A recent Wendy McElroy column cited this IWF critique of rape prevalence research by Mary Koss. (For those of you who don’t know it, the IWF – or Independent Women’s Forum – is a right-wing anti-feminist think tank.)
Here’s what the IWF has to say:
Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their “attacker” again.
Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.
Here’s a bit of fun trivia: Shortly after the IWF released this piece, I had a debate with an IWF flunky about it on one of their discussion boards (they’ve since taken the debate offline). At the time, I wrote this:
Sometime since then, some enterprising IWF person has stuck in a few citations to works by Mary Koss (otherwise the piece is unchanged). How funny.
Anyway, let’s get on with the fisking, shall we? The IWF wrote:
“Commissioned” implies that Ms. thought up the idea for the study, found a researcher to implement it, and funded it. None of that is true. Koss thought of the study in the 1970s and presented a preliminary paper in 1980, years before Ms’s involvment began (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v 50 n3 455-457, 1982). Although Ms donated office suffort to help make the 1987 national version of Koss’ study possible, Koss’ approach and design were set in place and published before Ms’ involvement. The study was funded by a grant from the Natinal Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), not by Ms. (The NIMH had more to do with Koss’ study than Ms – they approved of the design and of which tasks Ms was allowed to participate in).
(Curious that the IWF doesn’t mention that Koss was at the time a professor at Kent State, or that her study design was approved by the NIMH, or that it had gone through the peer-review process at the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.)
Again, Koss was doing her research long before Steinem or Ms had heard of Koss.
This is a mis-statement of what the study actually found.
73% answered no to the question, “it was definitely rape”; it’s not safe to conclude from that they’re sure it was not rape!
We have to consider context: we’re talking about young women, most of whom were raped by someone they knew (usually someone they were dating and had already been sexually fooling around with), who were in high school in the early 1980s, when discussions of date rape were extremely rare. It is any surprise that most of them weren’t positive that their experience was “definitely” rape?
We should also look at the implications of deciding, as the IWF in essence does, that “if the victim doesn’t say it was ‘definitely’ rape, it’s not.” 70% of the alleged rape victims in Koss’ study resisted by physically struggling with the man, and 84% tried to reason with him to no avail. The large majority reported having sex when they didn’t want to due to force or threat of force.
The IWF’s argument is essentially that “it doesn’t matter if the woman resisted physically, tried to reason with the man, and felt they had unwanted sex due to force or threat of force; if they didn’t check ‘yes’ next to the words ‘it was definitely rape,’ then it wasn’t rape.” Should anyone be comfortable with that logic?
Really? The article writer must know this because of her strange mental powers, because nothing in Koss’ study supports this statistic.
All we know from the study is that 43% had intercourse with their rapist (or “rapist”) at some later date. We don’t know anything else; we don’t know how many of those later occasions were voluntary and how many were repeat rapes, for example. We do know, however, that the typical rapist is very often a boyfriend – someone the victim is dating before the rape.
So what does this 43% figure really tell us? IMO, it could show that girls who are violently abused (and rape is a form of violent abuse, no less than battery) by boyfriends don’t always immediately break off the relationship. Is that really a shocker, or anything that we should accept as proof that a girl or women can’t really have been raped? (Over 50% of the rape victims in Koss’ study were raped by someone they were dating – and had gone at least as far as “petting above the waist” with them before the rape.) (Also, keep in mind that we’re hardly talking about a group of experienced, sexually confident woman here; over 40% of the rape victims were virgins at the time of the rape.)
This critique of Koss just restates the old “a woman who stays must not really have been abused” myth. It’s bullshit when said regarding battered women, and it’s bullshit when said regarding raped women, too.
Koss’ study (“Scope of rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students”) can be found in The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology v 55 (2) p. 162-170, 1987. The research, while not perfect (no study is flawless), is sober and responsible, and certainly not “hysteria.” Don’t take my word for it – or the IWF’s word for it – read it yourself.
I agree. But if the IWF was interested in “truth,” why not give the full information about the study – both that Ms was involved and that it was supervised by the NIMH and peer-reviewed, the stat about later sexual intercourse and the stat about struggling to get away – and let readers judge the truth for themselves? Why didn’t she mention the other studies – including ones by the U.S. Government – which have found results similar to Koss’?
Of course, I have nothing against advocates giving only one side of the story – by and large, that’s what advocates do. But to self-rightiously mouth pieties about “truth” while giving only one side of the story is a bit much. IF you’re seriously going to search for truth, you have to give readers both sides of the story. The IWF critique doesn’t do that.
* * *
Enough with the fisking. Let me just state what I consider the core issues.
The main findings Dr. Koss made about rape (as opposed to about sexual coercion in general) are: One, that many women – somewhere in the general range of 1 in 8 – have been victims of rape at some point in their lifetime. Two, that rape is very rarely reported to police. Third, that rape is usually committed by someone known to the victim, not by a stranger.
All three of these findings were widely suspected when Koss began her study, but had not been verified with social science research.
These three findings have since been upheld by every nationwide survey designed to measure violence against women. That, in social science research, is usually the gold standard – if a finding can be repeated, then it should be taken seriously.
So which are these other studies?
- The NIJ/CDC “National Violence Against Women Study” found that 14.8% of American women experience a completed rape at some time in their lifetime. A typical rape-defining question was worded like this: “Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.”
- The Department of Justice’s Sexual Victimization of College Women study included a sub-study in which college women were asked about lifetime incidence of rape (most of the study asked about rape since the beginning of the school year,which isn’t directly comparable to Koss). 10% of the women interviewed reported having been raped at some point in their lifetime. Rape was defined as “unwanted completed penetration by force or the threat of force.”
- There’s also The National Women’s Study (NWS), a large-scale national study which found that 13% of American women have been raped in their lifetime.
At least a dozen other studies have confirmed Koss’ results, but those three are the biggies..
This is a great post! It is nice to see someone “raking through” the findings of a study.
“73% answered no to the question, “it was definitely rape”; it’s not safe to conclude from that they’re sure it was not rape! ”
Thanks once again, for sharing.
i’m confused. why would the IWF want to discredit information about the prevalence of rape? what in their political agenda benefits from this?
it just seems to me that every time i hear about the IWF, they are trying to prove something that is anti-woman.(not only anti-feminist…)
I guess this would be hard to estimate (and even more controversial), but are there any estimates of what percentage of the male population are committing these rapes?
Quite independent of the recent news, I’ve sometimes wondered about this in connection with war crimes (on the individual level, as opposed to the large scale mechanized kind Americans often engage in). If a significant fraction of the male population are rapists, then they are likely war criminals (not necessarily rapists, but people prone to abuse their power one way or another.)
Of course, the Iraqi photos demonstrate that apparently some women can be rapists of a sort when given the opportunity, something that presumably doesn’t happen so often in civilian life.
Emile,
You ever see the Stepford Wives? In the town of Stepford, the women are killed and replaced with robots.
I think the same thing happens with the IWF.
i’m confused. why would the IWF want to discredit information about the prevalence of rape? what in their political agenda benefits from this?
Sheelzebub’s answer is classic, but I’ll try to be a little more serious.
I had a history teacher who specialized in diplomatic history, who taught me this valuable lesson. When someone would ask why policy-makers in a country acted a certain bizarre way, he always answered, “Your problem is you’re assuming there’s logic.” Not everything people do is because of logic, or makes logical sense. People aren’t accustomed to thinking logically.
As for why does the IWF, or should I say, members of the IWF, do this thing that’s considerably, seemingly anti-woman. My guess is: they’re comfortable. When you’re comfortable, you don’t like change, even if logically the change will make you better off, because everything’s comfortable as is, and change might make you less comfortable. In this case, the idea that rape is so prevalent is extremely disconcerting. I know I’d be happier if I thought is was just hogwash. So people convince themselves it is hogwash, then out of fear defend their assertion with all their might.
This is a little late, but in case anyone reads this I’ll address this:
First of all, in your insistence in picking apart the details of the IWF document, you glossed over the fact that the “1 in 4” figure IS a myth. You _acknowledged_ it’s a myth, but somehow still regard the study and the feminists using the figures as being a-ok. If you look at the figures in the study, rape by force or threat of fource was 9% for intercourse rape and 6% for anal/oral/other. This means that at most 15% were actually raped (note that the two figures can overlap) leaving it at 1 in 6.67. That figure, not surprisingly is more in line with the other studies.
This study was, at best, only sober and responsible in terms in terms of data collection, but it was not in terms of analysis. The “1 in 4” figure (27.5%) comes mostly from the answers to this question:
“Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure?”
25% of women answered yes to that and of all the questions asking about committed rape it got the highest percentage. So in other words, the 1 in 4 figure is only true if you use a skewed definition of rape that creates a sort of “rape by nagging.” If you were interested in the truth, you would speak out against spreading this obviously false statistic. They also include other skewed defintions of rape in questioning, which is hardly “sober and responsible,” especially considering that the summary statistics (like the 25% figure) were based on those being rape.
Also, the study is biased against men. It assumes that only men can rape men, the questions don’t allow room for women raping men which IS possible despite feminists spreading lies to the contrary. It asks questions of the form “has a man ever done such and such to you,” making it impossible for a woman to rape a man. The NIJ/CDC “National Violence Against Women Study” also makes the same assumption by excluding the possibiliy of intercourse rape of a man (which has happened) and rape by penetration with a foreign object. I have not read the other studies yet so I don’t know about them.
The second conclusion you state was not made by the study (that reporting is done “very rarely”). The study quotes figures from other studies between 25%-30% and states overall that:
“Government estimates suggest that for every rape reported, 3-10 rapes are committed but not reported”
So basically it’s 10%-30%, which is not “very rarely.”
You said: “Why didn’t she mention the other studies – including ones by the U.S. Government – which have found results similar to Koss’?”
Because they DIDN’T find the “1 in 4” figure, which WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MYTH INFORMATION. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally being misleading or if you’re just stupid.
What is your source for the information of your percentages and “refutation” of the given percentages (73%, 84%, 50%, etc…)?
Lasty, I’ll address this:
“why would the IWF want to discredit information about the prevalence of rape? what in their political agenda benefits from this?”
Are you seriously not understanding of why someone would want to discredit false and misleading information which slanders men and leads to anti-male legislation?
Better questions would be: Why would Koss want to exagerrate the frequency of rape? and What is Koss’ political agenda in this?
The answer is that she wanted to further portray women as victims which is a popular theme in modern feminism (self-victimization). It also has the “pleasant” side effect of making it look like more men are rapists than there actually are, a big plus for all the misandrists.
Oh and for empasis: The myth page is right, the “1 in 4” figure IS a myth, you acknowledged it. Why is it so hard to admit that they were right? Instead you insist on picking apart other details rather than the conclusion being made. That’s very objective and mature of you to try to debunk a conclusion which you actually agree with.
Hi, Nathan. Thanks for your comments, in this and the other Koss thread. Right now I’m on vacation and don’t have extended access to the internet. Expect to see a reply from me when I return home, next week.
After rereading the study I realized the 27.5% (1 in 4) figure is actually from including rape and attempted rape along with question #8 (intoxication rape). This is still very misleading since the statement is “1 in 4 college women have been raped” not “1 in 4 college women have been raped or have experienced attempted rape.” I don’t have the source, but there was something about Koss saying that removing question #8 changes it from 1 in 4 to 1 in 5, so that is misleading in itself.
In terms of question #6 (rape by nagging), I’ve actually seen feminists misinterpret that as rape because of the study even though the study specifically distinguishes it as “sexual coercion” and not rape. Likewise for “rape” by being in authority. The point is to make it very clear that those other questions are not at all considered rape, because this is a rape study, not a sexual coercion study.
Also another correction, the study itself cites 5% not filing reports in itself, the other figures from studies it was simply quoting. 1 in 20 is still not “very rarely” though. I’d like to point out something else here, there is a big difference between reporting something to the police and “reporting” something to an anonymous telephone survey. The fact that they can get so many people admitting they didn’t report it in the anonymous survey is proof of that. So feminists who wish to exagerrate those figures even further can’t use ‘most don’t report it’ argument to suggest that the survey figure is innaccurate without any evidence.
It is important to approach this issue objectively, rather than assuming their is necessarily something wrong with society. According to the DOJ study 42% of women didn’t report it because of a lack of evidence, which is unpreventable after the fact. So basically, if we accept the 5% figure as fact, that means that 8 out of 20 cases are unavoidable. So you’re really life with 11 out of 20 cases that are avoidable meaning that lack of reporting isn’t as big of an issue as it’s made out to be.
There’s also this attitude I take issue with:
Tina Oakland, director of the UCLA Center for Men and Women, of stood up to defend it. Once presented with the truth her response was: “The statistics don’t really matter that much in the big picture. We’re just trying to focus on the real issue here…not bicker about numbers.” She acknowledges that it’s wrong, but doesn’t care about the truth.
I made a post about all this in a livejournal anti_feminism community, anyone is welcome to comment. http://www.livejournal.com/community/anti_feminism/34709.html
“…acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped.”
“This is a mis-statement of what the study actually found.”
“73% answered no to the question, “it was definitely rape”; it’s not safe to conclude from that they’re sure it was not rape! ”
I’m fairly certain that when someone is raped, they are definitely sure they were raped. If you cannot say “Yes, it was definitely rape,” you are unaware you were raped. You make some good points with your contextual argument to this, but I wish that the study had posed the question better, so you wouldn’t have to speculate.
Then you stated:
“70% of the alleged rape victims in Koss’ study resisted by physically struggling with the man”
73% cannot say “definite rape” yet 70% physically struggled?
Also:
“All we know from the study is that 43% had intercourse with their rapist (or “rapist”) at some later date. We don’t know anything else; we don’t know how many of those later occasions were voluntary and how many were repeat rapes, for example.”
What kind of rape study is this? Why wasn’t this elaborated on? wtf?
I, like IWF, just don’t buy the numbers. I also agree with the IWF that portraying women as victims isn’t helping anyone solve this issue. If only one woman is raped, it is one too many, and something needs to be done. I don’t believe that a rapist can be rehabilitated, and thus should be violently removed from the planet.
emilie, you said:
“i’m confused. why would the IWF want to discredit information about the prevalence of rape? what in their political agenda benefits from this?”
Absolutely nothing, which says everything.
“73% cannot say “definite rape” yet 70% physically struggled?”
Sorry, I meant 73% cannot say “not definite rape” yet 70% physically struggled?
Doh, never mind. The question stands.
73% cannot say “definite rape” yet 70% physically struggled?
I’m pooped, going to bed…
Nathan,
Just a small comment: why do you say that feminists “can’t use [the] ‘most don’t report it’ argument” when you also mention a 60-90% non-report rate. Do you really consider 60-90% to be less than most?
Also, I don’t think that Amp’s response to the manner in which the IWF debunk the 1 in 4 myth is inappropriate. The difference between what the IWF might accurately have written: “actually, the 1 in 4 figure refers to women who have either been raped or subjected to attempted rape, not the number who have been raped,” and the snarling pack of lies that Amp debunks is so huge that it is difficult to see why you think they deserve to be treated with equal respect. Clarifying an inaccurate simplification of a well documented statistic and falsely accusing the author of a solid study of fraud and partisan ax grinding are two very different things, and should be met with very different responses.
On the Tina Oakland comment, you seem to fail to understand the central point: the important truth is that far too many women are raped, a minor side note to that truth is that the correct proportion of women who are raped is closer to 1 in 6, rather than 1 in 4. What do you think her response should have been: “My god, we have been lied to, and have lied to others about the exact numbers! 1 in 6 is nothing to worry about, let’s pack up and go home!” Is it really so shocking and disgraceful if she cares more about working to decrease the number of rapes than she does about what the exact number is. One might hope that she switched over to stating the 1 in 4 more accurately, or switched to using the 1 in 6 number, but mostly since it leaves less room for anti-feminists to waste everyone’s time yelping about how feminists care nothing for the truth.
On a side note, I can easily see how the 1 in 4 women raped claim develops: “raped or subjected to attempted rape” is simply cumbersome and while “attacked” would encompass both, it is far to vague and coy, so “raped” is used as short hand. Does it say anything better about a society that 1/3 of the time, women are able to successfully fend off their rapist? Perhaps, but not much.
Phi,
73% cannot say “definite rape” yet 70% physically struggled?
You seem to feel that this pair of numbers undercuts the validity of the study.
What problem do you have with these statistics? This is, as Amp points out, pretty clear evidence that if you want to figure out the prevalence of rapes, you should pay attention to the actions described, not to self-definition (particularly in mid-80’s college students, who had not been adequately exposed to the concept of date-rape and who apparently were still unsure if it counted as rape if you had agreed to any degree of sexual contact).
These statistics may be disturbing for what they show about the state of awareness in the 80’s, but you have to be desperate to discredit this study to conclude that the 73% “not definite” undercuts the 70% “physically resisted”, rather than the other way around. To argue (as you seem to) that anyone who wouldn’t state that they were definitely raped doesn’t know that they were raped and therefore can’t have been raped is bizarre. They know what they experienced, and what they experienced meets the definition of rape, even if they don’t know the definition well enough to know that it does. Do you think their experience was more pleasant because they didn’t know that it was completely legitimate to call what had been done to them rape?
I don’t think the “definitely rape” question was intended to determine whether what had happened was rape, I think it was intended to reveal exactly what it does reveal: that many young women who had been raped were uncertain if what had been done to them counted as rape. This result is probably part of what led to an emphasis on the concept of date rape in the late eighties.
While you (or the IWF) are free to “not buy these numbers,” you present no arguments whatsoever as to why anyone else should join you in doing so. What is your basis for rubishing this study and the dozen plus other studies that support Koss’s findings?
Charles,
You said: “why do you say that feminists “can’t use [the] ‘most don’t report it’ argument” when you also mention a 60-90% non-report rate. Do you really consider 60-90% to be less than most?”
I wasn’t saying that that 60-90% (actually 60-95% with Koss) were less than most, I was saying that those figures were irrelevant to the argument. As I explained before, women are much more willing to admit rape to an anonymous telephone survey than they are to file a police report or tell friends/family. The fact that 95% of the women admitted their rape even though they didn’t report it is proof of that. So in other words, they can’t claim that the real rape figures are much higher than in the study due to underreported rapes to police/friends/family.
As far as inaccurate information is concerned, you don’t know whether this was deliberate or not. In terms of being comissioned by Ms., that is widely stated as fact, even by feminists. So I wouldn’t attribute that to misinformation. I have no idea where the 73% and 43% those are from so I couldn’t comment specifically on those.
It’s possible those statistics were part of slander, but without reading the context of them in the sources I wouldn’t know whether it was blatant deception or just a misinterpretation based on a flunky source.
As for Tina Oakland, yes she should have been shocked she had been lied to. If I went around quoting a figure left and right and found it was wrong I’d be sure to make sure everyone knew it was wrong. Considering the actual figure is around 15% and not 25% so it’s not just a slightly in accurate figure either. If the exact figure wasn’t important, feminists wouldn’t have exaggerated it.
Koss and many other feminist leaders are very biased about this and would like to see high figures. To quote koss: “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.” The lower the figure, the less it will support her thesis that this is _normal behavior_. There’s a big difference between inaccurate statistics that were simply a misunderstanding and ones which were twisted to push a political agenda. Even in the case of a misunderstanding, continuuing to allow them to spread is also pushing their agenda.
Inaccurate figures are also harmful. Given the obvious agenda of some, it is used to paint more men as being rapists. Aside from the obvious slander value it can also be used to support political agendas. That is, they use it to play on people’s emotions to support their goals. The higher the figure, the greater the effect. See http://www.dartmouthreview.com/issues/4.10.00/wolf.html for examples of women who used false claims of rape to push a political agenda. Even worse it can be used to support abusive legislation like rape shield laws.
You said: “On a side note, I can easily see how the 1 in 4 women raped claim develops: “raped or subjected to attempted rape” is simply cumbersome and while “attacked” would encompass both, it is far to vague and coy, so “raped” is used as short hand.”
Yes, it’s easy to see how that developed, but the fact is the people who knew it was wrong continuted spreading the false form of it. No one stood up and said “oh that’s not right.” Even with that full statement it is still inaccurate as I stated before.
“Does it say anything better about a society that 1/3 of the time, women are able to successfully fend off their rapist?”
You’re misrepresenting the difference in meaning between rape and attempted rape in the study. First of all, having less women who have actually been raped is certainly a good thing. Knowing that you have a better chance of getting away is reassuring. Secondly, the fact that they were marked as attempted removes objectivity from the study. That is, the questions asked regarding attempted rape are much more open to interpretation than the actual rape ones. There’s a difference between being aggressive and backing off and actually attempting a rape and failing. The potential rapee could interpret it either way, especially considering they can’t read the guys mind to see what his intentions are.
You said to phi: “They know what they experienced, and what they experienced meets the definition of rape, even if they don’t know the definition well enough to know that it does.”
The problem is there are a lot of definitions of rape being passed around. I’ve seen feminists claiming that sexual coercion is rape and others claiming that being drunk means rape irregardless of circumstance. There, again, is still interpretation of the definitions. If the girl does not make it very clear she wanted the guy to stop, the guy may not have known. Contrary to popular feminist belief, no does not necessarily mean no. Some women do in fact say “no” to mean “yes” and “maybe.” Just as an anecdote, I’ve heard of a guy getting scorned by a woman for stopping cold when she said no; she told him he was a wimp for not being more aggressive.
Oh yeah, a little follow up information I’ve found since my last comment. Newer studies suggest that college rape is much lower now than it was before, mostly due to greater campus safety (i.e. shriek alarms, call boxes, etc…).
Just a random irrelevant rant here, even with the figure at 15% that means about 1 in 7 women were raped. That seems alarmingly high, but it doesn’t seem like 1 in 7 women have PTSD. Admittedly I’ve only known a few people with PTSD so my experience is limited. My guess is that many of them are older now or are concentrated areas I wouldn’t be likely to visit. The latter is supported by the fact that there is a significant difference in rape among different races, and races are in different concentrations in different areas.
Another possibility is that the majority of women are actually much better in coping with rape than they are typically given credit for. I say this because the way the politically motivated feminists who speak out against rape it makes it seem like rape victims are little children that need to be coddled. However, the fact that they can hide it and cope with it so well (continuing on with their life) would mean they are very strong and these feminists are actually belittling women. I would be very interested to see statistics on the variance in psychological after effects of rape if it is feasible to collect them. That is, ways and the extent to which it interefered with their lives, how they deal with it, etc…
>[A]bout 1 in 7 women were raped. That seems alarmingly high, but it doesn’t seem like 1 in 7 women have PTSD…. I would be very interested to see statistics on the variance in psychological after effects of rape if it is feasible to collect them.
I’ve had the same thought, especially as we try to generalize about aggregate rape statistics.
In the discussion of “How Many Men are Rapists?,” Amp attempts to help men understand women’s perspective as follows:
>Imagine that one out of 20 people have at some point in their lives attacked and tortured an Oregonian. You don’t know which ones had done it – you just know it’s about one in 20. And they had done it simply because they had wanted to, and they consider people from Oregon to be just that worthless.
>Now imagine you were born in Oregon.
>How safe would you feel in your daily life? What would it do to your feeling of security and safety, knowing that “only” one out of 20 of the people you stand in line with at the bank, the cashiers you meet at the grocery, the cops patrolling the streets, the students you take classes with and the professors you learn from, and your co-workers at the office, has attacked someone like you, because they were like you?
The discussion also includes a long list of behaviors influenced by the fear of rape.
But do all forms of rape produce the same fears? Imagine that Marge goes to bed and turns off the light. Homer says, “Hey, Marge, it’s Wednesday!” Marge says, “Oh, Hommie, not tonight. I’ve got to get up early tomorrow, and I’ve got a splitting headache. I just don’t think so….” Homer responds with, “Oh, I think so, I DEFINITELY think so!”
This scenario may result in rape (by some definitions). It may well damage Marge’s self-concept, and her marriage, and have other adverse consequences. But would it cause Marge PTSD? Would it put her in fear for her life, or even a new STD? Would it give her new fears for her safety as she walks around Springfield? Would she suddenly begin eyeing the people standing in line at the bank, the cashier, the cops, the students, the professors, and the co-workers differently? Would it create new influences on where she chooses to live, or her willingness to go to the gym at night?
Yes, some conservatives need to realize that women’s autonomy must be respected, and the fact that a rape did not occur between strangers late at night in a park does not mean it isn’t rape. But some liberals might benefit from realizing that not all rapes are equally traumatic. I see the IWF discussion about how many women were unsure of whether they had experienced rape, and their alleged willingness to return to a relationship with the assailant, to be a (perhaps inartful) effort to illustrate this point.
Of course, FEAR of rape can constrain people’s behavior (just as fear of terrorism can), regardless of the likelihood of the event. But if we want to start discussing statistics, and associating likelihoods with consequences, we should perhaps identify which forms of rape provoke which fears, and measure the prevalence of each form separately.
You know what? Just because someone wasn’t “sure” if she was raped doesn’t mean she hasn’t suffered “adverse consequences.” It only means what she said–she’s “not sure” if it was rape.
I was mugged. I was not particularly traumatized by it. I did not suffer PTSD. That doesn’t mean that I think it was okay, and that the crime shouldn’t be taken seriously. That also doesn’t mean that all robbery victims react the same way I do, and that if they don’t, they are being coddled. My not having PTSD doesn’t mean I wasn’t mugged. Shall we simply say that it was okay for that gang to mug me, since I don’t have any ensuing trauma from the event?
And while Marge may not have “new fears as she walks around Springfield”, eye “the people standing in line at the bank”, or develop “new influences on where she chose to live, or her willingness to go to the gym at night”, she has a whole host of other concerns. Such as: Can I feel safe in my own home? Can I ever feel safe with my husband again? What would the cops, my family, the people waiting in line at the bank say if they knew this? Did I lead him on? Why isn’t no enough of an answer for him? Why don’t my desires count? What will happen to me if I say no more forcefully next time? Will he hurt me? If I leave and take the kids, will anyone believe me?
Are you actually saying that it’s less traumatic to be raped by someone you know? I beg to differ on that count. Someone you know and trust violates you, and trust me, that’s traumatic. Just because some people may not have any trauma (and you have to wait a long time to decide that; some people experience problems from a trauma years after the fact) doesn’t mean that the crime isn’t wrong. It also doesn’t mean that other people don’t experience adverse problems from trauma.
Finally, rape survivors regularly speak out about how much acquaintance rape has affected them. They have spoken quite openly about the trauma they have endured, only to be derided as people on a victim-trip, have their actions questioned, been judged as careless or slutty, or told that they are overreacting and that they should just get over it.
Yoder said: Another possibility is that the majority of women are actually much better in coping with rape than they are typically given credit for.
Or maybe they are able to cope with rape because of the support they got from “politically motivated feminists” as opposed to people who question everything they did when it happened, bring up their sexual history, and pass judgement on them.
I say this because the way the politically motivated feminists who speak out against rape it makes it seem like rape victims are little children that need to be coddled.
No, they are actually willing to acknowledge them. Funny, that. No rape survivor I know of ever felt as if they were coddled by feminists or advocates–they did feel as if they were the only people who actually took them seriously. Contrast this with the “you’re just being a viiiiiiiictim” brigade, who would rather survivors not say anything about it at all.
However, the fact that they can hide it and cope with it so well (continuing on with their life) would mean they are very strong and these feminists are actually belittling women.
Or it could mean that they are ashamed and know that if they say anything, they’ll be blamed, they’ll be told that they are being victims (because being victimized and speaking out means you’re a terrible person), they won’t be believed, and/or they’ll be told to get over it. The people who belittle them this way aren’t feminists.
What about if they don’t hide it? What about if they talk about it and cope with it? What seems belittling is your idea that it’s best to have this out of sight and out of mind. That women shouldn’t talk about it, and those who do aren’t coping well, are somehow weak, and are being coddled. They are none of those things. They are choosing to speak out, to cope with it, and to educate people about the realities of sexual assault. It’s a shame that some people have these questions about trauma, but won’t listen to those who’ve been through it. Such women apparently disqualify themselves by speaking out. How convenient.
>And while Marge may not have “new fears as she walks around Springfield”, eye “the people standing in line at the bank”, or develop “new influences on where she chose to live, or her willingness to go to the gym at night”, she has a whole host of other concerns. Such as: Can I feel safe in my own home? Can I ever feel safe with my husband again? What would the cops, my family, the people waiting in line at the bank say if they knew this? Did I lead him on? Why isn’t no enough of an answer for him? Why don’t my desires count? What will happen to me if I say no more forcefully next time? Will he hurt me? If I leave and take the kids, will anyone believe me?
Agreed, Marge has a whole host of concerns. But, as you say, they are OTHER concerns. Other than what? Other than the concerns identified in the “How Many Men are Rapists?” discussion. Now, where did Amp get the crazy idea that rape victims would feel anxiety about people standing in a bank line, etc? Oh yeah, he’s talking about people’s fear of being raped by a STRANGER. So I recognize, just as you did, the disparity between Marge’s concerns and stranger rape concerns.
>Are you actually saying that it’s less traumatic to be raped by someone you know?
No. I simply hypothesize that fear of (and trauma from) stranger rape is different than fear of (and trauma from) being raped by a significant other. Not greater. Not lesser. Different. Specifically, I hypothesize that fear of being raped by a significant other would not cause someone to develop anxiety about being attacked by a random male.
So I suggest that we (ok, researchers) collect data distinguishing between people who are raped by strangers and those raped by significant others. Because, in the absence of such disaggregation, I sense that people are prone to take concerns related to STRANGER rape and impute them to data regarding ALL rape, as suggested by the “How Many Men are Rapists?” discussion. This certainly does not promote accurate understanding, and it arguably distracts attention from the unique concerns of Marge and her fellow victims of rape by significant other.
Lack of disaggregated data precludes much analysis. For example, if I learn that incidence of rape is increasing, should I conclude that it’s more dangerous for women to bike to work? For all I know, stranger rape is actually decreasing, while incidences of rape by significant others is increasing. Because rape by significant other poses no threat to cyclists generally, I don’t know what to conclude.
Finally, I note what first drew my attention to the discussion: IWF noted that many women expressed doubt about whether they had been raped, and had allegedly resumed a sexual relationship with the assailant, so IWF concluded that the victims had not been traumatized by the event. Amp accurately notes that the data does not require the interpretation that IWF offers. I suggest that the data does not preclude the IWF’s interpretation, either. True, many people are traumatized by rape. But how many? It is no disrespect to one victim to inquire how another victim feels.
>My not having PTSD doesn’t mean I wasn’t mugged. Shall we simply say that it was okay for that gang to mug me, since I don’t have any ensuing trauma from the event?
No. But we might try to give a fair hearing to people who argue that not all mugging victims are traumatized.
Here’s the irony. IWF says that “Rape is a uniquely horrible crime,” which seems like supportive words to people traumatized by rape, or the fear of it. But IWF then implies that no assault should count as rape unless it is so horrible as to traumatize the victim. In effect, IWF is arguing to narrow the definition of rape.
I don’t share this view. I generally think that the legal definition of rape should govern what is regarded as rape, and that definition generally gives no weight to the issue of whether the victim is traumatized. But in addition, I have not seen evidence that all rape is traumatizing, and certainly not that all rape is traumatizing in the same way. And I don’t take it as an article of faith that this is so. Show me the data and I’m in; otherwise, I’m not.
I’m fairly certain that when someone is raped, they are definitely sure they were raped.
I’m fairly certain that this is wrong, given the study’s bizarre gap between women who say that they physically struggled with a man but can’t say they were ‘definitely raped’. Probably because many women persuade themselves (or are persuaded) that “it wasn’t really rape” if it was their boyfriend, they were drunk, they’d had sex with him before, they’d wanted to have sex but changed their minds, etc.
I’m interested in the study’s focus on penis-vagina penetration as definitive of rape. I understand why this was done, but it sets up an argument for one particular subset of sexual assault. No, I’m not saying a grope is “rape,” but for example, coerced oral sex or penetration with an object is omitted entirely in this study.
As for why the IWF would say such things: well, there’s a reason prosecutors tend not to put women on juries in rape trials.
Sheezlebub:
>Or maybe they are able to cope with rape because of the support they got from “politically motivated feminists” as opposed to people who question everything they did when it happened, bring up their sexual history, and pass judgement on them.
You’re right, we should always just take their word on it and never approach it with even the slightest bit of skepticism. We should also change the legal system to be guilty until proven innocent. Most people who are questioning are questioning whether they have been raped in the first place, not whether or not they deserved it. It’s a legitimate concern when some women use distorted definitions of rape, including sexist blanket intoxication rape and sexual coercion definitions.
>No, they are actually willing to acknowledge them. Funny, that. No rape survivor I know of ever felt as if they were coddled by feminists or advocates–they did feel as if they were the only people who actually took them seriously. Contrast this with the “you’re just being a viiiiiiiictim” brigade, who would rather survivors not say anything about it at all.
Yes, and as we know personal anecdotes prove everything. And not feeling coddled means that they definitely weren’t coddled. Also, thank you for placing me in the “you’re just being a victim” brigade. I don’t believe they shouldn’t say anything nor do I believe they shouldn’t have legitimate support available to them, don’t associate me with them.
>Or it could mean that they are ashamed and know that if they say anything, they’ll be blamed, they’ll be told that they are being victims (because being victimized and speaking out means you’re a terrible person), they won’t be believed, and/or they’ll be told to get over it. The people who belittle them this way aren’t feminists.
There is a problem with this kind of thinking, it assumes that all rape victims think and feel the same way about their incident. As with anything there are shades of grey and there will be people on both ends of the spectrum and everywhere inbetween. If you notice there is a trend now for rape survivors to come out and say something like “I’m a rape survivor and I’m not afraid to admit it.” These people announce their rape and continue on their lives as planned, how is that not being strong? Even people who hide it and continue their lives are still strong, hiding something like that and living life normally is NOT easy, but apparently you seem to think it is. If they weren’t strong they would would discontinue pursuit of their goals, drop into a depression and disassociate themself with others. Yes, that happens, but what percentage of rape victims do that? And pardon me for considering rape survivors to be strong, I should just assume they’re all weaklings, you have my apologies.
>What seems belittling is your idea that it’s best to have this out of sight and out of mind. That women shouldn’t talk about it, and those who do aren’t coping well, are somehow weak, and are being coddled.
I never said that, don’t put words into my mouth. You know what they say about assumption right?
>It’s a shame that some people have these questions about trauma, but won’t listen to those who’ve been through it.
Who isn’t listening? I’ve heard the anecdotes before, I was asking about a scientific survey. There are many more who don’t speak out and we know nothing about them and nothing about how the effects vary from person to person other than by anecdote.
nobody.really:
>Lack of disaggregated data precludes much analysis.
Actually there are disaggregated statistics, look at the DOJ study mentioned on this page. It has a graph on the different kinds of rape that occur, with acquantince rape being the most common for women and stranger rape being the most common for men. It also has breakdowns by race, reasons for not reporting, resistance provided during rape/attempted rape and other stuff.
>It is no disrespect to one victim to inquire how another victim feels.
Exactly, apparently asking about differences in how victims feel is heretical, no one DARE try to get a look at whole picture.
>No. But we might try to give a fair hearing to people who argue that not all mugging victims are traumatized.
Yes, but that would require acknowledging that the situation isn’t as bad as they make it out to be, that’s enough to get them exiled from the church of feminism.
>I don’t share this view. I generally think that the legal definition of rape should govern what is regarded as rape, and that definition generally gives no weight to the issue of whether the victim is traumatized. But in addition, I have not seen evidence that all rape is traumatizing, and certainly not that all rape is traumatizing in the same way. And I don’t take it as an article of faith that this is so. Show me the data and I’m in; otherwise, I’m not.
Yes, this is the main problem I have when feminists talk about rape. They speak as if each case is the same, irregardless of what happened. A scientific study needs to be done to figure out the different effects it has on men and women. In terms of legal rape, some definitions are too open to interpretation, mainly in the case of intoxication rape. The problem is that a prosecutor can interpret the law to mean that a girl who is simply drunk, but is still cognizant is automatically raped no matter what. I’d also like to point out that non-rape sex can be traumatizing too, especially if the sex was under some bad circumstances (i.e. the guy turned out to be a lying asshole or did something horrible). There are also cases where women are trauamatized because they think they’ve been raped when they haven’t. Believe it or not there are a few who actually believe sexual coercion (i.e. nagging someone until they have sex) is rape, fortunately I think they’re a small minority.
“Yes, but that would require acknowledging that the situation isn’t as bad as they make it out to be, that’s enough to get them exiled from the church of feminism.”
How is the situation not as bad as they’re making it out to be? I’ve *never* seen a feminist claim that every single rape victim reacts to rape in the exact same way.
I have seen oodles of feminists say that there is no typical reaction to being raped, no typical behavior of a rape victim, but that, in general, they are traumatized to a certain degree. And oddly enough, none of them have been exiled from the “church” of feminism. Do you honestly think it’s painting a false picture to claim that the majority of rape victims experience huge trauma of some sort?
>I’ve *never* seen a feminist claim that every single rape victim reacts to rape in the exact same way.
That statement you’re replying to wasn’t that they claim every single rape victims acts the same way. It was that they claim (at least implicitly) every victim is horribly traumatized.
>I have seen oodles of feminists say that there is no typical reaction to being raped, no typical behavior of a rape victim, but that, in general, they are traumatized to a certain degree. And oddly enough, none of them have been exiled from the “church” of feminism.
I haven’t seen them give any serious discussion of talking about them in terms of degrees of trauma and in terms of temporary trauma. In the livejournal forums I’ve been in, if you suggested that one form of rape was a lesser form (in terms of trauma) they would engage in a flaming straw man argument against you. Basically they’d start accusing you of victim blaming, saying that rape is insignificant, etc… When it comes to any way women are mistreated they would rather resort to spending 90% of the time talking about the extreme cases and pretending that the others don’t merit serious discussion.
>Do you honestly think it’s painting a false picture to claim that the majority of rape victims experience huge trauma of some sort?
I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking for statistics rather than relying on anecdotes. I take issue when people just assume it’s one way or the other simply based on personal experience.
The livejournal feminist communities are used to dealing with oodles of trolls. I don’t blame the members for being easily annoyed by such things, especially from *self-professed anti-feminists.*
I’d like to see the posts you’re referring too, though. Just in case.
And also, you shouldn’t ask for statistics if you’re not going to trust them if they come from remotely feminist sources.
Actually the livejournal feminist communities are used to dealing with people who they think are trolls, but actually aren’t. In their eyes, and the eyes of most people on livejournal a troll is anyone who strongly disagrees with you on a fundamental issue. From Wikipedia’s internet troll definition:
“On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:
1. A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.
2. A person who posts these.
The term has negative connotations, and is often applied as an insult, while simultaneously being claimed as a ‘badge of honour’ by troll organizations or individuals. Sincere but controversial or naive posters are sometimes mis-labeled as trolls, but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord.”
The problem is that most of those people they label as trolls simply have controversial ideas (by their standards), but aren’t actually trolls. I was under suspicion once for trolling by arguing against an extreme feminist, who was the moderator of the community in question. The funny thing is, if the argument had been in any other non-feminist community she would have been the one being accused of being a troll because she was arguing from a sexist stand point.
If you would like to see an example of what I’m talking about, there was a recent post about physical abuse victims and potential responsibility. The issue was that the victim might have been verbally/emotionally abusive and made the situation worse for themself. I would like to emphasize the “might” there which the feminist interpreted to mean “always”; constructing a whole straw man argument against it.
Most of the feminists were arguing that such a thing was practically non-existant and that even if the victim was verbally/emotionally abusive the assailant should have sucked it up and/or left and thus had no excuse. The problem with their logic was that they were using the same arguments to defend verbal/emotional that they argued against physical abusers with.
This comment in particular is of interest, from red_girl_42 who was accused of being a troll. She had a valid point about provoking abuse while pointing out the hypocrisy in statements made. One girl slapped her abuser and she was applauded for it. The problem is that many of the other feminists were arguing that someone should leave a relationship even after one slap because it’s a horrible horrible thing. They also refused to admit that verbal abuse could possibly be worse than physical abuse. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with her, she was presenting her honest opinion in a polite way and thus was not trolling.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/feminist/1229752.html?thread=26768824#t26768824
Another very lengthy thread of interest:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/feminist/1229752.html?thread=26749368#t26749368
>And also, you shouldn’t ask for statistics if you’re not going to trust them if they come from remotely feminist sources.
When I say I don’t like statistics from feminist sources, I’m referring to second/third/fourth-hand statistics. That is, the “1 in 4” statement going from “1 in 4 college woman have been raped or have experienced attempted rape” and after being passed down it became “1 in 4 women have been raped.” If I can read the complete study on the statistics, then I don’t mind since I can see exactly how things were interpreted and judge for myself how valid it is. Even with the Koss study I believe the data collection methods were good, but the questions and analysis had problems.
Oh, I don’t have a post specifically about rape trauma degrees because it never came up in a post I read. I’m saying that the flaming would happen if there was such a post, so I’ve given a post that’s comparable
Good lord, Nathan dear. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth after you say: “You’re right, we should always just take their word on it and never approach it with even the slightest bit of skepticism.”
We are talking about the effects of rape, no? So you’re saying we should just not believe what anyone who’s been through it says? Or wait, you’ve decided to conflate your questions about rape trauma with the court system:
“We should also change the legal system to be guilty until proven innocent.”
I never said that, but I suppose it’s easier to put words in my mouth than actually address the points I raised. Read the page out of your book about assumptions.
“. . . including sexist blanket intoxication rape and sexual coercion definitions.”
Oh, good Lord. At least we know why you get so shrill and hysterical about feminists now. How dare they say it’s wrong to fuck someone who’s too intoxicated to give consent? What kind of barbaric law expects people to show some restraint?
You’re not interested in anectodal information? I know a lot of trolls on LJ aren’t either. One thread about sexual assault where men and women talked about their experiences was visited by trolls who told them they were asking for it, told them they deserved it, etc. And yes, dear, that’s trollish behavior. They weren’t trying to add to the discussion when they said things like “I’m going to finger your asshole.”
You want statistical studies? Here you go:
The effects of sexual assault on teens.
Or you could actually look at Koss’ study, which does cover the trauma that even those women who weren’t sure if it was rape experienced.
According to the Koss study, of all respondents who reported an incidence of legally defined rape (whether or not they used the term), 30 percent considered suicide afterward, 31 percent sought help from a therapist and 82 percent said the experience had changed them. Only 11 percent reported that they “don’t feel victimized.”
Mental Health Impact of Rape.
Text below excerpted from Health Impact of Interpersonal Violence.
Another study of medical use and health perceptions associated with violence included four longitudinal assessments of 115 rape victims and a comparison group of 87 women for a 1-year post-rape period.[21] Rape victims reported physical symptoms, including rapid heart rate, tension headaches, stomach aches, skin problems, menstrual symptoms, weight changes, and allergies that decreased over the course of the year. In addition, rape victims displayed significantly elevated psychological distress throughout the year.
Resnick et al[28] found that more than half of the 29 rape victims who were assessed within hours after the rape reported that they experienced physical reactions of nausea or abdominal distress, rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, shaking, sweating, and choking sensations during the rape. Resnick, Kilpatrick, Dansky, and Freedy[30] found that physiological indicators of panic, such as dizziness, chest pain, and shortness of breath, were a major predictor of immediate trauma reactions (38.5% of variance) reported by men and women who had experienced DSM-IV Criterion A PTSD stressor events. Initial reactions, such as abdominal distress or pain, may become learned conditioned responses to environmental fear triggers, leading to longer term health problems that may include chronic pain syndrome or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Higher rates of traumatic events are reported in association with IBS,[31] chronic pain syndromes,[32] sexual dysfunction,[33,34] and other symptoms of reproductive health problems.[7] These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that learning mechanisms may contribute to organic dysfunction. Leserman et al[31] assessed the prevalence of physical and sexual assault histories among 239 women gastroenterology patients and found that 67% had a positive history of assault. In terms of assault characteristics, women with histories of sexual abuse and rape, as well as women reporting physical assaults that included a threat to life, were at risk for more severe symptoms of IBS or “organic” gastrointestinal disorders.
[snip]
A study by Irwin and colleagues[35] with 50 patients seeking treatment for IBS found high rates of PTSD and other psychiatric diagnoses. More recently, Falsetti and associates[36] used data from a representative community sample of 3,911 men and women who were assessed for symptoms of IBS, violence histories, mental health diagnoses, and patterns of using medical services. They found that IBS prevalence was 2.8%. Interview data from 387 adults representing IBS treatment seekers and IBS non-treatment seekers were compared with non-IBS controls. Sixty-six percent of the patients with IBS were medical treatment seekers. The IBS respondents reported significantly higher rates of sexual and physical assault, current PTSD, and panic disorder than the individuals in the comparison group. These findings may be seen as consistent with learning-theory models, given the reported presence of gastrointestinal symptoms during acute trauma and as a component of the physiological alarm response.
There is plenty of research out there. Seek, and ye shall find. You may not agree with it–in fact, I doubt you’ll agree with any study that doesn’t fit with your views on rape, but to say it doesn’t exist is untrue.
Finally, you may not like Koss’s conclusions, but the American Psychological Association, social scientists, and researchers all respect her work. They are far more credible than the partisan IWF, ifeminists, or the nut-job Christian Party.
>There is plenty of research out there. Seek, and ye shall find.
Certainly this review demonstrates that researchers have looked at many aspects of how rape influences victim’s lives. Thank you.
Let me acknowledge that, notwithstanding your exhortation, I’m not wading through the research. Instead, I’m candidly freeloading on your (and others) knowledge of the data.
That said…
Is anyone aware of studies that distinquish between the reactions of people raped by strangers and the reactions of people raped by significant others? Especially, is anyone aware of studies that distinguish between their relative fear of men, or of being alone, generally?
Thanks again.
>I never said that, but I suppose it’s easier to put words in my mouth than actually address the points I raised. Read the page out of your book about assumptions.
You’ve already demonstrated your inability to take criticism from an anti-feminist, so there’s no assumption there. I’ll also make a point not to use hyperbole with you in the future.
>How dare they say it’s wrong to fuck someone who’s too intoxicated to give consent?
You assume that the law and the prosecutors are using totally accurate critera for determining ability to consent. How intoxicated is too intoxicated? If you can’t see the grey area here then you aren’t qualified to speak about the situation. Some prosecutors consider simply being at any level of drunkenness enough, even if the woman is still aware of what’s going on, capable of moving and speaking (capable of giving consent!). It’s also a sexist standard, if a man is drunk and a sober woman has sex with him it’s not rape because the man is responsible for his actions. If they both are drunk the man has raped the woman, because the man is responisble for being drunk and the woman isn’t.
>And yes, dear, that’s trollish behavior. They weren’t trying to add to the discussion when they said things like “I’m going to finger your asshole.”
What’s your point? Most of the time the alleged trolls aren’t saying anything like that. If you looked at the example I posted you’d see they didn’t fit that criteria at all.
Those studies only superficially touch on what I’m looking for. I’m not just looking for what percent have long-term PTSD, what percent were suicidal, physical symptoms, etc… Knowing that x% have long-term PTSD doesn’t tell me much about how it’s affected their lives or even the severity of it. If I wanted a general overview I could open up any psychology textbook on it.
I’m looking for long-term effects in terms of how it’s interfered with their lives. That is, how it’s affected education, jobs, relationships (including friends/family), frequency of specific types of chronic psychological and physical problems, etc… Again, I’m not talking about anecdotes or general overviews, but a statistical breakdown of specific problems affecting the different aspects of their lives (relationships/jobs/etc) by percentage and severity of effect (which would have to be carefully objectively described). This would be a *very* extensive long-term study, so it’s not going to come any time soon.
>Finally, you may not like Koss’s conclusions, but the American Psychological Association, social scientists, and researchers all respect her work.
Didn’t the APA once classify homosexuality as a mental disorder? I thought the APA doesn’t have agendas. Frankly, the APA supporting any study is unimppressive, especially considering their penchant for fabricating and misclassifying disorders. In fact, psychology as a whole is rather unimpressive, I’d rather rely on the hard sciences if I wanted a definitive expert opinion on something.
Also, I wouldn’t say “they all respect her work” without something to back that up. Even within the APA there is disagreement.
I’m getting tired of fighting here with someone only interested in flaming. If anyone wants to contact me just send an e-mail. I have posted a more extensive parting message in the “a boom time for rape” article.
Didn’t the APA once classify homosexuality as a mental disorder?
Yes, and they admitted their mistake in doing so. Research and an effort to better understand psychology (which is their mission) and human sexuality led the organization to change their position.
Here’s the APA’s mission, from their website:
The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by
* the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner
* the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions
* the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement
* the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association
* the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications
thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare.
Good Lord, hide the children and family pets! The APA is out to destroy the world with its agenda to advance scientific interest and inquiry, and the promotion of health, education, and public welfare! Will these evil menaces stop at nothing??
Oddly enough, the Christian Party, whose “figures” you defended to me, is stridently homophobic. No concern there, on your part.
Frankly, the APA supporting any study is unimppressive, especially considering their penchant for fabricating and misclassifying disorders.
Oh, really? What background do you have in psychology? There is dissent within the APA, and I can respect disagreements with the APA. (Even professionals who disagree with Koss still respect her as a researcher. It’s telling that you can’t get the distinction.) However, I give them far more credence in these matters than I do the so-called sources you cited.
In fact, psychology as a whole is rather unimpressive, I’d rather rely on the hard sciences if I wanted a definitive expert opinion on something.
Which hard science are you talking about? Engineering? Physics? Psychology and sociology aren’t “hard sciences” in that sense. You wanted to know about the traumatic affects of rape and how many survivors are affected by it. That’s not a hard science subject. If you don’t think psychologists and social scientists are qualified to research rape trauma and its attendant complications, you aren’t willing to hear any conclusions other than those you have decided you like–such as the “facts” presented by the IWF/ifeminists and the Christian Party. Those groups are hardly qualified in this field.
Those studies only superficially touch on what I’m looking for. I’m not just looking for what percent have long-term PTSD, what percent were suicidal, physical symptoms, etc… Knowing that x% have long-term PTSD doesn’t tell me much about how it’s affected their lives or even the severity of it. If I wanted a general overview I could open up any psychology textbook on it.
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here. You want to know what proportion of rape survivors have experienced trauma. You get research results, and then you say that PTSD, suicidal depression and physical symptoms don’t tell you how it’s affected their lives? You don’t think that’s a big deal? You think PTSD is a trifle, a mere inconvenience? You think suicidal depression is a bad mood? I would advise you to open up a psych textbook and learn a little bit about PTSD and depression and suicide. I’d also advise you to actually read the articles and the studies. You have a lot to learn.
I’m getting tired of fighting here with someone only interested in flaming. If anyone wants to contact me just send an e-mail. I have posted a more extensive parting message in the “a boom time for rape” article.
Someone disagrees with you, posts substantive rebuttals backed up by credible research and peer-reviewed articles, and they are flaming. Oh, give me a break.
Well, I’m finally home and have access to the internet, but the debate has moved on.
Nathan, your case against Dr. Koss has become entirely incoherant. At first you falsely accused Koss of measuring rape by answers to this question: “Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure?”
Then you realized that you were completely, utterly wrong about that – and, to your credit, you admitted you were wrong. But that you were utterly wrong about the facts didn’t cause you to change your opinion of Koss’ study. This makes me wonder if there’s really any point of debating with you; it’s clear your opinion isn’t based on facts, or else you would have changed your opinion of Koss’s study when you realized that you had gotten the facts about the study drastically wrong.
Actually, Koss’ statement is “since the age of 14, 27.5% of college women reported experiencing… an act that met legal definitions of rape, which includes attempts.” You haven’t provided an example of Dr. Koss misstating the statistic; unless you can provide a direct, cited quote of her misstating the statistic, you can’t fairly accuse her of being misleading.
Now, it is true that people other than Dr. Koss have misstated her statistic as “1 in 4 have been raped.” However, it’s certainly not true that only feminists do this – anti-feminist Wendy McElroy, for example, makes this mistake in the column I refer to in this post. Nor is it fair to blame Dr. Koss for how other people misquote or misunderstand her work, so long as she herself stated her results accurately (and she did).
First of all, question 6 is not “rape by nagging.” Koss has never claimed that a yes to question 6 indicates rape, and it’s dishonest of you to imply otherwise. “Rape by nagging” is your invention, not Koss’.
Second of all, the only person here I’ve seen make that particular misinterpretation is you. You claim that feminists have made that misinterpretation (if you knew it was a misinterpretation, why did you repeat that misinterpretation here on this thread?), but you don’t provide any evidence.
* * *
:shrug: Now you’re playing word games. I say that 5% reporting to police makes reporting to police very rare; if you want to argue over the meaning of “very” or “rare,” do it someplace else.
Again, you talk about something “feminists” have allegedly said, but you don’t provide a link or a citation to support your statement. Please either provide a citation of a feminist saying that the underreports to police prove that Koss’ survey is an underestimate, or admit that you have no basis for making this statement and can’t back it up with facts.
Also, you seem to think that Koss’s study was an anonymous telephone survey. It was not. This is a minor point, but it’s one of a string of errors you’ve made that suggests that you either haven’t read Koss’ report, or that you read Koss’ report but didn’t comprehend it very well.
No it doesn’t. The women in the DOJ survey gave multiple, overlapping reasons for not reporting; even if we accept your contention that “lack of evidence” is an unavoidable reason for not reporting rape to police, it still might be possible to increase how many of those 42% report by addressing some of the other concerns many of those same women have.
So, for example, if a woman hesitates to report her rape because she’s afraid her family will find out, and she’s not sure the police will take her seriously, and she’s not sure there’s enough evidence, then we might increase the chances she’ll report to police if we address her first two concerns – even if we can’t address the “not enough evidence” concern.
Second of all, I don’t agree with you that there’s nothing that can be done about women feeling that they can’t report a crime to police unless they have “enough” evidence. I think it would be better if women (and men) reported crimes and left deciding if there’s enough evidence or not to police; if we could encourage that sort of attitude, that would be another way of addressing the 42%.
* * *
Finally, I think you either don’t know or are ignoring the history of this debate. The original question was not “is it 1 in 6 or 1 in 4 or 1 in 8”; the original question was if the real number was closer to 1 in 6 or 1 in 1000. Koss and other feminists were claiming that rape was relatively common; anti-feminists like Neil Gilbert were claiming that rape was relatively rare. Thus, in the title of his 1991 critique of Koss, Gilbert called rape a “phantom epidemic,” and the title of Koss’ response was “date and acquaintance rape are significant problems for women.”
That’s what this debate was about, originally – feminists were saying that rape (especially date and acquaintance rape) were serious and fairly common problems, and anti-feminists claimed that they were rare.
Since then, further studies have clearly supported the feminist point of view and entirely reputiated Gilbert’s view. So rather than admit they were wrong, anti-feminists have staged a strategic retreat from their earlier views. Which leads us to anti-feminists trying to create moutains out of molehills (“the correct number is 1 in 5, not 1 in 4” or whatever).
No two studies find the exact same figure – or should be expected to. No study author can guarantee that no one will misunderstand or misquote their work – or should be expected to.
For people who care about rape victims, rather than caring only about the opportunity to malign Dr. Koss unfairly, what’s important is what of her findings have stood the test of time and other studies. I think it’s fair to say that three important findings from her study – that rape is actually relatively common (rather than in the 1 in 1000 range), that it’s most often a crime committed by people known to the victim, and that it’s rarely reported to police – have more than passed that test.
Oh, and I agree with Sheezlebub. It’s extremely bad sportsmanship for you to falsely accuse someone else of flaming, when it’s clear that the real issue is that you’re unable to defend your views logically or provide legitimate citations supporting your claims.
>Oh, and I agree with Sheezlebub. It’s extremely bad sportsmanship for you to falsely accuse someone else of flaming, when it’s clear that the real issue is that you’re unable to defend your views logically or provide legitimate citations supporting your claims.
No, it’s not bad sportsmanship at all, Sheezlebub was continually misrepresenting my argument. Earlier I had made a request about trauma related statistics, she then cited statistics on them as a “refutation” to my _request_. She assumed I had said a lot of things in regard to trauma I never said nor implied so she could continue to bash me, that *is* flaming. That’s no worse than me assuming she was a “bull dyke feminazi” and simply assuming that she holds exremist views and refuting those. That’s not even including the fact that she simply ignored certain points I made by not replying to them, namely one in regard to intoxication rape. Basically she was providing no figures to support her argument, she just presented a bunch of figures based upon a request.
>else you would have changed your opinion of Koss’s study when you realized that you had gotten the facts about the study drastically wrong.
You’re right, I couldn’t possibly have multiple problems with the study. Clearly, that was my only problem and I should have stopped there.
>Again, you talk about something “feminists” have allegedly said, but you don’t provide a link or a citation to support your statement. Please either provide a citation of a feminist saying that the underreports to police prove that Koss’ survey is an underestimate, or admit that you have no basis for making this statement and can’t back it up with facts.
If it’s really that important I could search through livejournal archives and find them, but why bother with someone who is making numerous unfounded assumptions about me?
In terms of “legitimate citations” she never proved that they are not legitimate statistics in the citations, I wonder if she even looked at the pages I linked to. Instead she just slandered them instead of looking at the argument presented by them. That’s ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument. She didn’t make a single attempt to disprove the statistics presented on those pages, which were statistics from the FBI.
My point was that you can cite dozens of figures from legitimate government agencies, but there are no definitive figures on it. She twisted that to mean me presenting those stats as “fact,” despite the fact that I specifically acknowledged no one has any sort of definitive, accurate figures. Also note that she never presented *anything* to back up the 2% statistic, which was my original point.
>Also, you seem to think that Koss’s study was an anonymous telephone survey. It was not. This is a minor point, but it’s one of a string of errors you’ve made that suggests that you either haven’t read Koss’ report, or that you read Koss’ report but didn’t comprehend it very well.
I had mixed it up with the DOJ and NIJ/CDC studies, big deal. I have read Koss’ report, and if you read my argument you would know that since I was quoting it directly. This indicates you haven’t thoroughly read my argument and are continuing to misrepresent it.
>No it doesn’t. The women in the DOJ survey gave multiple, overlapping reasons for not reporting; even if we accept your contention that “lack of evidence” is an unavoidable reason for not reporting rape to police, it still might be possible to increase how many of those 42% report by addressing some of the other concerns many of those same women have.
Yes, it does. It doesn’t matter if there are overlapping reasons, if you address every single other reason, she will still be lacking evidence and thus reporting it will be pointless.
>I think it would be better if women (and men) reported crimes and left deciding if there’s enough evidence or not to police; if we could encourage that sort of attitude, that would be another way of addressing the 42%
Yes, but how many of these women were actually mistaken about this? You’re assuming that many of these women are too ignorant to determine if there’s enough evidence on their own. Of course you’ll make that assumption because otherwise it would go against the figures you hold so dear.
>Finally, I think you either don’t know or are ignoring the history of this debate. The original question was not “is it 1 in 6 or 1 in 4 or 1 in 8”; the original question was if the real number was closer to 1 in 6 or 1 in 1000.
I’m aware of anti-feminists claiming very low figures, but my argument wasn’t about that. My issue was with the fact that feminists were spreading popular misleading figures for a long time cited as fact.
>Since then, further studies have clearly supported the feminist point of view and entirely reputiated Gilbert’s view. So rather than admit they were wrong, anti-feminists have staged a strategic retreat from their earlier views.
I’m not one of those anti-feminists though, I never thought that the actual figure was 1 in 1000 at any time which I would consider to ridiculously low. To emphasize I take issue with any popular misleading statistics being passed around as gospel.
>For people who care about rape victims, rather than caring only about the opportunity to malign Dr. Koss unfairly, what’s important is what of her findings have stood the test of time and other studies.
Unfairly? I presented the problems (plural) I had with the report. You, like her, actually ignored several other problems I presented. One of her oh so great refutations of my problem with the 4.6% figure was essentially “I and others consider Koss to be a good scientist, therefore she interpreted it correctly.”
Missed a few points, which I’ll address here.
>You haven’t provided an example of Dr. Koss misstating the statistic; unless you can provide a direct, cited quote of her misstating the statistic, you can’t fairly accuse her of being misleading.
I didn’t say SHE misquoted it, I was referring to all the feminists misquoting it.
>Nor is it fair to blame Dr. Koss for how other people misquote or misunderstand her work, so long as she herself stated her results accurately (and she did).
I wasn’t blaming her for the misquote, I was addressing *other* problems with her study. Including the phrasing of question #8 which can be easily misinterpreted to simply being drunk and regretting it later and not explaining the critera she used (in her interpretation of the law) to state that a certain man had raped a women in the 4.6% statistic.
>Nathan wrote: In terms of question #6 (rape by nagging), I’ve actually seen feminists misinterpret that as rape because of the study even though the study specifically distinguishes it as “sexual coercion” and not rape.
>First of all, question 6 is not “rape by nagging.” Koss has never claimed that a yes to question 6 indicates rape, and it’s dishonest of you to imply otherwise. “Rape by nagging” is your invention, not Koss’.
Note that I said “the study specifically distinguishes it as sexual coercion and note rape,” how is that in any way implying that koss said it was rape? Also I said “I’ve seen feminists misinterpet” which again implies they did not read the study as Koss intended. You need to read more carefully.
No, it’s not bad sportsmanship at all, Sheezlebub was continually misrepresenting my argument.
Uh, no. As I posted to you earlier (but you apparently refuse to read) I questioned the sources you gave for your argument. Otherwise, I didn’t get into the 2% argument with you; I concentrated on the trauma subject.
Earlier I had made a request about trauma related statistics, she then cited statistics on them as a “refutation” to my _request_.
Good grief, Nathan, maybe you should read what you wrote as well. You wanted those figures because you seemed to think that “the feminists” were making a mountain out of a molehill WRT to trauma, and you speculated that maybe it wasn’t that big a problem. That “the feminists” were probably patronizing women and making victims out of them. I provided you with the evidence (peer-reviewed, non-partisan), and you pooh-poohed it, saying that the APA had an agenda, and that you just didn’t like the figures I gave you. Somehow, psychologists and social scientists aren’t qualified to research psychology and social science.
She assumed I had said a lot of things in regard to trauma I never said nor implied
Pot, kettle, black. Besides, you did say those things, but I’ll let your patronizing and defensive posts speak for themselves.
That’s no worse than me assuming she was a “bull dyke feminazi” and simply assuming that she holds exremist views and refuting those.
Oh, you mean like when you implied that I believe in guilty until proven innocent? Or maybe when you refused to listen to any figures provided by any organization (including the DOJ and the APA). You refused to give Koss’ research a fair hearing (Amp quite skillfully shows your numerous errors on that count) relying on the “She’s a feminist! She’s a feminist! She’s a feminist!” argument.
That’s not even including the fact that she simply ignored certain points I made by not replying to them, namely one in regard to intoxication rape.
I had already made my point that it’s wrong–and illegal–to fuck someone who was out of it. And frankly, Nathan, contracts signed by someone who is high or drunk are also considered invalid.
Of course, when I did show you the figures about trauma (which you could have found yourself had you bothered to look), you ignored them, saying they weren’t good enough and that the APA has an agenda. In fact, you were quite free with flinging around the spectre of evil agendas everywhere but got rather pissy when a couple of us pointed out that your sources had very blatant agendas of their own.
In fact, when I showed you the figures, you declared that you wanted hard science. So I will ask you again–what “hard science” field would be appropriate for such a study? Physics? Cosmology? Engineering? What, exactly?
Basically she was providing no figures to support her argument, she just presented a bunch of figures based upon a request.
I was supporting my argument that yes, there is plenty of trauma associated with rape.
I had mixed it up with the DOJ and NIJ/CDC studies, big deal.
It is a big deal if you expect to be taken seriously. I can’t see any researcher or debater worth their salt giving such a childish response.
I have read Koss’ report, and if you read my argument you would know that since I was quoting it directly.
You haven’t answered any of Amp’s points about your interpretations–pot, kettle, black again. If you had read Koss’ research and knew it as well as you claim, you’d focus on his points instead of making snide comments and throwing red herrings about.
>I think it would be better if women (and men) reported crimes and left deciding if there’s enough evidence or not to police; if we could encourage that sort of attitude, that would be another way of addressing the 42%
Yes, but how many of these women were actually mistaken about this? You’re assuming that many of these women are too ignorant to determine if there’s enough evidence on their own. Of course you’ll make that assumption because otherwise it would go against the figures you hold so dear.
Actually, when you report something to the police, they investigate it. Forensics and old gumshoe work make up an investigation. I suggest you check your snide tone to Amp. He’s been nothing but civil to you. He doesn’t “hold those figures dear;” they are simply figures that come up repeatedly when credible research is done.
I’m not one of those anti-feminists though, I never thought that the actual figure was 1 in 1000 at any time which I would consider to ridiculously low. To emphasize I take issue with any popular misleading statistics being passed around as gospel.
Which is why you quoted misleading statistics from questionable sources.
I presented the problems (plural) I had with the report. You, like her, actually ignored several other problems I presented. One of her oh so great refutations of my problem with the 4.6% figure was essentially “I and others consider Koss to be a good scientist, therefore she interpreted it correctly.”
No, I had pointed out that people can and do quibble with each other’s research but can still respect the ability of the researcher. Koss’ ability and objectivity is not in question; people who are qualified in the field respect her, even if they do not agree with her. You have continued to cling to the falsehood that Koss is a feminist leader out to malign men (with nothing to prove that claim–NIMH funded her research for heaven’s sake, and that’s a peer-reviewed process) and after you’re “points” were refuted by others on this blog, you boiled your refutation down to “Koss is a feminist!” screeds, such as:
Better questions would be: Why would Koss want to exagerrate the frequency of rape? and What is Koss’ political agenda in this?
The answer is that she wanted to further portray women as victims which is a popular theme in modern feminism (self-victimization). It also has the “pleasant” side effect of making it look like more men are rapists than there actually are, a big plus for all the misandrists.
Proof, please.
Koss and many other feminist leaders are very biased about this and would like to see high figures.
Proof, please.
And, about Koss’ research:
Inaccurate figures are also harmful. Given the obvious
agenda of some, it is used to paint more men as being rapists. Aside from the obvious slander value it can also be used to support political agendas. That is, they use it to play on people’s emotions to support their goals.
Oh, those agendas again. The DOJ, NIMH, the APA. . .they are all behind it. Their figures coming close to Koss’ proves it. NIMH’s backing of her research (years before Ms. played a small part in it, and that was okayed by NIMH) is proof that she’s misandrist with an agenda. The fact that the research was peer-reviewed means that of course, it’s part of a giant agenda to hurt men.
Finally, if you are going to complain about how you are being flamed and personally attacked, I’d like to point you to your first post in this thread, where you came up with gems like this one:
Because they DIDN’T find the “1 in 4” figure, which WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MYTH INFORMATION. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally being misleading or if you’re just stupid.
>You wanted those figures because you seemed to think that “the feminists” were making a mountain out of a molehill WRT to trauma, and you speculated that maybe it wasn’t that big a problem.
Wrong, you’re putting words into my mouth here. I never said nor implied that rape trauma wasn’t serious, I simply said that the women dealing with it had managed to cope with it well and were strong for doing such. I’ve known people with serious illnesses who have managed to cope with it well, ones who I would consider strong, but that in no way implies that their illness is trivial.
>That “the feminists” were probably patronizing women and making victims out of them.
I never said the were making victims out of them, I agree that they are legitimate victims. My statement was just that they are stronger in dealing with *a serious trauma* then they’re given credit for.
>I provided you with the evidence (peer-reviewed, non-partisan), and you pooh-poohed it, saying that the APA had an agenda, and that you just didn’t like the figures I gave you.
I never said those figures you gave were inaccurate, I have no reason to believe they are. The APA statement was a statement about their history in general, not one used to discredit those statistics.
>Somehow, psychologists and social scientists aren’t qualified to research psychology and social science.
No, I was saying that if I wanted to take an expert’s _definitive_ opinion on another expert I’d use someone who is not in a soft science. Someone in the medical fields, like neurologists, psychiatrists or basically anyone else with an MD in a field related studies of the brain/mind.
>It is a big deal if you expect to be taken seriously. I can’t see any researcher or debater worth their salt giving such a childish response.
No, mistakenly saying it was a telephone survey when it wasn’t is NOT a big deal, amp even considered it a minor point. I also find this odd coming from someone making “snide” remarks towards me.
>Oh, you mean like when you implied that I believe in guilty until proven innocent?
I specifically stated that was hyperbole, not that you actually believed that.
>Or maybe when you refused to listen to any figures provided by any organization (including the DOJ and the APA).
I never said that the DOJ nor NIJ/CDC (the ones cited above) had poor results, just that there were some problems with Koss’ study in particuar.
>relying on the “She’s a feminist! She’s a feminist! She’s a feminist!” argument.
I wasn’t relying on her being a feminist to support my argument, I had made other points in problems I had with her study which you chose to ignore.
>He’s been nothing but civil to you. He doesn’t “hold those figures dear;” they are simply figures that come up repeatedly when credible research is done.
He’s been nothing but condescending to me, trying to emphasize how “horribly wrong” I was even though I corrected myself.
>Actually, when you report something to the police, they investigate it. Forensics and old gumshoe work make up an investigation.
Uh, did I say they didn’t investigate reports? I was talking about the victims ability to gauge whether or not there was enough evidence.
>Oh, those agendas again. The DOJ, NIMH, the APA. . .they are all behind it.
I never said the DOJ and NIMH had agendas. The fact that the APA once classified homosexuality as a disorder does show they let their personal biases interfere with their work. I did not say that Koss’ work was wrong because of this, I was simply making a point I would not just blindly accept their opinions on others as accurate.
>The fact that the research was peer-reviewed means that of course, it’s part of a giant agenda to hurt men.
No, I’m not saying there is any kind of conspiracy here, just that Koss in particular is biased.
>No, I had pointed out that people can and do quibble with each other’s research but can still respect the ability of the researcher.
The fact that they do quibble with her research means that they aren’t just taking it at face value. There is no reason I shouldn’t question her interpretations of things either.
>you boiled your refutation down to “Koss is a feminist!”
No, I had made points with regard to her methods in the study on their own merits. The fact that she’s biased was just an offered explanation of why they would be the way they are, but I’ll acknowledge that her biases aren’t as great as I had previously indicated, but they are still there.
>Koss and many other feminist leaders are very biased about this and would like to see high figure
Koss has said “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.” Higher figures in the study would help support her hypothesis which is why it’s important to question her interpretation of the law wrt rape.
>Because they DIDN’T find the “1 in 4” figure, which WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MYTH INFORMATION. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally being misleading or if you’re just stupid.
Yes, I admit I shouldn’t have done that. I don’t see you apologizing for being condescending, however.
Come to think of it, I really should have stopped replying yesterday when I said I would. I really don’t care about your false accusations of me at this point.
Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t mean they are being condescending, Nathan. It simply means they disagree with you.
No, I was saying that if I wanted to take an expert’s _definitive_ opinion on another expert I’d use someone who is not in a soft science. Someone in the medical fields, like neurologists, psychiatrists or basically anyone else with an MD in a field related studies of the brain/mind.
Psychiatry is a soft science. To practice it, one needs an MD to give one’s patient’s meds, but that doesn’t mean that it is a hard science like engineering or physics. Also, what does neurology or biology have to do with what you said you wanted? Namely:
I’m looking for long-term effects in terms of how it’s interfered with their lives. That is, how it’s affected education, jobs, relationships (including friends/family), frequency of specific types of chronic psychological and physical problems, etc… Again, I’m not talking about anecdotes or general overviews, but a statistical breakdown of specific problems affecting the different aspects of their lives (relationships/jobs/etc) by percentage and severity of effect (which would have to be carefully objectively described).
That study is subjective. It’s also in the field of sociology and psychology. The frequency of physical problems you wanted to know about was covered in at least one of the articles I provided you. A neurologist will lend nothing to this research, unless you want to know about what physically happens to the brain. That, however, is a far cry from “a statistical breakdown of specific problems affecting the different aspects of their lives (relationships/jobs/etc)”.
The fact that they do quibble with her research means that they aren’t just taking it at face value. There is no reason I shouldn’t question her interpretations of things either.
Actually, few quibble with her research, as it has been replicated. As Amp has pointed out previously, the figures aren’t exact–you will never find that in a statistical study–but they are close enough to warrant attention. They are also close enough to warrant some credibility for Koss.
As to people disagreeing with her, I merely pointed out that even those who have quibbled with her haven’t cast aspersions on her the way you have, and the way the IWF/ifeminists have. You weren’t just questioning her research, all through this thread you painted Koss as an ideologue with an agenda.
No, mistakenly saying it was a telephone survey when it wasn’t is NOT a big deal, amp even considered it a minor point.
When you say “I had mixed it up with the DOJ and NIJ/CDC studies, big deal,” it comes off as childish.
The fact that the APA once classified homosexuality as a disorder does show they let their personal biases interfere with their work.
The APA had that position during a time of great ignorance about homosexuality. The fact that the organization was able to do further research, keep an open mind about the results, and revise their opinon shows the opposite–personal biases do not interfere with their work.
He’s [Amp’s] been nothing but condescending to me, trying to emphasize how “horribly wrong” I was even though I corrected myself.
Voicing an objection and refuting your points–the ones that you did not correct–is not being patronizing. If you are going to claim hurt feelings and martyrdom every time someone does this, you will continue to destroy your credibility.
>Actually, when you report something to the police, they investigate it. Forensics and old gumshoe work make up an investigation.
Uh, did I say they didn’t investigate reports? I was talking about the victims ability to gauge whether or not there was enough evidence.
I was mugged. There were no witnesses. Since I didn’t fight back, I sported no bruises. There was scant evidence that it happened–none really–but I reported it, anyway. If it was rape, I would wonder if it would be taken seriously, and if there was no outright evidence right there on me, I might not report it. Because even though cops investigate crimes, they have to take them seriously. And if a rape survivor isn’t sure that she will be taken seriously, she is not likely to report the crime. That was Amp’s point–not that she doesn’t know if there’s no evidence, but that if she had confidence that she’d be taken seriously, she’d report it, there would be an investigation, and evidence could be gathered. We have enough faith to do this WRT other crimes, but not with rape.
Sheez, get a man to come on and make your points for you, and maybe it won’t seem so condescending to Nathan. Just a hunch.
Personally, I like the idea that feminists want to make all women feel like they are quivering victims. That explains things like high praise for TV role models who kick ass and take names like Buffy and Xena. It also explains the push for self-defense courses at universities. If you’ve ever taken one, you’ll know a feminist comes in and shows you how to act permanently wounded and hurt all the time.
Come to think of it, I really should have stopped replying yesterday when I said I would.
Indeed. Saying you’re going to stop talking, getting in one last exit line, and then coming back to play “no tagbacks” is (however common on the Internet) not exactly supportive of your credibility.
“Cope with it well” is awfully subjective. You may see a rape survivor holding down a job, being pleasant to friends, and chatting with you at the water cooler, but have no clue that she drinks herself to sleep every night, or cuts, or goes out every weekend and has unprotected sex with strangers. If you don’t know her well enough to know how she’s really “coping,” what you see as feminist-rejecting strength may very well not be.
Pingback: Bird's Eye View
Pingback: Ashlie - MySpace Blog