Support for violence to resist feminism was highest among adolescent boys (28%), followed closely by adolescent girls (21%).
Perhaps most alarming: roughly 40% of boys aged 13 to 17 agreed that women lie about domestic and sexual violence.
These results raise crucial questions going forward. We don’t yet know how these views have changed over time, whether they are on the rise and what the links are between violent extremism and the negative treatment of women.
Misogyny is certainly a huge issue among young men.
I’m not sure about this research though. It’s always concerning when they don’t publish the actual data and questions et cetera.
Perhaps most alarming: roughly 40% of boys aged 13 to 17 agreed that women lie about domestic and sexual violence.
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.
Occasionally I’m sure that both men and women do lie and say that their partner does hit them, for a variety of complex reasons. An acquaintance of mine, a woman, signed a declaration to say that her partner hit her and then during court proceedings she admitted that was a false statement. Uh oh. Anyhow, it’s certainly a thing that happens.
Does that mean all women who claim to be victims of domestic abuse are liars? Certainly not. But are lies told about domestic violence? Of course.
Support for violence to resist feminism was highest among adolescent boys (28%), followed closely by adolescent girls (21%).
This is also curious. Obviously alarming, but how does one use violence to resist feminism? I’m genuinely confused as to what is meant by this. If you had asked 15 year old me, not really knowing what feminism is, I would have assumed it meant some kind of armed uprising of women, and yeah I would have said that in that context violence is ok.
Some respondents justified violence in the private sphere. If a woman disobeys in the home, a man should be able to control her with violence.
I notice that this fiery little truth bomb is tempered to “some respondents”. How many is some? I guess 2 at least.
Again, misogyny is a huge problem. It would be extraordinarily difficult to be a female teacher. My son is too young to have encountered this stuff but it’s definitely on my mind as we navigate the coming years. However, I think this article is intended to be incendiary rather than tease out the nuance revealed by their “research”.
This was a preview summary of the data that’s awaiting publication by the University of Melbourne. It covered 1,100 people aged 13-17, and has been written by the Professor of Educational Psychology & Learning, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne.
If they word it like they did in the article I think asking their research question (asked to kids) was itself reinforcing a harmful understanding of gender and the kind of characteristics that can be applied to them. Individuals lie. Entire genders do not. Basically nothing applies across the entire category. In high school (the age of a lot of these respondents) they teach you to watch out for tricky multiple choice questions that sneak in an over inclusive option.
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?
No, im saying that amongst people who have been hit by a partner, they often lie and say that they have not.
Aah, okay. That makes more sense.
I agree with you, and want to add that parents need to do better about addressing this issue as well. There are a million opportunities, every day, to demonstrate heathy gender roles and start conversations about role expectations with your child.
deleted by creator
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!!
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
Were there consequences for the accuser?
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.
Too many perpetrators go unpunished, unfortunately one side of the equation has a much larger multiplier than the other,
AFAIK usually not directly, but wrongful accusers sometimes get sued back for defamation.
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 would see a headline like this push people more towards radicalisation against young men, not against women.
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.
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
Here is a related study with clearer methodology and survey questions, but it does bundle countries in its age cohort breakdown:
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?
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
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.
So… what my sibling comment says that’s timestamped earlier than yours and admits my mistake, but also notes that saying “our” and “we” a lot in the body of an article is very confusing and even if they want to keep broad ambiguous terms they could still do better at linking to the researchers recent work?
Actually, I’m just a bit tired, thanks for the clarification. It does seem to be a nice premise. I don’t think relying on the authors being listed in small print really does much for people that aren’t aware of how this entity operates (hence my confusion and the upvotes on my comment). I do really think the editors could do better ensuring there is clarity here given the ecosystem these articles sit in. I appreciate this being early data might be why they can’t link to a published reference, but I would be shocked if the authors didn’t have something uploaded somewhere to their personal or university websites. But also, I scanned early morning and saw a bunch of “we” and “our” and got on my soap box with a bunch of presumptions before really reading the article
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 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
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.”
Alright, I’ve evidently written my comment with poor phrasing.
It was supposed to be a joke at the expense of guys who think “all women are liars” being the guys who are the type to commit sexual assault in the first place.
I don’t think any guys say “all women are liars.” That’s certainly not the claim in this article, although it’s presented as if to indicate that misleadingly.
I’ve met misogynists who will make explicit claims like “all women are liars”
In any case, I know it wasn’t the claim of the article, it was supposed to be a joke (also at the expense of the ambiguity of the title)
Okay, well those people are uncouth, uneducated troglodytes deserving of ridicule and scorn.
But we shouldn’t conflate making an absolute claim such as “all women are liars” with making a particular claim such as “that particular woman is lying, because I didn’t do the thing she is accusing me of.”
Too often people treat any claim to innocence by an accused man as some misogynistic attack on all womankind. If a guy is innocent and gets accused of something, it’s not misogynist to say “No, that’s not true. I didn’t do that.”
The converse is also true about making absolute claims such as “No woman is a liar.” It’s simply divorced from reality, and all that it would take to disprove it is one example of a woman who lied. Emmett Till’s accuser lied, did she not? That’s just one famous example, but studies have shown that upwards of 5% of reported, official cases turn out to be demonstrably false accusations. That’s 1 in 20, just of cases that make it to court.
The lesson is to avoid making absolute statements. It’s not about “all women lie” or “no women lie,” because both are false statements. It’s about assessing the credibility of accusations on a particular, case-by-case basis. But people don’t like when the answer is “it depends” or “it’s complicated.” They want some blanket solution which will always apply in every case, but that’s just not how reality works.
Just remember, folks, divide & conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
They want us fighting the culture wars so we don’t fight the class war.
Yep this is classic rage bait media.
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.
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 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.
Peak comment. Did you RTA? Because it does the opposite of what you propose, no factual evidence, and largely biased language.
So…? We’re just supposed to take their word that the sky isn’t blue because in the past they’ve said the the sky is blue?
If it’s a peer-reviewed study, would you mind linking the actual study? Because it doesn’t seem to be published; i.e., hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet.
If it’s well-designed, then surely the survey questions will stand up to scrutiny, correct?
The amount of women who lie about violence against them is probably a lot higher than that, and the lie is that it’s not happening to them.
Had me in the first half.
Lemmy’s gender-imbalance is clear in the comment section of this thread. We’re getting some variety of opinions, but a pretty obviously narrow frame of reference - and that kind of sucks.
I see comments ranging across the spectrum. Some uncritically accepting the interpretations in the article and calling the respondents nazis, others questioning the research methodology such as how exactly those survey questions were phrased and whether the response simply boils down to negating an absolute.
That might be called many things, but I wouldn’t call it a narrow frame of reference.
That might be called many things, but I wouldn’t call it a narrow frame of reference.
Call it whatever you like. In my post I said we had a variety of opinions but a narrow frame of reference. Maybe there’s a better choice of words, I don’t know. But I think it’s is bleedingly obviously that there are few, if any, women posting in this thread. That’s all I’m talking about.
I’m not talking about specific views, or type of pushback, or argument, or saying anyone is ‘wrong’, or anything like that. The men here clearly have different backgrounds and values - but they are still all commenting on this issue from a male frame of reference. That imbalance is very clear to me while reading the comments. I think it is probably clear to you as well. And I personally think it is unhealthy for the community to have such a large gender imbalance.
There is a lot more than could be said about this, but all I’m saying right now is I can see a large gender imbalance in this thread, and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
I’m guessing you didn’t see any of the comments overreacting to the misleading statistic instead of questioning the methodology and deceptive reporting, and accusing all these survey respondents of being woman-haters and nazis instead of considering the fact that responding “no” would imply an absolute statement (“it never happens”) while a yes could mean anything from “it sometimes happens” to “it always happens”?
I’m not assuming anybody’s gender, but you say you think there’s an imbalance, so I’m providing some counterexamples to the assumptions you’re making.
And I personally think it is unhealthy for the community to have such a large gender imbalance.
There is a lot more than could be said about this, but all I’m saying right now is I can see a large gender imbalance in this thread, and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
What do you think the overall gender balance is on the fediverse? Is it just this thread where you notice an imbalance? I typically don’t ask people about their gender, but if I had to guess I’d say most communities skew at least a little towards being mostly men.
I’m not saying that’s a good or a bad thing. To be honest, I wouldn’t mind if more women were active on the fediverse. I think that would be a good thing. But then again I wouldn’t be surprised if most women on lemmy/piefed keep their gender hidden in order to avoid having their inbox flooded, and I don’t blame them.
There are a few prevalent users who are open about being women, some who even have their faces in their profile pictures. I don’t know why. They must be brave, or maybe have their inboxes closed. But I for one appreciate the anonymity. I try to avoid letting my online presence be traceable to my person. This is the internet, after all.
But outside of women-specific communities, even accounting for women who don’t reveal their gender, I doubt most instances have an even gender balance. And I don’t know how you could realisticly achieve that without somehow compelling women to participate in communities that they’re not even interested in. This isn’t a nightclub where the bouncers turn away men to keep their ratios pristine.
Every now and then we’re reminded that a large number of people on lemmy were kicked off of Reddit because they were gamergate type people.
Lemmy is distilled redditor men
More than 17% of all Australians agree feminism should be resisted with violence.
This stat in itself is wild. 1 in 6 Australians think feminists should be physically attacked. Who are these psychopaths? Which part of our society has let us down so badly and how do we fix it?
“Teenage boys are fucking morons”.
Groundbreaking research.
yeah let’s just conveniently ignore the part where nearly the same number of adolescent girls also think violence should be used to oppose feminism. That part is very interesting, and a reason why this research is important.
Don’t take my comment too seriously, man.
“40% of teenage boys are violent brainwashed sexists” fixed that statement.
The concerning thing to me is not the numbers themselves but the way kids with no other obvious connections to hate (e.g. my father is a wife-beating neo-Nazi) are developing these belief systems through unrestricted exposure to the internet. It’s part of a much bigger problem that includes things like religious extremism and racism. In many cases they aren’t going out of their way to find these rabbit holes, either. Social media algorithms recommend Andrew Tate type shit and then bombard their feed with even more of that stuff after the first watch, and adults would never know until the kid gets to the point where it’s developed into a core life philosophy for them and is affecting their real world behaviour. This can happen at any age, of course, but it’s just sadder to me when it’s young, impressionable minds that are being taken advantage of.
Questionable methodologies aside, I think you’re right about this and it’s an important point. So many people want to treat misogyny like it’s the personal failing of individuals, when the problem is radicalization. People act like these are inherently disturbed people who would have arrived at their hateful opinions no matter what influences they were exposed to. That’s basically an essentialist take and doesn’t acknowledge the complexities of human psychology and development.
You can’t address a cultural or societal issue at merely the individual level, because it’s like rescuing starfish from tide pools. For every one that you save, there’s always a million more. And personal shaming doesn’t help the situation at all.
So many young men and adolescent boys are vulnerable to this radicalization because they’ve been ostracized from their peer groups. They commiserate about their situations with others like themselves. And these predatory manosphere influencers know this and they capitalize on it.
People throw around “incel” like it’s not only an insult, but also this morally repugnant and irredeemable sort of subhuman thing. How does that encourage anyone to self-examine and decide to do better? Society has already rejected them and made it clear that it will never open its doors to them again. And it even emphasizes that it’s outside of their control, i.e. involuntary.
How is that supposed to cultivate healthier views of women? It’s literally telling men “You’re worthless because you can’t get laid.” How do you expect them to react to that in any way other then “Oh gee, then I guess I’d better learn how to get laid.” And then they start down an algorithmic rabbit hole of “dating coaches” and pick-up artists which sucks them into the manosphere grift.
Every time I see “incel” used as an insult or approbation I flinch a little, because it only cements the demise of healthy gender relations a little more each time.
These people started as socially awkward weirdos and loners. They were bullied and ostracized, and turned to the only spaces where they felt accepted. It’s no wonder they wound up being negged and radicalized by predatory grifters.
I’ve pointed this out multiple times all along the way while witnessing this slow downfall, and people always say the same things. “Redpill/blackpill chud INCEL, no one likes you, these people aren’t worth defending, no one healthy or reasonable would let themselves be radicalized, or maybe if they weren’t inherently flawed they wouldn’t be friendless to begin with, etc. etc. etc.” and it all boils down to the same thing: conform or die; the friendless deserve no pity.
It’s fucking hopeless…
It’s the sad reality of our times that many people would prefer to spend their time virtue signalling and circlejerking about how they’re not part of a problem than actually contribute to finding and implementing a solution.
Yup, and anyone who actually tries to find a solution makes themself vulnerable to ridicule, scorn, and accusations when they inevitably fail.
Much safer just to stand on the sidelines and point the finger. Nobody blames the people who never even tried. The people who tried and failed take all the blame.
It’s really short-sighted if you think about it…
How cute, they’re the fucking nazis of tomorrow. Bitchslap 'em to the ground and tell them they’re lying when they start crying, that’ll teach them to discard other people’s truth.
A very normal, and rational series of sentences. Maybe you could call the crying teenagers you’re standing over in your fantasy “pussy” after you “bitchslap” them. Right before you beat into them the idea that violence is bad too, of course.
Violence against Nazis isn’t bad.
Misguided children aren’t nazis, but that could very quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you “bitchslap” them and call them nazis.
Suddenly the only people willing to reach out a helping hand to them are the actual nazis.
You know how cults prey on the vulnerable, right? By giving them a place where they feel they belong, and slowly but imperceptibly indoctrinating them into their ideology…
They do. There’s actually a lot more sexual violence happening than anyone wants to admit.
Eat shit, yutes
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
There was certainly some terrible information perpetrated in the beginning which I imagine could have led to some misconceptions and false claims. I remember the first training I went to said that a single sip of alcohol voided your ability to give consent. This is untrue and consent can, legally, be given under the influence albeit may complicate some aspects of some investigations, but the more recent trainings/talks I’ve been to on consent have been excellent and should absolutely be encouraged.
We want a world where everyone understands consent, so people don’t have to preemptively put up so many personal walls around themselves just to feel safe in everyday interactions.
