Forum Poll Says “Up To 30% of Women Raped in Canada”, Sounds Reliable

 It’s the conclusion of a poll done earlier this month by Forum Research that as many as 3-in-10 women may have been raped in Canada. An interesting claim to be certain. Made by a company with a history of serving up political polling numbers to it’s clients in the interests of drumming up business.
Yeah, the more observant among you probably noticed the “may” in that claim. There’s a reason for that. You see out of the women that they polled 17% of them said that they were raped OR sexually assaulted (remember the “OR”,this will be important in a minute) while 12% percent failed to provide an answer. This is because they either refused to take the poll, answer that specific question, didn’t pick up the phone, or some similiar reason. So if you add up the people who said yes with the people from whom there was no response you get 29%.Hence as many as 30% of women may have been raped……..
Well with that kind of crackerjack brilliant methodology and testing I can’t imagine why they aren’t the top research company in the world.
90% of statistics are false 76% of the time according to 64.832% of people.

90% of statistics are false 76% of the time according to 64.832% of people.

Now, if one were to look again at the claim made in their title, they clearly state that the number which they are putting forth is the number of rapes. However in other places within their synopsis they say sexual assault and rape. Even the questions which they asked the people who took the poll specifically asked if they had been raped or sexually assaulted. You might not understand why this is an important distinction so allow me to explain.
Sexual assault is a term that covers a large variety of possible situations, not just one specific thing. Similiar to domestic violence.
Domestic violence does not necessarily entail one partner being beaten or injured, as we often perceive. The term can easily cover an argument between a husband and wife where one partner punches a wall. Throws a dish across the room, or any number of other things. It is the same thing with sexual assault, a sexual assault could be anything from a drunken kiss on new years to sexual torture. In fact only a very small portion of sexual assault cases are what are classified as “major” sexual assaults (about 2%), ones that cause actual physical harm.
So, it’s not even 17% of women that were raped as their title claims, it’s rapes  plus sexual assaults, many of which are going to be extremely minor instances.
In 2010 there were just over 17.2 million women in Canada. So at 30% that means potentially 5.16 million women raped in Canada. Or 30,000 for every 100,00 women in this country. To put this into better perspective, the official rape rate as of 2010 was 1.7 women for every 100,000. So what they are trying to tell you is that either the real rape rate is FOUR HUNDRED-THOUSAND TIMES bigger than the reported rape rate, and somehow nobody but them noticed,or that in the last four years Canada has devolved into a place where women are raped daily on the city streets and in broad daylight in droves. 
Let me put it this way. According to the real numbers in 2010 1.7 women raped yearly out of every 100,000 translates into 292.4 rapes yearly across the country.Since the poll was dealing with a lifetime period rather than yearly let’s say look at a forty year period from age twenty to age sixty. During these forty years if the rate stays relatively steady there will be 11, 695 women raped. Now according to them the number of women raped over a lifetime period is 30,000 out of every 100,000. Meaning that there are (according to them) 5, 160,000 women raped in that forty year period.
Makes you wonder how Canadians here get anything done when we can barely manage to get an hours of work in between rape sessions.
What? Is it something in the water? Did global warming finally catch up with us and dry out portions of our brain causing massive bursts of sociopathy?
Seriously, do they really think people are this fucking stupid?
FireShot Screen Capture #312 - 'Forum Research surveys increasingly blur the line between polling and trolling I canada_com' - o_canada_com_news_forum-research-rob-ford-brandon-souris
Well apparently some of them are. Since Hope24/7 recently started using this article from on their website. Even quoting feminist Elizabeth Sheehy as saying that the figure was a “lowball” estimate. Well there’s certainly no reason that we shouldn’t trust the judgement of a woman who thinks that charging women with murdering men is “arbitrary” at best on an issue like this. Her views on the rights of women to murder their husbands in their sleep makes her perfectly suited to judge this logically and rationally.
Fucking feminists.
Furthering this polls problems is that everything about it is self-selected and reported. The respondents to the poll used their own judgement on whether anything had happened to them.Meaning that aside from the fact that we’re dealing with the unreliability of human memory there is no standardized criteria being used for rape or sexual assault.It simply is because the person answering the poll says that it is.
Speaking of standardization, there’s none in the general methodology either. Forum Research conducts its surveys using automated machines to phone selected numbers who then respond to recorded messages asking the questions. Meaning that there is no way of knowing who is actually answering these questions. The purely automated nature of these calls has also meant that in many instances with their other polls people have been called to participate multiple times,a fact even admitted to by Forums president; though not a cause for concern according to him. The president stated in an interview with the Canadian Press that “We know (automated phone polls) can work,there’s just no question about that.”
Can work, yes possibly, if one bothers to put any standards or measurements in place.As opposed to using sloppy methods to support an ideology.
FireShot Screen Capture #313 - 'Forum Research surveys increasingly blur the line between polling and trolling I canada_com' - o_canada_com_news_forum-research-rob-ford-brandon-souris
Let’s look at President Lorne Bozinoff’s final words at the end of the poll, for a moment.
“These findings quantify what has been anecdotally obvious since the Ghomeshi and Cosby affairs became news; women do not trust the authorities, nor the way their cases will be handled, enough to report something as deeply damaging as rape to the police.”
Quantify what has been anecdotally……
Seriously, fuck this guy.
Ok, here’s where he’s getting this from. In the poll the last question asked was if they reported it to the police. Of the women who said they were raped or assaulted only ten percent of them said they reported it. So he’s taking that and extrapolating it to say this is because they do not trust the police to deal with rape, which is the typical feminist line.
Nevermind that in actual studies  done by the Department of Justice women who were asked why they didn’t report gave several other explanations, such as the matter having been resolved another way, they didn’t deem it important enough (remember almost all sexual assaults are relatively minor things), or considered it to be a personal matter to be dealt with on their own. Only 18% of the women studied by the department of defense listed not trusting the police as the reason for their not reporting.
Now this is just speculation on my part, but I can’t help but notice that this is roughly the same number of women that identify as feminists. So maybe it’s actually just feminists who don’t trust the police in this matter. Or at least who say that they don’t and tell women not to trust them. Because, of course, feminists want to stop rape and all of that.
Bottom line:Forum Research does shitty research.
The whole pdf. of their research can be downloaded here:

To David Pakman,Please do Better.

(Authors Note:To be honest, this was written about a month ago and things started to happen and I got busy, so this is going to seem a little out of date because,well, it is. Still, I figured that I would toss it out there since it’s been a while,though I promise to go back to producing stuff within the next few days for certain)
Considering that we’ve been covering #gamergate recently on our videos and blog,it is rather remiss of us to be talking about a man who’s actual name is  “Pakman” without having an appropriate joke. To be honest we just couldn’t think of one without sounding lame. So we opted for simply not having one at all. Apologies.
David Pakman is the host of his own journalist/opinion show where he generally,I believe, deals with largely political topics. Over the past few weeks though he has been also covering #gamergate,though we would say not very well.
Which is not to say that he’s been unfair or biased (yes it is),it’s merely that his reasoning and journalistic skills seem somewhat…..lacking (virtually non-existent). Though this could simply be a matter of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject on his part.He does not come across as very well-informed,which I suppose goes back to his level of skills being lacking as you would think he should be informed. Regardless, that does not really matter in the context of this post. We simply wanted to be clear that we’re coming from a position of not really finding him very compelling in the first place and already being critical of him (perhaps at some point we’ll do a full post or video about it if it ever becomes desirable).
Part of it seems to be his intense unwillingness to truly question the narrative. Despite the fact that I consistently see others in #Gamergate praising his neutrality (to whom I can only shake my head in wonder at how they look at the world) he’s very much of the same cloth as the rest of Anti-GG. The one difference being that he can still at least tolerate the presence of alternate ideas. Even if he can’t actually listen to and process them. See his video interview with Karen Straughn if you want an example of this.
The reality that his fans in GG don’t really want to realize is that Pakman is not a journalist.He’s a commentator, a pundit, he is pushing an agenda and peddling an opinion. All you have to do is look at the actual substance of his coverage of GG.Or, more accurately, look at what of substance is not presented. He says that there is harassment on both sides of the aisle in GG, but neglects to mention that none of the harassment blamed on GG has actually been shown to have come from it. No mention of the Harassment Patrol GG established to police the harassers on both sides, their attempts to protect Anita and their chasing down of those who harassed her and Brianna Wu, etc. All of these are very important facts that any decent journalist would bring up.He never does. Nor does he address much of the more egregious behaviour and comments of his co-feminist and SJW’s.
It kind of says a sad thing about the state of journalism and it’s coverage in the mainstream media when a hack like Pakman is considered to have journalistic integrity.
But that’s for another time, let’s move on.
Regardless however, #gamergate is only tangential in regards to what we’re taking issue with here.
Yesterday he uploaded an interview that he conducted with the comedian Dave Rubin titled “Are Progressives Disagreeing About Progressive Principles?” in which they talked about a recent incident where Sam Harris and Bill Maher were labelled as racists for making comments about how bad Islam is. You may watch the actual video below.

Essentially what they’re edging towards trying to discuss is what’s known as horseshoe theory. Basically the idea that the political spectrum is not actually a line as we’re generally taught in schools,but much more closely can be represented by a horseshoe where, as  you get farther from the center the ends become closer together.That is,the far right and the far left start to have more and more in common. I don’t know if either of them are aware of the term,but that’s what they’re trying to discuss.
Look, let’s make one statement clear before we get into this whole business here.We are not progressives,or conservatives,or libertarians, or anything.We are whateverthefuckisthemostrationalandintelligentsolutionians. Unfortunately you’d be amazed at how hard that is to stick on a campaign pin. So we have no political opposition to any person on any side. Our only opposition is in direct proportion to the intelligence/rationality of what is being proposed. A stupid/smart idea is a stupid/smart idea,no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
Now that we have that disclaimer out of the way,let’s continue.
Now much of what they are saying is actually a series of valid points about these people who call themselves “progressive”. The problem arises at approximately the 9:38 mark where it seems that they’re incapable of taking their own advice.
Pakman:”And I think it’s fair to say that you have concerns about the sort of “Neo-atheists”, in terms of misogyny.Are they not open to female voices?Those are all legitimate specific concerns that we could get into.”
Needless to say this is where our cranium started impacting violently against our keyboard. What follows after did not help either, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
No, Mr.Pakman, it is not fair to say that there are concerns about “Neo-atheists” (which incidentally is a conservative-christian term,whereas you were talking about them being on the left,but whatever) and misogyny. It is entirely unfair to say that because there never was any misogyny, even a hint of it. The misogyny claims came from a collection of insane feminists and “progressives” trying to push forward an agenda.
Before we go on,allow me to make a point clear here.
Earlier in the video, Mr.Rubin made an offhand remark in regards to the racism claims to the effect of “Pft,whatever that is actually supposed to mean”. Essentially referencing something that is often pointed out in criticism of progressives; namely that they use certain words so broadly that they really have no meaning. They only serve to stir up negative feelings on the part of the listener, who then projects those feelings onto the intended target. In thought reform it’s referred to as ‘loading the language’,and I plan to get to this at some point in the future as well.
This is the same thing that you are doing with misogyny. Is,in fact, the same thing that progressives typically do with misogyny.
To be misogynistic, is to display a hatred, mistrust and/or dislike for all women. Progressives generally use the word to mean “something bad happened to a woman, which may or may not have been bad, and may or may not have been because she was a woman,but it happened to a woman and I don’t like that it happened”.
Now, let’s take the so-called misogynistic death threats that women like Anita and Brianna Wu claim to receive,and for the sake of argument let’s say that they are actually real and not faked by the women in question.
The threats that they receive, at least such ones have been shown, are threats and bad comments made about these women. I freely grant that. Are they, however, misogynistic? To my knowledge neither of these two women are a representative sample of all women. Furthermore to my knowledge there is nothing in these threats that indicates that they are being delivered because they are women at all. These are people in the public sphere who have blatantly lied, conned, and outright slandered various large groups of people. Perhaps that has something to do with the threats and insults that they receive, rather than them being women.
So to say that there is misogyny is simply not borne out by any evidence. Or at least none that anyone has cared to provide. All of these claims of misogyny are made by progressives, like you apparently,slinging the word around without concern for its meaning or effect.
The same is true for what you’re calling “Neo-Atheism”. There never was any misogyny. There were a bunch of progressives screaming misogyny at people who opposed their ideas. You heavily betray yourself as little better than those you are criticizing when you do things like this.
If you really want to project yourself as being the fair and balanced voice of reason, you should really put some effort into acting like it.

A Street Harassment Tale Part 1

 We must first warn you all, that this will involve a massive trigger warning.
This is our story of the harassment that we receive on a daily basis, walking down the city streets.
Yesterday morning we needed some food, so we got dressed to go to Safeway like we always do when we need such things. Thankfully it’s only a few blocks away so we don’t have to travel far down the terrible streets of this city.It really cuts down on the harassment we have to suffer through for being black and a relatively young male.
We kept it simple, only to a pair of casual sweatpants and a plain grey t-shirt.Nothing that would advertise any kind of sexual signals to people, and went out to but the supplies that I needed for my day off.
Within the first block of our trip we ran into an elderly woman from the neighbourhood who looked at us and actually said “good morning”. Ugh, can you, believe that? Less than a block and already some perverted old dirty woman was trying to hit on us. In broad daylight even. We were a little worried at what she might do, because you never know with old perverts like that, so we just gave a small,nervous smile and nod, and brushed past her quickly.
Along the way another woman we passed commented to us on what a nice day it was while she reclined on a bench, no doubt ogling all of the men who passed by.
By this time we was feeling more than a little unsafe and insecure, we mean if a man could be harassed so often and so frequently only going a few blocks then we could only imagine what most men have to deal within our society today.No one has the right to make a man feel unsafe just walking down the street in the middle of the day. How,we thought, can society tolerate this level of catcalling and harassment?
We saw another woman when we got to the store struggling with a heavy load to get it into her car. And would you believe that she actually looked at us and asked us if we could help her carry the heavy stuff. Can you believe that? As though we exist only as convenient objects to be used by women for our strength. We had never felt so cheap and objectified in our life. probably due to all of the small micro-aggressions we had already experienced that day. But,we knew our enforced gender role in society and helped the woman, playing the part of the pack mule for womens’ benefit. Even though we died a little inside and the sheer degradation was almost too great to bear.
Already feeling afraid and degraded just for being a man walking down the street we walked into the supermarket and someone else called out to us to have a good day as we entered the store. Apparently there is no end to the harassment one can experience here in Edmonton.
As we walked through the Safeway we heard a young mans cellphone go off, playing the theme song from Super Mario Brothers. As we looked over out of reflex we saw a young woman come up to him and exclaim in delight how cool that was and that her friend had a Legend of Zelda ringtone on her own cellphone. How terrible, we thought, here is a man just minding his own business and innocently receiving a call on his cellphone when this desperate woman comes over to hit on him. Worse, she actually adds to the harassment by telling him things that he never requested her to tell him about other people. This woman forced unwanted information into this young mans head. She practically raped his ear.
What kind of society do we live in, people?
Once we-
Ok, that’s enough of this shit.
I was about to talk about the cashier who was coming onto us.
Yeah, but if I have to listen to anymore of this,I think I’ll vomit.
I’m sure they get the general point by now. Right people? You see all of that shit up there? What you’re thinking about that pretty much sums up our feelings about this video on “street harassment” put out by Hollaback.  An organization with a name that sounds like they’re trying to appropriate black culture. Which I thought these kinds of people were against, but that would be expecting consistency from them, so whatever.

Essentially a woman walked down the streets of New York for ten hours and they videotaped all of the harassment and catcalls they got. Which they then distilled into a two minute video clip. So, just to make this clear, out of ten hours of footage the best they could manage was two minutes of useable material. The majority of which is just men handing out basic human greetings. Because far be it that anyone should react to a woman as a person and greet them like a person. Far better to ignore them and treat them like a piece of animated monkey-meat that just so happens to share a section of space-time relatively adjacent to you.
Hey, maybe if women really are so often objectified,it might be because people like this get all pissy anytime you treat them like actual people.
Are you finished?
Not remotely, but go on.
My opposites irritation aside, this does seem to indicate a rather disturbing line of thinking. One that really does not bode well for women.Let us assume for a moment that the majority of these comments really are objectionable for some reason or another. This woman dressed herself in tight clothes which show off her, rather splendid, curves and figure.This was a choice that she made, and it’s rather likely that she knew the statistically most probable effect that would result in what she did.That is,she dressed in such a way that was very likely to garner male attention. Then,when she got the attention that she had been actively seeking, she and her friends scream about how terrible and common it is.
Perhaps it has something to do with my continued failure to understand the thought patterns of the average feminist, but I fail to see how this is either surprising, or problematic. Or even how this is a meaningful experiment. They went in looking to prove a specific result,then got the result that they wanted,apparently to their great surprise.
The disturbing thing that I find is that even though they were deliberately provoking a reaction, they do not take any of the responsibility of that upon themselves. The responsibility is not on the provoker to not provoke a result they do not want. It is solely on the provoked to not be provoked. The woman in this scenario is given no responsibility, thus no agency, and subequently no use.
In other words she’s being portrayed as such a sexual objectified she may as well just be a blow up sex-doll.
…..Yes. If you want to be crude about it. They are really using this women and her attractiveness, exploiting her sexuality, just as much as any pornography would. It’s just that they’re doing it in the name of their cause, as opposed to doing it for money and profit. More specifically, they are doing it to just drum up outrage against men (also exploiting the men sexually,I might add). Provoking men to sexual interest, and then pointing the finger and crying foul when men do it. And without a hint of shame or self-awareness of what they are doing,and this is what I find so disturbing. Their desire to create an entire class of people who have no responsibility, no accountability, and no effective use in society. Yet give them the power to do whatever they want without consequence all the while claiming that they are powerless and oppressed.
What buggers my buggerer is how this trivializes and demeans real harassment and real sexual violence. Placing petty, idiotic shit like this in the same category as actual harassment only serves to muddy the waters and dilute the meanings of the word. We have words so that we can express clear thoughts and meanings.If you start taking words, especially legal words, and making them vaguer and more nebulous to the point that they mean whatever you damn well want then it only hurts everyone in the long run,but especially the victims of the real thing.
If just saying hello to someone on the street is harassment because they felt it was, then how the flying fuck is anybody supposed to know that? How are people ever going to communicate like adults, or human beings if even the act of a basic greeting can be interpreted as a sexist attempt to keep women fearful and oppressed. I see only two possible options to solve this problem of theirs. Either we stop interacting with women at all,or we stop caring about their feelings and claims of harassment entirely.
Well there is the option of growing the fuck up and being adults, but feminists will never go for that one.
Maybe women wouldn’t be so afraid of catcalls a male attention if feminists stopped treating everything men do in regards to women as the equivalent of a rape spree.  And I mean a real rape spree, not a feminist rape spree;which would likely amount to walking through a shopping mall and turning your head around the room.
To be continued……(time constraints,sorry)