Did women cause the recession?

[annie aronburg]

We didn't start the fire, we've been shopping since the world's been turning.

[justdrew]

ok ok already. I admit it... it was me. I caused the recession.

(sorry 'bout that chief.)

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Since we're all agreed that the causes of the recession were also the casues of the preceding consumert glut, I choose to blame women for my widescreen telly and half-decent standards of living ratrher than whatever else I could easily contrive to blame them for. I'd be crouching in a sewer entrance, crawling wioth spiders, and starving to death, but typing on the best computer ever, if it wasn't for women.

I still hate you's for not letting me get the best computer ever, though. And where's my socks?

[OP ED]

So it's not that I don't love you, OP ED.

yeah. yeah. that's what they all say...

[Stephen Morgan]

A bit of nostalgia: remember when I got involved in this thread after some fool claimed stupid men caused all our problems?

AhabsOtherLeg: Get that fixed, Samson! I used it once a while back as a joke (used wymin too), but I should've known better. So should you, and i reckon you probably do. I assume it was a typo. If it was, sorry for bringing it up in a weak attack fashion. Maybe I just read too much in my youth 'bout Son of Sam.

I think I was momentarily trapped in old mother Hubbard's cubbard. I've changed it, but don't think Im fixing every typo or I'll be here all night. also wymin should be womyn, the idea being that feminists of the barmier persuasion objected to "women" having "men" in it (although in Saxon English the terms were wifman and wiffenman, wifeman and weaponman or female man and male man, with mann being sex-neutral, as in "god created man, male and female created he them").

This thread is good, though. It makes me wish I was left wing, or socialist, myself. Here in the center, see, it's not seen as wise or useful (or fun) to label half of society as anathema, or to view JobCentre staff (or any working, or un-working, folk) as sub-human vermin.

Well, we all have our little quirks.

And it's JobCentre Plus nowadays. Don't be so negative.

did you see Benefit Busters on Channel 4? Two things struck me about it, first the analogy made by the mad woman in charge (a real wemon) between the single parents on her course and a butterfly, which I wouldn't have noted had it not been for just finishing Sinister Forces, and the massive Stalin/Saddam-esque pictures of the founder of the company adorning every empty bit of wall, followed by the mad woman's trip to her country pad for some sort of conference during which data protection guideline regarding the women on the course were clearly and repeatedly breached.

The next day I had to go to A4E myself, and there next to the door, where I hadn't previously noted it, a picture as tall as me of her grinning, millionaire dole scum face.

There are certainly bastards in the DWP ranks. I'm familiar with them. But they're not all high-ups, and they're not all employees (as such), and they're certainly not all WEMON.

Yeah, there's a few men, outnumber ten to one (mostly new deal advisors in my experience), theres a few contract staff, hihg-upness doesn't come into it.

The staff at temping agencies are another of my pet hates, incidentally.

Do you sit in the JobCentre or Manpower comfy chairs feeling no twinges of hatred or superiority towards your fellow signers?If so, you're a better man than me.

I may well be. I've been on a few courses at A4E now, so I've got to know some of them over the course of a few months. Very few women on New Deal Courses, I notice. first time I was there a few lesbians had been sent together, one from as far afield as Doncaster. (they were open about it, I'm not just assuming.) The "beneficiaries" or "clients", which I suppose is better sounding and more mellifluous to the ear than "hostage", are a somewhat mixed bunch. Certainly I wouldn't trust quite a few of them, but they bascially fall into a few categories, the pregnant women just there because they've been told to come until they give birth, after which they won't have to, the young men and women who take drugs, drink during the morning, smoke and wear shell suits and will steal anything you don't nail down, the respectable old men, generally burly and bald and a few who don't fall into those categories. You don't find people there who are likely to get jobs, in a total of about nine months there on seperate occasions, I've seen three people get jobs, all at once but they were temp jobs and they required a fork-lift licence which they luckily all had.

I'm not awful fond of people in general, so it would suit me down to the ground if I could believe in your personal vision of socialism, which first excludes half of the world, then apparently anyone who's job involves sitting in a chair, then starts getting more specific.

You haven't quite understood what I was putting forward. I don't mind women who don't hold feminist opinions, in fact in practice I'm quite malleable on that seeing as rape statistics rarely come up in daily conversation. Sitting in a chair is fine too, as long as it's a productive job. GPs sit in chairs after all. So do trade union administators, although they are increasingly corrupt and somewhat too numerous. Bureaucrats are what seperates us from the savages, but it's possible to have too much a moderately good thing.

Canadian_watcher: to C2W: Dudes have far, far more varieties of social conditioning than women have, largely because of sexism (and not in spite of it) we've got the daddy archetype, the soldier archetype, the pastor archetype, the businessman archetype, the playboy archetype, the mountain-man archetype (hat-tip to SM) .. well.. I don't think I need to elaobarote. There are dozens. As for women, though, I truly believe we're stuck pretty much in the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, as much as there are bull-dykes, CEOs and Florence Nightingales to attempt to throw the spanner n the works.. So... a total of two. Really. You might disagree, but I think it's devolved back to this.

Oh, I wanted to be the pastor. At least you don't have me down as a Don Juan.

And wouldn't Florence Nightingale be a Madonna? In the role of the Tory-fetishised Matron.

Nonetheless I think you're looking at it wrong. The men might have more archetypes, but they all work out the same. You go to work, you come home, you go out for a drink, you go to sleep. In reality women have moderately more choices. If you can find a film called "The Hide", you might like it. The closest mass market (ie American) film would be "Falling Down", with Michael Douglas as a gun toting vengeful etc.,.

Stephen. Thanks for the medal. I still don't think you're ready to let go of your misogyny just because you are intellectually aware that women themselves have nothing to do with the class warfare that we currently endure. The "Cult of Womanhood" was worse for women than for men, although its effects are still being felt and I guess I agree that more and more, they are being felt by males. After all, when a country exports all (almost) all of its hard labour offshore the men suffer more than the women, since you can't offshore the little kids, old people, sick people and remaining employees.

I keep saying, I'm not a misgynist. And I certainly don't think women had it worse than men from the cult of womanhood, although such a repressive system isn't good for anyone. Did you know that on the Titanic a larger proportion of women in third class survived than of men in first class, or any other class. In everyday terms the average late Victorian, say, family wasn't much impacted because they were too poor to worry about all that (I read somewhere, although my memory won't tell me where, of a feminist arrive on a farm in some remote and savage part of the world like Kentucky, asking the farmer if a bird should be shovelling shit (although not in those words) and he said "I don't know what you call a bird but I call that a woman" and let her keep shovelling the shit. Lots of hard work needed doing to survive, and the cult of womanhood would have killed off poor families, so they weren't stupid enough to internalise it, except maybe on the way to church on sunday. The elite, however, controlled who survived ship wrecks and wars, and they preferred the chivalry.

You took issue with my saying that day care workers were job-ghettoed, however I challenge you to defend that. How is it, exactly, that kids are treated as less worthy than garbage .. at least if we are to compare worth via the remuneration paid to the custodians? Daycare workers make an average of.. what?... 11.00 per hour while garbage men get a coservative estimate of closer to 20.00? I mean really.

I said it was a borderline case, solely because their job isn't strictly necessary. As for the wages, something unlikely to survive the current trend of laws for equal wages for "equivalent" rather than equal work. The fact is, while children may not be overly pleasant, they're nicer and easier to deal with than riding the streets carting about peoples rubbish. But that's not the reason for the different wages, although it's a very good rationalisation. The reason is that bin men have some of the worlds best unions, whereas nursery staff don't, they've normally just a relatively unimportant branch of the teachers' union.

c2w: I don't base the 3% to 8% figure on ONE study. It's an estimate that's derived from ALL THE RELIABLE STUDIES I CAN FIND OR KNOW OF. WHICH ARE STILL INCONCLUSIVE. AS I SAID, IT COULD BE HIGHER.

8% is from the FBI, it doesn't count any of those in the Kanin study, or similar cases, only those dropped lated on (and although it is called the ifgure for unfounded cases it only counts recantations, not those cases unsupported by evidence).

And I still haven't seen your studies.

MURDER HAS A HIGHER FALSE ACCUSATION RATE THAN RAPE BY ALMOST TWO TO ONE. AND ARMED ROBBERY HAS A HIGHER FALSE [i]REPORT RATE THAT'S GREATER THAN MURDER BY TWO TO ONE think. I haven't double-checked because I have to pack. But they're both much higher DO YOU EVEN LOOK AT WHAT I WRITE? OR TRY THE LINKS?[/i]

The FBI reported a 5.4 percent unfounded rate for forcible rapes, compared with a 1.1 percent rate for all crimes in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Murders had a 3.2 percent unfounded rate; motor vehicle thefts were at 2.3 percent. The unfounded rape rate was down from 1997, when it measured 7.3 percent, compared with 1.7 percent of total crimes.

KANIN IS A PIECE OF SHIT. IN EVERY WAY. HE DID NO RESEARCH. HE CHOSE A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT HAD A POLICY THAT TOOK THE POWER OF OFFICER'S TO USE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT WRT TO THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF A RAPE CLAIM AWAY FROM THEM. DID YOU EVER WONDER WHY? OR WHY THEY ONLY HAD AN INTIMIDATING AND INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE POLYGRAPH POLICYONLY WRT COMPLAINING WITNESSES WHO WERE REPORTING RAPE AND NOT CRIMES WITH MUCH HIGHER RATES OF FALSE REPORTING, SUCH AS ROBBERY AND MURDER? WHICH HE WRITES UP IN HIS INTRO AS IF IT WERE A METHODOLOGICAL IDEAL NOT A METHODOLOGICAL NIGHTMAREAND YOU FUCKING FALL FOR IT?????

Yeah, the police were forced to do their jobs and investigate, so? You want the police to have discretion, don't you keep saying they spend their time beating confessions out of people? I agree with it, not fall for it. The polygraph, as I say, was optional and even if failed wasn't enough to dismiss a case.

Do you base that on my having gone out of the way to say that "bad" was not a strong enough word to describe something that was, in my view, more likely to be hellish? Or on my statement that when it came to false rape claims that resulted in wrongful conviction one would be too high a number?

It was based on your constant attempts to draw the issue away from women who make false accusations and onto the police. This indicates to me that you're more interested in defending false accusers than victims of false accusations.

I MEAN, DO YOU THINK IT"S AT ALL NORMAL FOR POLICE TO SUBMITVICTIMS ALLEGING ANY CRIME TO FUCKING POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS? IS THAT A PRACTICE YOU HEAR ABOUT VERY OFTEN? DOESN'T IT STRIKE YOU AS, PERHAPS, NOT EXACTLY THE MOST COMPLAINANT-FRIENDLY APPROACH CONCEIVABLE? IF YOU GOT ASSAULTED, AS I'M SURE YOU CAN TELL ME HOW MUCH MORE LIKELY YOU ARE TO BE THAN I AM OWING TO YOUR GENDER

I could, but I won't. And while you say "submit", I say "offer".

You just hate women. That's all there is to it. I

Yeah, I disagree with your bizarre sourceless stats, so obviously I hate women with a bloodthirsty passion.

[OP ED]

bits and pieces:

Well a University is there to peddle the status quo, I wouldn't try turning in these studies. Political correctness comes above, you know, correctness. But yeah, obviously I didn't look for studies that show a low number of false accusations, as you've seen you don't have to look hard for those. I cherry picked those which seem reliable and objective, aren't carried out by those with a political point to prove (ie feminists), that sort of thing.

you do know your dude is a Professor at Purdue, and like center-right, at best?
[not that this would stop me, i'm just askin based on your dislike of universities that represent and apologise to status-Q]

i am curious btw, as you say:

as you've seen you don't have to look hard for those

and yet several times you seem to suggest that someone is hiding this data from you, or insinuating insincere motives on the part of those who are not innundating you with this information. which is readily available. even that center-right paragon of Status-Q, thee wiki agrees that:

Statistics on rape are common in western countries and are becoming more common throughout the world. They are, however, highly politicized, often sex biased, and have been accused of being unreliable because they are so diverse and are used by different groups for different reasons. This is partly because of inconsistent definitions of rape in both legislative and academic studies. However, it is also because of over reporting, under reporting and false reporting of the crime.

and i'm pretty sure that most of us would consider the majority of these statements to be inarguable to the point of time wasting.

so like invoke your computer skills and kindly look them up for your own self. consensus reality is bad enough for me.

Right, so I provide some studies and they're "divergent" and implicitly unreliable, but some produced by self-proclaimed feminists are supposed to be objective and bias free?

well, as you yourself freely admit, the FBI numbers are much different than those in your examples. Thee FBI is rarely accused of being overtly feminist either by itself or anyone else.

[my numbers were BOJ/DOJ numbers, and reporting higher numbers would've made them look better, y'know from a financial perspective betwixt them and their masters, and yet they did not]

I didn't get into this thread for a measuring competition on the size of different victimisations, mind.

fair enough. why did you get into this thread?

[i came because i missed you]

Hey, don't forget the women burned for suti, although they are always suicides. Murdered by society, you might say, although that would bring up the fact that most suicides are men.

great segue. almost sounds sincere.

And according to some reports, such as that by human Rights Watch, so are most American rape victims due to your depraved prison system.

incorrect misrepresentation of facts. even if we assumed all prison inmates were rape victims. [and that 40% of them weren't lying, btw]

i am as intimately familiar with male rape statistics as anyone who has attempted to research them that i know of, considering the lack of studies in this field. feel free to consider my outlandish provider of them in the Swedish Girls Assualt Bicycler thread, which you were part of at some point. I won't bump the thread for you because i already embarrassed myself by yelling at thee marmot, and i'm trying to leave the thread alone, but it represents about one twentieth of my personal collection of sex crime statistics wrt male victimisations.

your statement is an overstep, which is not to say that i do not recognize the enormity of the problem itself, merely lets not confuse apples and orangutans.

You mention clinical practicioners as well, and i agree they represent a wealth of information on about all aspects of criminal behavior and paint what is often a more desperate picture of the numbers as well, i might add. you may wish to examine their consensuses when you find the time. google will be of aid to you here.

[or university]

I know the counter argument is that they're raped by men, but I doubt that makes them feel any better. I mean, most black murder victims are victims of black murderers, but that doesn't distract us from the bigger issues: the victims are still dead.

well that is one counter argument, but see above, not always the case, and also irrelevant to most of this, i suppose.

hmm.

Anyway, let's forget all this "long ago, in a land far far away" stuff, give me an example of the oppression of women in the modern west and you will have the honour of being the first feminist to have provided an example in the many times I've asked this question.

sounds like shirelogic to me, friend.

it seems strange to me that you could accept a small midwestern american town could be so backwards as to still oppress people based on race, but not backward enough to still oppress people based on sex, even though the latter is much more backward. [primitive]

even its police and university professors in specific...

secondly, i'm fairly certain i've never self-identified as "feminist" before. However, coming from you, i consider it a compliment. So thank you.

further, i consider if out of place to be told by socialists that i cannot be concerned for the plights of whomever i wish. Nor am i to be permitted to consider these patterns as complimentary or reflective of greater social patterns. please explain.

because i consider my instinctual response to draw attention to patterns which i consider potentially threatening to my own way of life for whatever reasons, i.e. my attachment to particulars, those things i cherish, among them burning indian women, is my own business and none of yours to question.

[please see my digressions re: panthera tigiris amoyensis in the aforementioned thread, i also like butterflies, flamingoes and frogs]

i recognize many ongoing patterns of oppression around me. Oppression of women as a specific subclass according to this particular distinction is a common experience for me to observe, to the point where it blends into the scenery, like the best camouflage of a predator.

what are you looking for specifically? organized and/or officially sanctioned oppression by what facet of society, the corporate? the police? the small government or the big government? the church? jesus.

pick a category and i could tell you a story. but i'm not going to, because i'd be wasting a good story, and my time. google can feely provide you with examples, if the mountains of "feminist" and/or clinical/social/criminological and/or offical examples cannot suffice.

[100 women burned since thread began]

I said small, not "too small", it was accepted and published by a peer reviewed journal. And to be honest I don't regard that other criticism as valid. It's acceptably representative of larger American society, a small citty in Indiana. No study's perfect.

"not 'too small'"

[that's what she said] [sorry]

see above. frankly, i've been told that both "small" and "good sized" are only euphemisms for much too small, and this is as true for social experimentation as it is for any other sport.

You're right that polygraphs are inaccurate, but most people don't know that. Failing one or being confronted with one is therefore likely to elicit a recantation from the guilty.

[and from the innocent, hence their being inadmissible in most courts (and guantanamo) i.e. watch television]

Widely divergent viewpoints are held regarding the
incidence of false rape reporting (Katz and Mazur, 1979).
For example, reports set the figure from lows of 0.25%
(O’Reilly, 1984) and 1% (Krasner et al., 1976) to highs of
80-90% (Bronson, 1918; Comment, 1968) and even 100%
(see Kanin, 1985). All of these figures represent releases
from some criminal justice agency or are estimates from
clinical practitioners. The extraordinary range of these
estimates makes a researcher suspect that inordinate
biases are at work.

i'll add these to my collection.

Feel free to look up the high numbers ones.

i looked up all of them that were older than i am.

You haven't quite understood what I was putting forward. I don't mind women who don't hold feminist opinions, in fact in practice I'm quite malleable on that seeing as rape statistics rarely come up in daily conversation.

people talk crime statistics all the time with me.

Nonetheless I think you're looking at it wrong. The men might have more archetypes, but they all work out the same. You go to work, you come home, you go out for a drink, you go to sleep. In reality women have moderately more choices. If you can find a film called "The Hide", you might like it. The closest mass market (ie American) film would be "Falling Down", with Michael Douglas as a gun toting vengeful etc.,.

i think i remember him playing a man sex assault and/or harassment victim in a movie as well. can't remember the name of it.

fairly progressive, IIRC.

8% is from the FBI, it doesn't count any of those in the Kanin study, or similar cases, only those dropped lated on (and although it is called the ifgure for unfounded cases it only counts recantations, not those cases unsupported by evidence).

And I still haven't seen your studies.

see above, wrt: studies.

Yeah, the police were forced to do their jobs and investigate, so? You want the police to have discretion, don't you keep saying they spend their time beating confessions out of people? I agree with it, not fall for it. The polygraph, as I say, was optional and even if failed wasn't enough to dismiss a case.

actually what the police did would have likely been grounds for lawsuits, and maybe even criminal charges, depending on particulars that Kanin, etc, do not provide, but would need to be assessed by a licensed clinician. Even those women who were lying to begin with could file complaints if this happened anywhere nearby.

[as could men in similar situations, see above digressions]

It was based on your constant attempts to draw the issue away from women who make false accusations and onto the police. This indicates to me that you're more interested in defending false accusers than victims of false accusations.

personally i'm trying to be realistic about all of them, and to see that methods aren't applied for the purpose of getting numbers which may themselves be both unethical by comtemporary standards of human behavior and/or illegal.

you do not seem to be taking this seriously enough on the one hand, and given your apparent lack of reality based numerological accountings for the other, i am inclined to believe your interest in it may be merely hyperbolic.

which isn't an insult of itself. but i'm not sure what your point is in all this, so i'm just guessing until you get to it.

...

perhaps more later.

[compared2what?]

perhaps more later.

Not from me. Except to say that:

(a) Although I'm not doing your homework for you, there's an 8% rate according to more than one study -- the one that I can think of off the top of my head isn't the FBI statistical data*** and it is a substantial study.

There are also numerous studies that show it to be much lower. As I've already said, I couldn't mount a very strong argument against anyone claiming anything between 3% to 8%, although I personally would be surprised if the true rate proved to be lower than 5% because (try to pay attention, now) T-H-E N-U-M-B-E-R I-S N-O-T C-O-N-C-L-U-S-I-V-E-L-Y K-N-O-W-N. So the best you can do is extrapolate from the best available data in aggregate. And that does mean "You, Stephen Morgan." In other words: Address your ignorance yourself, if what you really want is to be informed. Since you haven't given me any reason to think that it is, I don't have any reason to think I'd be doing anything by collating easily available figures and tables for you other than wasting my time.

(b) You think my lack of concern for the plight of victimized men is reflected by my continually pointing to the powers and methods that have been shown, conclusively, for decades, to be responsible for their victimization in enormous numbers that do not exclude the small percentage of them who were falsely and maliciously accused of rape?

You're a misandrist. I've had it with you.

***

The FBI reported a 5.4 percent unfounded rate for forcible rapes, compared with a 1.1 percent rate for all crimes in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Murders had a 3.2 percent unfounded rate; motor vehicle thefts were at 2.3 percent. The unfounded rape rate was down from 1997, when it measured 7.3 percent, compared with 1.7 percent of total crimes.

Jesus fuckin' et cetera. Can you even read? That's UNFOUNDED, not falsely reported. And, hey, guess what? Words can mean different things than other words sometimes. Did you know that? Well, now you do. Consider it a parting gift.

[Penguin]

I don't know why you guys bother.
Morgana is obviously of a set-in-stone mind, or just trolling, or just plain simpleton. Or mama didn't hug her enough as a child. Or maybe some womyn was nasty to her.

I just decided that I will cut my factual communication with Morgana to the bare minimum and stick to just insults. You can do the factwork, if you so like.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind not ever having to read one more thing from his little world.

Someone asked in another thread a while ago - "Doesnt the misogyny bother anyone?" - yeah, it bothers me. What bothers me more is that by being a weasel like Morgana and being very careful not to use words that would be overtly unacceptable, he gets away with just being an asshole of a weasel.
Heres the veritable middle finger, Morgana! With the kindest regards.

[OP ED]

I don't know why you guys bother.

me?

masochism.

[Perelandra]

I don't know why you guys bother.
Morgana is obviously of a set-in-stone mind, or just trolling, or just plain simpleton. Or mama didn't hug her enough as a child. Or maybe some womyn was nasty to her.

I just decided that I will cut my factual communication with Morgana to the bare minimum and stick to just insults. You can do the factwork, if you so like. Frankly, I wouldn't mind not ever having to read one more thing from his little world.

Someone asked in another thread a while ago - "Doesnt the misogyny bother anyone?" - yeah, it bothers me. What bothers me more is that by being a weasel like Morgana and being very careful not to use words that would be overtly unacceptable, he gets away with just being an asshole of a weasel.
Heres the veritable middle finger, Morgana! With the kindest regards.

But Penguin dear, I don't understand why you're trying to insult him by referring to him as feminine.

[Stephen Morgan]

OP ED : you do know your dude is a Professor at Purdue, and like center-right, at best?

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

so like invoke your computer skills and kindly look them up for your own self.

Oh, so it's alright to demand that I produce evidence, but feminist orthodoxists needn't bother.

well, as you yourself freely admit, the FBI numbers are much different than those in your examples. Thee FBI is rarely accused of being overtly feminist either by itself or anyone else.

Except for anti-feminists, of course. But the 8% figure for unfounded cases doesn't count those case dropped early in the legal process, such as all of those ocunted by the Kanin study.

[my numbers were BOJ/DOJ numbers, and reporting higher numbers would've made them look better, y'know from a financial perspective betwixt them and their masters, and yet they did not]

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

fair enough. why did you get into this thread?

Because some bright spark on the first page claimed men started the recession, whereas I prefer blame be apportioned to the capitalist overlord class. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have bothered, it's more trouble than it's worth. In fact, after today I won't even look at this thread again, because if I do I will be unable to stop myself rising to your bait. I've already started, I haven't even corrected barracuda in that other thread about that Semenya woman when he seems to think I've conceded a point I haven't conceded. I'm not correcting him at all. Nodeedy.

Hey, don't forget the women burned for suti, although they are always suicides. Murdered by society, you might say, although that would bring up the fact that most suicides are men.

great segue. almost sounds sincere.

Thanks. Which bit do you think isn't sincere?

incorrect misrepresentation of facts. even if we assumed all prison inmates were rape victims. [color=green][and that 40% of them weren't lying, btw]

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

econdly, i'm fairly certain i've never self-identified as "feminist" before. However, coming from you, i consider it a compliment. So thank you.

Still haven't come up with an example of female oppression in modern society, though.

further, i consider if out of place to be told by socialists that i cannot be concerned for the plights of whomever i wish. Nor am i to be permitted to consider these patterns as complimentary or reflective of greater social patterns. please explain.

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

what are you looking for specifically? organized and/or officially sanctioned oppression by what facet of society, the corporate? the police? the small government or the big government? the church? jesus.

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. Most church-goers are women, corporations are prevented from discriminating by law but still hire mostly women and fund feminist orgs, the police are proven to have a bias in favour of women, as are all the prosecutory arms of the state, the small governments run women-only library days, the big government runs VAWA in America, has Harriet Harmann here, has advocated (as has the opposition) lower income tax rates for women in Spain, etc..

On the other hand there's plenty of ways women are privileged, which I've shown, from education to healthcare to government funding (eg of the aforementioned healthcare), lack of conscription and automatic child custody, lesser sentences awarded for the same crimes and less offensive jokes made about them. find me an example of female oppression equivalent to, say, the female majority in university students. Or the higher funding to research specifically female cancers.

Here's another list.

And heres a site about feminism.

[and from the innocent, hence their being inadmissible in most courts (and guantanamo) i.e. watch television]

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

which isn't an insult of itself. but i'm not sure what your point is in all this, so i'm just guessing until you get to it.

My point is what it has been from the beginning: when someone claims women caused the recession, or makes any remotely similar claim, a load of people object, but when someone claims men did the same thing people laugh or support it or at best ignore it (including some men I can only assume hate themselves), so I who naturally abhor consensus come and point out the uncomfortable truths. And when someone makes any similar feminist claim, seeing as I've been arguing with feminists about such things for years and no-one else is willing to stand up for the truth, I do that.

c2w: Although I'm not doing your homework for you, there's an 8% rate according to more than one study -- the one that I can think of off the top of my head isn't the FBI statistical data*** and it is a substantial study.

Well if you won't show us I supposed we'll never know.

I personally would be surprised if the true rate proved to be lower than 5% because (try to pay attention, now) T-H-E N-U-M-B-E-R I-S N-O-T C-O-N-C-L-U-S-I-V-E-L-Y K-N-O-W-N

So that fac tthat we can't be sure of the exact number is a reason to believe it's even lower than your unspecified data claims?

Address your ignorance yourself, if what you really want is to be informed. Since you haven't given me any reason to think that it is, I don't have any reason to think I'd be doing anything by collating easily available figures and tables for you other than wasting my time.

And after I wasted all that time putting together the anti-feminist case, which I won't be doing again.

(b) You think my lack of concern for the plight of victimized men is reflected by my continually pointing to the powers and methods that have been shown, [i]conclusively, for decades, to be responsible for their victimization in enormous numbers that do not exclude the small percentage of them who were falsely and maliciously accused of rape?[/i]

No, 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.

You're a misandrist. I've had it with you.

A change from misogynist, anyway, although no more accurate.

Jesus fuckin' et cetera. Can you even read? That's UNFOUNDED, not falsely reported.

As I made quite clear, if you've been paying attention, this is a figure which:
a) doesn't include those cases disproven early in the legal process, and hence wouldn't include even one of Kanin's 40%; and,
b) this use of "unfounded" is use of FBI parlance and doesn't include any cases that were merely unsupported by the evidence, or "unfounded" in dictionary definitions, but only those the FBI concluded were baseless.

Penguin: Or maybe some womyn was nasty to her.

As I say, I've always got along well with women. In fact I don't get along at all well with men, generally speaking, but this has nothing to do with anything. What you object to is my lack of slavish adherence to feminism's many disproven claims.

I just decided that I will cut my factual communication with Morgana to the bare minimum and stick to just insults

How would that be a change?

Someone asked in another thread a while ago - "Doesnt the misogyny bother anyone?" - yeah, it bothers me. What bothers me more is that by being a weasel like Morgana and being very careful not to use words that would be overtly unacceptable, he gets away with just being an asshole of a weasel.

Well, I see what you mean about the insults, but it still doesn't seem to be a change from how you have adressed me heretofore.

And for the last time, until the next time, I'm not a misogynist. Any impression to the contrary is likely to be due to one of two things: firstly, such a deep level of acculturation into the feminist mindset that any disagreement with a feminist precept, no matter how obviously fallacious or however long if may have been disproven, is to be interpreted as a hatred of women rather than a disagreement with a political position; or, secondly that feminist has got you so hyped up about its many fictitious threats to women that you're just looking for any excuse, at least subconciously to jump on the bandwagon and join the chivalric cause of the defence of noble womanhood.



"I have finally figured out that there is no point in engaging in a
dialogue the issue of which turns out to be, ``When are you going to
stop being a Nazi?'' " -- John Gordon, The Myth Of The Monstrous Male
and other Feminist Fables.

Trick: You're a misogynist!


Misogyny has a clear, precise meaning: Hatred of women _as a

class_. Those who use the term irresponsibly are both unfairly

pretending there's much more misogyny than there really is and

are demonizing people. If someone calls you a misogynist just

because you speak harshly to an individual woman or you don't

support special priveleges for women, they owe you a huge

apology. (But good luck getting it)

[Penguin]

But Penguin dear, I don't understand why you're trying to insult him by referring to him as feminine.

Push the button.

And for the last time, until the next time, I'm not a misogynist. Any impression to the contrary is likely to be due to one of two things: firstly, such a deep level of acculturation into the feminist mindset that any disagreement with a feminist precept, no matter how obviously fallacious or however long if may have been disproven, is to be interpreted as a hatred of women rather than a disagreement with a political position; or, secondly that feminist has got you so hyped up about its many fictitious threats to women that you're just looking for any excuse, at least subconciously to jump on the bandwagon and join the chivalric cause of the defence of noble womanhood.

Yay!

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.

[barracuda]

I haven't even corrected barracuda in that other thread about that Semenya woman when he seems to think I've conceded a point I haven't conceded. I'm not correcting him at all. Nodeedy.

Stephen, I never for a moment considered that you'd conceded a point of any kind. I was, gentle sir, being facetious.

[OP ED]

“unfounded rape can and does mean many things, with false allegation being only one of them, and sometimes the least of them.”
--eugene kanin

[OP ED]

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…