Came across this heaping pile of pig excrement while on minds. Of course I say it’s pig excrement because as we all know: Pigs are more equal. That’s a joke for the Orwell fans, if you don’t get it – google it, you’ll figure it out.
Please do not provide clicks to propagandists, here is the archived copy instead: “A third of male university students say they would rape a woman“.
So let’s dig into this shall we?
“Amongst other questions they were asked how they would act in a situation where they could have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will “if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences”.
They describe the question, but don’t actually provide you the question, then provide you the stipulation of the question in quotes. This is done so that they can dissemble what the question actually was in order to present you with a narrative.
Now examine again:
“31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation” – which is rape.”
Yet 2 sentences later the article states:
“When explicitly asked whether they would rape a woman if there were no consequences, only 13.6% of participants said they would do so, a marked fall on those who had described that they would commit rape.”
So again – they’re not providing you with the actual questions used in the study: because they specifically do not want you to know what was asked. If you knew what was actually asked, you’d suddenly be aware that this statistic on who would and who would not commit rape: was manufactured by means of defining things, very loosely and very broadly, as being rape.
A key clue is the statement between those last two.
“Worryingly, most men who indicated that they would commit rape did not even recognise their actions as such.”
By the way, that typo is not mine, it’s copied and pasted. Here however you see the crux of the issue and why they will talk about the questions used in the “study” but not quote the questions. This is also why the selection of males who took the study said they would not commit rape: but why the study’s architect claims so many would commit rape. By intentionally wording questions in a very broadly interpretative way: then defining what quantifies as “rape” in an extremely broad way.
Here in the article just a bit lower, is proof of my claims.
“The authors of the study said the findings of a gap between the proportion of men who would endorse the use of coercion but reject the ‘rape’ label for their actions could have implications for sexual and consent education programmes.”
As you see here, the creators of the study are not defining rape as “She says no, he keeps going.” They’re defining any conceivably “coercive” actions as automatically equating to rape. Not violations of someone’s will – not doing something against someone’s wishes: anything which can be defined, as loosely or broadly as possible, as being “coercive.” Which again: is why the write up of the study, absolutely at no point actually quotes ANY question which was used in the “study.”
This is an example of manufactured statistics, where by the “study” is manipulated and engineered in order to generate exactly the results the study’s creators want to obtain. This is all very common from Feminist “studies”: it’s a smoke and mirrors sham.
You want to know how broadly this can be defined? I’ll give you an example.
BF to GF: “Oh come on, it’s my birthday, can’t we at least fool around a little?”
This would be defined as manipulative, which equates to coercive and thereby makes it “rape” under the California “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” standards. It doesn’t matter the man did not force the woman to have sex, it doesn’t matter he did not hold her down and have sex with her against her will. It does not matter that the decision to have sex is still entirely up to the woman.
Being that he manipulated her in some way, or acted in some way which can be define as manipulative, this is considered coercion and defined as being rape. The fact that the woman in question still retained 100% of the authority and decision making power to decide yes or no in accordance with her own will: does – not – matter. This interaction, under the California “Yes means yes” / “Affirmative Consent” standards is still defined as being rape.
California “Yes means yes” / “Affirmative Consent” standards as to what quantifies as an constitutes rape are so broad in scope and scale, by the way, that even the co-authors of the legislature doesn’t know what sexual encounter doesn’t qualify as being rape. Think I’m making that up?
According to Time’s article “Campus Rape: The Problem With ‘Yes Means Yes’“, when San Gabriel Valley Tribune asked Democratic Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal the co-author of “yes means Yes”, the question:
“how an innocent person could prove consent under such a standard, her reply was, “Your guess is as good as mine.”
If the co-author of the legislature legitimately doesn’t know how a person accused under it’s guidelines and standards could prove they were innocent of the charge: that means she also doesn’t legitimately know what sexual encounter could possibly NOT be classified as being “rape”, under the bill’s standards.
Quoting my previous article “Who’s Abandoning Whom?”
“Yes means Yes” which began in California and has since spread to nearly every college in the country allows a woman the ability to get a man kicked out of school for rape – even if he has never SEEN her in person.
“(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.”
“A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.”
The claim itself is taken as being true: and burden of proof is then placed on -you- the defendant, to prove the claim is false.
Every college campus which has a “Yes means Yes” policy, or Affirmative consent” -always- has in it’s structure a preponderance of evidence built in. Meaning if you’re accused of rape or sexual violence or sexual assault: you are guilty until proven innocent. You may not directly confront your accuser. You have no right to legal council.
Meaning, if you so much as make a girl angry – and she gets a friend to lie for her: you could be accused of being at a party you didn’t attend, someone else saw you there, she can claim you raped her – despite never having touched her – and unless you can literally PROVE you were somewhere else doing something else – you’re still guilty: because you were assumed to be guilty. That’s preponderance of evidence: your guilt is assumed.
It’s the exact opposite of the legal system which respects civil liberties: the legal system functions off of “Presumption of Innocence”, meaning innocent until proven guilty. Preponderance of evidence: assumes guilt until proven innocent.
“Judith Grossman: A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast” wrote about the ordeal her own son went through when his ex-girlfriend decided to make unjust claims against him.
“I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.”
She describes how her son was denied every possible civil liberty that is supposed to be guaranteed to him by law, and that had she – an attorney – not been his mother: he would have been cast out of school in spite of what a flagrant abuse of institutional power the event was.
“That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.”
She ends her article with the following:
“I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.”
At the veerrrrry very very bottom…..
“The study was conducted by academics at the University of North Dakota and the North Dakota State University. Its sample size was 86 people.”
Yeah – because 86 people is a big sample size to represent a large population…. Yet another commonality with typical feminist studies. Small sample size.
Another thing you can often expect from feminist studies”. No control group.
They’re not interested in having a control group. They don’t want a control group.
It was conducted at a college, they could easily have drummed up 86 bisexual and or lesbian women: and had them take the exact same questionnaire which the men took.
They didn’t. Didn’t want to.
Why, you may ask?
You see – if you get nearly identical, or possibly even worse, results from the control group: you prove the existence of universality. Which means you can no longer use the “study” as propaganda to dehumanize men. That is not in the interest of the people who created the “study”, that does not serve their purpose: that is in fact counter productive to their purpose.
-Intentionally engineered question designed to gather desired results.
-Broadly interpreted and loosely defined quantifiers to classify answers as desired results.
-Small sample size.
-No control group.
Quoting my previous statement:
“This is an example of manufactured statistics, where by the “study” is manipulated and engineered in order to generate exactly the results the study’s creators want to obtain. This is all very common from Feminist “studies”: it’s a smoke and mirrors sham.”