As a math geek, I need to point out the use of statistics is misleading.

For example, “Statistically, only 5% of sexual assault allegations are false. That means there’s a 95% likelihood that the accusations will hold truth in them”.

The underlined part is not indicated by the statistics cited. It needs the word “proven” before “false”. That means the likelihood is not 95 percent that an accusation is true.

There may be many more false allegations that just weren’t proven to be false.

Using the author’s reasoning, one could flip this claim around and state that since X percent of rape accusations result in a conviction then the probability the accusations are false is 100-X.

Just as there are probably a lot more rapes than just the ones where a conviction is reached, accusations of rape can also be very hard to prove.

In the case of rich and powerful men, I think it is probably more likely that they commit sexual assault more and also are falsely accused more. I’ve never seen a study that could prove this, though.

The misuse of statistics is pervasive, so I don’t mean to single out this author as an exception. It will be interesting to see if she edits that line, now that the mistake has been pointed out.

The other statistics used could also be challenged, but I hope I’ve made my point. I don’t wish to make this sound like a refutation of the thesis, which I support.