They do. There’s actually a lot more sexual violence happening than anyone wants to admit.
Eat shit, yutes
Holy engagement bait, Batman! What a terrible headline.
Yes, it is a fact that women lie about domestic and sexual violence. I've seen first-hand a family seriously impacted by a false accusation. The son was detained in prison for a year, the parents took out a mortgage on their home to defend the case and finally the girl admitted in court that she fabricated the whole thing. The son was acquitted. These cases happen. Here's a fairly broad paper on the matter discussing several deeper studies spanning several countries including Australia, Canada and the UK.
Among the seven studies that attempted some degree of scrutiny of police classifications and/or applied a definition of false reporting at least similar to that of the IACP, the rate of false reporting, given the many sources of potential variation in findings, is relatively consistent:
- 2.1% (Heenan & Murray, 2006)
- 2.5% (Kelly et al., 2005)
- 3.0% (McCahill et al., 1979)
- 5.9% (the present study)
- 6.8% (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008)
- 8.3% (Grace et al., 1992)
- 10.3% (Clark & Lewis, 1977)
- 10.9% (Harris & Grace, 1999)
With that out of the way, let's move on to the elephant in the room:
IN OVER 90% OF CASES, THE RAPES WERE CREDIBLE! FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION!!
Engagement shit like this is so dangerous. Impressionable minds in the target demographic will read the headline and be pushed towards radicalization against women because "apparently it's worse than I thought".
I would see a headline like this push people more towards radicalisation against young men, not against women.
this is why i hate the “believe women” thing….
the problem was people not believing women by default… that’s objectively terrible.
doing the exact opposite is also terrible.
(i’ve seen a false accusation too… i also know of people who were SA’d with no investigation and nobody caring)
i’ve also never heard of someone being prosecuted for a false accusation either… it’s all terrible
Were there consequences for the accuser?
Too many perpetrators go unpunished, unfortunately one side of the equation has a much larger multiplier than the other,
So far as I know, nothing (legally). She wasn't on trial. Something may have happened to her later, but I don't think so. I think I'd have heard if it had.
Of course: everyone who knew her knew about the whole case and its outcome. It would be an inaccurate statement to say she faced no consequences at all. Everyone - male and female alike, was furious with her. And I expect the story follows her around 20 years later whenever anyone Googles her.
AFAIK usually not directly, but wrongful accusers sometimes get sued back for defamation.
Wait, I'm probably restarted for not understanding it but does the author claim that 10.9% to 2.1% is 'consistent'?
The full paper would give better context of that statement. It's quite accessible and worth reading. The thing that is consistent across all studies, nations and decades is that false accusations are rare.
It turns out this is actually a fairly difficult topic to accurately measure if for no other reason that a lot of cases (Particularly earlier ones) boil down to 'he said, she said'. Then there is the matter that lots of sexual assault cases go unreported - or are dropped for assorted reasons. Unreported assaults are a huge factor among certain cultural groups.
Lemmy's gender-imbalance is clear in the comment section of this thread. We're getting some variety of opinions, but a pretty obviously narrow frame of reference - and that kind of sucks.
Lemmy is distilled redditor men
I see comments ranging across the spectrum. Some uncritically accepting the interpretations in the article and calling the respondents nazis, others questioning the research methodology such as how exactly those survey questions were phrased and whether the response simply boils down to negating an absolute.
That might be called many things, but I wouldn't call it a narrow frame of reference.
That might be called many things, but I wouldn’t call it a narrow frame of reference.
Call it whatever you like. In my post I said we had a variety of opinions but a narrow frame of reference. Maybe there's a better choice of words, I don't know. But I think it's is bleedingly obviously that there are few, if any, women posting in this thread. That's all I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about specific views, or type of pushback, or argument, or saying anyone is 'wrong', or anything like that. The men here clearly have different backgrounds and values - but they are still all commenting on this issue from a male frame of reference. That imbalance is very clear to me while reading the comments. I think it is probably clear to you as well. And I personally think it is unhealthy for the community to have such a large gender imbalance.
There is a lot more than could be said about this, but all I'm saying right now is I can see a large gender imbalance in this thread, and I don't think that's a good thing.
I'm guessing you didn't see any of the comments overreacting to the misleading statistic instead of questioning the methodology and deceptive reporting, and accusing all these survey respondents of being woman-haters and nazis instead of considering the fact that responding "no" would imply an absolute statement ("it never happens") while a yes could mean anything from "it sometimes happens" to "it always happens"?
I'm not assuming anybody's gender, but you say you think there's an imbalance, so I'm providing some counterexamples to the assumptions you're making.
And I personally think it is unhealthy for the community to have such a large gender imbalance.
There is a lot more than could be said about this, but all I'm saying right now is I can see a large gender imbalance in this thread, and I don't think that's a good thing.
What do you think the overall gender balance is on the fediverse? Is it just this thread where you notice an imbalance? I typically don't ask people about their gender, but if I had to guess I'd say most communities skew at least a little towards being mostly men.
I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if more women were active on the fediverse. I think that would be a good thing. But then again I wouldn't be surprised if most women on lemmy/piefed keep their gender hidden in order to avoid having their inbox flooded, and I don't blame them.
There are a few prevalent users who are open about being women, some who even have their faces in their profile pictures. I don't know why. They must be brave, or maybe have their inboxes closed. But I for one appreciate the anonymity. I try to avoid letting my online presence be traceable to my person. This is the internet, after all.
But outside of women-specific communities, even accounting for women who don't reveal their gender, I doubt most instances have an even gender balance. And I don't know how you could realisticly achieve that without somehow compelling women to participate in communities that they're not even interested in. This isn't a nightclub where the bouncers turn away men to keep their ratios pristine.
Every now and then we're reminded that a large number of people on lemmy were kicked off of Reddit because they were gamergate type people.
I need to know, how that question was phrased, otherwise that 40% number is completly meaningless. The two extremes would be "Do you think a woman has ever lied about domestic and sexual violence?", or "Do you think all reports by a woman of domestic and sexual violence are a lie?". In the first case a significant share would answer yes, because a single false claim ever makes that statement correct. The opposite is true for the second phrasing, where a single correct claim makes that statement false. The real phrasing is probably somewhere in between, but even then you could heavily influence the outcome with subtle changes to the phrasing.
The answer is obvious!
~~If you ask someone who answers "yes" to "do you think all women lie about domestic and sexual violence?" the question "has anyone ever reported you for sexual violence?" Will inevitably be "yes" also!~~
It was supposed to be a joke. Dont @ me
That's not the question that was asked. You snuck an "all" in there to make it sound more ridiculous and uncreditable.
The question as phrased in the article simply says "do you think women lie about dv/sa." It's vague and open to interpretation, which is why it's bad research methodology. But it's more likely to be interpreted as "do you think any woman lies/has lied about dv/sa," and because absolute statements are easily negated, the obvious answer to that question is yes. Otherwise you would have to claim "No woman ever lies or has ever lied about dv/sa," and that's patently false.
But you can go ahead and accuse everyone who questions the research methodology of a poorly-written survey of having committed sexual violence. That only provides an example proving that "Yes, some women lie about it."
Misogyny is certainly a huge issue among young men.
I'm not sure about this research though. It's always concerning when they don't publish the actual data and questions et cetera.
Perhaps most alarming: roughly 40% of boys aged 13 to 17 agreed that women lie about domestic and sexual violence.
This one really, really depends on the question. Both men and women often lie and say that their partner doesn't hit them. This is pretty well known actually. You'd have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't happen.
Occasionally I'm sure that both men and women do lie and say that their partner does hit them, for a variety of complex reasons. An acquaintance of mine, a woman, signed a declaration to say that her partner hit her and then during court proceedings she admitted that was a false statement. Uh oh. Anyhow, it's certainly a thing that happens.
Does that mean all women who claim to be victims of domestic abuse are liars? Certainly not. But are lies told about domestic violence? Of course.
Support for violence to resist feminism was highest among adolescent boys (28%), followed closely by adolescent girls (21%).
This is also curious. Obviously alarming, but how does one use violence to resist feminism? I'm genuinely confused as to what is meant by this. If you had asked 15 year old me, not really knowing what feminism is, I would have assumed it meant some kind of armed uprising of women, and yeah I would have said that in that context violence is ok.
Some respondents justified violence in the private sphere. If a woman disobeys in the home, a man should be able to control her with violence.
I notice that this fiery little truth bomb is tempered to "some respondents". How many is some? I guess 2 at least.
Again, misogyny is a huge problem. It would be extraordinarily difficult to be a female teacher. My son is too young to have encountered this stuff but it's definitely on my mind as we navigate the coming years. However, I think this article is intended to be incendiary rather than tease out the nuance revealed by their "research".
I agree with you, and want to add that parents need to do better about addressing this issue as well. There are a million opportunities, every day, to demonstrate heathy gender roles and start conversations about role expectations with your child.
This was a preview summary of the data that's awaiting publication by the University of Melbourne. It covered 1,100 people aged 13-17, and has been written by the Professor of Educational Psychology & Learning, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne.
This one really, really depends on the question. Both men and women often lie and say that their partner doesn't hit them. This is pretty well known actually. You'd have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't happen.
I’ve never been hit by a romantic partner. You’re saying that being hit in a relationship is common?
No, im saying that amongst people who have been hit by a partner, they often lie and say that they have not.
Aah, okay. That makes more sense.
Downvoting not because the topic is unimportant but because the new study is run by this news agency without publishing their questions or methodology. That seems like running for a headline with little concern for accuracy or scientific methods. I could be wrong but until they are more open we don't know
Edit: If you ignore the authors then the above is a pretty reasonable interpretation but it was written by some university researchers. They are surprisingly unclear (to me) in the body for what study exactly they are referencing to, at least in their opening paragraphs. Still, it doesn't seem to be a survey from the conversation so I'm going to remove the downvote
Here is a related study with clearer methodology and survey questions, but it does bundle countries in its age cohort breakdown:
Just remember, folks, divide & conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
They want us fighting the culture wars so we don’t fight the class war.
Yep this is classic rage bait media.
The amount of women who lie about violence against them is probably a lot higher than that, and the lie is that it's not happening to them.
Had me in the first half.
More than 17% of all Australians agree feminism should be resisted with violence.
This stat in itself is wild. 1 in 6 Australians think feminists should be physically attacked. Who are these psychopaths? Which part of our society has let us down so badly and how do we fix it?
"Teenage boys are fucking morons".
Groundbreaking research.
yeah let's just conveniently ignore the part where nearly the same number of adolescent girls also think violence should be used to oppose feminism. That part is very interesting, and a reason why this research is important.
"40% of teenage boys are violent brainwashed sexists" fixed that statement.
The concerning thing to me is not the numbers themselves but the way kids with no other obvious connections to hate (e.g. my father is a wife-beating neo-Nazi) are developing these belief systems through unrestricted exposure to the internet. It's part of a much bigger problem that includes things like religious extremism and racism. In many cases they aren't going out of their way to find these rabbit holes, either. Social media algorithms recommend Andrew Tate type shit and then bombard their feed with even more of that stuff after the first watch, and adults would never know until the kid gets to the point where it's developed into a core life philosophy for them and is affecting their real world behaviour. This can happen at any age, of course, but it's just sadder to me when it's young, impressionable minds that are being taken advantage of.
Questionable methodologies aside, I think you're right about this and it's an important point. So many people want to treat misogyny like it's the personal failing of individuals, when the problem is radicalization. People act like these are inherently disturbed people who would have arrived at their hateful opinions no matter what influences they were exposed to. That's basically an essentialist take and doesn't acknowledge the complexities of human psychology and development.
You can't address a cultural or societal issue at merely the individual level, because it's like rescuing starfish from tide pools. For every one that you save, there's always a million more. And personal shaming doesn't help the situation at all.
So many young men and adolescent boys are vulnerable to this radicalization because they've been ostracized from their peer groups. They commiserate about their situations with others like themselves. And these predatory manosphere influencers know this and they capitalize on it.
People throw around "incel" like it's not only an insult, but also this morally repugnant and irredeemable sort of subhuman thing. How does that encourage anyone to self-examine and decide to do better? Society has already rejected them and made it clear that it will never open its doors to them again. And it even emphasizes that it's outside of their control, i.e. involuntary.
How is that supposed to cultivate healthier views of women? It's literally telling men "You're worthless because you can't get laid." How do you expect them to react to that in any way other then "Oh gee, then I guess I'd better learn how to get laid." And then they start down an algorithmic rabbit hole of "dating coaches" and pick-up artists which sucks them into the manosphere grift.
Every time I see "incel" used as an insult or approbation I flinch a little, because it only cements the demise of healthy gender relations a little more each time.
These people started as socially awkward weirdos and loners. They were bullied and ostracized, and turned to the only spaces where they felt accepted. It's no wonder they wound up being negged and radicalized by predatory grifters.
I've pointed this out multiple times all along the way while witnessing this slow downfall, and people always say the same things. "Redpill/blackpill chud INCEL, no one likes you, these people aren't worth defending, no one healthy or reasonable would let themselves be radicalized, or maybe if they weren't inherently flawed they wouldn't be friendless to begin with, etc. etc. etc." and it all boils down to the same thing: conform or die; the friendless deserve no pity.
It's fucking hopeless...
It's the sad reality of our times that many people would prefer to spend their time virtue signalling and circlejerking about how they're not part of a problem than actually contribute to finding and implementing a solution.
Yup, and anyone who actually tries to find a solution makes themself vulnerable to ridicule, scorn, and accusations when they inevitably fail.
Much safer just to stand on the sidelines and point the finger. Nobody blames the people who never even tried. The people who tried and failed take all the blame.
It's really short-sighted if you think about it...
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone