'The Hunting Ground': Reaping Profit from Rape Hysteria
By Wendy McElroy - March 26, 2015

When the 'documentary' "The Hunting Ground" premiered at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, it was advertised as a "piercing, monumental exposé of rape culture on campuses." In fact, its objectivity and perspective have been systematically dismantled since then. The film is best understood as a volley in the campus consent wars now raging across North America. It is part of a manufactured and coordinated hysteria about campus rape that imposes a politically-correct agenda and strips accused male students of due process rights.

Peel back the panic and you will often find profit. Some PC advocates profit from the power and prestige that being a savior can bring. The New York Times article "An Unblinking Look at Sexual Assaults on Campus: 'The Hunting Ground,' a Film About Rape Culture at Colleges" (Jan. 25, 2015) quoted the Democrat Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, as declaring "[Y]ou're going to see it in response to this film. Believe me, there will be fallout." The article indicated that Boxer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) are pushing legislation that could ride into law on a wave of emotion created by "The Hunting Ground."

Political careers, administrative jobs, government grants, book and lecture contracts are just some of vast financial benefits that rest upon continuing the "rape culture" crusade on campus.

The Hunting Ground offers a rare glimpse into what may be a subtle "other financial benefit." The profit is not likely to come from box office magic. As of March 19, the revenue tracking site Box Office Mojo ranked the film at 60th in current ticket sales, with a total take of only $95,783 after a three-week run. Of course, the $500 licensing fee paid by each campus that runs the 'documentary' will soften the blow. The 'documentary' will be considered to be almost mandatory for screening on thousands of campuses; it will be immediately sponsored by Women's Studies Departments and other 'progressive' voices.

What is the subtle profit? It arises at the end of the 'documentary.' After heart-breaking and rapid-fire accounts of rape on campus, which offer no mitigating perspective, viewers are exhorted to "Take Action!" The "Take Action" button on the left-hand side of "The Hunting Ground" website takes a visitor to a page that reads, "Donate. THE HUNTING GROUND is proud to partner with NEO Philanthropy to ensure that your tax-deductible donation supports student-led campaigns, public education, policy reform, and prevention approaches."

NEO Philanthropy is a "transformative" foundation. Its media kit explains that NEO is "a national leader in innovative philanthropic solutions. We lead large-scale collaborative grantmaking funds on a range of social justice issues….to seek transformative social change." The organization focuses on four areas: the Four Freedoms Fund to promote immigrant and refugee rights; the Just and Fair Schools Fund to address discipline and bullying problems in K-12; the State Infrastructure Fund to mobilize the public on social, political and community fairness; and the Sunrise Intiative for Human Rights in the U.S. to "respond to some of the most serious human rights crises in this country's history." There is no mention of rape or sexual assault. There appears to be no track record on these issues.

The NEO site lists the organization's income for 2013 at $41,567,576 and its expenses at $38,578,027. Two income tax forms are disclosed – a 2012 and a 2013 Return of Organization Exempt for Income Tax. One of the expenses is explained; namely, the impressive salaries and other income benefits enjoyed by NEO officers. Two presidents are indicated. The 2012 form states that President Michele Lord received $272,269 over the year; President Berta Colon received $266,973, including over $90K from related organizations. The 2013 form states Lord received $251,769; Colon, $234,761. Five other officers listed made between $162,884 to $191,747 (p.63). More employees are introduced to visitors on the NEO site but their salaries are not disclosed.

The 2012 form discloses the many organizations that were funded by NEO along with the amounts disbursed (pp.29-53). The following are typical of the recipients listed under "Public Interest Projects":

Alliance for Justice: $200,000

America Votes Education and Action: $655,000

National Council of La Raza: $500,000

Project Vote: $50,000

Rock the Vote: $380,000

Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition: $310,000

The Voter Participation Center: $275,000

Voto Latino: $200,000

Overall, the emphasis is on immigrant rights, implementing social justice goals and getting out the vote. It is a fair assumption that NEO does not promote Republican candidates or ballot issues.

The most remarkable aspect of the recipient list, however, is the apparent lack of any grants to groups that focus on preventing rape or sexual assault. The names of recipient organizations drive this conclusion. A single grant to Planned Parenthood is as close as NEO seems to come to funding sexual health or safety. And, yet, the "Take Action!" cry from "The Hunting Ground" states that NEO ensures "that your tax-deductible donation supports student-led campaigns, public education, policy reform, and prevention approaches." Wouldn't that goal best be ensured by an organization with an established track record on sexual assault? There are many of them out there.

The 2013 form is similar in its disclosed disbursements; no apparent grants go to organizations that address rape and sexual violence, let alone rape on campus. The vast majority of recipients reveal that NEO has an entirely different focus. Only a few recipients have sufficiently ambiguous names to allow the possibility that they deal with rape in some manner.

No wonder the iconoclastic website SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) inquired after "the propriety" of "The Hunting Ground" being used to fund raise for NEO. SAVE asks, "exactly how much of movie-viewers' donations will be used to underwrite Michele Lord's excessive salary?" Or used by NEO to pursue partisan issues like immigrant rights? Or used by NEO to encourage people to vote Democrat?

Another question needs to be answered. If, in fact, NEO is using "The Hunting Ground" as a fund raiser, did NEO finance its development in any manner? Is there a connection between director Kirby Dick and NEO? The source of funding is difficult to uncover. Indeed, even how much the 'documentary' cost to make is something of a mystery. Mojo lists the budget for "The Hunting Ground" as "N/A." Other sources claim it was $1.8 million.

The possibility of "The Hunting Ground" being a fund-raiser for social justice causes unrelated to rape is disturbing. The 'documentary' is emotionally jarring. The New York Times article notes, "At the premiere here on Friday, audience members repeatedly gasped as student after student spoke on camera about being sexually assaulted." It leaves viewers in the sort of angry turmoil that not only drives legislation but also opens wallets. If the donations are going to a transformative grantmaker with priorities other than preventing rape on campus, then "The Hunting Ground" appears to exploit that issue and to do so for profit.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Your $50 Ticket to the “$100 Billion Pot Stock Bonanza”

The $100 billion marijuana industry is dominated by penny stocks…

With legalization sweeping the country, these penny stocks have already begun skyrocketing in price…

Take action TODAY, and you have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn a tiny $50 investment into an absolute fortune.

Click here to find out how.

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • H. Rearden

    Good work exposing this Wendy. It sounds like a scam to raise money for other causes while pushing this rape hysteria on college campuses.

    • Hey, HR. Thursday does not start without saying “hey” to you. I just got up from a late night session of work. I’m beyond cynical with these people. PC politics is a cash cow that rips off so many working people…it is a scam of monumental proportions.

      • Bill Ross

        wake up!:)

        • I’m here, Big Guy. Sometimes I wish I weren’t awake…but, then, I take a nap and the feeling passes. 🙂

          • Bill Ross

            just me being a jerk, sometimes my “ire” for elites leaks where not intended. Yesterday was “missing you”

          • Bill, if you suddenly vanished, I would really miss you, too. Life is a bit overwhelming right now. Brad and I turned off the phone, shut down our computers and had an “us-fest” last night that did both of us a lot of good. But, you know what? I look out my window and I see absolute evidence of Spring. Sometimes I need to pause in place and realize how incredibly lucky I am. Hell, all I have to do is look over at the fellow I’m sleeping beside to know that. Sorry to be so personal…but a lot of personal stuff has been happening this week. Give your partner a kiss on my behalf.

          • Bill Ross

            Always good to have fit company on “the road less traveled”. I am
            similarly “blessed” with my wife. She is also a very good in moderating
            my obsessions, pointing out “there are roses to smell”, in addition to
            thorns to avoid.

  • Peter M. Lutterbeck

    Soon it will become obvious that colleges for the male species only will need to be established. Male teacher at co-ed schools at the lowest now will totally disappear in a decade or so…men being accused are automatically guilty even if innocent…the extreme feminist movement has recovered from having gone too public in decades past and now are realizing their objectives in every conceivable niche of society. Unfortunately the male mind is too inert to counter this onslaught being made too appear grossly and ridiculously incompetent, incapable, dim-witted and hopelessly silly and largely irrelevant.

  • Bill Ross

    morning Wendy;

    I’ll happily trade the risk of being sexually assuaulted once by unorganized predators, who me and mine can personally defend from, extract reparations from versus a lifetime of being rape and pillaged by the organized predators of “our enemy, the state”.

    And, are you really surprised that this particular “social justice” organization has a “bait and switch” agenda and is an exception rather than the rule? Virtually all organized “charities” are top heavy with salaries, low on providing stated services.

    And, don’t forget, “rape hysteria” is just part of the “men are from Mars, women from Venus” meme striving for “inequality under law”, destruction of the family institution and ability of males and females to find common ground. to create the conflict that the system NEEDS to survive.

    • Good Friday morning to you, Bill. I was AWOL yesterday, as you may have noticed. A whole helluva lot going on at this end of the connection and I’m pleased to be back in front of my computer, chatting. It feels normal and it feels good. I am not surprised by the bait and switch, if that’s what’s happening (and, yes, I am being careful and legally prudent in my wording). What surprises me is the blatantness of the apparent scam. And, frankly, I am enough of a little prude in terms of morals to be thrown off balance by the thought of anyone making a profit from rape. I hope this reaches the mainstream media and some place like FOX or the Daily Caller runs with it in terms of investigating far more thoroughly than I am able to due to financial constraints. Thanks for the post, Bill. It is always good to see you here, waiting to say “hey!”

  • Brad R

    I’ve just visited the rating services charitywatch.org, charitynavigator.org, and the BBB’s give.org, and I can’t find a listing at any of them for NEO Philanthropy.

  • I think I will start a charity, sounds like a good business opportunity for me as self=appointed CEO with massive salary and benefits : )

    • Bill Ross

      The predator “benefit” societies appear to be doing well. How ’bout “warriors (unstated “barbarians”) for entitlements”, hasten the process and, profit by doing so?

      • Barbarian Entitlement has a nice ring to it : )

        • Brad R

          I’ve always liked F. Paul Wilson’s suggestion: “The Sedition Trust.” (From his SF novel An Enemy of the State)

          • Bill Ross

            I prefer Jorj X. McKie as a “Saboteur Extraordinary”, from Frank Herberts “The Dosadi Experiment” as a role model:


          • Brad R

            Allow me to recommend another Jorj X. McKie story, “The Tactful Saboteur,” from the Worlds of Frank Herbert collection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tactful_Saboteur

            Though I think my favorite story in that collection is “Committee of the Whole,” rather an ultimate expression of the maxim “an armed society is a polite society.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(short_story)

          • Bill Ross

            damn them for perceiving the danger and “merging” the genres of “Science Fiction” with “Fantasy”, to “muddy the REAL message”

            also “LIKE” this:

            Excerpt from Coventry, a Robert A. Heinlein short story, 1953


            The main character was unaware of “sticks and stone may break my bones, but, words can never hurt me” and punched someone in the nose for exercising free speech. He was convicted.

            The Covenent is not a superstition, but a simple contract entered into by those same revolutioniusts for pragmatic reasons. They wished to insure the maximum possible liberty for every person. You yourself have enjoyed that liberty. No possible act, nor mode of conduct was forbidden to you, as long as your action did not damage another. Even an act specifically prohibited by law could not be held against you, unless the state was able to prove that your particular act damaged, or caused evident danger of damage , to a particular individual.
            Even if one should wilfully and knowingly damage another, as you have done, the state does not attempt to sit in moral judgement, nor to punish. We have not the wisdom to do that, and the chain of injustices that have always followed such moralistic coercion endangers the liberty of all. Instead the convicted are given the choice of submitting to psychological re-adjustment to correct this tendancy to wish to damage others, or, of having the state withdraw itself from him, of sending him to exile.

          • Fritz Knese

            That was a good book! I also liked Smith’s Pallas or John Ross’s Unintended Consequences. The latter was an eye opener for me for it is written by a member of the gun culture which I am definitely not. I need to reread An Enemy of the State since I own it.

        • Bill Ross

          Especially since they are on the cusp of bearing “unintended consequences”, for being an impediment to collective pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness”, about to be thoroughly bitch smacked by the “unseen hand”.

        • Bill Ross

          @DB: post stuck in word censor state, here

          • Lyn Morris

            ….mine got stuck and thrown elsewhere to another article entirely, so I deleted all and rewrote afresh. All’s well that finally ends well! 🙂

          • Praetor

            Seems, you and I, can’t find the right words to express ourselves. In a world of oversight.:)

          • Bill Ross

            I’ll be the judge of “right”, as pertains to MY free speech and, interpretation thereof:)

            If unsure of my “meaning”, ask, don’t “assume”. That MEANS YOU, your dishonor.

          • Praetor

            Of late, I have had a few post, (lost in word censor), and, I have judged my speech to be true and respectful. If the world is to be free, all forms of communication should be allowed. But, as usual the overseer is judging from afar, if they wish me to write a book to explain every word and its meaning, I can do that. Agree!!

  • 2prickit

    Wow, what a great illustration: King Kong chasing Senator Boxer, both on surfboards; and then he nails her right on the beach: —it can happen anywhere! Any word concerning Campus Carry personal defense deregulation, especially for females?

  • Lyn Morris

    …seems to always boil down to que bono, doesn’t? Dang profiteering and they can’t even be honest about it. I really haven’t trusted organizations specializing in this or that ‘need’, but have and do give straight to the the one or ones in need. Thanks Wendy, again you bring out the facts we sometimes haven’t or can’t see right off the bat.

    • To nitpick a bit, I think it’s “qui bono”.

      Bad enough with these yearly United Fund rituals.

      • Lyn Morris

        ..not at all nitpicky….I spelled the sound. I’ll remember next time. Reminds me of my working-days; I always said NO THANK YOU to the folks coming around with the United Way signups!! Didn’t make me at all popular that time of collection-year.

        • Why am I not surprised that you did the right thing re: United Way, Lyn? Brad and I are active in local charities. There was one last week in which we were active. The family was having their heat turned off because of hard times, and their daughter was going to come home to a cold house after undergoing surgery. After a bunch of us pitched in and campaigned, their bills were paid. That’s the kind of charity I believe in. No 25% overhead going to a President and staff. Every dollar helping the people who need it. It takes a spine to stand up and say “no” to popular causes like the United Way. Well done.

          • Lyn Morris

            ..thank you Wendy. That is so neat…’local charities’, where you can see first hand the need and the results. Luv ya both!!!

          • Brad R

            Sssssh…you’re going to blow the “heartless libertarian” image! 🙂

          • Lyn Morris

            …oops! 🙂

          • Fritz Knese

            Lyn, so many of our social problems today are linked to organizations being way too big. Governments obviously, but many things that are basically good ideas when kept local get all screwed up going national or larger. It is one reason I promote self-sufficiency to whatever degree possible. I do not give to charities, but I will pick up many hitchhikers and give them a few bucks to help them out.

          • Lyn Morris

            Sometimes we encounter folks who may just need a hand UP…like the hitchhikers you encounter, Fritz. Having been young once (really!) and been ‘between’ jobs and shy a roof over my head, I certainly can relate when a young guy or gal even today comes to my door wondering if I have a few bucks to spare or some food til next pay day. That’s what life is all about….I think. 🙂

          • Lyn, there were acts of real kindness I received when I was living on the street as a teenager…not due to a drug problem but because my “home” was so violent that I was safer sleeping in churches than in my own bedroom. I think the difference between you and me and Fritz is how suspicious he is of anything “organized.” Come to think of it…as a teenager, I didn’t get any help from an organized charity, only from individuals. And, yeah, I was young once too. I’ll believe you if you believe me.

          • Lyn Morris

            Wendy…okay…I DO believe you! LOL Though Fritz may have trust issues with ‘organized’ or ‘large’ local charities, I’ll bet he’d be right there for family, friends, neighbors in trouble. And after all, isn’t that where ‘charity’ begins..with us individuals to individuals!

          • Fritz Knese

            I think that human charity is wonderful as an individual helping those around me as I can. I find most charitable organizations to be scam artists that take 90% of the money for “administrative costs”. I get suckered enough by my own kids without falling for scam artists!

          • It’s a lot of social pressure on the employees of all these company-based charities. Then the companies brag about how much the company gave, how many miles the company’s people ran, blah blah. Accountants account for it as a cost center but justify it to stockholders under the category “goodwill”. They get government funds and see if they can suck out some of that goodwill expenditure their way for their own causes. A lot of those causes are the same socialist causes of the billionaire foundations.

            I always beg out of the United Way collections. The worst was one company that always made a goal of 100 percent participation by the employees in their payroll deduction plan for those “charities”. I worked in missions but every cent went to our work and I never saw anything luxurious. I did sleep under the stars my first night with them (evicted maliciously by a jealous Pharisee) and later on a road trip once, under a tent one night, and so on.

            I LOVED it. “It is more blessed to give than to receive”. (Ayn Rand was wrong on that one, wrong, wrong, wrong.)

            Never saw any luxury anything (till me and my road trip partner were offered a bed at a Christian campground once, and even that was this stereotypical-like rich Jewish sugar-cane processor equipment salesman (pipe, beard and all) that showed us his motorcycle collection who convinced the camp superintendent to put us up. We got a sour comment from him about whether we would dirty the sheets, like we were hippies or something). Makes me smile to this day.

          • Brad R

            If you had rephrased it “it is more blessed to give than to take,” you might even have obtained grudging agreement from Rand.

          • She was a great wordsmith and hid her worst behind subtlety. In John Galt’s rant against God’s dealings with Adam and Eve in the Garden, in my opinion, she let slip a peek into her real motivations.

            Even in her championing of selfishness, though, there were two huge irrational jumps. She tried to bring motherly love under the “selfish” banner, for example, and even said altruism was selfish because it made the giver feel better. Logically that’s a veiled way of saying everybody’s selfish, and that in turn is a way to make somebody feel less guilty about being selfish.

            But Ayn Rand let loose cannon-sized blasts against “giving”.

            But defining every single thing under the sun that a human can do as selfish is the same thing as saying the word has no meaning at all, since there is no longer any way to distinguish it from anything else.

            I think Austrian economists like von Mises and Rothbard make no such determination (as part of the economics, anyway) but rather say rather realistically that there’s no way to make the distinction, all you can do is observe “human action”.

            But Ayn Rand, having made everybody feel better about selfishness or being selfish, goes on then to condemn charity outright, and rightly blame the cultural valuation of charity on Christianity and on God.

            Seeing that Ayn Rand was by no means stupid or lacking in logical faculties, it is impossible for me to avoid the speculation that her writings on freedom for capitalism –and of course selfishness– is subordinate to her blasts against God and against “charity”.

            But there is no way to avoid the God she hated, nor the laws of the universe he established. “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.”-Proverbs 21:13 The same book of books also says “Thou shalt not steal”. So the Bible is talking about voluntarism, but even though the free will he gave us leads to selfishness, He also made us to feel better when we help somebody.

          • Brad R

            Rand was not perfectly consistent about giving. In Atlas Shrugged, after Dagny crashes in Galt’s Gulch, Galt explains “there is one word which is forbidden in this valley: the word ‘give.'” Seven pages earlier (in my paperback) Galt explains the solid gold dollar sign on a pillar: “[Francisco] gave that sign as an anniversary present to the owner of this place.”

            I take a more Austrian view: humans act to fulfill their desires. So why do humans give gifts, and engage in charity? In part it is because of the emotional satisfaction you receive. Another aspect is the human capacity for empathy: you know how you would feel in that situation, and you experience discomfort at another’s hardship. There’s even a bit of rational self-interest: creating charitable institutions is a form of insurance, for the time when you’re down on your luck.

            It’s not necessarily a religious thing. I’ve recently learned that the rationalist/freethought community has been developing a concept they call “effective altruism,” to answer the questions of (a) how much should one give, and (b) how can that be most effectively given?

            But there is certainly wisdom to be found in the Bible. I was going to modify the previous quote in a more Randian direction: “It is better to give than to take, and better still to earn.” And I realized that this resembles the advice that it is better to teach a man to fish, than to give him a fish.

            But yes, Rand really disliked religion. My position (as an atheist) is, as long as it’s voluntary, I’m ok with it.

          • Ayn Rand’s hate for God went much farther than some dislike for religion. But back to the matter at hand..

            Jesus Christ was fully aware of the harm done by socialist giveaways that did nothing to help somebody straighten out. Two anecdotes from his bio:

            #1 After the miracle of the loaves and fishes, he slipped away from the crowd and put distance between the crowd and himself. A lot of the people in the crowd chased him down trying to make him a king! A king!

            Jesus told them forget it. He told them to their face that they sought him not because he did a miracle, but because “YOUR BELLIES WERE FULL”. The gospel account continues, “because he knew their hearts”. (They are fickle. When they saw that Jesus went meekly (in their view) to the cross, they demanded with the Pharisees that Pilate crucify him).

            Then there was the cheating tax collector Zacharias. Tax collectors were universally despised in Israel as from the conquering Romans. He repented when Jesus spoke to him and promised to recompense everyone he had stolen from four-fold (that was a law of Moses for theft restitution).

            One daughter of mine complained to me about preachers getting rich. I truly hate the hustlers of them –BIG percentage, maybe most–) that more than any atheist is capable of.

            I used it for a lesson. She likes vampire movies and TV shows still. I pointed out that she was part of the audience that made Hollywood producers rich that make such useless and to me poisonous brain-melting stuff. That there are others who value those preachers and provide the demand that they sell to.

            Then there are those who give their lives for others. I’m gone from full-time missionary work but in a way I regard helping bring Christians to realize that the Biblical approach to government is no human or human-mediated government, and realizing they need an attitude of “neither do I condemn thee” so they can have the chance to help people see genuinely that it is better to “Go and sin no more”. And also to help the open-minded and rational atheistic libertarians consider the Gospel without the God-hating vitriol fog.

          • Brad R

            Your last paragraph reminds me of this article, from a few days ago, by a conservative atheist: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/26/why-is-the-angry-left-so-angry/ I think you might enjoy it.

          • Lyn Morris

            …something about this federalist article rankles me a bit. Maybe it’s lumping of atheists, bible Christians, leftists/rightists as uniformly of one mindset within their ‘group’. It seems to me, IMHO, that the individual is lost in the lumping, a failure of quite a few ‘conservative atheists’, I think. I’ve come about full circle in consideration of altruism and egoism and the excesses on either side….and this turn about is due largely reading Norman Hultberg’s Golden Mean. The logic of Aristotle/St.Thomas Aquinas and Hultberg now has me examining just about everything I read. Whether it’s Ayn Rand or Mises….I want to know what the individual thinks, feels, acts… not preconceived notions of what a lumped mass is believed to think, feel, act. Make sense? Hope so.

          • Brad R

            I haven’t read Hultberg, but I take your point.

          • Lyn Morris

            …Brad R…you ARE an individual thinker, doer, actor, and from what I have read here at DB…you definitely are not a ‘lumper’! I would hope Trutherator would see the fault in the federalist link and NOT lump all atheists, bible Christians, libertarians and conservatives, but rather… without compromising principles, look to individual’s ideas and NOT the preconceived concepts that really don’t fit the realities.

          • Brad R

            Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to be “lumped” myself! I came to my views through reading Rand, and still have a bit of the objectivist within me, but there was a fair bit of Rand that I couldn’t accept, such as her hostility to religion. I myself have no belief in God — “I have no need of that hypothesis” — but I don’t think less of others who do accept that hypothesis, as long as they don’t try to force it on me, or view me as inferior because of it. A great deal of evil has been done in the name of religion, but so has a great deal of good, and I have no way of knowing how to balance those historical scales (or even if it’s possible, or valid). So I prefer to evaluate religious people as individuals, based on their own words and actions in the here and now.

            I’ve had few interactions with Trutherator here, but from his remark about helping “the open-minded and rational atheistic libertarians,” it doesn’t sound like he lumps all atheists in with Rand.

          • Thanks, it’s refreshing to see somebody with his perspective telling the truth.

            I used to be one of those leftist atheists, after all. I avoid fitting into the stupid stereotypes they have. Any of them may be one that can open to reasoning with a rational approach to the subject.

            If they’re insulated, they often get a real shock when they actually meet a real-world middle America Christian. Sandra Bullock spent several weeks living with the Tuohy family for the movie “Blind Side” and came away with a totally reversed idea about Christians;


            From that article…: Bullock recounted. “I told her it scared me because I have had a lot of experiences that haven’t been that great. But she was so honest and forthright. I feel I have finally met someone who practices but doesn’t preach. I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith.”

            Maybe that emboldened Angelina Jolie to make the movie “Unbroken” based on the book, and meet Zamperini himself. I suppose it was her that took out the explicit references to where Louis Zamperini’s forgiveness came from, that being his saving experience with Jesus Christ, but it’s a lot better than the usual subtle and often subliminal Christian-bashing from Hollywood. There are a few actors in the propaganda media that do hate Christ and use the ignorance of the others, enforced with ridicule and blacklisting, but they have to tiptoe around their true hate and use bad Christians as straw man surrogates to do the bashing by Pavlov technique.

  • RED


  • Praetor

    You just have to laugh, the directors name is Kirby Dick, really. These people are SICK. And they be Commies, and thief’s. This can’t go on much longer, are the people really that stupid. 43.5 million. I agree with Gregg, this is the business to get into, if you have the stomach for it. Maybe these Lady’s of Sleaze, figured this out, while living on campus, living out their baser fantasies with the boys and girls of the intellectual class that reside on the campuses of corruption. The best answer to this, don’t let your kids go to, college, it seems they will end up at Starbucks anyway.

  • Fritz Knese

    Wendy, I do not think the salaries quoted above will get much reaction as being a big motivator. No, most of these folks are probably like Obama, TRUE BELIEVERS. Sure they like money, but compared to most right wingers leftists are poor boys. What the left wants and has largely gotten is control. Money is a means to an end for them where for the right it is often an end unto itself. The so called rape culture is just a newer means of emotional control to promote the overall socialist agenda. I wish that both the right and the left were amenable to change by rational discourse. Unfortunately, in the real world I fear it comes down to guns and the willingness to use them. It depresses me a lot but I both observe it to be accurate historically and find it in line with human nature which is far more emotive than rational.

    • The money is also the bait, the “cause” is the hook. Just like the den of thieves in the national Capitol, they start to convince themselves that all that horse trading that benefits them is “good for America”. Some of them of course know they’re just thieves. I mean Insider Trading for them but not for the plebes.

      But the manipulators in the shadows and the very top of the heap there in the visible structure, they do know what’s going on. Seems like some of them just love what they think is the “power”, like Hillary Clinton. She wants to be seen as Queen, it wasn’t enough to be the ruler herself de facto during her husband’s term.

      • Fritz Knese

        When my dad was still alive I used to discuss with him if the politicians were actually crooks or just misguided idealists. He simply said, “Fritz, they are not that stupid”.

  • autonomous

    Once again, you have hit the nail on the head. When will people learn that swerving from precipice to cliff face is not productive driving? Driving on the road is the rational choice. Because male chauvinism was the order of the ages does not constitute a reason to turn to female chauvinism. Just abandon chauvinism already!

  • Bruce C

    Some random thoughts:

    First of all, I couldn’t help noticing the irony in the names of the characters involved in all of this: Michele Lord, Berta Colon, Kirby Dick. Are you kidding me? I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. These are like the classic “code” names from my Fraternity days. I wonder if a Richard Bag works for NEO too?

    Anyway, I wonder if the real work of the NEO will be like all the other “organizations” that purport to “fight against” one thing or another. They all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, if not encouraging it. Solutions are for losers if you’re paid to just complain and criticize and find evidence and reasons for even more support. Maybe that’s why there “is the apparent lack of any grants to groups that focus on preventing rape or sexual assault.” Maybe, instead, they actually support subversive things that create the psychological conditions of the rapist, rape-victim dynamic. Ironically, just having the shrill “feminist” POV institutionalized is enough to drive “normal” people insane. What a mess.

    Thirdly, perhaps the best way to foil this boondoggle – and others like them – is to address the (supposedly uniquely “American”) belief that money solves every problem. The knee-jerk reaction by disturbed movie viewers to open their wallets to relieve their pain (guilt) is a fundamental issue, and on many levels.

    Fourthly, although I’m sure there are some truly “good” charities, I don’t know which ones they are. Personally, I never give money to any of them. I tend to believe that they are all rackets just like the NEO that fund inflated “administration costs” and who knows what else. It’s funny that some (many ?)people believe that people who work for “non-profits” are genuinely honest and well intentioned. They wouldn’t trust a politician as far as they can through them by their hair, but they’ll trust a charity worker.

    • Hi there, Bruce C. I share your cynicism about charities and I address the “problem” by dealing only with local ones upon whom I can check. I hear the stories of and from people they’ve helped and I know where my money has gone. I’d give the money directly to the families themselves but I don’t want to be some sort of personal donor, some sort of lady benefactor. I’d rather remain anonymous. So the charity serves a good purpose. But, lord, when the money gets into the multiple millions…the crooks swarm.

      • Heywood Jablome

        A shameless plug for the Shriners, as no one except the doctors who deal with the childrens afflictions earn a salary, and the treatment is free, and families stay free in the hospital environs which are set up to look like a childrens playroom, to try and alleviate the fears that medical treatment brings to young children. In Canada in my partidular locale it is Shriners who actually absorb the transportation responsibilites to get families and their young patients to the Shrine hospitals. but I digress, I read this article with interest as I have a daughter working on a Ph.D in womens studies and some of the debates over social issues in our household become heated, as I have challenged some of her conclusions and research based on scientific method. In many instances the parameters of the social research cannot be made uniform due to human nature, as they would be if it were true methodological type of investigation with all conditions adequately taken into account. It does not help that I have another daughter with a Ph.D in Biology and a diametrically opposite view of social and political issues.

  • Jade Davis
    • Huh. I was not aware of this book, and I should have been. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

  • disqus_ArQv6e31it

    Why is it that nothing is done about the lying and the hysteria of rape? Yes rape happens and yes it is horrific. But is lying about the magnitude and demonizing men for political gain any better?
    How could the Wh!te H@use come out and use the 1 in 5 number when it has been debunked many times over? Do they listen to what ever they are told by feminists and do whatever they are told by feminists? Where is the analysis? Where it the due diligence to make sure the stats are correct before setting laws based on them? Shouldn’t truth and not debunked stats and hysteria be the most important thing when laws are developed and passed?
    I am sure it is too much to expect that there will be some retrospective analysis based on the Rolling Stone fiasco as that would be the correct and prudent thing to do.
    Oh and about the debunking of the 1 in 5.

    The rate of rape and sexual assault for nonstudents is 7.6 per 1,000, for students 6.1 per 1,000
    Rape and Sexual Assault – Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995–2013

    No, 1 in 5 women have not been raped on college campuses. The 1 in 5 has been debunked multiple times, but apparently the paranoia it causes is just too good to let facts get in the way.

    Here is an article that debunks the 1 in 5 women will be raped in their life time.


    Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand removes debunked sexual assault statistic from website

    The Rape Epidemic Is a Fiction U.S. Department of Justice
    Sexual assaults today are a third of what they were twenty years ago.

    From 1995 to 2005, the total rate of sexual violence committed against U.S. female residents age 12 or older declined 64% from a peak of 5.0 per 1,000 females in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 females in 2005

    Here is another rebuttal of the statistic from the Independent Women’s Forum – “the whole campaign is based on phony statistics. With phony numbers, you get phony statistics”

    It’s Time to End ‘Rape Culture’ Hysteria

    College Professor Bans Student From Class For His Views On Rape

    The Proofiness of the Politically Correct Rape

    Mens’ Rights vs Feminist Rape Culture explained using Puzzle Pieces
    A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

    The Rape Culture Hysteria
    A rape culture dogma has been created in North America by politically-correct (PC) feminists who claim sexual assault against women is a systemic problem throughout society. It does not matter that rape is a heavily punished crime or that the mere accusation of it can destroy a man’s career or life. Nor does it matter that both The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network – the largest anti-sexual assault organization in America – and the U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey (2008-2012) agree: The frequency of sexual assault has fallen more than 50% since 1993. The dogma of a rape culture is immune to evidence. http://www.dailybell.com/editorials/35905/Wendy-McElroy-The-Rape-Culture-Hysteria/

    DOJ Debunks WH’s Stats on College Rape, Will Media Report?

    The Biggest Math Story of the Year


    The great campus rape hoax

    Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by State by University and College, 2009d

    This woman discusses the rape culture hysteria and feminist lies about rape.

    Rape Culture Doesn’t Exist And There Is No Rape Epidemic

    The Rape Epidemic Is a Fiction U.S. Department of Justice
    Sexual assaults today are a third of what they were twenty years ago.

    Mens’ Rights vs Feminist Rape Culture explained using Puzzle Pieces

    • The 1 in 5 figure comes from the same place as the 10,000 “back-alley abortions” that Nathanson later said was just made up because it sounded like a lot.

    • GoldenBoy

      ” Why is it that nothing is done about the lying and the hysteria of rape? ”

      The answer is rather easy, actually.
      1.) Populism – It’s so easy to play on the heart strings of the people. Politicians and NGOs took a page from the playbook of religions and conmans and conjured up a problem then offered a solution. If you use the female victim card you can garner a lot of votes and money and attention and support.

      2.) McCartyism – If you are a rational person who respects facts and spends an extra minute questioning claims, thinking through arguments, looking into data then you can NOT speak out against false claims regarding rape, domestic violence, gender wage gap, or other feminist issues, because you’ll be instantly branded as a bigot or rape-apologist. All the statistics in the world can’t help you. The vast majority of the people will not consider the data and the arguments, they’ll just eat up the bullshit and brand you a monster.

      • What the Left did to McCarthy is a real good example of what the Left itself likes to call “McCarthyism”, actually. And it turns out he was right, whether or not they were right about him or not. (Not your fault or mine for not knowing that, there wasn’t any alternative news sources or Internet around at the time)

        Imagine the nerve, trying to out one-worlder globalists in the State Department! If they’d let him get away with his commie-hunting maybe we would not have had the masochistic pleasure of a Hillary Clinton haunting us for lo these 26 years!!!!

    • Thanks for the links, Disqus. Like many sites, the Daily Bell prefers not to include links in its articles…and for good reason. But it makes me value links in the commentary thread all the more. It is heartening that the rape culture hysteria seems to have reached a tipping point where sanity is being heard again. It will take awhile, however, as social justice warriors have institutionalized their perspective through laws and through academic, where many have tenure. But political correctness is starting to crumble. More accurately, it is imploding. Not soon enough for me.

  • Charlie Hurd

    Wow! Great journalism.

    • Thanks, Charlie. As I mentioned above, Instapundit picked up the article and so there is some real possibility of the situation receiving mainstream media attention from the more conservative venues. I hope so. I was very careful in how I phrased myself…but I smell a rat.

  • Wendy’s line in one talk makes the point. All this political push in the area takes the focus off the individual perpetrator who actually did the crime…

  • If there is such a “culture” then they should go back to separate boys’ and girls’ showers. Why mix them together and put it in their face with all those hormones blazing? They’re trying to drive them crazy maybe? Like Pavlov’s poor dogs?

    • I’m on it, Trutherator. Debunking the “rape culture” is what I’ve been spending my last few months on.

  • GoldenBoy

    Brilliant article. It’s a breath of fresh air.

    • Thanks, Goldenboy. I intend to be hitting hard on “the rape culture” and the ever-odious social justice warriors. I finally lost my temper. That’s a difficult feat to accomplish.

  • Welcome Instapundit readers. I was distracted all yesterday but I expect to be on duty at my computer most of the day. Cheers, Wendy

  • Brad R

    I haven’t done a detailed scrutiny of NEO Philanthropy’s tax filings — yet — but according to the pie chart on their web site, in 2013, 3% of their $38.6 million expenses went to “management and general”, and 4% to “fundraising”. That’s 7% combined, or $2.7 million — which is probably why they can afford to pay two presidents, a financial officer, and five directors a total of $1.36 million in compensation. I can imagine that other staff, rent, utilities, web design, etc. eat up much of the remaining $1.34 million.

    But…they also spent almost $6.8 million on “independent contractors” for “project management.” Clearly that’s not included in the 7%. If I add that to the $2.7 million, I get $9.5 million, nearly 25% of their year’s expenditures. That’s a lot of overhead for an outfit which is basically a conduit for money — they funnel money from donors to recipients.

    By contrast, CanadaHelps is an outfit that collects online donations for small Canadian charities. They take 1.8% of the donations to cover their costs. And they’re quite upfront about it on their web page https://www.canadahelps.org/en/why-canadahelps/our-fees/ — you don’t have to dig through tax forms to figure this out.

  • bo ure

    Excellent reporting, Wendy McElroy. Well done.

    • Thank you. I’m trying to have it picked up by mainstream media that has the funds and people necessary to run with it.

  • Gringao

    Seems like the usual Leftist SOP, burrowing like little weevils into an issue.

  • Storm

    As always a wonderful article. It is high time we got past the emotional distractions to see the man behind the curtain. The way that the money and careers are being made reminds of Al Gore’s effort on Global cooling.. global warming.. climate change. Create hysteria, feed it, label anyone who call for calm and evidence with some negative name, then profit, profit, profit.

  • Cromulent

    America has a serious problem with the rape hoax culture. Sad.

    • I think it has reached a tipping point. I think the rape culture is on its last gasp. I will wear a red dress and dance at its funeral.

      • Bewildered

        LOL! Poor Ray won’t be happy though !

    • Zolicon

      It is not only America that has that problem.
      On the other side of the world Rape is now a weapon of War.

      • Mr Happy Face

        Has always been a weapon of war, and in two ways;

        1. Actual perpetration of rape to incite fear in general population
        2. Claims that the enemies rape women, in order to dehumanize enemies and motivate soldiers

        Both aspects are particularly noteworthy however.

        In regards to the first; the actual perpetration of rape as a weapon of fear; it is far too often overlooked that by the time the raping starts, most of the men and boys have been brutally murdered. That’s not to downplay the rapes, but simply to remind people that rape is merely a single facet of a much wider brutality.

        In regards to the second, it’s a simple fact that rape, and violence against women in general, is very heavily demonized. This is also why attention is so usually drawn to the use of rape as an actual physical weapon. When two enemies want to incite hatred against one another? They start accusing each other of mistreating their women (and various other evils, such as destroying the economy, planning secret genocides, etc). We say that “arabs treat their wives like animals”, but they all say the same thing about Western Society. Why? Because it’s much easier to have soldiers purify a cesspit of barbaric filth than it is to make them massacre a village of innocent people.

        Of course this is not to say outright that any such claims of oppression and mistreatment are lies. It is simply very important to remember that anything said about an enemy of your country has very likely been exaggerated to the maximum possible extent, and said exaggeration will usually be fiercely endorsed at the very highest levels of government.

  • Zolicon

    And just think the Justice system tell You ” Crime doesn’t pay” .

    • “Don’t steal. The government hates competition.”

      • Zolicon

        I don’t beg,borrow or steal.
        I am not a Politician.

        • Exactly.

          • Zolicon

            And I would not want to be a Politician.

    • Mr Happy Face

      “Crime doesn’t pay”… unless you have enough money or authority to piss all over the system, in which case it pays better than basically anything else in the world.

  • Ray

    The rape of college students is not a hoax or a scam. However, do people take advantage of it? Absolutely! How much does the catholic church make from anti-gay, or Right to life groups? How much does the Chamber of Commerce profit from their anti-worker rules they promote? How much does Falwell make from Liberty University? All these political groups, left or right, make money from advertising, debunking, or creating doubts on the other’s position. This is the American way!!!!! However, you minimizing rape with this story, is a crock of ignorance and BS.

    • JVW

      I doubt that Jerry Falwell makes much from Liberty University, considering that he died about eight years ago. But don’t let that get in the way of your ill-informed and bigoted rant.

    • Brad R

      Are you aware that you’ve just criticized a rape victim for “minimizing rape”?

    • How does objecting to making money off the back of rape victims minimize rape victims? Clearly, you think they should be used as cash cows. Shame on you.

    • Lyn Morris

      Ray, if folks decide to give of their time, talents or treasure towards a cause, like you mention whether the church, Right to Life, Chamber of Commerce, rape-victims, and any of the political groups…how does support for any such groups ‘minimize the cause’ to which individuals have given their support? Regardless of ‘how much …’ any such cause receives in $$$, would it be best that no one support with their dollars so that no attention is brought to any issue of concern. Wow, I don’t live in that reality!!!

    • Bewildered

      LOL Wut ! Where has she minimized rape ?

      False rape accusations are big dangerous hoaxes though.
      The gullibility of people of your ilk facilitate them.

    • The lie that rape is an epidemic, or is more common than other crime, or is accepted by society, or is not in decline IS A HOAX AND A SCAM!

    • Bible verse for that reaction, because you know nothing about Wendy’s background:
      “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” – Proverbs 18:13.

      When left-fascists use victims to raise funds for other political causes, THAT is minimizing the rape. The RAPIST is the criminal.

    • PlainOldTruth

      Re: “The rape of college students is not a hoax or a scam.” The claims made by the “rape culture” industry about the incidence of rape of college students by college students is demonstrably a hoax and a scam.” It is quite possible that the rare rapes of this category are statistically in parity with false rape accusations made on college campuses.

      Assaults on college students — including rape (REAL rape) — by non-students (especially near campus) get little attention in the media because the attacks often have politically incorrect characteristics. Silence about the attacks puts students at risk, especially the females who have been targeted as “privileged” because of their skin color..

    • Jack Strawb

      The incidence of rape among college students–as it is put forward by rape crisis feminism–surely IS a hoax or scam, however.

      College students are significantly less likely than non-students to be the victims of rape.

      I don’t know how friendly the dailybell is to direct hyperlinks, so here’s the summary of a Bureau of Justice Statistics report titled “Rape and Sexual Assault Among College-age Females, 1995-2013,” by Lynn Langton, Ph.D., Sofi Sinozich, BJS Intern. (Boldfacing is mine.)


      The rate of rape and sexual assault was 1.2 times higher for nonstudents (7.6 per 1,000) than for students (6.1 per 1,000).
      –For both college students and nonstudents, the offender was known to the victim in about 80% of rape and sexual assault victimizations.
      –Most (51%) student rape and sexual assault victimizations occurred while the victim was pursuing leisure activities away from home, compared to nonstudents who were engaged in other activities at home (50%) when the victimization occurred.
      –The offender had a weapon in about 1 in 10 rape and sexual assault victimizations against both students and nonstudents.
      Rape and sexual assault victimizations of students (80%) were more likely than nonstudent victimizations (67%) to go unreported to police.

      What’s grotesque is that instead of being looked at as potentially useful models for how to reduce sexual assault and rape among the relevant age cohort, colleges are being fraudulently pointed to as hotbeds of rape and sexual assault by a loose affiliation of academic and coffeeshop feminists, well-meaning but statistically ignorant activists, useful idiots, and profiteers.

      I also boldfaced the last item in the “Highlight” section of Langton’s study to point out a particularly destructive aspect of campus rape crisis feminism: it discourages rape victims from reporting to the police by claiming that the ordinary course of police investigation is intentionally hostile to women. The result is to leave more rapists free. It’s beyond my understanding, how a movement can discourage women from reporting to police; can discourage women from engaging in the sort of prudent risk assessment that actually lowers the risk of rape; and can engage in pointless campaigns to “teach men not to rape” when it has long been known that very few men are rapists and that two-thirds of rapes are committed by serial predators who are constitutionally immune to appeals to conscience. Further, a sizable percentage of the remainder of reported rapes are committed in a mutual fog of intoxication wherein the participants will not be interested in the blandishments of posters.

      Educate yourself. Don’t contribute to the groundless, pointless hysteria something like The Hunting Ground wants to inflame and to profit from.

  • TJ Detmers

    I am surprised that no one has mentioned the good work of the Salvation Army. I have heard then described as Christianity in work clothes. Jesus summed up our relationship with God as “Love the Lord with all your heart and soul….and your neighbor as yourself.” That is within the understanding pervue of anyone. I have total respect for these folks.

    • Brad R

      Interesting how an article about a questionable charity, has promoted discussion of charities in general.

      I know of the Salvation Army mostly due to their work in disaster response. If memory serves me, they were on the ground in NYC for five weeks after the 9/11 attacks. I’ve also had the good fortune to hear a Salvation Army officer talk about their radio network; his talk included a history of the SA.

      We do still prefer to engage in charity at the local level…though now that I think of it, we have donated used goods to our local Salvation Army thrift store.

  • Lyn Morris

    …the Rev William Booth, SA in London, as well as Colonel Booth-Tucker, SA in USA …1865 and 1896 respectively… had hard rows to hoe with their philosophy of putting the poor, alcoholic, prostitutes, and generally uneducated slum folks to work, and paying-feeding-housing them as well. Yes, they are ‘Methodist-like’ in religious tone…which means they don’t force anything down their workers’ throats. SA is still looked down upon by today’s humanist Christians, but they keep marching on, THE Salvation ARMY. Some really historical books on the SA might be of interest that I have read: ‘Regeneration – An Account of the Salvation Army’,H. Rider Haggard; and ‘The Social Work of the Salvation Army’, Edwin Gifford Lamb. If there is a charity worth support, me thinks the SA deserves a look. I’m all for their ‘work ethics’.

    • Interesting history, Lyn. I know very little about the SA. I have a vague sense that they make people sit through sermons before feeding them…but that sense could easily be mistaken. The SA is certainly one of the most enduring charities, which makes me think they are doing something right. As for being “Methodist-like”…that’s a good thing, as I’m sure you agree. Methodists emphasize redeeming the individual in body and spirit through building hospitals, food banks, etc. Also famous for their terrific community picnics. Like the old joke says, what the difference between a Presbyterian and a Methodists? A Methodist brings a casserole with her to Heaven.

      • Lyn Morris

        …brings the casserole…that is funny! Today’s SA doesn’t make their newcomers read- to- feed. That really is limited to those becoming SA ‘soldiers’. The folks helped, put to gainful employment, can be anything or nothing religion-wise. The emphasis is only on the individual getting back their useful footing in society. Yes…Methodist-like is good for non-throat-cramming ideology! And I’ve seen some pretty hard down-on-their-luck men have a new lease on life and outlook through such a ‘non-interventionist’ religious attribute as SA. Ain’t life fascinating????LOL

      • I’ll second Lyn. I had to stay at a Salvation Army place one night when we could not find the people our partner expected to find in Miami, where we would stay. As missionaries ourselves during those days we were very mobile, a loose fellowship of independent homes. They put up our whole family. At the time I had no big philosophy except help others.

        They offered transportation to their services to anyone who wanted to go, but there was no coercive tone to it at all. Not even “persuading”. Just “If you want to…” and that was that. And most of the people who work in their shelters and stores have been homeless.

        I know two “captains” (a couple) I think they’re called who run one of their facilities here. They are a great work. It’s a real injustice that the number of commercial centers and malls don’t let them ring their bells at Christmas.

  • DukeLax

    I think it is problematic that American law enforcement has made the “Billable hours” of investigating false rape accusations..into a sort of perverse cash cow for them. History will note that these “federal pork bloating triangles” were the cancer to American law enforcement that fomented “Mass Rape hysteria” in the US.

  • petpanther

    Thanks for bringing out truth.

    It is a disgrace of society.

    Making money on hunting innocent young boys and men based on demonized fabrications.

    Everybody should have a hard look at corrupt Institutions, the people who push it and the ideology driving it, called feminism.

    And maybe a closer critical look at the behavior of the women involved as well as young girls would do good as well.

  • Anthony Zarat

    Thanks for exposing the truth! Whenever I start to think that feminists who profiteer from hatred cannot sink any lower …

  • Wendy, that is amazing investigative reporting. On top of lying about the “epidemic” of rape, they hijack the funds for their own salaries and give a few pennies to their pet projects. Outrageous!

  • PlainOldTruth

    “Rape Epidemic” in 1925 — This will interest some readers: “Bill Against False Rape Accusations & Sexual Blackmail – 1925” http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/05/bill-against-false-rape-accusations.html

  • Mr Happy Face

    “The Hunting Ground”

    Satire, or just twisted irony?

  • iggy

    Karen Straughan postulated in a recent interview that Greek Fraternities are the last ‘men only’ space left, were men can be around other men without female ‘supervision’. Essentially, Frats are the ultimate evil for feminists, because unsupervised men become rapists, right! There are no more safe spaces for men once frats are gone.

    • Graham Strouse

      I went to a small school that had neither frats for sororities. Most of us we’re a lot happier because of this.

  • smackdab

    The Hunting Ground is the modern day *Reefer Madness*!

    • Brad R
      • Lyn Morris

        oh my gosh! …is use of common enough to be in the urban dictionary????

    • Lyn Morris

      …no, I’m pretty sure this is NOT the situation, smackdab.

      • Brad R

        No, I think smackdab is onto something. “Reefer Madness” was intended to be a serious warning film about the perils of marijuana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness It was so over the top — one puff of a joint and a character became a crazed maniac — that two generations later it was viewed as a hilarious self-parody.

        Likewise, “The Hunting Ground” is intended to be a serious warning. From what I’ve heard about it, it went a bit over the top as well. (One of the YouTube clips they used in the film was actually from a satire.) I’m hoping that when sanity returns to the debate, this film too will be regarded as a ridiculous attempt to create a moral panic. (And from now on, I’m going to call it “Roofie Madness” — thanks to smackdab for inspiring the idea!)

        • Lyn Morris

          oh, different way of looking at it. I definitely concur, thanks Brad R.

        • smackdab

          Thanks for the edification, Brad. I answered before seeing your answer. My husband and I actually went to a MJ shop and bought LEGAL MJ recently, and I unexpectedly burst into tears later in the parking lot, amazed at the years of stupidity and BS my generation was put through over such a harmless thing. My husband actually went to jail, was intentionally put in harm’s way while serving during Vietnam, and almost dishonorably discharged over it. His own father told the Judge to execute him! EXECUTE HIM!!! Such a to do about nothing. I shudder to think of the poor guys trying to get a college education in this day and age of male hating, declining male presence on campus, and feminism. Shameful.

          • Brad R

            No worries. I’m glad I correctly picked up on your intended meaning. I think Lyn misinterpreted your first post to mean that you were suggesting a link between marijuana use and rape. A simple mistake; I think we’re all on the same page now. Thanks for posting the clarification.

      • smackdab

        I’ll explain my logic if you explain yours. You are aware, I gather, that the crime of rape is lower than it’s ever been before in MY lifetime, and continues to decline, in spite of expanded definitions, anonymous reporting, and over the top rape hysterics.

        Care to say why you believe this is NOT a witch hunt?

        • Lyn Morris

          …no, I never said I believe “this is NOT a witch hunt”… I don’t believe the crime of rape is the result of ‘reefer madness’ as you first wrote if link enclosed, nor ‘roofie madness’ as mentioned by another responder. However, I do concur with Brad R that this will all blow over once logic and sanity are restored to both men and women…college students or non college students.

          • smackdab

            OK Lynn, for your edification, I compared the over wrought hysteria driven movie Hunting Ground with the 1950’s over wrought hysteria driven movie “Reefer Madness”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0. When my husband was busted for smoking MJ in the ’70’s, his own father told the Judge to EXECUTE him, because of the belief that smoking MJ was the most horrible crime anybody could POSSIBLY commit – much like people believe College campuses are hunting grounds for innocent little college girls. Do you actually have a problem with that comparison?

          • Lyn Morris

            okay. I have no problem and appreciate the edification.

  • Reason

    The Hunting Ground: Girls go to college to learn, boys go to college to rape.

    If only these rapey boys knew that more rapes take place off campus.

  • smackdab
  • crydiego

    Great article! Here are the facts, plain and simple, –you decide. Articles like this are a legitimate land mine that will imped the future retreat of liers and social con-artists.
    This is journalism and thank you Wendy McElroy!

  • Brad R

    Lyn, Fritz, Bill, and other regulars….it looks like this will be Wendy’s last column for the Daily Bell. The new management of the DB and Wendy have not been able to agree terms for her writing. I know that she has enjoyed conversing with you, and especially her Thursday “good morning”; if you wish to continue conversing with her, you can find her — and me — at her online forum http://www.wendymcelroy.com/smf/ . (I don’t need to invite H.Rearden; he’s already there.) If not, farewell, we’ll miss you.

    – Brad (Wendy’s husband)

    • Brad R

      Update: news of the demise may have been premature. I am informed that discussions are continuing. So for now, Wendy is merely taking a break from the DB.

      • Lyn Morris

        Brad R….reading Wendy’s notes on the blog page, she sure can use this transition period at DB to take care of herself. However, since Anthony Wile is now in ’emeritus’ status at the DB, he being the reason I began following the Daily Bell several years ago in the first place, I will instead be reading my favorite writers on their own individual blog sites and of course those linked to Disqus feeds (which is my only contact with the ‘discussions’ world since I do not, will not, have twitter or facebook accounts!). Meanwhile, Brad ….do keep us informed during Wendy’s hiatus, okay? 🙂

        • Brad R

          Lyn — will do. As you may have noticed from my comments on Wendy’s blog http://www.wendymcelroy.com , I don’t use Facebook or Twitter either. (Wendy does; it’s almost a professional necessity for her.) So we will be sure to post updates on her blog and on her forum.

          FYI, when Wendy’s articles appear on other sites — like the Daily Bell, the Dollar Vigilante, or The Freeman — Wendy’s policy is to respond to comments on those sites, rather than to discuss the articles on her own site, so as to drive web traffic to her publishers. It has been suggested that we put a sidebar on her blog pointing to all the places her articles are currently appearing…as soon as I get caught up with [i]my[/i] avalanche, I’ll work on that.

          • Lyn Morris

            oh, good idea: “a sidebar on her blog pointing to all the places her articles are currently appearing…” . Looking forward to that, which should make her publishers really happy for the more people going to the article sites. 🙂

        • Good morning, girlfriend. I wanted to make sure to wish you a wonderful Easter weekend. So far, April is starting out to be a much more tranquil, work-friendly month…and I hope I haven’t just jinxed the next few weeks by saying that! I don’t think so because a few huge distractions are out of my life and Spring is almost here. We hardly see our dog Ringo anymore because he has been cooped up in the house but now the weather and temperature are perfect for him. Besides which, little furry things are become active and he really, really thinks he will someday caught a squirrel. BTW, I don’t know if I’ve told you that Ringo is not named after the Beatle but after the best darned canine character in SF from the book “Buddy Holly is Alive and Well on Ganymede.” Back to work. But please don’t fall out of touch.

          • Lyn Morris

            oh yes, and a wonderful Easter weekend to you and Brad, dear friend. I’ll be lurking around all the time….Brad wrote that he may eventually put up all the blogs/sites you will be publishing in, so after your hiatus, we’ll be able to track you and respond to your always thought-provoking articles. Also, still looking forward to finishing that book!!! Wishing Spring come quickly for Ringo’s sake! 🙂

  • NEO sounds like a union front group.

  • The Hunting Ground is to rape what Reefer Madness was to marijuana.

  • Jack London

    From reading this article it seems the author did not actually ask NEO what they will do with any money donated. This is what they say on their website:

    “NEO Philanthropy is partnering with The Hunting Ground to ensure that tax-deductible donations generated by the film support student-led campaigns, public education, policy reform and prevention approaches to end campus sexual violence. Ninety-seven percent of every donation will go to support groups working to end campus sexual violence. Three percent of donations help cover expenses for managing grantmaking resources, providing legal oversight of funds and carrying out all grantmaking functions.

    “As The Hunting Ground campaign recently launched, no funds have yet been granted. NEO Philanthropy, in partnership with the filmmakers, will invite and review proposals from a range of prospective grantees and issue grant awards accordingly. NEO Philanthropy and The Hunting Ground producers hope to increase funds to field groups over time as more people watch the documentary, learn about the issue and are moved to take action.

    “Meanwhile, NEO Philanthropy has engaged in a host of work to educate and mobilize philanthropy around campus sexual violence. These activities include funder briefings with student activist groups; a commissioned scan on the state of the campus anti-violence movement and funding needs; providing fiscal sponsorship to the Fund for a Safer Columbia (http://safercolumbia.com/) and identifying and securing fiscal sponsorships for additional projects that help put a stop to sexual assault on campuses (NEO is currently in discussion with several related projects and will announce support soon); convening and connecting activist, research, cultural and philanthropic partners in a relatively new field of grantmaking; and creating the partnership with The Hunting Ground, including donation collection, management and grantmaking to field groups working to end sexual violence on campuses.”

    Now all this may well be a fabrication and they may indeed spend any money on directors’ perks but I would have thought asking them to respond to criticism that does not mention their published position is journalism 101.

    • This is an editorial.

      • Jack London

        It’s not an editorial – that would be an opinion article based on fact, i.e. “We know that NEO only used 3% of its donations for good causes but gave 97% to its directors – here’s what we think about that.” Instead, it is an investigative article that fails to investigate and just makes unsubstantiated accusations that belong in no category marked ‘journalism’.

        • It is in the editorial section of the Daily Bell. You are being disingenuous. Please do not do so under the name of one of my favorite writers, who was a honorable man.

          • Jack London

            I can’t believe you’d be keen on London, given he was a socialist (albeit somewhat flawed) and a supporter of causes such as organized labor. I doubt he’d be keen on you. As for this distinction about being an ‘editorial’ – no it isn’t, for reasons I set out. You failed at every step to back up your serious and potentially libellous assertion that the filmmakers and NEO are possibly engaged in a covert profit making exercise under the guise of philanthropy. This isn’t comment, it’s a smear masquerading as an investigation.

          • Another of my favorite writers is George Bernard Shaw. I am also fond of Emma Goldman and George Orwell. They are simply good and insightful writers. Your mind has strange limitations. I don’t necessarily judge worth based on ideology. Your mind has strange limitations.

          • Jack London

            Hard to believe you gained any insight from Shaw or Orwell, the latter especially as you’ve obviously learnt nothing about getting your facts right.

          • This has gone from an attempt at criticism to outright personal attack, Jack. Stop.

          • Lyn Morris

            thank YOU, DB.

          • Hey, girlfriend. Nothing to say. This is just a chance to say “hi.” Haven’t heard anything back about my future on the Daily Bell but I’ll let everyone know as soon as I do. Please remember that is a good site…even if it is without me. Hard to believe! But true. 🙂

          • Lyn Morris

            ….I’m still ‘lurking’ about on DB, especially watching all the non-logical article rebutters …like JL !! Don’t mind me, I’m just cooling my heels ’til your new book comes out! 🙂

          • Jack London

            I apologize – but you must realize that if you are going to publish an attack piece that accuses people of ‘profiting from rape hysteria’ it is crucial to have you facts lined up and you haven’t made any case for this at all.

          • How does my fondness for George Bernard Shaw contradict my opinion of NEO? He is a damned fine writer, a staunch example of the Irish literary renaissance circa 1880-1910, and a very witty man. And, sorry to inform you, you do not own Orwell. His insights are universally applicable. And, no, an apology that repeats the basic accusation and criticism is no apology at all; it is an opportunity to repeat the basic accusation and criticism. You are being an ass. Especially since I’ve taken the time to respond in a civil fashion. It is no wonder you do so anonymously.

          • Thanks for your apology (even though it’s followed by a “but”). We see you and author/others are discussing the information Great.

        • Brad R

          editorial http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/editorial?x=0&y=0
          1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.

          • Jack London

            You can label anything an ‘editorial’ but this one is an investigative piece that tries to retrofit evidence into a defamatory statement that the public are being defrauded. Instead, your readers are the ones being defrauded.

          • Brad R

            No, this is an opinion piece that raises some important questions — which is one of the valid objectives of opinion journalism. To the extent that this piece reports evidence, it is evidence in the public record, disclosed by NEO. If you can point to a factual error in the piece, please do so. Instead, you seem uncomfortable with the questions that have been voiced. Perhaps now that those questions have been asked, someone will begin looking for the answers. (I, for one, would really like to know why so much of NEO’s budget is going to consultants.)

          • Jack London

            Factual errors? You mean the entire basis for the article that they are creaming off profits for promoting a rape culture? There is gross omission of any facts to support the proposition. Why not review the film as again there is no fact whatsoever to back up the ‘fact’ that “its objectivity and perspective have been systematically dismantled” – note the passive ‘dismantled’ – by who?

            I’ve already pointed out certain errors, such as “The most remarkable aspect of the recipient list, however, is the apparent lack of any grants to groups that focus on preventing rape or sexual assault” – as they have been funding Safer Columbia. And can’t they start funding agencies in a new area in any case or is that prohibited by you?

          • Brad R

            As I replied above, there is still an apparent lack of any grants to such groups. They say they’ve added the Campaign for a Safer Columbia to their list of approved recipient organizations. That doesn’t mean any funds have yet been disbursed.

            As to the film, see http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/3/26/hunting-ground-film-statistics/ (pointing out a howler of a factual error) and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-other-side-of-the-campus-sexual-assault-equation/article/2561111?custom_click=rss (critical of SAVE as well) and http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415269/cinematic-railroading-jameis-winston-stuart-taylor-jr and http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/the_hunting_ground_a_campus_rape_documentary_that_fails_to_provide_a_full.html — those are the links I happen to have handy; I’m sure there are others.

            And asking a question is not the same thing as stating a fact. Can you point to any factual errors in this article?

    • You are aware of the difference between journalism and commentary? You are aware that the article appears in the “editorial” section of the Daily Bell? If NEO has placed the language you repeat on its website, then I’m pleased. It is legally and politically prudent for them to have done so. And if 97% of donations from “The Hunting Ground” go to groups…wow. That’s very different than the much, much smaller percentage that goes toward every other cause. I guess my editorial has done some good.

      Yet the question remains. Why NEO? Why not one of the hundreds of organizations with a track record in addressing sexual abuse?

      • Jack London

        NEO is a broad philanthropy organization that funds a lot of things and has various partners. It’s been going since 1983. Last year it commissioned a report for funders on sexual violence on campus and also funded Safer Columbia. All this is consistent with its work and no doubt it will make grants to specific organizations, as you noted it does with other groups. I would imagine it’s a better partner for the filmmakers in terms of exposure than any one end-group that doesn’t specially only address campus issues. You say that much smaller percentages go to other causes but from their annual report about 85% goes on grants and project management, the latter including a big sum to M+R, which works with a lot of big groups such as Oxfam. All this you could have found out for yourself of course – and the material I pasted above was there before you wrote your ‘editorial’. You mention SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) – and as ‘iconoclastic’ – but are surely aware that this is a group that has campaigned for relaxing protection of immigrant workers and has a director who operates a mail order bride company with at last one case where a husband beat his Russian bride – is this really the ‘forward thinking’ type of organization you’d pin your reputation on?

        • What the hell are you talking about? A mail order bride service? Russian brides being beaten. That’s crazy talk.

          • Jack London

            I realize it’s hard for you to do some basic research but the treasurer of SAVE, Natasha Spivack, runs a Russian mail order bride company, Encounters International. One of the ‘brides’ was awarded substantial damages for violence, while “Despite Spivack’s claim of being defrauded, the U.S. Court of Appeals found unanimously that her client was abused, that Spivack knew about it, and that Spivack withheld critical information about immigration law that could have protected her.” You can read about it here:


            And “Spivack confirmed to HuffPost that she has lobbied as part of SAVE to revise the Violence Against Women Act to address the issue of false accusations of domestic abuse by immigrants.”

            I note you have no argument about my other points.

          • Alright. “I realize it’s hard for you to do some basic research…” With that comment, I understand you are not here to do anything but sarcastically attack. I am able to speak civilly with those with whom I disagree. You are not. I do not accept outright insults to my intelligence or integrity as an opening to discussion. You have been treated well on this forum J.L. Far better than you have treated others.

    • Brad R

      When I looked at NEO’s website on March 26th, I did not see the text you have quoted. Was that a recent addition to the site? (Perhaps in response to this article?)

      If you read my comment from that day http://thedailybell.com/editorials/36188/Wendy-McElroy-The-Hunting-Ground-Reaping-Profit-from-Rape-Hysteria/#comment-1931121294 , you’ll see that I concluded, from their tax forms, that on the order of 25% of their budget goes to administrative expenses. It strains credibility to argue that this project will be different by an order of magnitude (3% vs. 25%).

      NEO also appears to specialize in managing the distribution of grants from large donors. Their 2013 pie chart shows 1% of their funds coming from “contributions”. So they would hardly seem to be the best choice to amass and distribute small donations.

      • Jack London

        They have a news feed where you would have seen the text as well as an item last year that they commissioned a report and funded Safer Columbia. They have different funding mechanisms for projects. The project management expenses appear to be for helping agencies work with large end agencies such as Oxfam. All this is not hard to find. A worthy subject for an editorial would be about the percent that charities spend on admin and salaries, but you can’t generalize from one organization especially when you have only done a cursory and poor look at its accounts and website. When you say “they would hardly seem to be the best choice to amass and distribute small donations” you have no idea at all, really, do you.

        • Brad R

          I haven’t subscribed to their news feed; I take it that you have. It’s a bit of a stretch to say that something which appears on their news feed is “on their web site”; news feeds are by their nature ephemeral. If NEO wants this statement on the record, surely they are up to the challenge of creating a web page for it. (And if they have, I invite you to provide the URL.)

          I don’t generalize from one organization; I have donated to and volunteered for various charitable organizations — and I do research beforehand. NEO isn’t listed in any of the charity watchdogs that I use for investigation. And I wouldn’t expect them to be, if — as it seems — they’re not a charity but rather a management firm helping big donors disburse their funds. But if that’s what they are, they are ill-equipped to run a mass fundraising campaign.

  • Jack London

    To summarize:

    – The author can write opinion articles as in http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36096/Wendy-McElroy-Three-Myths-of-Rape-That-Need-Sunlight and http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35905/Wendy-McElroy-The-Rape-Culture-Hysteria although she is hopelessly wrong about ‘rape culture’ – it reminds me of climate change deniers and their accusations of a left wing conspiracy to promote global warming. Sadly, sexual assault in western countries including the US is not hyped by the left and the lifetime risk for women is high and the vast majority of incidents go unrecorded in reported crime figures. If anything, sexual assault on both men and women has been neglected by all sides, not least because it has no political or class boundaries, and it is only in recent years that authorities have put in place protocols and facilities, and systematic abuse by celebrity figures and others over many years has come to light.

    – The above article goes far beyond opinion by attempting to analyse the production of a film. In doing so the author makes basic logical errors and fails to examine the evidence that is available. She starts by taking the film as an exhibit that confirms her rape culture hysteria thesis although clearly she hasn’t seen it. The film has obvious limitations but there is no reason to suppose that the women who appear are lying about their experiences. But no matter – it is part of rape culture, so who’s taking donations and do they stand to benefit? Well it’s an umbrella philanthropy agency and wouldn’t you know, they have no track record in this area although they are not in any case an end-agency. And would you credit it – the directors earn good salaries. Therefore the suspicion is that they are taking donations under false pretences. This chain of logic would fail grade school, as well as insinuating that the agency’s directors are corrupt – because it’s a ‘bad’ film they cannot be acting in good faith.

    – I have given some information below that is just basic fact checking.

    • Brad R

      To summarize:

      – You are a believer that a “rape culture” exists in the U.S., and especially on college campuses, even though the statistics, laws, and institutions in place do not bear this out. If anything, there is greater awareness of sexual assault, it is more likely to be prosecuted than ever before, and it has been on the decline for decades, all of which suggest that cultural attitudes continue to view rape as a crime and not as a male entitlement.

      – The article above does not “analyze the production” of a film; it poses questions about how funds raised by that film are likely to be used. The film’s “obvious limitations” include a one-sided presentation that ignores contrary evidence and is heavily slanted toward a pre-selected conclusion, which suggests it should be considered a propaganda film rather than a documentary.

      – The “umbrella philanthropy agency” has no record in either the kind of fundraising that is being attempted, or in funding this kind of cause, and from a glance at their published information, it seems that rather than provide funding they provide services for which they take a healthy fee and for which their officers are well compensated. This in itself is not evidence of wrongdoing, but strongly suggests a closer scrutiny of their activities.

      – The “information” you have given here has been mostly your opinion.

  • Michael Wylie

    Politicians and the media really need to stop trying to hype the problem of campus rape, that’s
    based on faulty stats, to score cheap points, when the consequences are so steep for the accused.

    Rolling Stone’s retracted rape fiction literally put some of the fraternity members lives in danger, totally
    embarrassed them and smeared their names, there was vandalism at the frat house and this whole story created uproar on the UVA campus. These guys were wronged so badly and now many want to just sweep it under the rug. This was an agenda-driven piece written to fit a preconceived narrative. It happened because we have this witch hunt from a group of people, some feminists and their followers, politicians, and media, who do so without thinking, because it is either convenient, fits their philosophy, beneficial for them, group think, or they are afraid of looking like they are rape supporters. People have either forgotten or never learned how to exercise independent critical thinking.

    BTW, it shouldn’t be up to colleges to investigate and prosecute rape claims. That’s what a Justice system if for.

    Via https://rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape?hc_location=ufi

    “RAINN’s recommendations pointed to research that suggests that more than 90% of college rapes are committed by about 3% of college men.”

    RAINN also stressed the need to de-emphasize colleges’ internal judicial boards. “The FBI, for purposes of its Uniform Crime Reports, has a hierarchy of crimes — a ranking of violent crimes in order of seriousness. Murder, of course, ranks first. Second is rape. It would never occur to anyone to leave the adjudication of a murder in the hands of a school’s internal judicial process. Why, then, is it not only common, but expected, for them to do so when it comes to sexual assault,” the letter asked.

    “The simple fact is that these internal boards were designed to adjudicate charges like plagiarism, not violent felonies. The crime of rape just does not fit the capabilities of such boards.”

    In the past few years, we keep hearing how we live in a rape culture. That simply isn’t true. The US population has increased, but sexual violence has gone DOWN 60% against females between 1995 and 2010. (source:http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4927&hc_location=ufi and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls?hc_location=ufi)

    “First and foremost, the 1-in-5 statistic is not a nationally representative estimate of the prevalence of sexual assault, and we have never presented it as being representative of anything other than
    the population of senior undergraduate women at the two universities where data were collected—two large public universities, one in the South and one in the Midwest.

    Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).

    Third, despite what has been said in some media reports, the 1-in-5 statistic does not include victims who experienced only sexual-assault incidents that were attempted but not completed. The survey does attempt to measure attempted sexual assaults, but only victims of completed incidents are included in the 1-in-5 statistic.

    Fourth, another limitation of our study—inherent to web-based surveys—is that the response rate was relatively low (42%). We conducted an analysis of this nonresponse rate and found that
    respondents were not significantly different from nonrespondents in terms of age, race/ethnicity or year of study. Even so, it is possible that nonresponse bias had an impact on our prevalence estimates, positive or negative. We simply have no way of knowing whether sexual-assault victims were more or less likely to participate in our study. Face-to-face interviewing tends to get higher response rates but is considerably more expensive and time-consuming. That said, given the sensitive nature of the questions, the anonymity and privacy we afforded respondents may have made women comfortable with responding honestly.

    Overall, we believe that the trade-offs associated with low response rates were overcome by the benefits of cost-efficiency and data quality.”

    (source: http://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/?hc_location=ufi)

    Students are LESS likely to experience rape than non-students. (6.1 per 1000 students vs. 7.6 per 100 non students) (Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf?hc_location=ufi)

    In addition “We are all aware of magazine and television “surveys” where the public is invited to write or phone in to give their opinion on a current issue. Often the results are extreme. This is partly because only a very small proportion of the public who could participate actually do, and those who do often come from a particular viewpoint. These are examples of surveys with a very low response rate, often well under 1%. They represent an extreme example, however many other surveys also suffer from low response rates, and their results may also be misleading.” (Source:http://www.daa.com.au/analytical-ideas/response-rates/

    “If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the
    most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions.” (Source:http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

    The problem of the modern which hunt:

    “The new standard of proof, coupled with the media pressure, effectively creates a presumption in favor of the woman complainant. If you find against her, you will see yourself on 60 Minutes or in an OCR investigation where you’re funding is at risk. If you find for her, no one is likely to complain.”

    “The atmosphere surrounding date rape had changed more dramatically than I had appreciated, at least in Massachusetts. The district attorney, though he fully understood the weaknesses of the case, felt compelled to bring the charges lest he face political repercussions, for being yet another politician ignoring a woman’s pain. Even the grand jury ignored their serious doubts about the case and indicted Paul. As I later learned from one of its members, they felt comfortable indicting Paul because I
    was rumored to be representing him and they assumed he would be acquitted. And the judge—with life tenure—likewise felt the pressure. The judge was critical; my partner decided to waive the jury when a program on date rape was aired on the eve of the trial. While the judge expressed his skepticism throughout the trial—every single comment of his pointed to reasonable doubt about Paul’s guilt—his verdict was “guilty.” He did not say so explicitly, but the message seemed clear. If he acquitted Paul, he would be pilloried in the press. “Judge acquits rapist,” the headlines would scream. But if he convicted Paul, no one would notice.

    I took over the appeal. The brief my firm filed was what I described as a feminist brief: Just because the legal system has moved away from the view that all rape accusations are contrived does not mean it must move to the view that none are. This conviction was not just technically imperfect, I argued, it was a true injustice. I was successful. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed Paul’s conviction on a procedural error, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The prosecutor could have retried the case, but, thankfully, chose not to do so.

    After decades of feminist advocacy (the case establishing the right to choose abortion in Massachusetts, the first introduction of Battered Woman Syndrome in a defense to a murder charge, and on and on), I was picketed by a women’s rights group when I spoke on a panel following the reversal of Paul’s case; I was a “so-called women’s rights attorney,” one sign announced, simply because I had represented a man accused of rape. When I explained why, including the fact that I believed he was innocent, a demonstrator yelled, “That is irrelevant!” The experience was chilling; to the picketers, a wrongful conviction and imprisonment simply did not matter. Paul would have been incarcerated, but for my firm’s advocacy and the appellate court’s independent review. Still, advocacy and appellate review could only go so far: Though the charges against Paul were dropped, he was expelled from the college he had been attending; he struggled to reapply years later and finally get his degree. Worse yet, he continues to suffer from the stigma of the accusation to this day, many, many decades later.” (Source:https://prospect.org/article/sex-lies-and-justice

    The problem is that REAL victims of rape or any other abuse in college are seeing things like this and realizing why people may have not believed them or stood up for them. Rolling Stone’s retracted rape fiction and false accusations like the one Nancy Gertner described above foster that sentiment.

    And if that’s not bad enough, we have this:

    “The total unraveling of Rolling Stone’s now-infamous story about a University of Virginia gang rape accusation has prompted many critics to suggest that the sexual assault problem on college campuses has been vastly overstated.

    Nonsense. The best data we have say that campus rape has risen to epidemic proportions at colleges across the country.”

    Via http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/christine-quinn-college-rape-n-y-won-back-article-1.2178142?fb_action_ids=10206019275871421&fb_action_types=og.shares