The bogus statistics thrown around by the feminist-industrial complex—a one-in-four to one-in-five incidence of sexual assault among undergraduate girls—dwarf any known crime rate, even in the most brutal African ethnic wars... Activist researchers attain their 20-25 percent rape incidence statistic by the strategic phrasing of questions and the exquisite parsing of definitions.
In a 1986 Ms. survey that sparked the campus-rape industry, 73 percent of respondents whom the study characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped when asked the question directly. Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants—an inconceivable behavior in the case of actual rape. Sixty-five percent of females whom a 2000 Department of Justice study deemed “completed rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report,” nor did their alleged “victimization” result in physical or emotional injuries.
The campus rape crisis, in other words, requires ignoring females’ own characterization of their experience. There is simply no reason to concede any factual legitimacy to the rape hysterics, even as a debating tactic, since doing so only prolongs the life of the campus rape myth.
I know, right... it's almost like abused people sometimes respond positively to their abusers when they've been raised in a society where that kind of abuse and tolerance are considered gender identities.
Yes, some people tout around a 25% rate. Some a 20% rate. According to a 2011 CDC study, they estimate an about 18% rate. Maybe that's more "official" for your purposes. Now that we're done quibbling about semantics, and if you're done playing your "rabble rabble rape isn't as serious as you all are saying so we don't have to talk about it" game, do you feel like addressing the GOP's (and our society at large's) abysmal record at addressing the topic? You know, the point of the OP's cartoon?
You really think that around 20 to 25% of women in the US are being raped? As in forced to engage in sexual activity without consent? There is no fucking way. No fucking way. Because if that were the case, no woman would ever go near a man. EVER. Women would demand that all men be disarmed and all women be armed. That is an epidemic that is worse than the worst numbers coming out of combat zones. 1 in 4? Not a fucking chance.
Now, if you stretch the definition of rape to mean things like leering at a woman or viewing pornography or having sex with a prostitute, then that number becomes more realistic.
I already allowed that your semantic quibbling might be correct. Are you done with that yet? Did you actually have a point to make with that, or is it just numbers for the sake of numbers? Any thoughts on the GOPs terrible track record? Any thoughts on rape culture, or the way society really fails both men and women with regards to how it enforces gender and sexual roles, and how rape is handled? Anything to say other than "AHA I CAN QUIBBLE OVER THIS NUMBER THEREFORE WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT RAPE!"?
Seriously? You think all women swear off men because they've been raped? I've been raped once, molested once, my mother has been raped before. I have three girlfriends who have been raped or sexually assaulted. ALL of these instances we're proven in the court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, however not with out MUCH aggravation and shaming (and a judge that granted custody of a child to a known pedophile, because well gee gosh shucks, he didn't want to destroy our traditional family). Do you think with your attitude, women are ready and willing to share their experience of sexual assaults with YOU? I've belonged to dozens of survivor groups, I'd be more than happy to have hundreds of women in a 50 mile span from me email you their disturbing encounters of rape/sexual assault in our country.
Despite this, I am still happily heterosexual and dating, so that blows your unfounded, misguided theory.
And for fucks sake, if it's .001% going on, are you saying it's acceptable to allow a culture that hides, shames and discourages reporting? You're just being petty on semantics.
Please do share what your acceptable threshold of allowable rape is before you feel the need to be concerned enough to do something? 10%? 5%? How many women can be raped without justice before saying enough is enough?
Perhaps because you've not offered adequate citation to back your argument. Using a study that is older than me is hardly proof of anything. You seem to be basing your entire argument on "it sounds so crazy it must be wrong!" I've offered you real life proof.
A handful of cases of ebola in Dallas and people are pulling their kids out of school. But 1 in 4 women are being raped and parents let their daughters go anywhere near men? They're sending them to college to live in dorms next to men? Horseshit.
And yet the flu is more deadly, just not-new. AIDS is similarly transmitted, but nobody is demanding bio-containment treatment only. Ebola is something new... boy behavior is something expected.
What you're saying simply defies all logic. If 1 in 4 planes fell out of the sky, women would rarely, if ever, fly. If 1 in 4 professors at a university always gave women "f"s, women would rarely, if ever, attend that university. If 1 in 4 dresses caused chemical burns on their skin, women would rarely, if ever, wear dresses.
If the university a woman wanted to attend told her upfront: "There is a 60% or so chance you're going to get raped here if you attend for 4 years" women would rarely, if ever, attend that university.
And yet, we're to believe that 25% or so of women are raped in the US (and mostly by men they know), and women still not only don't mind being around men, they befriend men, go on dates with men, get in men's cars, alone and uncoerced, talk to men, ask men for help on the street, etc.?
If you believe this, then you must think women are either the stupidest organisms on the planet or have no control over themselves whatsoever. NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE.
Hard to believe, isn't it? It's almost like there's some biological imperative that drives men and women together, despite these kinds of abuses. 80% of families are reportedly losing household income by participating in American capitalism, and yet they all think they're going to end up in that 20%, too. Do you think optimism and hope should be squashed in favor of raw pragmatism?
No. I refuse to believe that women have some biological drive that overrides their fear of men. We're not black widow spiders or praying mantises. We're human beings with the ability to reason and override any biological imperatives. We've seen women starve the fuck out of themselves, become bulimic, and even override the biological imperative to protect their own young to the tune of millions of abortions per year.
But you're going to tell me that the desire to be around men is SO powerful that women just can't help themselves even though statistically they're bound to get raped by us?
Not very likely.
Isn't it possible that the 73% of women who took issue with being categorized in that study as having been raped might be on to something and that maybe there's a lot of ideological nuttery and definition twisting to arrive at the 20-25%? Or is that impossible?
I find it far more likely that women will minimize the potential risk of suffering at the hands of another, yes. I've known women in abusive relationships. They always think it either is going to get better or they'll find a way to make it work. Women who were raped by family members often did not report it to the family, and continued having to interact with that person on a regular basis. Women raped by men they went on dates with would hvae to endure that male in their social circles, and yet they would STILL go out with more guys.
Sorry, man... people do things they know aren't good for them for the illusion of a happy ending... even if it's spending time with men who might eventually end up raping them.
That makes it sound like women are some kind of automatons without free-will or reason. Suppose there was a statistic that 1 in 4 men who joined the Marines could expect to be raped by other men in his platoon. I can goddamn guarantee you that enlistments in the Marines would plummet. Do you disagree?
And yet, we're to believe that 25% or so of women are raped in the US (and mostly by men they know), and women still not only don't mind being around men, they befriend men, go on dates with men, get in men's cars, alone and uncoerced, talk to men, ask men for help on the street, etc.?
If you believe this, then you must think women are either the stupidest organisms on the planet or have no control over themselves whatsoever.
No, we're just not foolish enough to judge every single man by the worst ones out there. If we get injured in a car accident, surprise! we do NOT spend the rest of our entire lives screaming and cowering in terror at the mere sight of ANY car.
There are women con artists, women violent offenders, even women serial killers in this world. Say you get mugged and stabbed in the street by a woman, yes OF COURSE you are more wary and careful in the future, but does that mean you run screaming in hysterics from every single woman you meet? That you lock yourself in your home and tremble in fear anytime anyone rings your doorbell? Do you cower in terror even at the sight of your own daughter, or grandmother just because some completely unrelated female kicked the crap out of you? Because you seem to think that's what women are supposed to do, and that's pure bullshit.
1 in 4 in a fucking epidemic. It's not even comparable to what you're describing. So yes, if 1 in 4 US women are being raped by men in the US, they should be avoiding men at all cost. If 1 in 4 US women were being killed by house cats, I sure as shit can guarantee you women would be avoiding house cats.
What you are demonstrating is the Argument from Incredulity. It's basically the same reasoning used by some Creationists. They don't understand evolution because it is frankly very hard to understand, and its methods seem counter-intuitive if you've been raised to think in certain ways (honestly, it's a freaking nightmare to unravel even for those of us who believe in it.) So because they have a hard time wrapping their minds around HOW x, y, and z could have happened, they insist that x, y, and z could NOT have happened. Evidence and facts are not at play here, it's all about feelings.
When you are presented with factual statistics, and your perception of human nature is balking at that (these statistics CANNOT be true, because otherwise people would not be behaving as I am seeing them behave) you have two choices: reject the statistics, or reject your preconception of human nature. I'd argue that it is more likely that you don't understand everything about how the sometimes contradictory ways that humans operate, than for these statistics to be completely wrong.
Regardless, I've already allowed that maybe there is wiggle room in the numbers. Maybe it's 1 in 5. Maybe 1 in 6. Who knows for sure? What is well established, as I see it, is that we do a terrible job raising boys into men in this country, and when rape does happen we do a terrible job addressing it, both in how (if) we punish, and how we treat the victim. This is exemplified by how many leaders in the GOP have spoken when the topic of rape is broached. The OP is highlighting that. Rather than quibble over semantics ("humans are hard, I don't get this, so I reject it entirely,) I would argue that it's much more productive to say: "Rape is shitty, our way of addressing it is shitty, these are examples of how shitty we can be about this, therefore: WHAT CAN I DO TO CHANGE THAT?"
When our society as a whole blames the WOMAN for rape, not the rapist, then other women look at rape victims and says that she got raped because she did something wrong. Instead of saying HE did something wrong, we teach our daughters not to break the "rules" men have set for when we deserve rape.
Then if it happens anyway, people still look for what you did wrong.
On the "forcible rape" could it not be a legitimate legal distinction between cases where there was violence and cases where there were threats of violence?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 06:42 pm (UTC)The bogus statistics thrown around by the feminist-industrial complex—a one-in-four to one-in-five incidence of sexual assault among undergraduate girls—dwarf any known crime rate, even in the most brutal African ethnic wars... Activist researchers attain their 20-25 percent rape incidence statistic by the strategic phrasing of questions and the exquisite parsing of definitions.
In a 1986 Ms. survey that sparked the campus-rape industry, 73 percent of respondents whom the study characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped when asked the question directly. Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants—an inconceivable behavior in the case of actual rape. Sixty-five percent of females whom a 2000 Department of Justice study deemed “completed rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report,” nor did their alleged “victimization” result in physical or emotional injuries.
The campus rape crisis, in other words, requires ignoring females’ own characterization of their experience. There is simply no reason to concede any factual legitimacy to the rape hysterics, even as a debating tactic, since doing so only prolongs the life of the campus rape myth.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/neo-victorianism-campus_810871.html
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 06:46 pm (UTC)http://klamathcrisiscenter.org/whywomenstay.htm
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 10:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:05 pm (UTC)Now, if you stretch the definition of rape to mean things like leering at a woman or viewing pornography or having sex with a prostitute, then that number becomes more realistic.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 04:26 pm (UTC)Despite this, I am still happily heterosexual and dating, so that blows your unfounded, misguided theory.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 04:28 pm (UTC)Please do share what your acceptable threshold of allowable rape is before you feel the need to be concerned enough to do something? 10%? 5%? How many women can be raped without justice before saying enough is enough?
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 05:17 pm (UTC)Why does being a liberal necessarily mean not being able to argue intelligently?
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:10 pm (UTC)And yet the flu is more deadly, just not-new. AIDS is similarly transmitted, but nobody is demanding bio-containment treatment only. Ebola is something new... boy behavior is something expected.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:22 pm (UTC)If 1 in 4 planes fell out of the sky, women would rarely, if ever, fly.
If 1 in 4 professors at a university always gave women "f"s, women would rarely, if ever, attend that university.
If 1 in 4 dresses caused chemical burns on their skin, women would rarely, if ever, wear dresses.
If the university a woman wanted to attend told her upfront: "There is a 60% or so chance you're going to get raped here if you attend for 4 years" women would rarely, if ever, attend that university.
And yet, we're to believe that 25% or so of women are raped in the US (and mostly by men they know), and women still not only don't mind being around men, they befriend men, go on dates with men, get in men's cars, alone and uncoerced, talk to men, ask men for help on the street, etc.?
If you believe this, then you must think women are either the stupidest organisms on the planet or have no control over themselves whatsoever. NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:33 pm (UTC)But you're going to tell me that the desire to be around men is SO powerful that women just can't help themselves even though statistically they're bound to get raped by us?
Not very likely.
Isn't it possible that the 73% of women who took issue with being categorized in that study as having been raped might be on to something and that maybe there's a lot of ideological nuttery and definition twisting to arrive at the 20-25%? Or is that impossible?
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 08:41 pm (UTC)Sorry, man... people do things they know aren't good for them for the illusion of a happy ending... even if it's spending time with men who might eventually end up raping them.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 12:29 am (UTC)If you believe this, then you must think women are either the stupidest organisms on the planet or have no control over themselves whatsoever.
No, we're just not foolish enough to judge every single man by the worst ones out there. If we get injured in a car accident, surprise! we do NOT spend the rest of our entire lives screaming and cowering in terror at the mere sight of ANY car.
There are women con artists, women violent offenders, even women serial killers in this world. Say you get mugged and stabbed in the street by a woman, yes OF COURSE you are more wary and careful in the future, but does that mean you run screaming in hysterics from every single woman you meet? That you lock yourself in your home and tremble in fear anytime anyone rings your doorbell? Do you cower in terror even at the sight of your own daughter, or grandmother just because some completely unrelated female kicked the crap out of you? Because you seem to think that's what women are supposed to do, and that's pure bullshit.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 05:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 01:18 pm (UTC)When you are presented with factual statistics, and your perception of human nature is balking at that (these statistics CANNOT be true, because otherwise people would not be behaving as I am seeing them behave) you have two choices: reject the statistics, or reject your preconception of human nature. I'd argue that it is more likely that you don't understand everything about how the sometimes contradictory ways that humans operate, than for these statistics to be completely wrong.
Regardless, I've already allowed that maybe there is wiggle room in the numbers. Maybe it's 1 in 5. Maybe 1 in 6. Who knows for sure? What is well established, as I see it, is that we do a terrible job raising boys into men in this country, and when rape does happen we do a terrible job addressing it, both in how (if) we punish, and how we treat the victim. This is exemplified by how many leaders in the GOP have spoken when the topic of rape is broached. The OP is highlighting that. Rather than quibble over semantics ("humans are hard, I don't get this, so I reject it entirely,) I would argue that it's much more productive to say: "Rape is shitty, our way of addressing it is shitty, these are examples of how shitty we can be about this, therefore: WHAT CAN I DO TO CHANGE THAT?"
no subject
Date: 2014-10-17 12:36 am (UTC)Then if it happens anyway, people still look for what you did wrong.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 11:31 pm (UTC)You probably sleep with women, but you obviously don't like them very much.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 03:52 pm (UTC)