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.
@CurlyWurlies4All @Fleur_ @Fishnoodle after reading all the comments here, only 1 person commented on the what I think is the reason they published this article.
The fact that social media influencers are driving a wedge between boy and girls.
And the solution…
That attitudes can be changed with education shifts, and some success is being had in Australian schools.To me the article was to deliver the message. Social media for kids is bad. Changing the curriculum is a good thing.
How many of them believe that everyone lies?
“women lie about DV…”, will go both ways. You will also find some that are in those conditions and will not tell others or even try to hide it (for what reasons, I can’t really tell).
Until we know about the actual wording of the survey, there is no way to tell what exactly they are interpreting.
I also have a feeling that the people who conducted the survey, might be misinterpreting the answers.Yeah I’m curious how it was asked.
Cause of course women get abused that 100% is true, but there are definitely some women who lie about it. How many? Who knows. I would like to say only a few but I have no data to support it, I can only say it’s most likely non-zero.
the banner photo has them looking like thugs, so you think the article has a slant about how young men are evil blah balh.
the entire article is a frames itself as ‘awareness of evil young men’ piece and equates young men ‘not being feminists’ to be alt-right.
It’s a trash sensationalist article, drumming up gender war bullshit and fear. I have two young nephews, who basically refuse to date because their experiences with women have been so full of drama and misery they decided to just give up. They are 16 and 17. They aren’t feminists either. They’d rather game whit their friends and play sports because it’s rewarding and fun, dating for them has been miserable and exhausting and depressing because the girls they know incessantly lie and cause drama and try to cause fights.
I feel bad for them because when I was their age, there was no social media an dating was fun. They live in an age where teenage girls basically think all men are trash for not driving Bentley’s or whatever nonsense they follow on social media. There is a lot of toxic content aimed at women that is just as awful as the manosphere, but nobody is talking about pointing out horrible sexist content that is for women is ‘misogyny’
I’d say a truly equal condition would be when the women feel like they have the freedom to not date anyone. But due to how expectations work, I feel like that would be hard to happen for anyone in that age group.
I have found it, in general, rare for people to get to live their life by their own thoughts and not be swayed by fads in media. At the same time, that is one trait I consider important for anyone to not have to regret their decisions.
nobody is forcing women to date. what the hell are you talking about?
men and women both have social pressure to be in relationships, they also want to be in them.
however, what is different about things these days is it’s way easier to be alone than tolerate being with a shitty miserable partner. I actually have same complaints with dating as my 17 year old nephew, that my choices are be happy alone, or be miserable with someone who hates their life/friends/family and wants to make me suffer too. we’d both love to date someone who is happy with their life, but we don’t meet anyone like that.
we’d both love to date someone who is happy with their life, but we don’t meet anyone like that
Yes. That’s pretty much how it is for most.
But their expectations from relationships also get shaped by the expectations on them. And here I realise I am just saying the same thing as you, just in different words.
sort of, but you are pointing out one of the biggest problems with the whole thing. Also in my experience, it’s that people’s expectations of relationships are so far out of whack with the reality there really is no point in trying anymore.
And I’ve noticed this a lot. Most of my dates now expect me to make a 500K salary or something and think anyone who doesn’t is ‘not worth their time’. It’s an absurd expectation born of defensiveness and seeking fantasy escapism, rather than real connection. And they fill up their lives with social media and consumerism and broadcast that they are so happy on the outside, but they are miserable on the inside because they have no real connections and their external ‘standards’ they are a requirement for ‘happiness’ just prevent them from actually making real relationships. And they justify a lot of that by claiming that others expect perfection of them so they should expect perfection of others. It’s so… fucked up and self-destructive. But if you bring it up… if you challenge the idea that you can be happy without a 500K income… they go ballistic on you for ‘having no ambition’ ‘being a loser’ etc.
My other favorite thing to do on dates sometimes, is to say something like "I think people are the most beautiful when they wake up and their hair is messy and groggy and they stink a little bit’. It really fucks with these types of people, because for them being a human being who is messy and imperfect is like the thing they are desperately trying to avoid being.
Where are you even getting this? This is a deranged reading of this article.
Cite one part of this that is framing one gender as being essentially evil. It’s very clear that it is recognizing a troubling trend vs condemning a gender. You’re clearly reacting to something that isn’t in this article.
The picture, as stated in the comment you are replying to.
The picture isn’t about evil hooligans, it just looks like teenage boys to me. The black mark drawn over their faces is not that they are fundamentally evil because of their gender, the background shows the influencers who are putting mysoginistic ideas, signified by a black mark, onto these boys. This is clear going by the text of the article. It isn’t even in the subtext of the picture. Youre reading that into it
Really? So where are the 21% of young women in this picture? Are your media comprehension skills so poor that you can not see any gender focus on this article at all?
“Support for violence to resist feminism was highest among adolescent boys (28%), followed closely by adolescent girls (21%).” This is not even a wide spread and this article is a hit piece about a real issue that is very much made worse by this sort of coverage.
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.
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.
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.
the problem with gender crap like this is people typically have their own frame of reference of one sex is bad, the other good, and interpret everything through that lens.
they fail to see that either sex can be shitty. and that gender war stuff just reinforces and inflates people’s generalizations about the other sex. 10 years ago people didn’t think this way other than extremists… now it seems the majority of people have adopted extremist sexist positions thank to social media shit.
i blame identity politics. people see each other as a gender first and foremost, and forget that gender is just one aspect of life and that everyone is a person.
Yeah, that’s why it’s called a “gender war.” But if you criticize it in the wrong spaces, you’ll have a dozen feminists jumping down your throat about how “there’s no gender war! That’s just made-up manosphere propaganda!” While they go on making generalizations about men, and if you say that’s a generalization they’ll go “nOt AlL mEn!!1!” sarcastically as if they’re making a point.
But that only applies when you talk about “gender war” in the context of criticizing misandry and generalizations about men. If you bring up “gender war” to criticize misogyny and generalizations about women, in those same spaces, you’ll get those same feminists commiserating with you and saying things like “I feel that, sister, men are such evil swine!”
It’s pointless, and yes, social media directly contributed to this radicalization, polarization, and normalization of extremism over the past decade or so.
I hold that people are people and sex/gender doesn’t matter. So basically everyone hates me. I love it.
Everyone just wants to use their ‘victimhood’ to be a shithead these days.
Yeah, it’s “choose a side or else you’ll be treated like you’re on the other side.”
Socially-enforced campism, basically. In my view, extremists on both sides are deplorable. Misandry and misogyny are both wrong, and saying that doesn’t make me a hypocrite.
But I’ll never win the oppression olympics, so why would I even try to compete?
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.
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!!
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.
Were there consequences for the accuser?
I had an accuser in college who got kicked out after she accused multiple other men and it was investigated and the cops got involved.
The reason she accused me is she came on to me and I rejected her. So she told people I sexually harassed her and tried to force he to have sex with me.
I haven’t had any other accusations like that in my life, thankfully. But I have had dating encounters where I either rejected a woman sexually, or simple didn’t want to have sex with her that night, and she became hostile and made threats, including saying she would report me for sexual assault.
The scariest one was a woman I went on a couple of dates with, thought was cool but she got really really like falling down drunk on one of our dates and she insisted on coming home with me. I ended up just putting her to bed on my couch. The next morning she was gone, and send me this crazy nasty texts about how if I was a ‘real man’ I’d have raped her and she is going to post all about me on the internet because she knows my name and address (she actually didn’t know my name). Even when you do the right thing as a guy, for some women, it’s the wrong thing because you didn’t rape her and she feels rejected.
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.
men aren’t people to feminist organizations. they are only sources of evil, so if bad things happen to them then they deserved it anyways. there are many feminists who basically think ruining innocent man’s life is a ‘noble sacrifice’ men have to endure as long as rape exists and innocent men are guilty by association of allowing other men to rape women…
Too many perpetrators go unpunished, unfortunately one side of the equation has a much larger multiplier than the other,
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.
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.
It isn’t making anyone less radical, thats for sure.
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
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.
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”.
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.
it means beat the shit out of people for having different beliefs than you. or maybe socially shun, isolated, and shame them.
here on lemmy most of the userbase is totally on board with violence and harassment of people who have different beliefs than them… if you haven’t noticed.
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?
I’m a man and I’ve been hit by several partners. both long term and short term. I’ve also been threatened with violence and legal action. I also had one partner try to provoke me into violence to ‘prove’ I loved her.
i end the relationship when it happens, but it certainly happens.
many people see absolutely nothing wrong with female on male physical violence. the most frrequenty response I get if someone learns about it is ‘what did you do to deserve it?’ followed by ‘well you must have hit her first, women don’t hit men unless they hit them first’.
I’ve had maybe 35+ partners in my life, and at least 20% were violent. it’s not common, but it’s not rare.
Oh I don’t doubt that it happens, but I interpreted it as “everyone gets hit in a relationship” and that seemed shocking to me.
I’m glad you don’t put up with that. No one should be abused by their partner, physically or otherwise.
domestic violence rates are pretty high man. a quick google says 1/4 women ad 1/7 men experience it.
https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html
I’ve also been stalked twice! I feel like I hit the domestic violence bingo, lol
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.
Absolutely, I was so frustrated that I couldn’t find the data. They didn’t show their working so all I have to go on in terms of believing them is their reputation.
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.
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.
Right so that’s who did the research but it doesn’t show the results or their methodology. These are super important things to know!
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.
deleted by creator
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
Read the comments in this thread, read this:
“Social research has shown boys and men increasingly feel alienated, humiliated or uncertain about their place in the world.”
We just need to call young men stupid one more time guys and gender equality will be achieved. No wonder they feel they’re being lied to.
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.
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.
what qualifies as a misogynistic belief? we have to be clear about that.
in 2026 there lots of people who think and argue that women and men having equal rights is misogynistic. like i believe that, and i say that, and i have had people in real life, tell me I’m a misogynistic piece of shit for thinking that. because their POV is that women deserve more rights than men, either to ‘right history’s wrongs’ or because they think women are inherently disadvantaged/inferior to men and must be ‘boosted’. or see trans rights, as misogyny.
Training boys to be douchebags is why this is happening.
Yeah they’re being courted by the far right because the far right aren’t calling them idiots. Really not that hard to grasp.
The far right are calling them idiots which is the weird thing. You ever pay attention to how those influencers speak to them? They basically neg these kids.
Good point, I would be interested in learning more about that. I feel like it may be because the insult is always a precursor to their actual message. For example “you’re a loser with no girlfriend, but it’s because women only respect alpha males. Here’s how you become one…” It uses their insecurity to sell them misogyny and right wing ideology. I think that’s structurally different to and mentally easier to accept than how a man might be insulted from a left wing perspective. Example: “you’re a loser with no girlfriend because you’re an incel who hates women.”
Objectively the left wing one is closer to the truth and heeding its advice would be more likely to socialise them and put them on the path of finding love and companionship, but it’s pretty obvious to see which of the two a young inexperienced and insecure man would be more likely to follow.
I think your intuition is 100% right, there. It’s always easier to hear “it’s not your fault” and they know this.
I see. They are douchebags because people observed they are douchebags. That makes sense, if you are a fucking moron. The real test is to determine if me pointing out that you are a moron has actually turned you into one.
Well, reply so we can see.
People who are treated like outcasts behave like outcasts. The judgment becomes self-fulfilling.
The solution to this problem is inclusiveness and socialization, not further judgment and ostracization.
Its not anyone else’s job to fix you.
There’s an old saying: “the child who does not receive the warmth of the village will burn it down to feel warm.”
The absolute audacity to vilify people/put them on blast constantly (bonus points for single mothers and having worse raising outcomes than single dads e.g.) and then act all high and mightly and demanding they “pull themselves up by their boostraps”.
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.
How very American of you.
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.
If you didn’t think I was already a moron why would you call me one? Are you really incapable of seeing how difficult it is for me to engage constructively with your argument while you are constantly interweaving it with personal attacks? I couldn’t ask for a better example of how calling people dumb makes it hard for them to engage with your ideas. Again, no wonder young men with no experience are being entrapped by the far right.
Yes, this is a stupid post because it was made by a person that was called a moron, not because it was made by a person that is actually a moron.
Yes, this is a stupid post
I gotta respect the self report
What are you even talking about mate?
I think they were projecting a lil
‘Teenage boys should get to say wildly misogynistic things with no social repercussions’ is absolutely not how you wind up with men who have normal relationships with women.
Or…. ‘Teenage boys repeating the lies they been told by only group not shaming them for existing.’
They are victims of the circumstances, but because they are male, too many people act like its it’s okay to blame them.
Who said that?
Some moron on lemmy.
today’s letter is M, for Moron
apparently
It’s the same guy using it every time, dude needs to learn some new words.
Link?
Its easy to find. Click on your username. Go to “comments,” its probably three or four down.
Nice, if it’s real easy to find you should have no problem doing it then. Good luck!
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.
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 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?
I genuinely question if this is some sort of trend and not just how it has always been.
Cuz 40% of teenage boys being idiots seems kind of timeless. Definitely lines up with the numbers we’re seeing in adult men.
Right from the start I will state I know the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence. But I have a friend who has given up teaching year 11/12 athletic development and now teaches grade 7 pe. Primary reason is the mysoginistic shit she had to put up with from the boys who felt their gender made them better at anything sports related than her. She would compete in triathlon in her spare time with all the training & commitment that entails, and yet the podgy, vaping 18yo man children would tell jokes with each other about how she should go back to the kitchen “where she belongs”.
When we were discussing this amongst a group that included 3 other female teachers every one of them agreed they are seeing more of that sort of crap every year. My guess would be all the Manosphere brainrot is having an effect. Couple that with kids around that age feeling the urge to be as edgy as possible…
I have noticed once or twice that my sons have started talking that way due to a combination of online and peer influence and I have stepped in to disabuse them of the notion that their chromosomes make them special or superior. But it’s the world they live in and I pity the kids without a parent who is keeping any eye on them.
Thank you for being the kind of parent the world should have more of. Kids are dumb but curious by nature, and need a guiding hand to direct them away from misinformation, propaganda, and other toxic things they have no way to discern from truth before they have the experience to tell them apart.
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.
You’re right. I guess I was just following the same train of thought as the whole, “There were not less autistics before the internet.” logic.
I only have male friends who teach but they all agree that critical thinking and cognitive function in general have plummeted. And we’re in Canada!
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.
No, I just question the methodology and the message they’re trying to send
It would have been really great if they linked a detailed breakdown of the information gathered in the article. Swear to god every article that says “we did a study” never show the fucking study. Like come on let me see the data.
deleted by creator
Normally Conversation articles link to the study in question, but this one hasn’t been published (yet). Not sure why the editor(s) didn’t just wait for that first. I agree that it’s lacking detail/context and feels a bit incendiary without it.
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.
Like come on let me see the data.
It’s probably paywalled eh.
If it is I wouldn’t be able to find out because it’s not linked to in the article .
I don’t follow
Our research: In our recent national survey of Australian adults and adolescents, we examined general misogynistic attitudes and support for violent extremism.
Not sure if this is what they’re referring but am also curious how this survey was conducted.
For example the question “do you believe women lie about DV/SV”. As someone who had a parent lie about related matters, I could answer yes, but is that what the question is actually asking? It seems to be asking if women, in general, lie about them. Obviously, no they don’t, but you can see how a question especially when posed to teenagers may lead to responses easily sensationalised by a news outlet. The inverse of this questions seems to be “do you believe women never lie about DV/SV?”
There’s a reason self reported surveys are a nightmares for academics to use for meaningful data. Worth pointing the rest of the article has a lot of valid and concerning material that isn’t somehow magically undone by the articles research methods.
Regardless thanks for the solid explanation.
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?
I don’t think that a poll which indicates that one in five girls supports violence to resist feminism should be interpreted without any reservations, as this article seems to be doing. The number of adolescents who support endorsing violence in order to mess with uptight pollsters is apparently quite high…
As for lying - it’s a matter of fact that people, including women making accusations of serious crimes, sometimes lie. Maybe there’s more to that question than is presented in the article?
Just a reminder that this is a summary of an academic paper by a reputable university.
In our research, we differentiate between interpersonal experiences, anchored in close relationships, and intergroup conflict that has generated a sense of “us” versus “them”: men versus women. We then examine how this intergroup social conflict is driving radicalisation.
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.
I’ve had the lies bestowed upon me twice. So I can vouch 100% to this being a truth.
Okay so what are the real numbers on what proportion of women lie about domestic or sexual violence? What proportion of claims are fabricated?
The evidence presented to the South Australian Royal Commission found that false reports of sexual or domestic violence are rare, likely under about 5% of reported cases, and the Commission treats the belief that false allegations are common as a misconception not supported by research.
So if we only have a yes/no response available for the question “do women lie about domestic violence?” the answer is… yes.
We haven’t seen what the study actually asked or the options they allowed for in the response.
The article is worthless without being able to review the actual study.
If there was a modicum of honesty in the study design, it would have five or so options:
-
Yes, all do
-
Yes, most do, but some don’t
-
Yes, about half do and half don’t
-
Yes, some do, but most don’t
-
No, none ever do
So you can see how misleading a simple “yes/no” can be, and that really puts into perspective why people are taking issue with the murky methodology, and what those who take the bait are really falling for.
Of course, even with more robust multiple choice, there are still many pitfalls, such as:
- Does this include women who lie to hide actual abuse?
- Does this include women who are the abuser in the relationship and lie about it?
- Does it also ask about whether men tell the truth about dv/sa, in cases when they’re the victim or the abuser, and in cases when the allegations are true or frivolous?
And probably more that I haven’t thought of. So there are a lot of variables, and if they only included the one leading question then it’s just ragebait really shouldn’t pass peer review (unless all the reviewers are afraid to critique it!) And the journalists reporting it (coincidentally the authors of the study) are being quite dishonest either way.
-
That’s up to 5% of reported cases. How many false accusations actually make it to a formal complaint, rather than simply circulating the rumor mill? If your intent is character assassination, you wouldn’t expose your accusations to scrutiny by bringing it to court.
Also, 1 in 20 is a huge number when you consider how many reported cases there are. That is by no means “rare.” Quite common, actually.
But remember, believe all women (disbelieve all men who are denying the accusations).
Yeah, people need to understand that a false accusation of that sort can fuck you for your entire life. Some people say “well you deserve it,” because the assumption is that if you got accused then you did something to deserve it. Let’s see how that mentality ages when the fascists take over and start their purge by accusing all their opponents of whatever nonsense they can think of.
People will point to famous examples of men who escaped accountability (for actual crimes, mind you, not false accusations), and say “it didn’t destroy his life!” Well, yeah, cause that person is rich and famous, well-connected and powerful. Those ones always evade accountability.
I’m not talking about the too-rich-to-go-to-jail criminals running the country. I’m not talking about the kavanaughs or the trumps or the weinsteins.
I’m talking about the average, ordinary dude who has to work for a living but can’t find a job cause everyone in town has heard the rumors. I’m talking about the dudes who barely have any friends as it is, hardly anyone to vouch for them, and those who do slowly turn their backs as his cause seems more hopeless by the day. I’m talking about the nobody-class loser whose picture winds up on a secret facebook gossip group or on tea or wherever else and gets absolutely slandered and libeled by clout-chasers or dare I say petty retaliators for any perceived slights.
These people don’t have weinstein privilege or kavanaugh privilege or any other kind of privilege coming to save them. These people have their lives ruined, with no hope of redemption even after it comes out that the accusations were frivolous. Cause is anyone really going to trust them again?
Under 5% is not rare. Certainly not rare enough to justify the comments in this thread.
5% is insanely high, I expected much lower 💀
I don’t think I’ve seen a study with solid methodology break 5%, and it’s usually in the 1-2% range.
I think the 1-2% number is proven false allegations. That’s a much higher bar.
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?”
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.
