number of cases where there was enough evidence and it was considered in the public interest to prosecute.

Around two false rape allegations are made every month, the report found.

There were 5,651 prosecutions for rape for the period between January 2011 and May 2012 the study looked at, but only 35 for making false allegations of rape.

Wait. So the Crown Prosecution Service has caught and prosecuted 100% of the people who have committed this particular crime?

Well, hot damn. I don't think there's a law enforcement agency anywhere else in the entire world who could make such a claim for any criminal offense.

(I trust that you all note the sarcasm.)

Yes, I know, two other people in this thread have already made this point. I just felt the need to throw my own two cents in, because the CPS report's conclusion is so absurd.

If I lived in England, I would be feeling terrified right now that there are people being trusted with the responsibility of prosecuting crimes, who are dumb enough to believe that the fact that they only caught 35 people committing a crime means that only 35 people actually committed that crime.

[s_stabeler]

nevertheless, it DOES lend weight to the argument that false accusations of rape are more frequent than most people believe.

However, I think we are really getting away from the point. There are two big issues with rape- 1. it's difficult to prove that it's actually rape- because you can prove there was a sexual encounter all you like, proving lack of consent is harder. Therefore, victims are discouraged from reporting it. 2. false accusations of rape can and do destroy someone's life. Maybe there is a false accusation rate of only 2%. Maybe the rate is higher- that is still a LOT of people who, for no good reason, now have to contend with being treated like the scum of the earth.

The key is to find a balance between not discouraging victims of rape, and making it too easy to cry rape to get someone into trouble.