Did women cause the recession?

[OP ED]

Depends if oyu're falling for the Sheer Hite style claims about female rapes.

not usually. in most cases the U.N. or USA DOJ numbers are bad enough to keep me up at night, and if they were only half true, they'd still make your statement untrue. perhaps you should do some rough math in your head before engaging in this sort of struggle.

i know wendy mcelroy motherfucker, you don't stand a chance.

[OP ED]

No-one's perfect, although I think you're just calling him centre-right because he disagrees with the mad feminist propaganda.

no, because i've seen him on FOX before. along with McElroy.

you should learn something about the folks you cite.

[compared2what?]

from:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2 ... e-reports/

lots of LE numbers @ source:

The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, based on the victim’s mental illness, inconsistent statements, drinking or drug use. These classifications were thus made in violation of the explicit policies of their own police agencies. The researchers therefore supplemented the information contained in the police files by collecting many different types of additional data, including: reports from forensic examiners, questionnaires completed by police investigators, interviews with victims and victim service providers, and content analyses of the statements made by victims and witnesses. They then proceeded to evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant”4 or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). On the basis of this analysis, the percentage of false reports dropped to 2.5%.

...

Victim Recantation is a retraction or withdrawal of a reported sexual assault. Recantations are routinely used by victims to disengage the criminal justice system and are therefore not, by themselves, indicative of a false report.

Jody Raphael, of the DePaul University College of Law, wrote:5

[Kanin's study] is frequently cited on web sites devoted to debunking the prevalence of rape. During this ten year period, the police department followed policy (now deemed unlawful by the U.S. Congress for police departments receiving federal funds) that required polygraphing complainants and suspects as a condition of investigating rape reports. Kanin’s department only declared a complaint false when the victim recanted and admitted it was.

In his published journal article, Kanin (1994) admitted that “A possible objection to these recantations concerns their validity….rather than proceed with the real charge of rape, the argument goes, these women withdrew their accusations to avoid the trauma of police investigation.”

And indeed, the Kanin study has been criticized for the department’s use of polygraph testing in every case, a process that has been rejected by many police departments because of its intimidating impact on victims. The International Association of Chiefs of Police disapproves of requiring polygraph tests during rape investigations because “victims often feel confused and ashamed, and experience a great deal of self-blame because of something they did or did not do in relation to the sexual assault. These feelings may compromise the reliability of the results of such interrogation techniques. The use of these interrogation techniques can also compound these feelings and prolong the trauma of a sexual assault” (Lisak, 2007, p.6).

Given the popularity of Kanin’s study, especially in light of the collapse of the Duke University lacrosse players prosecution, David Lisak (2007), an associate professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts Boston, cautions that this particular police department employed a common procedure in which officers’ inherent suspicion of rape victims results in a confrontational approach towards the victim that would likely result in an extraordinarily high number of victim recantations. Lisak also points out that Kanin’s is not a research study, because it only puts forth the opinions of the police officers without any further investigation on his part.
Kanin (1994) himself cautioned against the generalizability of his findings…

You rat. If Stephen clicks on your link, reads what's there, and comprehends it, you will have recklessly revealed to him what the one obscure and difficult-to-locate comprehensive study that found an 8% false reporting rate that I could think of off the top of my head actually was! That information's supposed to be just for us wimminists!

You're on notice. So watch your step.

Yours sincerely,

The Politburo of the Central Committee of the Wimminist International Party.

Although you can just call us "The Wimmintern," if you want. Because, you know: Should old acquaintance be forgot et cetera.

[OP ED]

higher numbers without more convictions would make the conviction rate lower.

arguable. since the stated goals of the Bureau is to focus on felony crimes and not misdemeanors, then having a higher number of recanted felony allegations would produce a higher per capita success rate wrt convictions for felonies.

[less "real" crimes = more "solved" crimes]

how is this math difficult?

[OP ED]

Because some bright spark on the first page claimed men started the recession, whereas I prefer blame be apportioned to the capitalist overlord class.

no that couldn't be it. you were the very first person to respond to this thread and did so before anyone else, even the O.P. author, took time to comment on the content of the article.

in that post you used the word "women" twice and "female" once and never commented at all on capitalism.


you followed this up with a post that began along the lines of:

"the majority of workers in loan-sharking companies, building societies, banks and so forth, are women"

and then you're suprised when someone finds these statements indicative of hatred of women. Think about it SM, if someone were jew-counting those professions, how long do you think they'd last at this board?

You can be concerned for who you like, I'm just saying some are statistically more in need of concern than others.

exactly.

No, they're inadmissible because they aren't evidence, not because they may hypothetically intimidate complainants.

hair splitting. the fact that it is illegal now is also seemingly irrelevant to you.

Give me what you want, that fact is that women hold a privileged place in our society and your stories are irrelevant. Give me something more concrete.

why would i give you anything? especially considering you've just stated that you're not willing to consider anything as being capable of surmounting your biases.

...

[OP ED]

You rat.

i've been called worse things.

If Stephen clicks on your link, reads what's there, and comprehends it, you will have recklessly revealed to him what the one obscure and difficult-to-locate comprehensive study that found an 8% false reporting rate that I could think of off the top of my head actually was! That information's supposed to be just for us wimminists!

i'm not a party member, so i didn't get the memo.

wrt: sources: i just google names of researchers i have on my list as opposed to looking for specific studies.

You're on notice. So watch your step.

i always do.

Yours sincerely,

The Politburo of the Central Committee of the Wimminist International Party.

Although you can just call us "The Wimmintern," if you want. Because, you know: Should old acquaintance be forgot et cetera.

hah. as i said i'm not a party member, but i might be inclined to consider, an merger of thee relevant political bases into something like the "Wimminist-Harridan International Party" or along those lines...

[Penguin]

Stephen,
I would not, if I did not care for you too.
You should know that.

Love, Pengu.

[Perelandra]

Trick - You're a Feminist!

(btw, I support the same rights for everyone, be they gay men, transgender males or females, or animals. Yes, animals. Or just boring old heterosexual males or females.)

And you lose, by the way - the Nazi card. Im so sorry.

It was a trick? But I'm not a feminist, actually. I'm with you on the rights, and I already knew that about you. Hence, the confusion. Now I'm probably more confused than ever, so don't mind me, I'll just be on my merry way.

[compared2what?]

It's interesting to see you continuing to look for criticisms of the study, though, now that you seem to have given up on claiming [Kanin] was merely biased due to anti-feminism (he was actually very popular with feminists).

Well, as long as Stephen's no longer (mis)reading, and the attendant risk of being caught in an infinite spiral of pointless debate the terms of which are continually shifting has thus been greatly diminished, I guess it can't hurt (much) to point out that it's interesting that it seemed to Stephen that I had given up on claiming that Kanin was merely biased due to anti-feminism when I had not, in fact, ever made or tried to make that claim. At least not on this thread. It's possible that I was sloppy enough to do so elsewhere, I suppose. In which case I say to myself: "For shame! Thou art sloppy in thy phrasing!" Indeed, I readily admit that I personally have no idea what Kanin's views wrt feminism are or aren't.

So for the record: I hold Kanin's study to be a piece of crap for the reasons I've stated. And I don't know what made it seem to Stephen that I'd given up making a claim I hadn't been making. Absent any other explanation, my best guess would be: From his large stock of extant baseless assumptions.

However, that's only a guess.

Along similar lines, what seems to Stephen to be my "obvious abhorrence for rape but not for women who make false allegations for revenge and so on" is a totally unjustified imputation to me of views that I don't hold and haven't expressed. And in light of that imputation not being simply one of the many things Stephen conjures out of nowhere in passing, but rather a theme that he went on to enlarge upon with, for example...

I think your refusal to acknowledge the large numbers of men victimised by women making false allegations, and your constant need to draw attention in stead to those men framed and set up only be men shows that your priority isn't the male victims, but protecting female perpetrators.

...I'd also like to make it clear for the record that I have never, let alone constantly, felt any need to draw attention to "those men framed and set up only by men." And consequently, I haven't drawn any attention to them. Granted, I have pointed out that the number of men victimized by maliciously false accusations of rape is too large to be acceptable. As is the number of men victimized by the numerous, systematic and egregious flaws inherent to the apparatus that makes up our slipshod and inhumane criminal justice system. By which the first number is both subsumed and dwarfed.

However, given that (a) it would obviously be pure lunacy on my part to describe the actions of any group I had a strong interest in protecting as "malicious"; and (b) neither the people who work for the police and prosecutorial systems nor any of the other assorted apparatchiks of the criminal justice system are presumptively male unless otherwise specified in reality (or even according to common custom) I can't see how either my point or the case I made for it could reasonably be construed as proof that my personal investment in demonstrating any particular correlation between malfeasance and the gender of the malefactor was my true priority.

For fuck's sake.

So I resent any implication to the contrary.

Love,

c2w

[OP ED]

Trick - You're a Feminist!

(btw, I support the same rights for everyone, be they gay men, transgender males or females, or animals. Yes, animals. Or just boring old heterosexual males or females.)

And you lose, by the way - the Nazi card. Im so sorry.

It was a trick? But I'm not a feminist, actually. I'm with you on the rights, and I already knew that about you. Hence, the confusion. Now I'm probably more confused than ever, so don't mind me, I'll just be on my merry way.

if i might impose myself here...

[like i wasn't going to anyway]

i read the penguin's statement quoted above as being directed at Mr. Morgan, who played the label game wrt calling his intellectual opponents "feminists" [whatever that means to him] meanwhile complaining about being labelled himself. btw, i think penguin edited in the part where this statement now follows a quote by mr morgan, thereby making it more clearer that it was directed at him and not at you...

hard to tell as he edited six times in fifteen minutes or so...

in reference to Mr M's assertion that his detractors are too ignorant to make up their own damned minds about something and instead have decided to

jump on the bandwagon and join the chivalric cause of the defence of noble womanhood.

which reading, btw, is pretty damned close to the opposite of my own intentions, as i despise both chivalry and bandwagons.

...

wrt: name calling:

cannot answer for the pengu here, but my reading was that his use of the effeminate as an insult was deliberately contrived to Mr. M's specificitions, i.e. one calls a misogynist a pussy and not a prick, even if the latter may be more apt, based on which will possibly hurt his feelings more.

as an insult tactic, it has its pros and cons and i'm not going to argue for or against it, as i've found it funny in some places and not so in others, usually, i might add, depending upon the awareness of the context it is being used in.

[my own example being the proposed new party naming device i suggested above, which was deliberately designed to be sexist in nature. also ageist. at least by one reading]

[compared2what?]

[my own example being the proposed new party naming device i suggested above, which was deliberately designed to be sexist in nature. also ageist. at least by one reading]

But not the one it received from me. And at the risk of maxing out whatever credit I may have earned as both a longtime admirer of your work and an official card-carrying member of the Holders of OP ED in High Esteem Club, I've gotta say: Frankly, I expect much better from you. I mean, I'm une femme d'un certain age, honey. When someone's sexism or ageism rises to the level of an insult on any thread to which I'm already devoting my time and attention, it really should at least be perceptible to me, don't you think? Tell you what, though. Since I also want better for you, I'd be happy to give you a few general pointers. All right? Here we go!

First of all, don't neglect the three fundamentals:

(1) Remember that you have the weight advantage, as Stephen has been so insistently pointing out on the "Gender testing for track star" thread.

(2) Assume that the balance of power wrt passing judgment on the hotness or notness of another is on your side, in full conformity with hetero-stereotypical views on the diminished sexual viability of and increasingly limited options available to les femmes d'un certain age.

(3) Take it for granted that nature and nurture, working in harness, will incline me to err on the side of caution wrt to your potential rejection-sensitivity in the general area of boy-meets-girl relations -- both as a matter of genuine sympathy for the First-Move-Maker burden traditionally borne by your gender and -- in conjunction with The First Fundamental -- as a preemptive act of self-protective propitiation of your legendarily delicate feelings.

See what I did there, honey? I made you a mnemonic device! R - A - T!!!!!! Use it wisely and you can pretty much make me act like a girl whenever you want to! Like, so, let's say that what you might want to do first is....I don't know, move the discourse onto the terrain of sexual objectification, ideally in some way that underscores the presumably enhanced-by-age vulnerability of my ego. Maybe by calling me a withered hag, or a hard-up old spinster, or something like that? Or....Oh! Oh! Wait! I know! Out of the blue, tell me that I seem a little uptight and offer to hug and kiss me. That's not only impeccably coded for maximum plausible deniability, it also hits me where I ostensibly live on all three pressure points. Kind of like an R - A - T hat trick.

Now all you have to do is sit back and wait to prevail. Because on the one hand, if I call you out on it by directly expressing my anger, I'll only end up looking like a harridan. Plus a narcissistic bitch, to boot. And on the other, if I simply don't respond: Hey! Suppression of me accomplished, game over. Of course, I could try to walk the middle ground of making it clear in (for me) moderately worded and at least technically deniable terms that you weren't the first stupid fucking asshole to try his sub-par The Game skillz on me. But the odds are that if you just kept the focus on the fundamentals, I'd fold eventually.

For example, if my defenses were the least robust at pressure-point T, I very well might feel so compelled to receive your unwelcome advances as graciously as I could manage to do that even if I had to totally disregard the overwhelming unlikelihood that any man who sincerely hoped to realize his desire for me would opt to make a blunt declaration of his lust in full view of an entire fucking message board rather than stepping directly to PM in order to do it, I'd be functionally incapable of doing anything else. Just as a hypothetical. Of course, once I'd complied with whatever obligations I hadn't been able successfully to resist imposing on myself, it could be a whole new ballgame. But that would kind of depend on whether I was smart enough to take out some kind of insurance policy against getting beat by the same play twice. So, you know. The enterprise isn't necessarily entirely a risk-free guarantee, either from your perspective or from mine.

You could take one thing to the bank, though: I'd be HELLA pissed off for a good long while afterward, no matter what. And I can tell you that much right now. Anyway. Hope this has been helpful to you, sweetheart! Please be sure to let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist you!

[Penguin]

i read the penguin's statement quoted above as being directed at Mr. Morgan, who played the label game wrt calling his intellectual opponents "feminists" [whatever that means to him] meanwhile complaining about being labelled himself. btw, i think penguin edited in the part where this statement now follows a quote by mr morgan, thereby making it more clearer that it was directed at him and not at you...

hard to tell as he edited six times in fifteen minutes or so...

...

wrt: name calling:

cannot answer for the pengu here, but my reading was that his use of the effeminate as an insult was deliberately contrived to Mr. M's specificitions, i.e. one calls a misogynist a pussy and not a prick, even if the latter may be more apt, based on which will possibly hurt his feelings more.

That would be correct.
I blame the flu for the edits. Im really not up to snuff, but also, I got nothing better to do while sick (except some early Star Treks to watch). And this doesnt even seem to be the swine flu yet ... *shudder*

(BTW... it would not surprise me that you are befuddled by the charge of arrogance and conceit as it is precisely a lack of self reflection that is the main characteristic I base that observation on. Hypocrisy is born of projection and I have learned the hard way that if someone is determined to remain ignorant of their own blind spots there is no external power of persuasion on earth that can alter their mind. None.

[OP ED]

[my own example being the proposed new party naming device i suggested above, which was deliberately designed to be sexist in nature. also ageist. at least by one reading]

But not the one it received from me. And at the risk of maxing out whatever credit I may have earned as both a longtime admirer of your work and an official card-carrying member of the Holders of OP ED in High Esteem Club, I've gotta say: Frankly, I expect much better from you.

my legendarily delicate feelings are wounded. but you have no credit limit, so no worries.

I mean, I'm une femme d'un certain age, honey. When someone's sexism or ageism rises to the level of an insult on any thread to which I'm already devoting my time and attention, it really should at least be perceptible to me, don't you think?

probably. but they cannot all be golden. besides i needed an [english] "H" word for the acronym and also one which would fit in with the context of its place as part of my ongoing doublespeak wrt chevaliers. this made the list rather small.

Tell you what, though. Since I also want better for you, I'd be happy to give you a few general pointers. All right? Here we go!

i'm always grateful for advice, even of the tongue/cheek kind. though in reality i am not often very good at keeping it in mind when it is actually important. many things distract us.
[my grandad died a year ago yesterday]

First of all, don't neglect the three fundamentals:

(1) Remember that you have the weight advantage, as Stephen has been so insistently pointing out on the "Gender testing for track star" thread.

(2) Assume that the balance of power wrt passing judgment on the hotness or notness of another is on your side, in full conformity with hetero-stereotypical views on the diminished sexual viability of and increasingly limited options available to les femmes d'un certain age.

(3) Take it for granted that nature and nurture, working in harness, will incline me to err on the side of caution wrt to your potential rejection-sensitivity in the general area of boy-meets-girl relations -- both as a matter of genuine sympathy for the First-Move-Maker burden traditionally borne by your gender and -- in conjunction with The First Fundamental -- as a preemptive act of self-protective propitiation of your legendarily delicate feelings.

comments:

1. indeed.

2. while this is true, wrt: power/balance; there is much variability in these standards as i apply them. in reality, only at the sheer extremes of the scale do i consider age in and of itself, for example, to be a determining factor in hotness.

[which is to say that girls anywhere from a bit more than half my age(i.e. legal), to a bit more than twice my age are considered legitimate prey, and i have pursued both types]

3. not sure i understood all of that, but i like the bit about the harness.

See what I did there, honey? I made you a mnemonic device! R - A - T!!!!!! Use it wisely and you can pretty much make me act like a girl whenever you want to! Like, so, let's say that what you might want to do first is....I don't know, move the discourse onto the terrain of sexual objectification, ideally in some way that underscores the presumably enhanced-by-age vulnerability of my ego. Maybe by calling me a withered hag, or a hard-up old spinster, or something like that? Or....Oh! Oh! Wait! I know! Out of the blue, tell me that I seem a little uptight and offer to hug and kiss me. That's not only impeccably coded for maximum plausible deniability, it also hits me where I ostensibly live on all three pressure points. Kind of like an R - A - T hat trick.

...
reminds me, wrt, slightly more seriously, sensetivities and feelings and/or effemininacies: [etc]
as much as Penguin's calling SM a girl is an male-centric-type insult, in the same vein, though less obvious are the suggestions, sometimes freudian, that his opinions reflect emotional disturbance, i.e. lack of nurture, etc. i am thinking specifically of the Cuda's suggestion that "someone needs a hug". Which, on a football field, would be remarkably insulting. apologies for digression. that just came to mind.
...

thanks for the mnemonic device, btw. i shall add it to my collection.

wrt: objectifications and/or age devaluations: i was also trying to make a horse joke, but i wanted it to be subtle. so much for that.

Now all you have to do is sit back and wait to prevail. Because on the one hand, if I call you out on it by directly expressing my anger, I'll only end up looking like a harridan. Plus a narcissistic bitch, to boot. And on the other, if I simply don't respond: Hey! Suppression of me accomplished, game over. Of course, I could try to walk the middle ground of making it clear in (for me) moderately worded and at least technically deniable terms that you weren't the first stupid fucking asshole to try his sub-par The Game skillz on me. But the odds are that if you just kept the focus on the fundamentals, I'd fold eventually.

wikipedia has confirmed that "The Game" is what i thought it probably was. geez. OP ED generally defers to classically proven methods, i.e. food, flattery and drugs...

For example, if my defenses were the least robust at pressure-point T, I very well might feel so compelled to receive your unwelcome advances as graciously as I could manage to do that even if I had to totally disregard the overwhelming unlikelihood that any man who sincerely hoped to realize his desire for me would opt to make a blunt declaration of his lust in full view of an entire fucking message board rather than stepping directly to PM in order to do it, I'd be functionally incapable of doing anything else. Just as a hypothetical. Of course, once I'd complied with whatever obligations I hadn't been able successfully to resist imposing on myself, it could be a whole new ballgame. But that would kind of depend on whether I was smart enough to take out some kind of insurance policy against getting beat by the same play twice. So, you know. The enterprise isn't necessarily entirely a risk-free guarantee, either from your perspective or from mine.

few things are.

You could take one thing to the bank, though: I'd be HELLA pissed off for a good long while afterward, no matter what. And I can tell you that much right now. Anyway. Hope this has been helpful to you, sweetheart!

it has.

Please be sure to let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist you!

you have no idea.

[Penguin]

...
reminds me, wrt, slightly more seriously, sensetivities and feelings and/or effemininacies: [etc]
as much as Penguin's calling SM a girl is an male-centric-type insult, in the same vein, though less obvious are the suggestions, sometimes freudian, that his opinions reflect emotional disturbance, i.e. lack of nurture, etc. i am thinking specifically of the Cuda's suggestion that "someone needs a hug". Which, on a football field, would be remarkably insulting. apologies for digression. that just came to mind.
...

wrt: objectifications and/or age devaluations: i was also trying to make a horse joke, but i wanted it to be subtle. so much for that.

Yes, I am aware of that, I could say that was the point.

Horses are awesome. Ive been called a filly, very affectionately too, on several occasions. So all horse jokes on me, please.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Which, on a football field, would be remarkably insulting.

Not if you'd just scored an awesome goal or won an important game.

Often you wouldn't have to ask.

calling SM a girl is an male-centric-type insult, in the same vein, though less obvious are the suggestions,

I suggested that to penguin so if anyone's gonna knock anyone for it it should probably be me, and yes its a male centric insult from a male pov aimed at pushing Stevo's buttons, (even tho it probably wouldn't work). You know ... you obviously disrespect women so much we should feminize your name and call you a girl cos even if it doesn't bother you at first eventually it'll really start to grate.

I didn't realise how insulting that'd be to any women present but I should have cos sometimes its pretty insulting to me as a bloke that he is to. (Not always, just when he spouts ridiculous garbage and tries to make it sound legit.)

Is that even what this thread is about?

(Sorry I really have no clue.)