Print

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

[Neonivek]

Sheb from everything I can gather... it seems to be equally psychologically damaging on men... (Ohh dear goodness)

It just seems like men are less likely to call foul from the attempt.

The person in that article might have been being "raped" but in his case it was more that he was struggling as to whether or not he wanted it. Rather then being adamantly against it. It is why he doesn't seem to be as bothered by it.

The Gender swapped version he created in his head doesn't place the woman in his shoes, he didn't imagine a woman having struggling thoughts as to whether or not she really wants to have sex with this guy and if she would be taking advantage of him. (UGH 50 shades flashbacks AHH!)

Does it matter? No... Rape is rape... But it is interesting that the implied gender switch automatically assumes she doesn't want it outright with none of the other context.

No no no.

It assumes that all men have male privileged. Which is to say that they enjoy the advantages of that one element over women. The overall influence of that one axis of privilege are referred to as sexism.

It assumes nothing beyond that

You need to read closer and see how it uses terms like "men" and "women". It uses them as cohesive singular units of single mindedness.

If you just apply that "men are not all men" and "women are not all women" then the entire argument collapses because everyone doesn't have the same experiences.

As well it implies that Sexism is "overall".

Better yet, just think of it this way. How can a man be sexist towards a woman under the same conditions when you really think about it? If sexism is ONLY "overall" then individual acts of sexism isn't sexism.

If it makes it easier for you, replace 'sexism' with 'systematic sexism' or 'cultural sexism' in any feminist work. And the same for racism in...

No, that is eliminating the point it is trying to make and the entire basis for which I passionately reject its entire notion. As well...

YES men can be systematically discriminated against. In all ways? No.

So I can STILL reject it passionately on the notion that saying that men cannot be systematically or culturally discriminated against on the basis that they have a leg up is still something I'd openly reject.

It is still an example of the extremist sexism that people confuse as feminism as a whole. I don't even believe most feminists believe in it.

Most people, I like to believe, know that you can be sexist against men and racist against white people. The question they have though is what constitutes it (For example a off collar joke about men, isn't likely going to hurt a man. So it isn't sexist).

[palsch]

The exact quote you are supposedly talking about here;

    Now, before I say anything else, the obligatory disclaimer: When feminists say that women can’t be sexist towards men, they aren’t saying that women being prejudiced against men is a good thing, or something that should be accepted. Prejudice is bad and should not be accepted.

    Now that that’s out of the way, let’s look at why feminists make a distinction between sexism and gender-based prejudice when the dictionary does not. A running theme in a lot of feminist theory is that of institutional power: men as a class have it, women as a class don’t. Obviously the power dynamics do shift around depending on the culture and the time period (not to mention the individual, the other privileges that the person does/does not have, etc etc), but ultimately the scales remain tipped in favor of men in general (if you disagree with that statement, please go read the Why do we still need feminism? FAQ entry first before proceeding).

    What this imbalance of power translates to on an individual level is a difference in the impact of a man being prejudiced towards a woman and a woman being prejudiced towards a man. While both parties are human, and therefore have the same capacity to be hurt by the prejudice, whether they like it or not, the men have a whole system of history, traditions, assumptions, and in some cases legal systems and “scientific” evidence giving their words a weight that the women don’t have access to.

Seriously, you seem to be talking straight past her words.

[Neonivek]

A running theme in a lot of feminist theory is that of institutional power: men as a class have it, women as a class don’t

This is untrue. Though as we will soon see it is simply hyperbole.

obviously the power dynamics do shift around depending on the culture and the time period (not to mention the individual, the other privileges that the person does/does not have, etc etc), but ultimately the scales remain tipped in favor of men in general

So there you go Palsch "Men have a leg up"

giving their words a weight that the women don’t have access to

So there we go...

I don't talk out of my butt palsch. Think about what it is REALLY saying. Not the "best case scenario".

"men have a whole system of history, traditions, assumptions, and in some cases legal systems and “scientific” evidence giving their words a weight that the women don’t have access to"

This is important.

[scrdest]

Also, it is interesting to try to imagine what that guy's reaction would have been if, instead of being assaulted by a woman, he had been assaulted by a gay man. Somehow, I think he would have been much more traumatized. Why? Why does rape by men seems to be worse (in terms of psychological effects, I don't want to address the moral question yet) than rape by women?

Biology. Will expand further, gotta run right now.

[RedKing]

Really? Because last time I checked, most of the institutions that set rules for things in most societies are heavily male in their membership. Rwanda being a rare example, because so many men were killed in the 90's genocide that women dominate government there.

[Neonivek]

Really? Because last time I checked, most of the institutions that set rules for things in most societies are heavily male in their membership. Rwanda being a rare example, because so many men were killed in the 90's genocide that women dominate government there.

Women are not powerless, they are not weak pathetic creatures thrown into the sea of a male dominated world who's only power exist because men give it to them.

Hence why I said it was hyperbole. Since it goes on to elaborate on that statement.

[palsch]

Wait, so you didn't mean the things you said before?

[Neonivek]

Wait, so you didn't mean the things you said before?

[Neonivek]

In regards to this whole thing about men being more worrying or somesuch: Someone I know was kissed by a lesbian (she's not one herself), and she was rather disgusted by it. If a man had done it, it seems she'd have had the same reaction. Although, she DID punch one guy to the floor when they grabbed her arse...

I remember when a guy kept squeezing my butt... I asked him to stop.

I wish people wouldn't have kept squeezing my butt in highschool.

[Neonivek]

The guy smoked weed frequently and wasn't exactly the most appealing person, personality and looks wise. He tried setting my hair on fire, once.

That happened to me too... It was a girl though in highschool. She got sent to the office.

I preferred to hang around girls then guys in highschool... mostly because I wasn't sophomoric... and my asexual tendencies in highschool got me a lot of attention I preferred not to have (and girls... just didn't care in highschool... and in a project I wasn't a girl so they HAD to work... when all guy groups and all girl groups tended not to work as much as the mixed groups)

[palsch]

Wait, so you didn't mean the things you said before?

I mean, you literally quoted the part where she contradicts your original point while trying to make a separate point, which itself makes no sense in context. This is just trying to play word games, not make an sort of cohesive argument. Didn't realise that was what was going on.

[Reelya]

The numbers from those studies are all over the place. The Anderson studies (which I can't find online, though I can find other references to them) seem to be the high water mark. This meta-analysis says that those surveys, "asked about attempted sexual IPV and, therefore, may be an overestimate compared to the other studies, which did not include attempted behaviors in their measures". That study might be a better starting point.

Actually, there are direct parallels in the collection of rape statistics for women. Christina Hoff Sommers discuses some in her writings. An example is here:

http://time.com/100091/campus-sexual-assault-christina-hoff-sommers/

.

Today’s college rape panic is an eerie recapitulation of the daycare abuse panic. Just as the mythical “50,000 abducted children” fueled paranoia about child safety in the 1980s, so today’s hysteria is incited by the constantly repeated, equally fictitious “one-in-five women on campus is a victim of rape”—which even President Obama has embraced.

The one-in-five number is derived from surveys where biased samples of respondents are asked an artful combination of straightforward and leading questions, reminiscent of the conclusory interviews behind the daycare agitation. A much-cited CDC study, for example, first tells respondents: “Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.” Then it asks: “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you.” (Emphasis mine.) The CDC counted all such sexual encounters as rapes.

So, according to many studies (not just this CDC one, Hoff Sommers lists many more going back to the early 80's in an essay I can't find right now), they do in fact ask the questions in such a way as to "boost" the positive results. Many of these American studies count just being drunk or stoned whilst having sex as a raped woman, regardless of how drunk or whether the person gave you the alcohol or not. But they don't say "were you raped whilst drunk" they ask "did you engage in vaginal sex whilst drunk", and then the researchers then interpret this as "yes, rape" without the survey respondent having to verify this.

You might say that the "unable to consent" was meant to be attached to all the previous qualifiers for a "yes". But then I'd seriously have to question the survey methodology. It's a really ambiguous way to ask any question and expect valid results.

[Neonivek]

That would certainly explain where the "50% of all women have been raped" statistic has come from.

I STILL want to know where they got it.

[Reelya]

It's in that Hoff Sommers essay i can't find.

The survey's author got a much lower figure, around 1982, but with rigorous methodology. Nobody was interested.

Then circa 1983, he deliberately reworded everything to be ambiguous, took a liberal approach to analysis, and got 50% raped, or something like that. Suddenly he's getting in Ms Magazine, has grant money coming out his ass, and he's famous. The rest is history. So do the right thing with good science, no interest. Pander to some group or other with bogus stats: fame and money. And yes, it was a dude who caused this.

[palsch]

Asking about rape as behaviour rather than by name is a fairly conventional practice given the stigmas around rape. That is rather different to using attempted and actual acts as one and the same thing, as that Anderson study seems to have (still trying to find the paper).

I'd also note that the question in full context makes far more sense. Specifically there is a preamble to all the questions;

    Women and men may experience unwanted and uninvited sexual situations by strangers or people they know well, such as a romantic or sexual partner, friend, teacher, coworker, supervisor, or family member. Your answers will help us learn how often these things happen. Some of the language we use is explicit, but it is important that I ask the questions this way so that you are clear about what I mean. The questions we ask are detailed and some people may find them upsetting. The information you are providing will be kept private. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer and you can stop at anytime.

    I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual situations. In general, these are: unwanted sexual situations that did NOT involve touching and situations that DID involve touching. I will also ask you about situations in which you were unable to provide consent to sex because of alcohol or drugs, and about your experiences with unwanted sex that happened when someone used physical force or verbal pressure.

Then the specific question itself;

    Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.

    When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever….

        had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean….

This very clearly makes it about ability to consent in the context of unwanted sexual contact. You have to assume people manage to take the question out of context and misunderstand it to get to extreme over-reporting from that.

As for the 'more rigorous' NCVS numbers (which she uses for the 1 in 40 number), those are pretty heavily flawed in this context.