What are you even talking about mate?

How very American of you.

Downvoting not because the topic is unimportant but because the new study is run by this news agency without publishing their questions or methodology. That seems like running for a headline with little concern for accuracy or scientific methods. I could be wrong but until they are more open we don't know

Edit: If you ignore the authors then the above is a pretty reasonable interpretation but it was written by some university researchers. They are surprisingly unclear (to me) in the body for what study exactly they are referencing to, at least in their opening paragraphs. Still, it doesn't seem to be a survey from the conversation so I'm going to remove the downvote

The culture of misogyny vs the culture of "oh dear, we're failing our kids and need to do better"?

This is a stupid take.

This is a peer-reviewed well-designed study by an expert in their field. Not a Ben Shapiro video.

Here is a related study with clearer methodology and survey questions, but it does bundle countries in its age cohort breakdown:

https://mander.xyz/comment/25666102

Seems like a nearly impossible number to prove. I would assume they are only counting cases where the accusations can be shown to be false (which will always be a much smaller number than the ones where the truth is simply unknown) and cases where the accuser recants (which will also be a smaller number and will include some women who had been telling the truth). It seems no more valid than the opposite extreme of assuming all accusations are false unless you can prove them true.

But what's the alternative? Forcing every case into true or false no matter how little information you have to go on? Looking only at cases with overwhelming evidence one way or the other and pretending the rest don't exist?

And that's without getting into questions about things like unreported cases, or cases where part of the story checks out and part of it doesn't. Are we only looking at formal complaints or are we including accusations that are only spread socially?

The whole question is vague and surrounded by assumptions. It's like asking if aliens are real. The likely answer is going to depend heavily on whether you interpret that to mean "does any form of life exist elsewhere in the universe" as opposed to "are little grey guys practicing proctology on us?"

Don't take my comment too seriously, man.

I've had the lies bestowed upon me twice. So I can vouch 100% to this being a truth.

The number of people jumping in to call adolescent boys morons for having a slightly higher response rate to a very poorly framed question is ridiculous.

The idiots here are the people who wrote the survey.

Of course women lie about domestic violence.

They lie to protect themselves. They lie out of fear.

Some women, though a vanishingly small minority, lie to weaponise the legal system against their partner.

Labelling this acknowledgment of reality, which has nuance to it, as extremist is just going to make more young men hostile to feminism.

I agree with the statement at face value, but add, without a proper support system, its impossible to do the inner work for yourself. We need external support, and we have to try for ourselves.

The whole, lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink. Dont mean we shouldnt still help em get to the water.

today's letter is M, for Moron

apparently

Violence against Nazis isn't bad.

Parent by choice not by accident so its incumbent on me to do my best, although I would never claim to be perfect, or even close.

Downvoting not because the topic is unimportant but because the new study is run by this news agency

Which "news agency" are you referring to?

I guarantee you this study gets absolutely shredded in review.

If anyone can link it to me when it’s public I will post my own review of it. Wouldn’t be the first time I get garbage retracted.

I think your intuition is 100% right, there. It's always easier to hear "it's not your fault" and they know this.

Yeah from how it has been worded "has there ever been a woman that lies about sexual assault" is a valid interpretation of the prompt and unsurprisingly anyone interpreting it that way will answer "yes, absolutely." Who knows how many of those people actually harbour misogynistic beliefs though.

Oh well maybe we should shove them in front of a screen and have them use AI until the scores improve. /s

Seriously when they do the analysis in 100 years we are going to cop so much negativity about our misguided attempts to make education a success by making it more profitable for the corporations that are forever sinking their claws deeper and deeper into our childrens future.

We know that LLMs have a negative impact on learning, mental health and the environment but we keep getting presented the Emperors wrinkled backside and then being told to marvel at it.

Anyway I tend to go on rants if I don't reign myself in, so I'm going to stop there.

I mean the world would be a much better place if they were only lying. Unfortunately not.

Holy engagement bait, Batman! What a terrible headline.

Yes, it is a fact that women lie about domestic and sexual violence. I've seen first-hand a family seriously impacted by a false accusation. The son was detained in prison for a year, the parents took out a mortgage on their home to defend the case and finally the girl admitted in court that she fabricated the whole thing. The son was acquitted. These cases happen. Here's a fairly broad paper on the matter discussing several deeper studies spanning several countries including Australia, Canada and the UK.

Among the seven studies that attempted some degree of scrutiny of police classifications and/or applied a definition of false reporting at least similar to that of the IACP, the rate of false reporting, given the many sources of potential variation in findings, is relatively consistent:

• 2.1% (Heenan & Murray, 2006)
• 2.5% (Kelly et al., 2005)
• 3.0% (McCahill et al., 1979)
• 5.9% (the present study)
• 6.8% (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008)
• 8.3% (Grace et al., 1992)
• 10.3% (Clark & Lewis, 1977)
• 10.9% (Harris & Grace, 1999)

With that out of the way, let's move on to the elephant in the room:

IN OVER 90% OF CASES, THE RAPES WERE CREDIBLE! FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION!!

5% is insanely high, I expected much lower 💀

this is why i hate the “believe women” thing….
the problem was people not believing women by default… that’s objectively terrible.
doing the exact opposite is also terrible.

(i’ve seen a false accusation too… i also know of people who were SA’d with no investigation and nobody caring)

i’ve also never heard of someone being prosecuted for a false accusation either… it’s all terrible

The OP didn’t link to a peer-reviewed well-designed study. They linked to a “news” article that purports to relay the information from the study, but no doubt presents much of it out of context and to an audience who lack the expertise to really understand it.

I was referring to men vs. women, or gays vs. straights, or residents vs. immigrants, or any one of the hundred other arbitrary divisions being constantly foisted onto us.

The study may well be measuring these divisions, or their effects, but that’s not my point at all.

The Conversation

At least the article, published in The Conversation, wrote "we" a lot when talking about data interpretation and I saw no reference to any other researchers

On reread, the body of this article doesn't seem to say anything except "we" and "our research" and I had just woken up and assumed the news agency.

But the authors are Sara Meger and Kate Reynolds of The University of Melbourne so it's probably their research so I'm probably wrong. It really pisses me off how indirectly news articles point to studies and I think this is a good example of that, but I do think I was wrong about the study being done by a news agency. I'm pretty sure these people would have a pdf on their research websites too so not linking is just hand wavy

Wait, I'm probably restarted for not understanding it but does the author claim that 10.9% to 2.1% is 'consistent'?

The full paper would give better context of that statement. It's quite accessible and worth reading. The thing that is consistent across all studies, nations and decades is that false accusations are rare.

It turns out this is actually a fairly difficult topic to accurately measure if for no other reason that a lot of cases (Particularly earlier ones) boil down to 'he said, she said'. Then there is the matter that lots of sexual assault cases go unreported - or are dropped for assorted reasons. Unreported assaults are a huge factor among certain cultural groups.

At that age young men usually have no concept of violence rooted in reality at any significant numbers. So they assume young girls their ages mostly don't experience violence while thinking violence is the thing from movies and they are ready to dole that out for things that they don't agree with because they think they can change the world overnight at any price.

So asking this group of people is a challenge in of itself. The data and questions are missing, so I call incitement here in service of distracting from the class war and call it a day.

Maybe call the class war the Epstein wars in the future, I think it has a ring to it.

Tbf that's lies that make it to court, I've been lied about and had friends also be lied about, but the girls (we were all kids at the time) didn't take it to court, they just tried to assassinate our character and get us shunned for life by everyone we knew without involving the system that would make them prove anything.

Thankfully in my case I had witnesses and in my buddy's he had an alibi, but still, it's a pretty rude thing to lie about. But I think most of the lies shake out like that, they usually don't get reported to the actual authorities, just circulated like a rumor.

But it also does absolutely nothing to fight the ideas themselves, and they can metastasise in others. Like killing say a leader of Iran and then his kid takes over, ain't shit changed.

"We fought a war about it last time," yeah and we won, which is why there are no nazis now right? Right?

Unfortunately the only way to pull these people out of the fire would be to actually treat them like people, and actually educate them properly. But that's hard and saying KILL EM is much easier.

I can answer part of this:

Are we only looking at formal complaints or are we including accusations that are only spread socially?

All of these types of studies only look at formal complaints, which in a way makes sense because they're the only ones that are even close to verifiable, and I have no idea how you'd reliably collect info on social-only accusations, good luck! But it does paint an incomplete picture.

we didn't kill all the nazi's, we let them spread out and proliferate across the world cause $

It's the same guy using it every time, dude needs to learn some new words.

I need to know, how that question was phrased, otherwise that 40% number is completly meaningless. The two extremes would be "Do you think a woman has ever lied about domestic and sexual violence?", or "Do you think all reports by a woman of domestic and sexual violence are a lie?". In the first case a significant share would answer yes, because a single false claim ever makes that statement correct. The opposite is true for the second phrasing, where a single correct claim makes that statement false. The real phrasing is probably somewhere in between, but even then you could heavily influence the outcome with subtle changes to the phrasing.

The survey wasn't run by The Conversation, it publishes news articles co-written by academics not academic studies. In the case of articles such as this one that were written by people who have just completed/published a new study, it's usually a successful pitch made by the researchers to The Conversation. The authors of the research and the article are clearly listed on the right side of the page under 'Authors'. As I said in another comment, usually the research being written about has actually been published elsewhere and can be directly linked in The Conversation news article. In this case, the research is awaiting publishing which I presume is the reason why it was not linked to in the news article.

It is not any one individual's responsibility to fix any other particular individual, true.

Rather, it is the community's responsibility to care for the community. All of the community.

If you start declaring some members of the community to be undeserving of care, then you are no better than the fascists.

Well we killed a lot of them but we did also do that whole Operation Paperclip thing for sure I can't deny that.

Were there consequences for the accuser?

This one really, really depends on the question. Both men and women often lie and say that their partner doesn't hit them. This is pretty well known actually. You'd have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't happen.

I’ve never been hit by a romantic partner. You’re saying that being hit in a relationship is common?

The answer is obvious!

If you ask someone who answers "yes" to "do you think all women lie about domestic and sexual violence?" the question "has anyone ever reported you for sexual violence?" Will inevitably be "yes" also!

It was supposed to be a joke. Dont @ me

No, im saying that amongst people who have been hit by a partner, they often lie and say that they have not.

Almost nothing. Feminist organisations lobby hard to ensure there are no consequences because "it might discourage real victims from coming forward." They don't care how many men have their lives ruined.

The Conversation is a well known resource for highly-factual and unbiased wording and phrasing in their material.

Trying to frame them as a culture war peddler throwing "men vs. women" divisions to stoke flames is some bullshit.

Engagement shit like this is so dangerous. Impressionable minds in the target demographic will read the headline and be pushed towards radicalization against women because "apparently it's worse than I thought".

I think the 1-2% number is proven false allegations. That's a much higher bar.

So far as I know, nothing (legally). She wasn't on trial. Something may have happened to her later, but I don't think so. I think I'd have heard if it had.

Of course: everyone who knew her knew about the whole case and its outcome. It would be an inaccurate statement to say she faced no consequences at all. Everyone - male and female alike, was furious with her. And I expect the story follows her around 20 years later whenever anyone Googles her.

Real Nazis or people who disagree with you? Almost every time someone uses this violent rhetoric, it's thinly veiled excuse to use violence on someone who has a political opinion they disagree with.

I think they were projecting a lil

Aah, okay. That makes more sense.

That's not the question that was asked. You snuck an "all" in there to make it sound more ridiculous and uncreditable.

The question as phrased in the article simply says "do you think women lie about dv/sa." It's vague and open to interpretation, which is why it's bad research methodology. But it's more likely to be interpreted as "do you think any woman lies/has lied about dv/sa," and because absolute statements are easily negated, the obvious answer to that question is yes. Otherwise you would have to claim "No woman ever lies or has ever lied about dv/sa," and that's patently false.

But you can go ahead and accuse everyone who questions the research methodology of a poorly-written survey of having committed sexual violence. That only provides an example proving that "Yes, some women lie about it."