There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Mark Twain
This is election year in Brazil. The incumbent President, Dilma Roussef of the Worker’s Party, used the taxpayers’ money to sponsor the greatest feminist false statistic about “rape culture” so far. It shook the world. And then it all went so wrong.
Dilma is a feminist, no doubt. Of the worst kind. I could mention three examples to illustrate that [1] But those are just our president’s moral failures, and they seem to be widespread, cultural. Recently, however, Rousseff fell 7 points on the polls. Different factors may have caused that [2]. But yet, the President was ahead of the other possible future candidates. And then it happened.
IPEA (the Brazilian federal government’s “institute for Applied Economic Researches”) published an astonishing report on “Tolerance to violence against women” in Brazil. National and international newspaper announced with awe:
65% of Brazilians believe that women with clothes that show their bodies deserve to be attacked.
Well, in the reader’s imagination and for the media, “attack” went to “rape” very easily. There it was, the Brazilian “rape culture” brought to light! It made the headlines in every national newspaper, and international too. BBC Network, the Washington Post, El País in Spain, in Denmark, Turkey, and more — this is what the world heard: how Brazil was a country of rapists.
The journalist feminists in every Brazilian newspapers were talking about how how malignant Brazilian males were. That, regardless of the blatant methodological errors in IPEA’s research.
The “specialists” started giving interviews, about how men see women as property, using women is a right, she is not a human being, she exists to serve; our society reinforces male supremacy. “Reality is much worst then what was said. Women are guilty of being women”, stated another great “specialist,” anthropologist Miriam Goldenberg, researcher of the “feminine universe” for 25 years.
One of the biggest broadcast networks in the world, Globo, featured the news. It even was inserted in their evening soap opera (they’re very popular in Brazil, called “novelas”): “That’s early stages of humanity!”, said the character.
On twitter, the President took all the political advantage of being a feminist president fighting our “machista” culture.
The Minister of the Secretary of Policies for Women, Eleonora Menicucci, stressed how “regrettable” the results of the studies were, and that it was needed to do much more to tackle violence against women, especially campaigns. They really believe that the fight against violence is just for one part of the population–the female part. The former Minister was bothered that some judges were “inadequately” applying “Lei Maria da Penha” (the Brazilian domestic violence/violence against women law) to protect male victims.
A feminist journalist, Nana Queiroz, took a picture topless, with an inscription in her arms, starting the campaign “I don’t deserve to be raped”. The next day she said she was very scared for receiving multiple rape threats. The Federal Police got involved, and the President herself publicly showed solidarity to Nana.
But in a first search to the supposed “rapists,” a bunch of teenaged internet trolls was found. As one of my friends said, “they no doubt would rape their own hands.”
The many, even though a minority, who dared to contest the research were “raped” (I mean, verbally attacked), no matter if we were professionals in the field, common people, or men’s rights activists such as myself.
Some obvious things about us seemed to be forgotten with the great media factoid of “most Brazilians support raping women who dress provocatively.” For one, Brazil is the last country in the world where we would be intolerant to women’s bodies being shown. We are the country of carnaval, of the “Girl from Ipanema,” of the smallest bikinis worldwide and the bikini wax, of the Globeleza. Women in Brazil work with shoulders, knees, cleavage and legs showing. We are a tropical country. Every weekend, a multitude of micro-shorts and long heels invade all spaces, as in any western warm country. The very uproar and indignancy in the popular reaction should be another clue about how wrong is to presume that Brazilian culture is a “rape culture.” If people normally thought that way in Brazil, why the commotion, instead of just defend that lie, “yes, of course they deserve?” That would mean virtually every woman in Brazil, of course, because Brazilian women use short clothes and show their bodies. The same paradox always: the success of feminist hoaxes would never happen if men’s sexuality was not enormously protective of women, rather than rape-inclined.
Part of the report itself was just considered non-important by the feminist “specialists” and the mainstream media::
91,4% agreed that the man who beats his wife must go to jail;
82,1% disagreed that the woman who is beaten in her home must be quiet about it, for her children’s sake;
68,1% agreed that it is violence to tell lies about a woman to others;
89,2% disagreed that men can curse or yell at his own wife.
Even with this ignored, there were other problems: methodology flaws.
The research was made through a series of statements. They interviewed 3,810 people, and asked if they agreed or disagreed with a statement. The word “rape” was never mentioned, which might remind you of other statistical hoaxes on the topic.
About the most famous statement:
“Women with clothes that show their bodies deserve to be attacked.” – 65% of the interviewed agreed with that statement.
Well, “deserve” and “attack” in Brazilian Portuguese are polysemic words.
To “Deserve”, can mean (1) “be worthy of, (2) “entitled to”, (3) “incur”, (4), “to earn” and (5) “draw upon oneself and (6) “become worthy of.” Well, there is the popular myth that women in sexy clothes draw attention not only of men, but sexual criminals. Statistically, that is inaccurate and doesn’t help to prevent sexual assaults. And feminist activists don’t help either, because they rather do what they always do and propagate prejudice, conflating men with rapists: “Teach men not to rape, not women to fear.” This is how these ideologues and activists (don’t) help people to prevent rape.
To “attack,” in Brazil, also has different meanings: (1) aggress, (2) criticize, (3) chastise, reprehend, (4) Hit on, flirt with, and (5) throw, shoot.
So the question is so open to personal interpretation as to make it meaningless!
Another statement to make the headlines was:
“If women knew how to behave, there would be less rapes.” – 58% of the interviewed with that.
That surely sounds evil. And it’s also our prejudice that makes it so, because “behavior” can mean to be moral or immoral–but in Brazil, the word also means “procedure.” If people had knowledge about how to proceed to prevent robbery, would there be less robbery? If people knew how to proceed on the street, would that reduce the number of car accidents, or people being run over? Would you say you agree with those statements? So the same statement could mean a violent, misogynist mentality… or simple logic and humanitarian concern.
It was a trick question, in other words.
That was not the only problem with the research “proving” Brazil’s misogynist culture. This is important to stress: 66.5% of the interviewed were women!
Additionally, the interview was made with people available at home, during the week and during business hours. The average income per capita, per home, was approximately the minimum wage (R$ 531,26); 41.5% were under primary level; 22.3% had finished primary; 30.8% had high school level; and only 5.4% were in college. As the report says, the most educated were less likely to agree with the ambiguous statement. To the “experts in gender,” that meant that higher education reduces “machismo.” Well, perhaps higher education reduces the possibility to be tricked by polysemy in the ideological questionnaire instead, and “machismo” might have nothing to do with it at all.
Other interesting statements and how they brought the “specialists” to curious conclusions:
“Dirty clothes should be washed at home.” – 89% agreed.
That’s a popular saying in Brazil. The English version of it is basically, “don’t air your dirty laundry in public.” To the gender ideologues, that means that people think domestic violence against women shouldn’t be reported to the authorities. That is more then biased, because people tend to agree with general popular sayings. For instance, how many people could you find who would agree that “A leopard cannot change its spots,” “Better safe than sorry,” or “The apple never falls far from the tree?” They must be misogynists too!
“Every woman dreams of getting married.” – 50.9% agree totally, 27.8 agree only partially.
Well if people agree with that, they might just have all women they know loving to see bride dresses in magazines. According to the “gender specialists”, however, here’s what it means:
(…) almost 79% of the population has a very stereotyped notion about women’s life ideals. Believing that every women has as life project getting married and build a family is compatible with the idea that women can only find plenitude in a stable relationship with a man or yet, that she depends on a partner that sustains her, and finally, that she is more maidenlike and has less sexual desires, not aiming, therefore, the life of a single woman or many partners. (Page 6)
The whole document, actually, is a radical feminism manifesto.
This is how billions in public money is spent on “gender issues” worldwide. In Brazil, to produce this tripe, our Dilma removed the former board of IPEA, replacing them with loyal party members. That’s how the Institute for Economic research started producing ideological feminist statistics instead of real economic statistics.
For this specific study, the “Presidenta” (she eliminated the neutral form of the title and made all official documents have a feminine gender for “President”) put IPEA at the disposition of (1) the international feminist lobbying organization, UN WOMEN, and (2) the biggest feminist lobbying organization in Brazil, CFEMEA. This is how the Brazilian “rape culture” study was made.
But I have saved the best for last.
Yesterday IPEA published a note. The most sensationalist “finding,” those “65%” of Brazilian rape apologists, was an error. A big, gross, amazing error: They had shifted the percentages with that of another item in the research. Actually, only 13.2% of the interviewed “totally agreed”, while 12.8% only “partially agreed.”
Perhaps that was caused by the hurry to publish the results? The director of the research immediately resigned.
Now, show me a feminist fiasco bigger than the Brazilian “rape culture” scandal, if you can. Until then, just look on in amazement at this example of feminist lies and duplicity.
Have a great Sunday, a great week,
Hugs from Brazil,
Aldir.
References:
[1] Every year, during International Women’s Day, she makes a pronunciation that includes the issue of “men’s violence against women,” i.e. typical gender feminist propaganda. Women’s oppression, and violence as having only one direction: men against women.
[1.1] Last year, on IWD, she announced social measures to reduce the price of food for poor families, because, you know, family is women and women are family.
[1.2] This year, same date, she went one step further, by complimenting all Brazilians and then saying that from that moment on the conversation would be between her and Brazilian women; yes, only women.
[1.3.] She also decided that in case of divorce, the houses in government home financing for poor families would go to the woman (unless the father would be the one the keeps the children… meaning, practically, whenever the ex-wife wants). No matter that the overwhelming majority of the homeless in Brazil are men (82%). And curiously, most of them are just “on strike.” Or to be more accurate, they have given up on everything because they built their families and lives around a partner and the relationship ended badly. I don’t know about you, but I’ve always wondered what would make a functional, normal man just stop fighting and go to sleep in a catwalk. Do you? Well, there you have it: most of them just didn’t learn how to go their own way sooner, wealthier and mentally healthier.
[2] The constructions for the FIFA World Cup are delayed. She spent hundreds of millions of US Dollars in Cuba’s infrastructure, is blind to Maduro’s State violence in Venezuela and there are evidences indicating corruption, lately in the Petrobras’s scandal. But the social policies grants a good voting basis of the poor people for the Worker’s Party.
[3] One of the critiques published about the methodology: http://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/noticias/pesquisa-dos-65-aquela-do-ipea-sobre-estupro-e-contesta?page=2
