I'm a lady, and yes I would. Disrespectful to walk up to a stranger and hit them without a cause, I'd feel justified in retaliating.
1: Of course, take the figures with a grain of salt. But 'unsubstantial' doesn't get filed under 'false' as far as I know. They are only officially labelled false if she admits to it. If there are contradictions, etc, it goes under 'likely false, but we continue the investigation because there's a small chance she might be telling the truth after all'. They really *are* erring on the side of caution. They even take charges made by males seriously. (At least sometimes, nobody outside the police knows how many times they don't.) That doesn't mean they actually get the perpetrators of course...agrajagthetesty said:Ok, well unfortunately I can't read Dutch, so I won't be able to go over the sources directly. Thank you for providing more details about them, though - I'll make a few points in response to what you've said.
First, like I said, investigations from outside the police have demonstrated significant bias in their methodologies (for example, classifying unsubstantiated reports under the "false" heading), so I'd hesitate before trusting police stats that haven't been investigated.
Second, if the numbers refer only to teenage girls, it would have been better for you to specify that in your original post, rather than saying "claims of rape and sexual assault by women". (I may have misunderstood the situation here since I can't read your original source; forgive me if so.)
Third, somebody recanting or choosing not to press charges does not automatically mean that their report was false, especially if the complainant's decision is made directly after an intimidating speech implying doubt over their claim. This issue is actually addressed in the study I linked to: "many victims will recant when faced with apparent skepticism on the part of the investigator [...] Yet such a recantation does not necessarily mean that the original report was false" (on page 2).
And fourth, anecdotal claims aren't scientific, so your story about your sister and assertion that "it's very likely that it happens more often" don't count as valid evidence.
EDIT: Grammar fix.
Ok, I'm still highly suspicious about the 20%-false-charges figure (because of the bias I've mentioned and the fact that the number is 4 times higher than the average figure found elsewhere by thoroughly investigated sources) but I'm happy to move on from the point since neither of us are in a position to properly examine the evidence. But I'd really like to know more about how the 60%-false-claims figure was reached, because it's just so massive, beyond the scope of anything else I've heard (which is especially odd if they're so inclined towards believing the reports). And the only theory I can think of to explain that 60% figure is that a good chunk of it consists of the 50% who don't press charges after hearing the message about false reports. If not, I'd appreciate some more information about where the number does in fact come from.Eynimeb said:Of course, take the figures with a grain of salt. But 'unsubstantial' doesn't get filed under 'false' as far as I know. They are only officially labelled false if she admits to it. If there are contradictions, etc, it goes under 'likely false, but we continue the investigation because there's a small chance she might be telling the truth after all'. They really *are* erring on the side of caution. They even take charges made by males seriously. (At least sometimes, nobody outside the police knows how many times they don't.) That doesn't mean they actually get the perpetrators of course...
Actually, the investigations I've talked about reveal abuses of the system by police, not women! The report I've linked is by the The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, which certainly sounds like a women's rights organisation, but they seem happy to ask for proper investigation.You'll never be able to get police stats properly investigated. Such an investigation suggests women abuse the legal system, which goes completely against what is a politically correct and socially acceptable viewpoint. Women's rights organisations would be outraged, and demand it be stopped.
Ok, thanks.Hm, yes, you're right. Post edited. Sorry about that.
I certainly hope they take it more seriously, and from what I know of the country, I'm inclined to be of that opinion too. But nowhere is perfect, and intention doesn't guarantee effect. For a young girl, subjected to one of the most traumatic violations one can experience, hearing a speech about the crime of false reporting could easily cause her to back down - by suggesting that she won't be believed, discouraging her to proceed with a long and difficult prosecution, terrifying her with thoughts of repercussions if the prosecution isn't successful, and so on - even if the authorities intend to be neutral and not intimidate.You're right, it doesn't. But from what I understand, the Dutch police takes rape charges *much* more seriously than their U.S. counterparts. When they suspect a charge is false, they base that on evidence that points towards that, not the absence of evidence, and unless the person pressing the charges confesses to lying, they will err on the side of caution on her behalf. At least, that's what the articles say. The first speech is not intended to be intimidating, and their initial response always has to be neutral.
Your mention of "mainstream cynicism" seems from your original comment to refer to feelings stemming from resentment over women's alleged refusal to give up the benefits of benevolent sexism (chivalry, etc.). (Yes? Let me know if I'm understanding it wrong.) But I honestly don't think that's the cause for sceptical reactions to claims of rape. I think the reactions are due to something much older and more deep-rooted, something more resembling (though far less ugly, of course) the passage in Deuteronomy sentencing women raped in a city to be stoned to death for not screaming (22:23-4) - something that fundamentally distrusts and condemns women who make accusations of rape, and tends to make excuses for attackers. But we're well out of the range of stats and percentages here. We can agree that being automatically sceptical towards rape claims is bad, yes?If police officers are *not* neutral, and initially respond in a skeptical manner, then that's exactly the 'mainstream cynicism' that I mentioned, that would harm feminist goals. Keep in mind, this has been going on for a while. What we see now may be a reflection of all that's happened up to now, meaning we're not at all up to speed.
While I don't deny the existence of peer pressure in general, I think the implication that it exists in any serious way around false rape charges is somewhat absurd - for peer pressure to work, there needs to be an established culture of whatever the peers are pressuring towards, and I don't think there's evidence for that with false charges. I, personally, have never heard any woman advocate such a thing, and have only ever seen people condemn false charges. Obviously, that doesn't count as evidence either - but unless either of us runs into a real study on this topic, we're probably best sticking with a discussion of the numbers given by the police and other sources, since they cover issues rather more solid and easily defined than "peer pressure".My anecdote wasn't meant as actual evidence, I just wanted to mention that I have run into quite a few women who support making false rape charges for only minor material gains on the woman's part. These things do not happen in a vaccuum after all; peer pressure is one of the things that could normally keep people from doing overly stupid things.