About Toysoldier

Jacob Taylor is a freelance writer and advocate for male victims of sexual violence. He blogs on Toy Soldiers.

You’re Not Helping v.28

Several years ago, I wrote about my impression of the subreddit /r/MensLib. It is a pro-feminist space for men created as a counter to /r/MensRights. As such, MensLib views men’s issues through a progressive and feminist lens. Non-feminists and non-progressives are allowed to participate as long as they do not question feminist or progressive theories.

As I mentioned in my initial post, it did not take long for MensLib to devolve into the usual heavy moderation, comment deletion, bannings, and anti-male sentiments that typically appear in pro-feminist male spaces. However, MensLib is unique in one regard: an peculiar need to “reclaim” male victimization. Specifically, an attempt to control the narrative about male victims by filtering men’s experiences through a feminist perspective. This is similar to what The Good Men Project tried to do.

This creates an interesting conundrum as feminist theory rejects the notion of male victimization as a legitimate issue in and of itself. Male victims only have value within feminist theory to the extent that they can be seen as an ironic result of men’s power, a sort of karmic backfire. Outside of the perspective, male victims cannot be acknowledged as their existence counters the feminist narrative that violence is a patriarchal tool of oppression reserved for females. This is primarily because most people who abuse males are female, and feminists argue that females lack the power, both physical and institutional, to truly harm males.

So what do you do when males are beaten or raped? Contrary to the feminist narrative, we now have decades of evidence proving men and boys are abused at about the same rate as women and girls, again, predominantly by women and girls. It is no longer possible to deny this without sounding insensitive or dishonest.

Well, if you are MensLib, what you do is acknowledge the abuse occurs and say all the proper things to make it appear that you are concerned for male victims. However, underneath that veneer of compassion lies the truth: you are not really concerned about the male victims at all. This is simply a means subtle indoctrination. Continue reading

Fact Checking Feminist Claims About False Rape Accusations: Part 3

In my prior two posts about this topic, I dissected LefthandedLunatic’s (LhL) citations regarding the frequency of false accusation. I continue my analysis below.

LhL cites a section from a report that states:

While false complaints do occur, approximately three-quarters of the incidents concluded by the police to be false appeared to have been judged to some extent at least on the basis of stereotypes regarding the complainant’s behavior, attitude, demeanor or possible motive. Suspicious file comments were made by the detectives regarding a woman who laughed while being interviewed, others who were seen as ‘attention seeking,’ and some who were said to be ‘crying rape’ for revenge or guilt motives.

This comes from one of the studies the author claims cannot be trusted, so presumably people should dismiss this comment outright. However, let us take it at face value. It is an officer’s job to discern whether a person is credible, and the officer does this by judging the person’s behavior, attitude, demeanor, and possible motive. When they file their reports, they will likely include their findings. So if it strikes them as odd for someone to laugh during an interview, the officer will make note of it. This is how officers do their job.

The author, however, disagrees:

That’s right. 75% of False Rape Accusations labeled as such by police were not because they were proven false but on the gut feelings of the police.

Again, this is how officers do their jobs. Their “gut feelings” are usually based on years of experience. It does not mean they do not make mistakes, however, it seems odd to dismiss their intuition when that is often the thing that makes them consider rape victims credible.

Which means we get plenty of false false rape accusations.

No, it does not. There is no evidence supporting that there frequent false claims of false accusations or this one:

This is probably a bigger issue then men being falsely accused of Rape.

Not only is there no evidence supporting this claim, but the implicit argument here is that is it more important to make sure police believe female rape victims than it is to ensure an innocent man does not go to jail. There is no moral or ethical defense for such an argument. You do not imprison innocent people just to make sure some cop does not disbelieve a rape victim. That is an absurd position.

There have been plenty of documented cases of police pressuring victims to sign false confessions claiming they made up their sexual assaults.

Those are terrible cases. The author, however, does not present any evidence showing that this is a common issue. For all we know, it could occur at a lower rate than discovered false accusations, and according to LhL, that would make them unworthy of concern.

Its why one of the major reasons why out of 1000 rapes only 6 rapists will go to jail while for robberies 20 will go to jail and 33 of assault and battery.

No, the reason is because it is easier to prove a robbery or assaulty happened. Thieves typically have the items they stole, and victims of assault and battery typically report the crime soon after it happened, making it easier to prove they were wounded. Contrast that with rape cases, which are often reported months later, with all the evidence gone, often include conflicting accounts from the accuser and the accused, and often have victims who may not be forthcoming. All of those affect the state’s ability to prosecute the case.

LhL then shifts to attacking the men’s rights movement: Continue reading

Fact Checking Feminist Claims About False Rape Accusations: Part 2

In the first part of this series, I discussed the reason for the feminist backlash against discussing false rape accusations, and tackled LefthandedLunatic’s (LhL) opening arguments regarding false rape accusations.

This brings me to the author’s list of statistics, which prove to be rather misleading, and given the repeated nature of the inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions, I am inclined to believe this was deliberate. For example, the first citation is a 2012 report from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. LhL cites this section about false reporting:

  • A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found a 7.1 percent rate of false reports (Lonsway, Archambault, & Lisak, 2009).
  • A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston from 1998-2007 found a 5.9 percent rate of false reports (Lisak et al., 2010).
  • Using qualitative and quantitative analysis, researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1 percent rate of false reports (Heenan & Murray 2006).

What the author fails to also cite is the context:

To date, much of the research conducted on the prevalence of false allegations of sexual assaults is unreliable because of inconsistencies with definitions and methods employed to evaluate data (Archambault, n.d.). A review of research finds that the prevalence of false report is between 2 percent and 10 percent. The following studies support these findings[…]

In other words, the studies the report cites are admittedly inaccurate, which in turns means that neither the researchers nor the police have any real idea how frequently false accusations occur. They merely have data on the instances they caught, which they inexplicably combine with cases that lacked enough evidence to prosecute.

None of these studies can tell us how many reported cases are actually false, how many make it through to trial, or how many result in conviction, which makes this claim from the report rather presumptuous:

Research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault. Misconceptions about false reporting rates have direct, negative consequences and can contribute to why many victims don’t report sexual assaults (Lisak et al., 2010). To improve the response to victims of sexual violence, law enforcement and service providers need a thorough understanding of sexual violence and consistency in their definitions, policies and procedures.

That is not at all what the research shows, however, it does fit with the feminist narrative that false accusations rarely occur, which is the purpose of the report. It is meant to dismiss the concern about false accusations, not investigate the actual frequency of false accusations.

LhL goes on to state:

Now I know that 2-10% is alot and enough to give anyone pause considering how epidemic sexual assault is.

That would not appear to be the case. The author cites a study that showed:

[…] that between 2006 to 2010 the Average number of false rape accusations or baseless accusations was 5.55%, and robbery had a higher false and baseless accusation rate of 5.76%

It appears LhL thinks a 0.21% difference is evidence of the rarity of false rape accusations, so it would be fair to conclude that the author does not 2-10% is “a lot”.

The author continues: Continue reading

Fact Checking Feminist Claims About False Rape Accusations: Part 1

This blog began 14 years ago, and while I have not posted often in recent years, I think my posts serve as a time capsule of modern feminism. Specifically, one can go through my posts and see how feminists slowly change their arguments about men’s issues. Back in 2005, feminists resoundingly rejected the notion that 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18. Part of the reason I started a blog was due to feminists moderating or banning me for mentioning that statistic. Yet today one will find some feminists slinging that statistic around,quite conveniently forgetting, even denying, they ever rejected it. One might even find feminists presenting it as if it were discovered via feminist research (it was not).

A similar happens with domestic violence against men. Feminists rejected statistics showing that men represented more than 5% of the victims, yet now one will find some feminists citing the very studies they previously dismissed. In both cases, the most notable element is the feminist acceptance of the statistics appears to have little to do with feminists genuinely believing the statistics to be accurate. It appears they accept the statistics due to the general public accepting the numbers. However, when one follows their conversations, one will find feminists slipping back into dismissing male victimization rates.

The feminist narrative that “women have it worse” remains intact. It appears that feminists accept the new statistics on the condition that the rates for female victims are always higher. Should someone present research showing an equal rate of male versus female victimization, feminists will reject that notion. Should someone present evidence that males experience more abuse than females, feminists will reject that notion. Should someone present evidence of an equal rate of female versus male perpetration, feminists will reject that notion. The research will be dismissed as an outlier or a deliberate misrepresentation. Of course, feminists continue to deny any harboring bias against men or male victims, and will not accept any suggestion or evidence of feminists actively subverting efforts to help male victims.

This is precisely what feminists did when I started this blog. The only difference between 2005 and 2019 is the general public’s changing attitude towards male victimization and their rejection of the feminist narrative. Granted, all feminists do not adhere to this. Plenty of feminists still reject any suggestion that 16% of boys are sexually abused or 30% to 40% of domestic violence victims are male. It is simply that they are more likely to catch flack should they do it now.

However, one can see feminists go right back to their typical script once one mentions a topic they despise. For example, false rape accusations. Continue reading

Asia Argento, victim blaming, and #metoo

The plot thickens with the Asia Argento situation. As I mentioned in my last post, former child actor James Bennett accused Argento of raping him just two months after he turned 17. Argento and Bennett now 22, settled out of court. The settlement occurred while Argento made news when she accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of rape.

Argento initially denied the allegations against her. However, within a few hours the media reported that Argento claimed her late husband Anthony Bourdain pushed her to settle the case with the alleged victim.

How unfortunate that Baourdain is no longer here to respond to such a claim. Granted, it is possible that he made such a suggestion and it is common for celebrities to pay out settlements rather than risk unwanted criminal cases and negative press. It does seem unlikely, however, that Bourdain would make such a suggestion if Argento could prove she did nothing wrong.

If it only ended there, Argento would merely look scuzzy for tarnishing the reputation of her late husband. TMZ, however, published texts allegedly from Argento about the incident. According to the texts, Argento is the victim: Continue reading

Catholic Church Had a “Playbook for Concealing the Truth”

Shortly after I posted my last article, news broke concerning a Pennsylvania grand jury’s findings on the Catholic dioceses in that state. According to the report, the Catholic Church had an established policy of covering up the sexual abuse of thousands of children. This was not merely shifting abusers for one parish to another, but also using deceptive language to obscure the nature of what happened. From the New York Times:

Special agents from the F.B.I.’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime reviewed evidence collected by the grand jury, the report says, and identified a series of practices that were regularly used by the six dioceses to cover up reports of abuse.

“While each church district had its idiosyncrasies, the pattern was pretty much the same,” the report says. “The main thing was not to help children, but to avoid ‘scandal.’ That is not our word, but theirs; it appears over and over again in the documents we recovered.”

That the Church kept detailed records like this is astounding on its own. Yet the scale of the nature, the language used, and the clear lack of concern for the victims is unreal. I will post section from the report used in the NYT article in full: Continue reading