Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The problem is palsch is that rape's definition can be applied quite easily out of context.

"Have you ever agreed to sex when you didn't want to?"

As an example.

Though I am unsure why asking on this completely anominous study "have you ever been raped?" isn't acceptable. People tend to be extremely honest when they cannot be linked to these. Is it because they are trying to find the secret rape that even women who experienced it don't know? or that women aren't equipped to recognize or process their own rape?

[Reelya]

I kind of think that even with the preamble, the question wording is quite leading. First up it sets up the idea of "unable to consent because drunk", then just before the question it states "whatever happens when you are drunk is not your fault", i.e. it's someone else's fault, before asking the question.

And that question itself is horribly worded. Regardless of the pre-amble any woman who'd ever had sex drunk, consensual or not, would have to answer with a "yes" (or a number) to that question or she'd be lying on the question.

There could have been many ways to word that less ambiguously, but obviously they deliberately chose to word it that way.

[Sheb]

Or just that not everyone define the same things as rape, so you need more precision for consistency's sake.

[Vector]

or that women aren't equipped to recognize or process their own rape?

That one.

[Neonivek]

or that women aren't equipped to recognize or process their own rape?

That one.

Hmm, do we have a study for this one? It seems like an interesting subject.

[palsch]

I kind of think that even with the preamble, the question wording is quite leading. First up it sets up the idea of "unable to consent because drunk", then just before the question it states "whatever happens when you are drunk is not your fault", i.e. it's someone else's fault, before asking the question.

Wait, which part of this do you have a problem with? These are pretty important aspects of the legal question of rape (although you have reworded the second a little from the quote...). If we are trying to determine how many rapes happened (rather than how many women understand themselves to have been raped) then these are important points to clarify before putting forwards the questions.

For reference, in a legal trial regarding rape would you see these as leading instructions given to a jury?

And that question itself is horribly worded. Regardless of the pre-amble any woman who'd ever had sex drunk, consensual or not, would have to answer with a "yes" (or a number) to that question or she'd be lying on the question.

Erm, no. I mean, the wording is right there for others to see, so I don't really know how you can claim this. The phrasing of the question puts the emphasis on consent, as does the context of the question and the entire survey. Not to mention that it was a survey about unwanted sexual contact, which suggests in itself that consensual drunken sex wouldn't be included.

[aenri]

It has mostly died down in the west but it used to be more prominent. Outside certain White groups (Like Gypsies and The Irish) systematic racism against White people is pretty low.

Gypsies aren't white. They have their distinct culture which is pretty racist against whites. Atleast here in Europe.

[Ogdibus]

These days, the extremist fringes of feminism are mostly unheard, aren't violent, and have very little power.  Most opposition to feminism isn't even directed at them.  It's directed at "straw feminists", entities of pure speculation and slippery slope arguments.

Ohh?

"You cannot be sexist against men because they are advantaged"

That wasn't a fake quote or said by some small nobody on like a small blog. It was by a professor of feminism said in a news article.

The Extremist fringes of anything isn't put far in the distance. For example: People who believe in the right to bear arms? There are many reasonable ones and many of the opposing statistics about weapon use is flat out untrue or misleading (such as the 50% chance you will hit a family member? fabricated from another statistic)... Who gets on the news? "We need our guns to protect ourselves from the Obama administration!"

It is just that the extremist fringes are never exactly the same as the Strawman.

How powerful and mainstream do you think this professor really is?  Keep in mind that most professors aren't powerful people to begin with.  They have influence over their students' perception of things, but only for a brief time.  Even if they abuse their authority, it's still going to be over their students and people in their department.

I've read a similar quote explained, regarding race.  It was meant to refer to institutional racism, not personal attitudes.  Black people cannot systematically oppress white people in the US.  This is seems similarly valid for the quote that you presented.  The systems that oppress men are class based, and have been upheld by other men for thousands of years.  Even though women have occasionally gained power in this system, it doesn't make them "sexist toward men".  If you had left a name that I could look up, I'd have a better idea if that is what she meant.

[scrdest]

I thought that what was called 'reverse' racism is not systematic racism of non-whites on whites, but systematic action in favor of non-whites to the detriment of whites so, for example, with two people competing for a position, an inferior candidate being picked because of not being white.

[Reelya]

Ok, another article. This one by a Berkeey professor discussing the original Mary Koss studies, plus others.
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/MythsGilbert.htm
Skipping over the Mary Koss one, but that's interesting reading in itself, the 2nd main set of studies discussed is even more egregious in it's flawed methodology. Just part of it reads:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As she explains in Sexual Exploitation:

The incidence figure for rape in the Russell survey cited above was 35 per 1000 females. (This includes cases of rape and attempted rape that occurred to residents of San Francisco, both inside and outside the city.) This is 24 times higher than the 1.71 per 1000 females reported by the Uniform Crime Reports (emphasis in original).

Based on this calculation, the 1978 Uniform Crime Report's figure of 67,131 for all cases of rape and attempted rape in the United States is then multiplied by twenty-four, which yields Russell's national estimate of 1.6 million incidents for that year.

Faulty logic and poor arithmetic invalidate this analysis. First, the initial calculation (ironically italicized) is incorrect. The San Francisco rate of 35 per 1000 is 20.5 times (not 24 times) higher than the Uniform Crime Report's 1.71 per 1000. Ignoring, for a moment, this arithmetical error, the logic of the second calculation assumes a correspondence between the Uniform Crime Report rates for San Francisco and the nation at large. If Russell's sample had an incidence rate twenty-four times higher than the Uniform Crime Report's rate for San Francisco, in that case one need only multiply the Uniform Crime Report's national rate by twenty-four to project the local difference on a national scale. However, those who study this subject know very well that the reported rates of rape are considerably higher for metropolitan areas than for the national population. Indeed, the Uniform Crime Report's total of 67,131 cases of rape and attempted rape in 1978 amounted to a national rate of .6 per 1000 females, which was about one-third the rate of 1.7 per 1000 females it showed for San Francisco. Thus, if we include the initial arithmetic error, Russell's national estimate of the incidence of sexual assault exaggerates by about 350 percent the figure that would result from simply an accurate reading of her own facts.

[Ogdibus]

I thought that what was called 'reverse' racism is not systematic racism of non-whites on whites, but systematic action in favor of non-whites to the detriment of whites so, for example, with two people competing for a position, an inferior candidate being picked because of not being white.

That sounds more like affirmative action, which is designed to compensate for white people having better opportunities because they tend to have more money and live in areas with better infrastructure.  Even things like welfare are disproportionately provided to poor white people, rather than people of color.

Reverse racism really needs a better name, too.  This current one is too confusing.  It really sounds like the opposite of what it is intended to mean.



@ http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/MythsGilbert.htm

Neil Gilbert also wrote Capitalism and the Welfare State; Clients and Constituents; and co-author of The Enabling State: Modern Welfare Capitalism in America.  He's like a caricature of a conservative old white guy.

[Reelya]

I thought that what was called 'reverse' racism is not systematic racism of non-whites on whites, but systematic action in favor of non-whites to the detriment of whites so, for example, with two people competing for a position, an inferior candidate being picked because of not being white.

That sounds more like affirmative action, which is designed to compensate for white people having better opportunities because they tend to have more money and live in areas with better infrastructure.  Even things like welfare are disproportionately provided to poor white people, rather than people of color.

Reverse racism really needs a better name, too.  This current one is too confusing.  It really sounds like the opposite of what it is intended to mean.



@ http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/MythsGilbert.htm

Neil Gilbert also wrote Capitalism and the Welfare State; Clients and Constituents; and co-author of The Enabling State: Modern Welfare Capitalism in America.  He's like a caricature of a conservative old white guy.

Dude, the guy is a professor of welfare policy at Berkeley. He's not writing anti-welfare polemics. Read some blurbs on the books.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.amazon.com/Dimensions-Social-Welfare-Policy-7th/dp/0205625746/ref=la_B001IO9R8I_1_2/185-2072698-9059038?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402510092&sr=1-2

Dimensions in Social Welfare Policy provides students with the most comprehensive and widely-used theoretical and conceptual framework for analyzing the design of a wide range of social welfare policies.

Highlights of the Sixth Edition

    Provides the most comprehensive and widely-used analytical frameworks for understanding the design of social welfare policy, enabling students to identify alternative choices and to understand the consequences of each alternative.
    NEW chapter broadens the scope of this text by applying the social policy framework to international policy trends (Chapter 9).

Reviewer responses
“As an instructor, I find this text soundly organized and understandable. The text covers content in both depth and breadth and the content is appropriate for graduate level education. I particularly like the way the authors encourage critical thinking through the presentation of information without attempting to provide simplistic answers or solutions to social policy questions and problems.”
Myrna D. Bocage, Simmons College

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Welfare-State-Dilemmas-Benevolence/dp/0300031122/ref=la_B001IO9R8I_1_5/185-2072698-9059038?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402510092&sr=1-5

The welfare state of the 1980s is under siege from several directions. This timely book examines the inevitable changes to come and their implications for the future of social welfare.

"Welfare state is under siege" like it's a bad thing, isn't how conservatives talk.

http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Work-Feminism-Market-Policy/dp/0300164610/ref=la_B001IO9R8I_1_3/185-2072698-9059038?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402510092&sr=1-3

Gilbert argues that while the market ignores the essential value of a mother’s work, prevailing norms about the social benefits of work have been overvalued by elites whose opportunities and circumstances little resemble those of most working- and middle-class mothers. And the policies that have been crafted too often seem friendlier to the market than to the family. Gilbert ends his discussion by looking at the issue internationally, and he makes the case for reframing the debate to include a wider range of social values and public benefits that present more options for managing work and family responsibilities.

And in this one, he's talking about how women's labor is undervalued, and the free market values suck. Clearly, no cliched "old, white conservative"

http://www.amazon.com/Enabling-State-Welfare-Capitalism-America/dp/0195058941/ref=la_B001IO9R8I_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402510724&sr=1-7

The key difference is in the word "enable" rather than "entitle".

Over the last two decades new arrangements have emerged for the finance and delivery of social welfare in the United States and other industrial democracies. Moving beyond the conventional paradigm of the welfare state, these arrangements form an alternative model. This study details a fresh vision of social welfare transfers--how they are delivered, and whom they benefit. The authors explore the use of private enterprise and market-oriented approaches to the delivery of social provisions, and examine how welfare benefits are derived from the full range of modern social transfers including tax expenditures, credit subsidies, and those induced by regulatory activity. Reappraising the modern boundaries of social welfare, this book provides insights into the structure and dynamics of a novel social model that will open new avenues for scientific study and public debate.

Review

"A thorough, sophisticated account of the transformation of the welfare state in the United States. The Enabling State is the most mature effort available, and should prove useful both to policymakers and students of human services and political economics. In an area strewn with ideology, the Gilberts have succeeded in offering a sober assessment of how the welfare state has changed dramatically in the twentieth century, especially in the past few decades...a first-rate understanding of the intricacies of modern welfare capitalism...a model of excellent social science research."--Society

"Welfare Capitalism" is also not a phrase you'll hear from many conservatives.

[Ogdibus]

Oh, ok. That's different.  I didn't actually read the blurbs, but I can tell by the titles that I could have misinterpreted them, more-so than his job description, actually, because being an expert on a thing, doesn't really reveal your attitude about it.  I did look him up, before posting, just because the link you gave has all it's images broken, so I needed some way to get some context for the article, which is very old.

It's going to take a lot of digging for me to get a clear picture of what's going on with the controversy around this guy.

Regarding the Mary Koss statistics: 

"Critics of the study incorrectly assumed was included when the rape-prevalence rate was calculated, but it was not.  Only penetrations through force or intoxication were combined.  Professor Neil Gilbert at the University of California, Berkeley, subsequently criticized the study, finding ambiguity in one of the questions: Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? Gilbert believed that with this question Koss had expanded the rape definition beyond forcible assault, although many state laws similarly defined rape.  Thus, he thought, she inflated her prevalence figures."

I also want to emphasize this: Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you  gave you alcohol or drugs?

[Neonivek]

It has mostly died down in the west but it used to be more prominent. Outside certain White groups (Like Gypsies and The Irish) systematic racism against White people is pretty low.

Gypsies aren't white. They have their distinct culture which is pretty racist against whites. Atleast here in Europe.

It depends who you talk to. As well "White" is a very large umbrella which encapsulates many cultures and many groups.

That is because "White" is not a culture it is an arbitrary designation of origin.

[scrdest]

It has mostly died down in the west but it used to be more prominent. Outside certain White groups (Like Gypsies and The Irish) systematic racism against White people is pretty low.

Gypsies aren't white. They have their distinct culture which is pretty racist against whites. Atleast here in Europe.

It depends who you talk to. As well "White" is a very large umbrella which encapsulates many cultures and many groups.

That is because "White" is not a culture it is an arbitrary designation of origin.

Yeah. And Gypsies are Indo-Iranian, like Persians or Indians. Well, technically also most of Europe, but we were the earlier wave.