I’m sure that by making a joke about Rape Culture Monthly, someone will be along soon to accuse you of being a rapemonger. I think that the only allowed attitude is inchoate rage, all the time.
In any case, I really am somewhat taken aback. Here, I thought it was be a simple point of research methodology: if you want to study the incidents of alleged rapes that went unreported, then you need to confine your inquiry to that subject. If you want to study both alleged rapes and alleged sexual assaults, then you can no longer claim that your statistics are exclusive to rape. If you have a study that includes non-violent unwelcome embracing in its definition of sexual assault, it then becomes absurd to claim that the statistic is about definite cases of rape, rather than allegations of everything from rape to non-violent unwelcome embracing.
It seems that either this point is difficult to comprehend (unlikely) or…
I have NOT read the whole thread. I stopped here on page one to ask this question. If it has already been asked I apologize, but…
How is this in any way associated with a political party? A Repub apologist? I assume that was shorthand for republican. Either there is some very bizarre postings in that first thread (which I am now going to reluctantly read), or this is one of the stupidest things I’ve read out here with regard to political issues.
If the girl was 11 and was RAPED, only a sick twist would apologize for it. That isn’t limited to either political party.
And for this argument, you can take out the age. If any girl/woman is raped, there is no apologist that can carry the torch of the rapist. Honestly, what does this have to do with republicans?
For the record, I have no idea about this story, but there is NO situation in which an 11 year old boy or girl should be having sex with anyone.
(Now I’m off to read shit I really don’t want to. Thanks a bunch.)
Hey, you can talk: with a name like** Stink Fish Pot**, we have to see your moniker every time you make a post. And that’s shit that I really don’t wanna read.
Seriously though, I think that post of margin’s was in response to something posted by Starving Artist. You might want to start there for your exploration.
I’m an Aussie, and as far removed from being a Republican as you could possibly imagine. Look at it this way: a (capital L) Liberal in Australia is a conservative (I guess sort of aligned with your Republicans in the US, but nowhere near as nutty). Your (small l) liberals are more akin to our Labor Party, which traditionally was akin to the old-time socialists…many of whom were members of the Communist Party, but have since mellowed out to become just normal people.
Thank you for putting this so well, although I would query the emphasis on intent in the last paragraph. I don’t think the conscious intent to minimise is necessary to have the effect of minimising. I would say it’s extremely important for people to make sure they aren’t unintentionally minimising rape and assault, through tone or word choice or what-have-you, to avoid other people saying “hey, you’re doing that harmful thing”. Maybe less politely than that.
It might equally behoove you to show that the under-reporting rates for “sexual assault” vs. “rape” are dissimilar enough that it’s an issue, since that’s what’s actually being discussed here (the proportion of said acts that go unreported). That’s even presuming that we’re working from the same definition of “rape”, which I doubt–i.e., strictly speaking, dictionary.com’s definition (stupidly) excludes everything but penis-in-vagina sex and statutory rape. I’m content to believe that the people who put together the NCVS know what they’re doing in that regard, since it’s a yearly study that’s survived multiple changes in administration (since 1972, in fact).
Since so far, your slams on the NCVS itself have been to compare it to a biased one-off study as though it were the same…
Forgive me for butting into a conversation in which I am not an active participant, but I am curious about what precise criticism is being levied against the NCVS with regard to its rape incidence measures? I have never used it, admittedly, but the questions and non-restricted data are available for perusal online and I have given it a glance.
And from what I can tell they do in fact ask whether the sexual assault—or attempted sexual assault—involved forcible penetration, so that information is being collected. Does the fault lie in how this information is reported? Or is it a belief that, e.g., unwelcome fondling or grabbing shouldn’t be considered sexual assault in the first place? Or is it that we simply cannot trust survey data? As someone whose discipline depends crucially on survey data, I hope that isn’t it (but then I’m confused about earlier talk re. alien abduction).
That was Finn’s point, as best as I can determine–he attempted to refute the NCVS by implying its accuracy (as a survey study) was equivalent to the 1992 Roper Poll on Alien Abductions.
Yeah, I’m supposed to give every benefit of the doubt to fuckers like you, but a slip of the tongue like Repub for rape is taken as God’s truth. Asshole.
What’s next on the agenda?
“How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”
“That’s not funny!”
Because frat rat humor never gets old around here. Rape Monthly! Stop it, my sides are splitting! It’s so funny-----for assholes who never have to worry about getting raped. Not only are you joking at shit you won’t have to experience, but you’re joking about it from the perspective of people who inflict it, who approach it with the arrogant contempt of assholes who cant’ imagine it happening to you.
So fighting ignorance doesn’t include ignorance about rape, where ignorance about it is a badge of honor, it seems. Go on and make jokes. Its very illuminating to see who participates in this kind of shit. And by the way, here’s your tactics:
You lost your temper so I don’t have to listen to you/you’re damaging your cause by being angry/what the fuck ever/ rape is funny, you crazy bitch: A Guide to Derailing Conversations
With few exceptions these are the tactics of people who are jeering at the idea that rape is not taken seriously by our culture, and that taking it seriously is the mark of a crazy person. A hysterical person, to quote somebody who’s totally not profiting by labeling women hysterical. ANd I doubt like hell I’m the only woman you dogpile on like this, either.
My eyes kinda glazed over on that part of the discussion as well. My take on it is this.
Part one. Lumping in a non-forced sexual pat on the butt by stranger at a bar in with a forcible rape is stupid. It also ruins the value of the statistics if various forms of RAPE and their frequency are what you are trying to talk about.
Part two. People who insist that lumping that whole range of inappropriate behavior into one category are being stupid. To the point of being totally irrational and needlessly emotional about it.
Or, possibly, it might be that people take rape seriously enough that they feel the need to point out what a study says and what is is claimed to be saying are divergent.
That’s not derailing. That’s actually the opposite of derailing. That’s continuing a conversational tangent down the rail laid down by someone else, and pointing out that it doesn’t lead where they claim it leads.
Or, also possibly, when people point out that you are being overly emotional and hostile, that your experiences are not universal for your group, and that your presentation encourages people to associate claims of a serious and important issue with dishonest and overblown rhetoric, and do so commonly enough that you can see a pattern in their doing so, you should consider the possibility that there is not a grand conspiracy with tactic-sheets being passed around, or that the majority of the people you talk to are engaging in the exact same rhetorical flourishes, but that your presentation genuinely makes a large percentage of the people you interact with feel that you’re being overemotional, hostile, over-broad in your assertions, and thereby Not Helping At All.
There are hostile environments in which victim-blaming is common and rape culture is encouraged, in which many people carefully parse any studies on rape and sexual harassment to look for methodological errors or areas in which data is not available, in order to dismiss the entire report out of hand, and dig deeply into the appearance and behavior of rape victims as a means of diminishing the problem.
There are also non-hostile environments in which people carefully parse studies because the studies are assumed to be important, and should be read carefully and claims about their data and conclusions carefully considered because the topic is important, and in which people dig deeply into the appearance and behavior of rape victims in order to understand the problem.
You cannot rightly assume that everyone who does anything that rape culture advocates do is a rape culture advocate.
Well, then *FinnAgain is being very silly. As I understand that poll, they didn’t even ask if the respondent believed she had been abducted – they asked questions that would be consistent with sleep disorders or strange dreams. The claim that “two percent of individuals believe themselves to have been abducted” is essentially a non sequitur. That particular poll says nothing about the reliability of voluntary response generally.
Out of interest, do you know why studies often use both rape and sexual assault numbers combined? Because that might be helpful to your understanding here.
Please do not trust Zeril’s descriptions of things I say. He is either literally retarded or a liar, but in either case, please either read what I’ve posted or ask me. His claim, for instance, that I attempted to “refute” the NCVS study is either a lie or another instance of his utter lack of basic comprehension. I pointed out that it lacked specificity and even if it did not, allegations can not be treated as proven facts. I’ve pointed this out to Zeriel something like a dozen plus times, and he still either honestly can not comprehend it, or pretends that he can not. I’m not sure it makes a difference but, seriously, if you want my position please either read what I’ve written or ask me to clarify. If Zeriel says something, it’s a pretty good bet to treat it as fictional.
There are two general criticisms. (and one sub-item)
Everything from non-violent unwelcome embracing to a slap on the ass to actual full out rape is included in the same statistic of “rape/sexual assault”. This makes it impossible to differentiate it and claim that it has specificity to the issue of rape, only. Due to the way the data is presented, someone could just as easily claim that 99% of the unreported accusations are some drunk frat guy grabbing a girl and trying to kiss her at a party, or what have you. There’s no specificity.
Treating allegations as proven facts is, at best, ignorant and at worst dishonest. Even if the category was “rape” and not “rape and everything to unwanted embracing without violence”, that would tell us how many people alleged that, yes. It would not prove what rate of under-reporting we see. Rape is not a special crime that is proven by its mere accusation, any crime has to be investigated to prove that the defendant is guilty.
If you were to argue that the Roper poll was overly broad in its methodology and clustered “ufo abduction symptoms” in order to conclude that people were abducted, you’d be right. By the same token, the answers to their questions still demonstrated that people believed things that did not happen, happened.One of the questions, for instance, was “have you seen a ghost”. 11% said yes. We can either take this as gospel proof that ghosts exist and we can expect roughly 26 million Americans to have seen them… or that simply because someone reports something as having happened, doesn’t mean it’s happened. The Roper poll is hardly the only poll to demonstrate that dynamic. Have, for instance, 23% of people really been visited by a dead relative or loved one, or 20% seen or heard a (presumably non-related) ghost? Hopefully, rational folks understand that just because someone says that something happened, doesn’t mean it happened. And that doesn’t make different surveys fungible. You don’t have to go bonkers and say “rape is being compared to ghosts, ayieeeeeeeeeee!” to understand the basic dynamic: claims do not equal truth. Allegations are allegations. Investigation and confirmation is required to differentiate an allegation from a fact. Which brings me to:
2a. The methodology is also quite broad when the NCVS defines rape.
The inclusion of psychological coercion further eliminates specificity (already hopelessly compromised by the inclusion of non-violent embracing, anyways). A boss for, for instance, sexually harasses his employee and sets up a quid pro quo (grrr, grr, bad, no no no, do not do this, wrong) in order for her to blow him and keep her job is definitely guilty of sexual harassment and a vile bastard, but calling that rape is incorrect. Inclusion of psychological coercion is hopelessly broad. Is a highschool girl who’s pressured again and again into having sex with her boyfriend, and he finally tells her that he’ll leave and go date Suzy McPhee instead, being raped if she agrees to sleep with him to keep her boyfriend?
The federal statute, for instance, explicitly requires it to be with force and without consent. Most states, IIRC, require either the use of force without consent or the victim being unable to consent. Changing it to without force and with coerced consent destroys whatever specificity it might have had.
Honest question, I know I’ve been mocking you, but are you actually retarded?
I’ll stop making fun of you if you are.
Honest question: do you expect anyone to take you seriously on the topic when you assert that coercive non-consensual sex isn’t “rape” as long as no physical force was used?
Christmas in the summer, etc.?