When we hear about there is a rise in misogyny, we should consider the authors of that… Remember – this is the study that ultimately gave rise to the “Dear Colleague letter” and the very unbalanced campus tribunal thing
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-campus-rape-myth
It was a very deliberate choice to sow fear, distort. I remember reading about this many decades ago (long before this) because someone had passed me a bit on stats and their abuse. I read Koss’s methods around this decades ago (the 90s) and I was stupid enough to think it would go nowhere. This it so clearly broke so many basic requirements of basic statistics analysis that it was hard to get past her sampling methods (passive sample, ie self – selected) without seeing the what should have been laughably obvious choice to distort. This without the assertion that the “victim” was a victim despite their own views, and that single drink made them unable to be responsible for any choice, and then without any control for the possibility of the choice having been made – prior to the drink. There is no way, that this honestly passed any serious academic review. Despite that it was quoted uncritically and amplified endlessly.
There were people who repeated this work – gender reversed… to show how ridiculous it was, and how it came out the same the other way (of course it did, people went to the bar – knowing that other would be there, in order to get to that point… and of course had the drink… so…)
Now we need to consider the way – “rape” has been used, and defined where it excluded the possibility of male victims (remember in the US – criminal code until 2013 – required the victim to be female – and even now is forced penetration – where the victim has to be the penetrated party. That has meant a man coerced into sex is excluded as a possible victim of rape. However, pointing to the possibility of male victims – has been misogyny, while it has been loudly asserted that “women don’t rape men” the notion that this was definitional – was never permitted discussion. The inference was taking advantage of the certain knowledge it was true – because it was definitional. However, since only rape could be discussed – this in effect means that female predators were being deliberately excluded from discussion, and in effect as a result protected.
It is – that the voices of Erin Pizzey and Michelle Elliot were screamed down by loud “feminist” women… such that what Pizzey could speak to first hand with regards to abuse was buried, and in the case of Michelle Elliot – the reality of the gendered myth around no woman would – was a dangerous lie.
Now- there is a dangerous combination – we have denied misandry where it was clearly out in the open. CAFE was loudly labeled a misogynist hate group because of a billboard – that was a direct quote from the 2014 Stats Canada GSS. Odd, how we think that it is not misandry to train police to assume it will always be the man, and that will not distort the arrest records.
Odd how that is not understood to be misandry where the raw data from question that actually asks men and women the same questions, has women asserting they initiated – as or more often. Odd that it is not understood to be misandry – to have it be only standard practice to review women and girls for signs of dv, as part of admittance to hospital procedures, as though that would not distort findings. Or the assertion that nursing, heavily dominated by women, could not be subject to bias…because it is women.
It is not that there are female abusers or pedophiles that is the issue, it is that pointing to there existence has been endlessly asserted misogyny, and people have been so willfully blind. More importantly, that it has been misogyny to suggest that there are female perpetrators, where the research that supports this has been so clear. Misogyny has been so abused for so long – that it has no meaning. It continues to be used where it is merely pointing out truth.
So, might it be misogyny, to associate young women with a hysterical feminism their mothers failed to reject… sure. However, we might want to consider acknowledging the reality of what has been done, what protections has been extended female predators, and abusers, and who created that protection.
One has to ask – why is it critical to hold men to account – as opposed to predators? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc6aJC46Q8
One has to ask – why is it – his abuse is part of a patriarchal conspiracy, but hers is innocent ? Who actually suffers in-group preference – so clearly asserted to be among men – by patriarchy theory? Those who continue to use “patriarchy” where they are trying to create a new meaning as just “the system”, without acknowledging the meaning, or how it has been used, are doing what? One has to ask, why does one group get to redefine terms on the fly, without acknowledging the past, or the error that was? Why use the same term? Why today – do we hear how men are also the “victims of patriarchy” but the things so often listed are very much the result of feminist policy and choices? Men also being victim of domestic or sexual violence… yes, but who screamed that even suggesting this was misogyny? What is the effect of pretending that this was a neutral thing?
I would ask, is this not just older women, who fell for feminist lies, trying to pretend it was not them? Is this not just these women trying to avoid accountability, that are making an active choice to destroy their daughters and granddaughters credibility, by pretending NOW and like organizations are part of the patriarchy – while redefining – the institutions they created to attack men, are just part of the “system” that they are in effect blaming on men (yes – that word patriarchy is a loaded term… )
evenhandedblog 