Officials: Woman's Gang Rape Story Is Bogus

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

Officials: Woman's Gang Rape Story Is Bogus

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:48 pm

Disney Employees Cleared, Woman Charged

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Orange County Sheriff's Office just announced that it has arrested the woman who claimed she was raped by several men who work at Walt Disney World. They say the woman made up the story, and that the sex was consensual.

The woman, Elizabeth Sunde, 26, is being charged with making a false police report, WESH NewsChannel 2 reported.

On Feb. 26, police responded to a report of an alleged sexual battery involving multiple suspects.

Sunde told investigators that she was approached by five or six "French men" in her apartment complex at approximately 4 a.m., and said the men physically carried her to the Gables Commons Apartments, where she was held down and sexually battered by at least four men.

Sunde stated she returned to her apartment some time after 5 a.m. after the alleged assaults and ultimately went to work. She did not report the incident to the Sheriff's Office until about 5 p.m., when she returned to her apartment after her work day.

Orange County Sex Crimes Investigator Detective Phillip Graves has determined that Sunde's account of the incident was not factual and that the sexual encounters were, in fact, consensual. The suspects in the alleged attacks were cooperative with the investigation from its onset to the point of providing a video tape of the incident, which helped corroborate their account of the incident.

Sunde was booked into the Orange County jail Friday, and was was also in possession of a small amount of marijuana at the time of her arrest, and was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana.

She'll probably spend more time behind bars for the MaryJane than for the false rape allegations.....

"Now the woman who tried to put these men in prison for years if not decades is facing a charge of.......making a false police report. What a joke. I prefer the ancient Chinese method of dealing with false claims--if you made a false claim against someone, the law gives you the penalty that they would have received had they been found guilty."

By Marc Angelucci and Glenn Sacks

Despite its many painful and unseemly aspects, the Kobe Bryant rape case and the media storm surrounding it have drawn attention to a severely neglected problem: false rape accusations.

In her recent Daily Journal column, high profile feminist professor Wendy Murphy dismisses the problem of false accusations as an "ugly myth," and calls for "boiling rage" activism to address what she perceives as the anti-woman bias of the criminal justice system. Like many victims' advocates, Murphy cannot seem to fathom the possibility that Bryant could be innocent. However, research shows that false allegations of rape are frighteningly common.

According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge. Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.

Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

The most common reasons the women gave for falsely accusing rape were "spite or revenge," and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame (Forensic Science Digest, vol. 11. no. 4, December 1985).

A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

It is true, of course, that not every accuser who recants had accused falsely. But it is also true that some who do not recant were not telling the truth.

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions."

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with "scary frequency." As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver's ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that "any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.

The media has largely ignored these studies and experts and has instead promoted the notion that only 2% of rape allegations are false. This figure was made famous by feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Brownmiller was relaying the alleged comments of a New York judge concerning the rate of false rape accusations in a New York City police precinct in 1974.

A 1997 Columbia Journalism Review analysis of rape statistics noted that the 2% statistic is often falsely attributed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and has no clear and credible study to support it. The FBI's statistic for "unfounded" rape accusations is 9%, but this definition only includes cases where the accuser recants or the evidence contradicts her story. Instances where the case is dismissed for lack of evidence are not included in the "unfounded" category. Brownmiller's credibility can be assessed by her assertion in Against Our Will that rape is "nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

Murphy also contends that the criminal justice system is stacked against women, and that the law reform initiatives promoted during the past three decades have "failed to make a bit of difference in the justice system's handling of rape cases." In reality, feminist advocacy and the now ubiquitous rape-shield laws have made an enormous difference in the way the system treats rape cases.

Some of these changes have been fair, and have led to greater protections for rape victims. However, others have made it more difficult for men to defend themselves, with at times horrifying consequences for the accused.

For example, in December, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied an appeal by Ralph Taylor, who is serving a 13-year sentence for rape. The court held that evidence of the victim's alleged prior false allegations of rape was inadmissible because it was considered sexual conduct within the meaning of the state's rape shield statute. In that case, the defense proffered the testimony of two friends of the alleged victim, both of whom claimed that she had previously falsely accused another man of raping her. The court added that admitting such evidence could "inflame the jury."

In her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young details numerous questionable rulings in which potentially innocent men were prevented from properly defending themselves by the rape shield laws which Murphy endorses.

One of these cases concerns an 18 year-old Wisconsin boy named Charles Steadman, who in 1993 was sentenced to eight years in prison for allegedly raping an older woman. Steadman was prohibited from revealing that his accuser was currently facing criminal charges of having sex with minors, and thus had an excellent reason to claim that the sex with Steadman was not consensual. Such evidence was deemed related to his accuser's sexual history and thus inadmissible.

In 1997, sportscaster Marv Albert was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a woman with whom he had had a 10-year sexual relationship. Albert sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against men who had left her, as Albert, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. Albert's offer of proof was denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he chose to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault.

Murphy's dogged attacks on Ruckriegle as a veritable "advocate for the accused" are also without foundation. Far from being a black robed patriarch in league with the defendant, Ruckriegle's rulings were reasonable and, if anything, minimalist. It is not the rulings but the reaction to them by victims' advocates and the media which are worrisome.

For example, Ruckriegle granted a defense motion that Bryant's accuser would not be referred to as "the victim" in court. Such labeling, as opposed to "alleged victim" or "accuser," undermines the presumption of innocence. However, this motion was hotly contested by both the prosecution and by victims' rights organizations, which filed amicus briefs and complained that Ruckriegle's decision created an anti-woman double-standard.

Ruckriegle also allowed Bryant to introduce evidence that his accuser had had other sexual encounters in the 72 hours before her medical examination for the alleged assault. Bryant's defense team contended that the microscopic vaginal injuries the prosecution claimed were suffered in the alleged assault could instead have been the product of various consensual sexual encounters.

Media commentators labeled the 72 hour decision a "bombshell for prosecutors" that "threatens all women," and likened Ruckriegle to a man who has "tiptoed into a minefield."

Murphy is correct that rape is a horrible crime. But false accusations of rape are every bit as horrible. They are a form of psychological rape that can emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person even if there is no conviction, especially for those of less fame and fortune than Bryant. The stigma attaches to the falsely accused for life. Few believe them and few care. Prosecutors systematically refuse to prosecute the perpetrators. And victims' advocates like Murphy refuse to see falsely accused men as victims, and instead work to minimize and conceal the problem.

presumption of think the term for femnists, men and rape accusations is presumption of guilt, feel free to try to prove otherwise......

the wonderful part of the whole thing is that falsely accused rapists are forced to register as sex offenders for life..........but that isnt a problem that the feminists will ever, seemingly want to talk about or do anything about............
Last edited by Akil Todd Harvey on Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Andrew Heuett » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:55 pm

Murphy is correct that rape is a horrible crime. But false accusations of rape are every bit as horrible.

This is a good point, but there's a few things about this article I didn't like.
Ruckriegle also allowed Bryant to introduce evidence that his accuser had had other sexual encounters in the 72 hours before her medical examination for the alleged assault.

This is bad. There's good reasons why Rape Shield Statuates don't allow this. Jurors hear that the defendant got with another guy or perhaps even a few, and all of a sudden they won't ever convict. It doesn't matter what else the woman has done, rape is still possible.

Problem is, even if it's not allowed in court the media can smear the reputation of the defendant, just like what happened in the Kobe Bryant case. We'll never know if he was truly guilty, because after hearing that she got with other guys before Kobe no jury would ever convict him because they think she's a slut, and you can't rape a slut.

There's reasons laws like the Rape Shield Statuates were introduced in the seventies. Before then, do you know what the legal criteria of rape was?

1) intentional vaginal intercourse
2) between a man and a women who was not his wife
3) achieved by force or threat of severe bodily harm
4) without the women's consent

That's right, rape of one's wife was an impossible crime. Also, if a woman didn't fight until near death than the court thought that she wanted it. Otherwise she would have fought harder.

This article also attacks the statements and actions of one feminist to discount the group. I'm sorry, that's not compelling at all. Writing a column isn't proof of competance or respect of peers. Besides, you can find a dumbass in any group.

According to this article, false rape reports are reported at a high rate. There's also the problem that real rape reports are grossly underreported. There's a huge gap between official statistics (such as the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports) and Crime Victimization Surveys. Sources such as Koss et al. (1987) show that 15-25% of women report having been sexual assaulted. If you have four nieces, guess what happens to one of them. This is a highly cited source, not only because it was groundbreaking, but it has been replicated many times, a sure sign of reliable research.
A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

If you were faced with a case impossible to prosecute or too daunting, because it is a difficult and victim-blaming process, what would you do? Pretend it was a farce and try to continue your life, or claim it happened and be labeled a trouble making liar for the rest of your life? Once again, not compelling.

The sources cited--I'm not informed enough in the field to know if these sources are good or not, but I have some concerns. The article cites a lot of books, which aren't reliable unless they cite peer-reviewed articles throughout. The only two peer-reviewed articles are from 1994, and 1985. 12 and 21 years ago. Not promising if that's the most current research they can dig up. I'm not claiming the sources are erroneous, but it's a point of concern.

Despite how this article colors it, the media as a rule never helps the case of a sexual assault victim. They are also the hardest cases to convict. If you want the facts about it, here's the email address of Denise Mowder, an Oregon Prosecutor who teaches Criminal Law classes at WSU:

False allegations are a scary thing, but let's not sway too far the other way.
Andrew Heuett
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:05 pm

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:41 pm

Hey Andrew,

you sound like you are for gender equality???!?!?!?!?

seems fair, right?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

so why dont we have equal numbers of men and women in prison or something like it?!?!?!?!?!?!? cuz who cares if more men are in prison than there were in soviet communist russia (either per capita or in total numbers).....we now ASSUME men are bad, and therefore they must be locked up more than women ....empty words, equality is coming from the extreme feminists......and some of the most extreme feminists are MEN (trying hard to prove to themselves that men really do want to protect women and are not as bad as we have been told)

cuz we have defined most crimes to make men look bad and women look good (women dont rape right, so they shouldnt be sent to prison for rape right).......;of course women commit lots of other crimes of sex & violence and rarely if ever get convicted, much less arrested......ever counsel a battered man???!?!??!??!??! I have on several think you can get a battered man to press charges against his abuser??!??!?!??!?!? but she must be innocent if he doesnt press charges, men too are reluctant to press charges in many cases as it brings into question their manhood (as pressing charges in a rape case may bring into question the virtuousness of the accuser)......

you think there are such places as battered men shelters??!??!??!?! by the by, i meet most battered men (or abused men) out in there cars at night.......these men cower and hide in their cars at night (often sleeping in them) cuz the state does nothing about this silent issue........

the feminists have siezed this issue for their own use and to the detriment of men......they say domestic violence is a women's issue, and yet....women commit the crime too, but by saying it is a woman's issue (as if women are not violent towars their sposues and mates), it make it easier to ignore and overlook the women's crimes of that we have turned a blind eye towards women's violence, we can happily say that it barely exists or pretend that it aint so bad or pretend that women are really not as violent, but we have hidden the evidence and then concluded that it doesnt exist.......Rich zubaty would call that mental outmeal.....bullshit....we dont look for women violence and then we are so happy to report that it doesnt exist...........

we have a set of underlying assumptions that no one is willing to even consider, much less talk about in the open air and light of day........these assumptions are that men are bad and women are good, men are violent, while women are co-operative.....bullshit I tell ya....women are just as dangerous as men and can be just as mean and vindictive.........

the EXTREME feminists run around saying that men are bad and anyone resembling a real man is real bad.........

the EXTREME feminists want to blame all white men for all their sins but dont want to give them credit for their accomplishments......

I think for once, there should be a women's conference (perhaps a big UN women's conference) in which all the women arrive at the conference via some form of transportation invented, designed and constructed almost entirely by women, utilizing energy supplies discovered, extracted, and refined almost entirely by women and utilizing some form of roads, rail, etc. that have been created & maintained almost entirely by women.........if and when these women's groups have come up with the alternatives to our demonized "oil economy" then on that day, they have every right to say how bad men are (white ones especially), and not before......

why dont you just come out and say what you think???!?!??!?1

men are bad and real men are real bad.........BS

real women use power tools and real men talk about their feelings (when they are sure that someone will listen without telling em which feelings are allowed).....I allow men to feel all their feelings, i dont tell em they are not allowed to be angry........

I have yet to find a single state in which it has been declared illegal for men to be angry and yet if one does become angry, they all point the finger at him and shout him down as if men dont have the right to be angry.......

crap i tell ya, we men have every right to be angry about the mischaracterization that takes place with regard to men...........

go ahead and get angry boys, but be aware that feminist (some extreme ones in the group) guys and gals have a set of angry male sensors that you may set off.......the angry male sensor will go off whenever you go off in neednt do any real violence nor even suggest, hint or declare your intention to do violence, the mere fact that you are male and angry is in and of itself, enough to get them to start threatening you with all kinds of legal sanctions..........

and male unfriendly zones are being found every day.....libraries and schools are examples of male unfriendly zones.....not sure boys, go there and find out how much equity there is in hiring at our nations libraries and schools (and find out how welcome males are in these places)..........find out how many of our nations librarians are male.....i dare ya......walk into a public library and try to find a male face serving you....try to find more than one.....try to find anywhere near 50% of the library workers being male.....LOL......wont ever happen.......and for giggles, ask the female librarian why there arent any males in their ranks (or why so few) and watch em come up with a load of bullshit the size of the state of texas......

The witchhunt is on folks and men are the new witches.....

the scarlet letter is not an old book but a new procedure of shaming the sex offenders......

interestingly, sex offenders in the state of california re-offend 50% of the time within five years (for any felony) while the general population of felons re-offends at a rate of 60%.........despite all the logic and argument regarding sex offenders and re-offending....the big reason sex offenders are required to register for life is it is assumed that they re-offend at higher rates than other criminals (despite the eivdence).....thus, it may happen to be the case that sex offenders are offending at lower rates as other felons is that they were innocent in the first place......... ... -judge.htm ... offenders' ... rials.html ... 30339/1006 ... 309085.htm ... 4326.shtml

False allegations are a scary thing, but let's not sway too far the other way.

When we have the same numbers of women in prison as men then I will say that the feminists have worked for equality........

my mother wrote a book about the witch trials in salem, ma in 1692....and this witch hunt looks a lot like that one.....with some things reversed........

In this case, the vast majority of accusations still come from women (as was the case with the witch hunt of 1692) gender is accused more than the other (men are accused of sex crimes at higher rates than women, just as more women were accused of being witches) and it is assumed that they are guilty (false accusations are not as bad as letting the gulity go free - same hysteria as 1692.....thus, you neednt be guilty, our hysteria is very important to maintain if we want to keep this witch hunt alive and well).......and the same crockery wishy washy proof that exonerated or convicted witches is used to prove sex offenders are guilty or innocent.........

happy witch hunt fellas......go hunt down, kill and burn yourself a sex offender today.....wont that be exciting and beneficial.......just like finding and burning the witches was in colonial america......why does it surprise folks that history repeates itself??!?!?!?!

Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Andrew Heuett » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:44 pm

Potential reasons for more men in prison:
- biological differences between sexes
- men are socialized to be more aggressive
- women are socialized to behave and be demure
- men simply offend at higher rates

Ask an officer if he arrests more men or women, then ask him if he arrests more men because he is a feminist tool.

The excessive number of men and women in prison can be attributed to the stepping up of penalties by legislators etc. who aren't in touch with the research and the facts, but are instead work under atheoretical assumptions, such as rational decision theory. The war on drugs has been a large factor in this.

As for battered and abused men: feminists aiming for gender equality are aiming for just that--gender equality. Legal definitions are broadened to make women and men potential perpetrators and victims. The old school criteria for rape made it impossible for a man to be a victim. The feminist movement had a large part in fixing that along with the other apparent flaws. Men are reluctant to admit they have been battered because of the same restrictive gender roles that women are unhappy with. The feminist movement looks to diminish arbitrary differences for the better of both genders.

If men aren't willing to admit to being battered and hide it, no one will be at a battered men's shelter. Helping those men realize the reality of their situations on a national level is a step that needs to come first.

There was some research in the past few years that showed that women were just as bad about domestic violence. More current research has put it into context, showing that it is predominantly in retaliation to male aggression. Yes, there are women that are among the aggressors and abusers, but no one is trying to deny that. It just doesn't get addressed as much because it's a much smaller scale problem. If you really want, I can go through the trouble to look up these sources to cite them, but only if I'm convinced you actually will check it out.

No, women are not usually as aggressive as men. They are socialized to be more passive aggressive and are not reinforced for being aggressive like men are. Have you ever heard about girls getting in a fight and the common reaction being, "oh well, girls will be girls"? Such behavior doesn't fit gender roles and is much more consistently punished than for men doing the same behavior. Do you know where "rule of thumb" comes from?

EXTREME feminists: no one cares what they have to say.

Angry and a tangible threat of violence are completely different things. There's only a problem if the second comes out.

Are you seriously pissed that men aren't as commonly employed as librarians? Not exactly the highest paid or status job in the nation. How about male dominated postitions: CEO's, senators, presidents of the U.S., tenure univserity professors, movie directors, doctors, high profile scientists, mayors, chiefs of police, joint chiefs of staff, etc. This isn't even delving into the reasons or contributing factors, but take a look at the facts.

There are more women school teachers. What gender are the administrators usually? Male. Women get the lower jobs, men get the higher jobs. This is a consistent pattern with only a few exceptions.

Sex offenders: it should be no surprise that people unporportionately lash out at sex offenders. Nobody likes them, no matter the gender.

My position: I don't automatically agree with everything that feminism or particular feminists say. I do agree with most of it though, because it is backed by consistent and replicated peer-reviewed research and is openly apparent in modern society as well as history. Men are not inherently evil, neither are women, and neither are feminists.

You have some valid concerns, but looking into the facts as objectively as possible could help. Be careful not to search through random sources for the means of supporting your current position.
Andrew Heuett
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:05 pm

Man Hating 101

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:31 pm


you, 2, have valid have probably read some of the alarmist literature that comes from the EXTREMIST feminists that are masquerading as activists........

here is an example of the claptrap that comes to my email box disguised as fair and balanced reporting......

LIFETIME TV Presents: Searching For Angela Shelton
Airing Saturday, April 22 at 11 pm et/pt
Lifetime Television will team up with filmmaker Angela Shelton for a special airing of an exclusive version of "Searching for Angela Shelton," as the centerpiece of Lifetime's ongoing Emmy Award–winning public advocacy campaign, Our Lifetime Commitment: Stop Violence Against Women, now in its fifth year.

The recipient of more than 12 awards, the film follows Angela Shelton as she travels across the United States to meet other women who share her name. She discovers that 70% of the other Angela Sheltons have been victims of rape, childhood sexual assault and/or domestic violence. The surprising journey leads Shelton to confront her own history of abuse and learn about forgiveness, faith and the power of the human spirit. The multi-award-winning documentary has started a grassroots movement of healing for survivors of abuse of all genders.

here we have an attempt to make it look like all NEARLY ALL women are victims and NEARLY ALL men are perpetrators.........and since the program is not about violence in general, but violence against women (IMPLICATION: men are to blame for either doing the deed or for doing nothing).......

I have bad news for you andrew........feminism cannot survive an open debate (peer reviewed articles or not).....why do you think they are afraid to debate me in the women's forum? cuz their proof is mental oatmeal.....and they are about as strong in their arguments as a house of cards in a hurricane......and they require men like you to come and debate me since their arguments are so full of holes that it would make a useful strainer and nothing else........

You have some valid concerns, but looking into the facts as objectively as possible could help. Be careful not to search through random sources for the means of supporting your current position.

back at ya babe....feel free to have the feminists vitriole squad look at the evidence objectively, if they can.....LOL.......we will never have equality of the sexes as long as men are being demonized.........

Tell me, andrew, that your word processor recognizes the word misandry and i will leave you alone to your self loathing position.......but i would bet that not only does your word processor NOT recognize the word "MISANDRY", but that you have been taught since you were a very young boy that men are bad (most of them, not the honorary women that stick up for women-I was one of the biggest honorary women in existence-but you will realize that your honorary woman staus can be taken away at a moment's notice and you can be labeled among the big bad men category in a blink of an eye)......

the one statistic that I like to observe most is a comparison between domestic violence among heterosexual couples and lesbian couples......this is where the fan meets the excrement........cuz here there is little difference between the violence rates for men and women (and here is a case where there is no man to blame).........

interestingly, there is little or no difference between the domestic violence rates for lesbian couples and heterosexual couples in which the man is blamed for all the how now......without a man in the lesbain couple to blame for the violence, how can we blame a man for that violence??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?!??!

women's groups thrive on blaming men (and honorary women jump to front of the line to throw stones at the men they have found guilty by the women's groups accusations)..........

Feminists hate it when there is no man to blame.....they hate it......who do we blame for male socialization of violence if women are doing the vast majority of the raising of children????!?!??!?!?!?!??! Who do we blame for the teaching of violence to our boys and men when women are the vast majority of teachers? Tv and videogames.....Who do we blame for the vast majority of violence among boys and men if women do the vast majoirty of the video game buying and tv watching decision making (they are the vast majority of parents who raise kids).......

I am pissed off, andrew (not that you care in the least), because men are being scapegoated, men are being villified, men are being made to feel unwelcome, men are being made to feel inferior......and men (I use this term loosely) like you (and like i used to) are quick to take sides with women against men........

I am pissed off cuz i was taught ad infinitium that men are bad and that they cannot be trusted......I had beaten into me that men have done nothin gof value in this society, that we are quick to usurp power and slow to yeild power.......I had been taught to hate my father and i had been taught that my mother was a saint......and now i have been declared an ##### cuz i dare to give my father the time of day (and not continue to villify him as a deadbeat dad) and let him know he is a beatdead dad, and i dare to tell my mother tha not all men are bad and that not all men are to be locked away in jail (or threatened with being thrown in jail at every turn).......

we have been taught that violence against women is everywhere, so we find it everywhere........but we have been taught that women arent violent, so we dont find women violent anywhere (thus, we maintain the sweet and innocent myth of womenhood-LOL as if)..........

women's groups claim they seek equality, just not with men.......

The excessive number of men and women in prison can be attributed to the stepping up of penalties by legislators etc. who aren't in touch with the research and the facts, but are instead work under atheoretical assumptions, such as rational decision theory. The war on drugs has been a large factor in this.

You seem to pretend that the media doesnt have a role to play in setting an agenda whereby legislators HAVE to act to protect women (since the media hypes up crimes against women regularly)......In LA, if there isnt a horrible crime that has occurred locally for the news media to hype up, they simply find a horrible crime that took place thousands of miles away and hype it up like it happened in our backyards..........fear, fearing fear, fearing fear, fearing fear.....the news media works very hard to get you to be afraid of men so that you will insist on legislation that targets men and exonerates women (which is why the police man anbd police woman can safely say that men get locked up more than women since we have defiend most crimes to be associated with a particular gender because we have been led to believe that only one gender is the one to fear)..........try not to ignore the importance of the media in this war of hype (against men)......

Overview of Fiebert's Annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography

Number of Studies reporting that Finding
Women are more physically abusive than men. 71

Women and men are equally physically abusive. 24

Men are more physically abusive than women. 3

Women initiated violence more often than men did. 6

Women and men initiated violence equally often 3

Men initiated violence more often than women did. 0

Women suffered more injuries than men did. 4

Women and men suffered equal numbers of injuries. 1

Men suffered more injuries than women did. 3
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Andrew Heuett » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:37 pm

interestingly, there is little or no difference between the domestic violence rates for lesbian couples and heterosexual couples

I would be very interested in this data, but do you have a source? In academia sources are required to back up claims.

who do we blame for male socialization of violence if women are doing the vast majority of the raising of children

The problem is not one caused by either men or women. It is the system that is perpetuated both genders. Look up the Stockholm Syndrome. Social Psychology shows study after study that both sides in an environment with a power inequity have a tendency to protect the system and lash out at those who oppose it. Zimbardo's prison experiment from 1971 is one of the more vivid examples.
I would not consider this as a reliable source. It doesn't name the studies, the experimenters, it is not associated with any academic or established research group--it is posted on the internet with an official sounding name. The layout of the website doesn't even make it look official.

I am pissed off cuz i was taught ad infinitium that men are bad and that they cannot be trusted

I'm sorry if this is your personal experience. This may be due to the region(s) you have lived in, family, opinions of figures of authority in your life, or perhaps even larger trends during certain years. To ascertain whether these experiences are a societal trend we'd have to look up reliable survey research. Despite whatever experiences you have had, it's anectodal, so we can't assume it generalizes to the population. It's a small sample bias.

which is why the police man anbd [sic] police woman can safely say that men get locked up more than women since we have defiend [sic] most crimes to be associated with a particular gender because we have been led to believe that only one gender is the one to fear

Can you cite any of these laws you are referring to?
Andrew Heuett
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:05 pm

Postby Panther » Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:38 pm

It has been stated on many, many occasions and is even strongly suggested in the rules of the Tough Issues forum that positions, statements and opinions should be backed up with sources, cites and statistics. If not, they are only someone's personal feelings and, while valid, simply can not be given the weight of fact. Also, it has been stated, even in the rules, that everyone should be very careful in what sources, cites and statistics are used because there are many, many biased and debunked "studies" done for various special interest groups.

Sources, cites and credible research are very helpful in these types of emotional debates. And they help those who are interested, but may not have all of the facts, get a starting point for checking into the various sides of the debate themselves.
User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby IJ » Thu May 18, 2006 11:33 pm

It's sheer insanity to claim that men are being punished because there are more female teachers or more male inmates, without a researched look at why that might be.

For example, ATH has to prove that there aren't just more female teachers because more women wanted that job. While he's miffed at the discrepancy in teaching, he's loath to note the discrepancy in other fields where the difference is less useful to his predetermined conclusion. I went looking to find stats on who applied for teaching jobs (and nursing positions as that field is near and dear to my heart) and found only isolated stats from individual schools, not super national figures... but I'd be surprised if men were applying to teaching and nursing tracks and getting turned away because of their genders.

What I did find was an interesting article on the gender gap in college:

Basically, this says that the influx of women to college is a RETURN to an old pattern, rather than a new phenomenon which indicates antimale attitudes. It dates to a time when sexism against women predominated--the first few decades of the 20th century--and when claims of female favoritism would be laughable. The swing AWAY from women in college had decent reasons... for one, guys sure had alternate motives to get a college education during the vietnam war, right? The evaporation of such motives proves nothing about current discrimination now. I thought this was helpful for framing this whole semisensical discussion about equal opportunity VS equal outcomes...

Since ATH is a white heterosexual male (WHM), he's in that "victim group" in which we often hear that minorities are pushing more qualified candidates aside to meet quotas. Usually the WHM response, while sometimes sympathetic to the underpriviledged, is to say that the best man should get the job. But there's not any proof I've seen published, or even a WHM tract linked to by ATH, that colleges are favoring women--in fact they're more often worried about their F>M ratios. So what refrain should we use here? Equal opportunity, in which the best man, or WOMAN, gets the University position, or equal outcome, which would suggest that we fix the sex ratio in college at 1:1 but begs the question of how the WHM will fare when racial proportions are strictly enforced at the job? Comments from WHMs and others are welcome.

As for inmates... Dare we admit that there are more male soldiers because on average, men are (or can be) stronger, bigger, and more agressive than women? We can't deny the physical measurements but we could say the aggressiveness is bred by society... although few would believe that was the only cause for the difference. And if ATH wants to make the case that men and women are equally motivated to become trained killers, and only society causes the difference we observe, he'd be parroting some extreme feminists from recent decades who hold that every difference besides breasts and genitals must be a societal conspiracy (against men, or against women, depending on which ax you are grinding). Isn't it a bit plausible that there are more male inmates (and soldiers) because men are more aggressive? I don't want to make excuses with biology, but aren't the male rams the ones more often butting heads, the male gorillas making the displays of strength, the male lions dispatching competitors (and their offspring)? To claim that men are trapped into criminal life, or perhaps merely more often convicted, ATH has a huge amount of research to do and present. Before entertaining this "tin foil hat" matter any farther, I'll await said research.
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest