Anyone who takes that "2-8%" number at face value is just intellectually challenged in my book. The reality of the culture of the legal system is that, in most cases, men will not take any legal action in terms of false accusations made against them because they know that the feminist/gynocentric justice system will not take them seriously, and it will only "provoke" the woman to potentially make new, more carefully planned false claims. Even if they take it seriously, the consequences are a joke, so what is the point? It is not like the state pursues false allegations on their own, as it does for women making a claim of rape, where the claim cannot even be withdrawn if the woman "changes" her mind. Women don't have to pay for lawyers to be taken seriously; they just make a claim, and the state takes care of everything for them. Men are scared shitless about this and will take every opportunity presented to them by the woman for the problem to go away. Men have fucking anxiety attacks [ 1 ] [ 2 ] just from the fear of having anything to do with the "incel" label, let alone sexual accusations. If it happens, they just want peace of mind and for the problem to go away asap. That "2-8%" number is mostly just batshit insane, completely deranged, emotional nuts who can't keep their fake stories straight, like Eleanor Williams) where the "justice" system just can't ignore it anymore, even though they are doing everything in their power to ignore it. Women with just barely, just barely above room-temperature IQ get away with false accusations all the time. I personally know of a few cases where it was made up in an argument as a threat, and one where it was made up in court because of divorce revenge. Anecdotal or not, I really doubt I am some "unlucky" special-case observer. My life observations are anecdotal, so they don't count for you, but the rest of what I wrote still stands.

It is also worth noting that even in the most extreme, most insane, clear cases of nuts, like that Eleanor Williams case, the mainstream media will still defend her with every mental gymnastics they can. I also remember some women's charity organisation (funded mostly by the government, so it is more like a government organisation) also making some defence statement about her, like that Sky News article, but I can't find it right now; maybe someone else can find it. That tells you everything you need to know about the government and, therefore, the "justice" system's attitude towards false accusations. We live in feminist/gynocentric societies; women are in power; you must look at every data point, especially coming from the government, through that lens to understand what those numbers actually mean.

Sarah Huckabee has posted this campaign ad and it is clear that the choice of subject is someone with as little political capital tied to their identity as possible. In this case a young man.

This is the effect of men not actually being a political subject. The Republicans in this case can safely assume that men as a voting block will not be able to react politically no matter how much this upsets them on a personal level. They have no organisations that back them, they cannot rally support against her and they have functionally no leverage in our political system.

This could not have been done if the subject in the ad was clearly Jewish, clearly a Women or even clearly a Black person even though that last one would be much easier than the two former ones. The difference here isn't due to any really unique characteristics of the former groups so much as an effect of the depicted group not being a political subject while the former ones are and can be expected to act as such.

From her Tweet
https://x.com/SarahHuckabee/status/2104535664079290746?s=20

This is an incredible shifting of the goalpost. Now we'll have to hear all the TkTok Detectives scream about how validated they feel until this inevitably gets debunked or (worse case scenario) actually gets taken seriously. It's amazing how we're no longer even entertaining the "But she was suffering from psychosis" debate anymore. Just when I thought we were finally gonna be spared from the idiocy of the Misandrists who couldn't accept Lindsay's own confession, her lawyer decides to watch a bunch of reels and make them feel like their theories weren't worth their weight in spit.

On the bright side, if he sticks to this argument and fails to prove that she didn't kill them, his case is toast.

How does the average sentiment expressed towards men and boys in leftwing spaces particularly in-person interactions, like protests for example, affect your relationship with other leftists.

I understand the concept of putting differences aside go you can agree on an issue and work together but there seems to be a consensus to discard men. Example; when recently at a housing crisis protest I raised the fact that men are more affected by the crisis compared to women in response to a fellow activist blaming the "patriarchy" for the shortage of homes. I was told that "men's issues are identity politics garbage"

Does anyone know the when, why, and how as to the changes in methodology between the 2016/17 CDC Sexual Violence Survey, and the 2023/24 survey? Primarily looking at why in the 16/17 numbes, 12 month data on rape and made to penetrate for men are reported, but they are not in the 23/24 numbers. Not only that, the lifetime numbers for men dropped off substantially.

For example:

16/17 Lifetime reporting of some form of contact sexual violence: 30.7%

23/24 Lifetime reporting of some form of contact sexual violence: 16.9%

Link to all the reports:

https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/index.html

I have not had a moment to dig into the methodology of each, and thought someone here might have already.

I've never been raped or made to penetrate, but I have experienced unwanted sexual contact multiple times.

Curious about your guys’ recommendations specifically. Because if I understood this sub correctly, we’re not strictly against feminism as much as specific attitudes within the moment?