“So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me? “
Actually no, you don’t have to ask this. You choose to ask this.There’s an important distinction between the two.
“Do you think I’m overreacting? “
………just a little.
“One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. “
OK let’s get one thing clear. Are we discussing sexual assault or are we discussing rape here? Because sexual assault covers several different crimes and some of them, like sexual harassment, are very poorly defined. Often only relying solely on the anecdotal evidence of the victim to decide whether the event falls under the heading of the crime. Not to mention that feminists are often attaching other crimes to the list of sexual assault that are actually not under that label, usually with more than a fair degree of arbitrariness.
So if we’re solely discussing rape, which has been the premise up until now, then that statistic is meaningless as the number of rapes would be quite a bit smaller than that. Conversely, if you do mean sexual assault, where is your citation?
Ok, I’m actually going to go off on a semi-tangent here because I actually do know where she got those stats from most likely. The stats most likely come from RAINN (Rape And Incest National Network), who base their studies off the NCVS study done by the CDC. To answer the question that I asked above the 1 in 6 number is in reference to rapes and not sexual assaults as she says. However while this study is touted a lot by RAINN and feminists it’s kind of bullshit for those who have actually looked at it critically.
Why is that? Let’s take a look.
I mentioned previously that from the statistics that we are aware of rape is largely non-gendered. While we think of men as the ones raping women it seems that women also rape males with relatively equal frequency. Though the exact numbers are hard to know since male rape is reported even less than female rape.
The NISVS study however claims that only a small percent of men are raped. Now if you’re wondering how the NCVS study can be so different from so many other studies it’s actually very simple. You see the NCVS study uses a rather peculiar definition of rape, one that is noticeably different than the more gender-neutral version one might find in, say, the dictionary. The NCVS defined rape as forced vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by offender(s). By this definition rape by females on male victims is nearly impossible. Males were listed as being “forced to penetrate” as a separate offence from rape. Which is where all of the other male rape victims that equalize the numbers went to. The CDC has effectively done it’s best to remove the possibility of there being male victims of rape by essentially defining them out of existence.
Now you mighht be of the impression that this is simply a matter of the conspiracy part of our brain getting too much exercise.
So allow us to introduce you to Mary Koss.
Mary Koss is a feminist and a writer who writes a lot about sexual issues. One of her great contributions is a study she did for Ms Magazine in which she surveyed over 3,000 females on colleges nationwide in which they were asked 10 questions about their experiences regarding sexual violence. For some reason none of those questions was “have you ever been raped?” (and one would think that when conducting a survey on rape experiences the very first thing you would do is write “have you been raped” in the center of the page in big red letters and plot your questions out from there). From the answers to these questions that she picked (which again, “have you been raped?” was not one of them) she determined whether they had been raped. To make this perfectly clear, she decided for them that they had been raped. This methodology led her to the conclusion that about 27% of the women had been raped or had suffered an attempted rape.
So what happened when they were actually asked? Well about 73 percent of that 27 percent said that they weren’t raped. Which one would think would be a giant “fuck you” to her and her ideas, but they keep lingering around like the bad smell of a old outhouse.
The way that this connects to the study that it seems Phaedra is using is that Mary Koss also has a long history of working with the CDC, including being a panel member who worked on the definitions of sexual assault, was a consultant for the Intimate Violence Compendium, and I can go on but I’ll just leave citations of her history with the CDC (who I remind you were the ones who did the study).
In 1966 she was an Expert Panel Member, for the “Definitions of Sexual Assault,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2003 she was selected to direct the Sexual Violence Applied Research Advisory Group, VAWNET.org, the national online resource on violence against women funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
She was also a member of expert advisors for the CDC on the panel for teen partner violence in that same year.
Also in that year she was part of another panel of experts, for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on scales to measure intimate partner violence.
I’m sure you get the point.
So would you readers like to hazard a guess as to where they got their new definition for rape?
I would really like to hear the logic involved in this. Maybe it’s just me but if I was doing a national study on sexual violence, a radical feminist with a history of sloppy methodology and fudging numbers who redefines terminology to suit her needs would likely not be my choice.
Perhaps the CDC is immune to the Patriarchy’s omnipresent power?
Wait a minute, was that actually a joke you just made?
No, you must be imagining things.
Regardless, now that we’ve covered that little tangent, let us move on,shall we?
“I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. “
Yeah, I know not all rapes are committed by those guys. They’re also committed by Cierra Ross (only charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault), Carla Homoulka (serial rapist and murderer who got off relatively easy thanks to a deal with a female politician and the pussy pass, her husband and partner not as lucky), Claire Marsh, or these four women……….Need I go on?
Also let’s not forget about all of the female-on-female rape, such as in the Congo. Which would seem to be a flaw in Mary Koss’ plan since her definition also rules out these crimes as being rape.
You can assure me that at least one person I know is a rapist? Very well, let us see you support this.
“Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. “
Actually that number isn’t horrifying at all. Mostly because I’m well aware that you’re just pulling it out of your ass.
And while we are on the subject, I wonder if she realizes that just because the statistic is 1 in 60 that doesn’t actually mean literally that every sixtieth person you meet is a rapist. So it raises the question of how she can claim to be able to assure me that at least one person I know is a rapist.
Another thing I notice is that she chooses to tell us to consider the number of rapes that “must” occur. Why “must” these rapes occur? Must occur is not the same thing as “do” occur. I assume she means these rapes “must” occur because if they didn’t it would mean that she was being extremely dishonest.
But again, are we talking about rapes or about sexual assault. Because if we go with what you say and your stat was for sexual assaults then this is false. Some degree of consistency in your claims would be greatly appreciated.
But I digress. Let’s take this as she says it.
So one in sixty will be a rapist, all right fine. However that also means that fifty-nine in sixty will not be rapists. This is very important when her main train of reasoning is based on the odds of a woman being raped justifying the actions she puts forth and everyone else in society, men especially, acting to accomodate and keep her safe. Now she puts forth that a rapist will hypothetically commit rape ten times so let us take that and run with it. Let us assume a forty year time span during which a rapist is capable of physically overpowering and raping a woman, and let us say that your average rapist will come within close contact of roughly sixty thousand others within a year. That’s two point four million people they come in contact with during that time of which roughly one million two hundred forty eight thousand will be women. Since each will only rape ten women and assuming they only rape each woman once, I believe that amounts to about roughly a 0.00080% chance that the 1 in 60 rapist you meet on the street is going to rape you or any individual woman he encounters. Which I’m fairly certain is less than your chances of being abducted by a flying saucer and taken back to the homeworld for dissection.
Although aliens are usually known to anal probe so there’s yet another fucking rape statistic for her to make up.
Two points I would like to make about this before we continue.
1)Math is not a subject I use often so it is possible that I’m off a little. But I am certain that I’m fairly close in the numbers, and regardless I feel that the point remains that the odds are still incredibly small. Anyone who is better than me is free to correct me if they can show their work.
2)This was done assuming Miss LonelyHearts contention of 1 in 6 rapists, as well as her implied contention that rapists are all men who rape women. As opposed to the real world where the numbers of rapists between the genders are much more equal. So in the real world, as opposed to crazy feminist whack-job world, the actual chance of a woman being raped would be close to half the number I used. Or rather even less than that as most rapes are not committed by strangers. They are committed by people known to the victim. In other words that 0.00080% was vastly higher than it would actually be.
This is what justifies her worldview.
While we’re talking about female rapists, let’s look back at this.
“While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists”
If this is not supposed to be misandrist, as the proponents of this so love to claim, then why is she constantly referencing only male rapists? Even if she were only worried about women she does realize that women sometimes rape women as well, right? One would think that if any chance of being raped was really enough to justify villifying an entire gender she would be directing this towards women as well.
You see a person would really have to hate a particular group in order to see every member of that group in such a way. Keep in mind that even if we take everything she says as being true there is only one rapist in every sixty men. This number really isn’t that worse than many other crimes. Yet in her mind it is not only perfectly reasonable to assume that any man she meets might be a rapist, she actually encourages it despite there being no rational reason to do this. If there is no intellectual reason for this belief then there must be an emotional one for it. So what sorts of emotion could fuel something such as this. Generally only two that we know of, fear and hate.
Now why do we say hate instead of fear?
Out of all the various things that she could have picked she chose rape. She didn’t choose murder, which is a far worse crime. It was rape specifically that she singled out to associate as the symbol of her irrational fear. This is the crime that, unlike murder, society associates with the worst barbarism and inhumaness. Rapists are the one kind of criminal that everyone, including other criminals, villify. With the exception of child rapist if you want to separate the two.
So out of all of the crimes she could have chosen she chose the one that was relatively most unlikely, but the one that was most villified. Then she tied it specifically to men; and only men. While ignoring that there was not the slightest bit of evidence to support any of this.
You really have to truly hate someone to do something like this. Because it’s not just normal hate that brings this out in humans. There are people that a normal person may hate but for the most part we don’t seek to utterly and actively dehumanize them. She seems to have little problem with it however.
To paint an entire group as being potentially rapists, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, (to the point of fabricating and lying about said evidence) can only conceiveably be entertained if you hate them to the point that you want to strip them of anything that might make them human and only see them as barbaric and brutal threats.
The point being that one of the foundations that Schroedingers rapist relies on is the assumption that rape is only men raping women. It tries to use the “fact” that this is a problem unique to females and only carried out by males to justify it’s set of ideas. This assumption of men being rapists actually being the only thing it ever really puts forth that comes close to being evidence or a reasonable argument in favour of itself. Because if it isn’t just men who commit rape, if women do it too, then the foundation collpases.
Schroedingers Rapist effectively has a single foundation that it is built on. That foundation being that all women are entirely justified in fearing all men because of the real threat of rape upon their persons by men. What causes the mortar to crack and crumble is that none of the data available indicates that this is remotely reasonable. Which makes sense when you consider the length they go to in order to inflate rape statistics to the point of crazy numbers that bear no similarity to what the actual, non-biased evidence says.
Blame the Patriarcy. Always blame the Patriarchy.
The part that tears the foundation to shreds however is that the writer of the essay and those who support forget that other people and groups exist in this world.
Or, alternately and much more likely, they simply don’t consider anyone else “people”.
Since we’ve established that rape is not a gender thing we are left with the following. Men rape other men (and are more likely to suffer violence from them), however no man I am aware of goes around worrying about being raped or demanding other men accomadate them and protect them (beyond, you know, the police and the army). Women rape men with roughly equal frequency(and again are more much more likely to suffer violence from them), however again no men ever go around worrying about being raped by women every minute of the day or demand that all women behave in a certain way to make them safer. So what does it say that only women seem to suffer this problem and constant terror, while also being much less likely to suffer violence?
Now you might remember some time ago when I asked the question of what it means when the ones most likely to be victimized are able to live perfectly normal lives and the ones least likely to be victimized live in constant fear. Well here’s what it means:it means that what you are saying is that the second group is somehow inferior to the first.
If both men and women share the danger (indeed women bear a great deal less of it) and men handle it stoically while you say that women are naturally incapable of dealing with it without ordering their entire lives around protecting themselves, then there is no other conclusion one can draw then that you are saying women are inferior, Miss LonelyHearts. Because all of the evidence says that men are in equal or greater danger. The only place you had to hide behind was rape. As long as you could claim that only men were rapists and only women were raped you could claim that women were uniquely threatened and perhaps try to hide behind some sort of special privilege. But you can’t because the real world evidence does not bear that out. So your portrayal makes women look like the lesser sex in this.
This is part of what I was referring to before when I said that I gave women too much credit compared to the author of this piece of shit. I actually believe that women are fully capable of dealing with things in the manner of mature and reasonable adults. In fact I expect them to just as much as I would expect it from a man. That’s called equality. Take a moment and try to shove the word into your limited feminist lexicon. I know you fems like to say it, but try to actually grasp its meaning for once. The author sees women as a bunch of mewling fucking children who wail and run away the instant they might have to deal with something bad, and to make things even more demeaning to her gender she wants the men to step in and coddle them by adjusting their lives around them.
You see if you have two groups that are not equal and you want to make them equal there are two ways that you can do it. The first way is that you can take the group that’s perceived as the “lesser” and lift them up. That is to get them to bring themselves up to the level of the “greater” group. Or you can bring down the group that is perceived “greater”, thus making the “lesser” group equal to by comparison.
The flaw to the second one is that the equality it gives is really only an illusion. The “lesser” group is not actually as good as the “greater” group. It became equal by bringing the “greater” group down to it’s level, not through any merit of its own.
Now in the world of feminism they claim that the men are the ones who hold the power (ie. patriarchy, male oppression, derpy derpy doo). So by their ideology men are the more powerful group. Feminists claim they want equality (a claim that brings no end of amusement to those who actually look at their actions) with men. Yet most of their ideology seems centered around not empowering women to make them truly the equals of men, but making women the victim and telling men that they have to adjust to protect and serve them. This is certainly the idea presented in this essay. Not that women should sack up and assess and deal with the potential danger of everyday life like rational people. It’s that everyone else (namely men) should adjust themselves to kowtow to their irrational insanity.
Interestingly enough I remember that one of the more sexist arguments used as a cliche to argue against the idea of women in politics was the argument that who would want someone who was as irrational and prone to unstable emotions as a woman in charge of the important aspects of leadership. As sexist and stupid as that is it seems that Miss LonelyForTheRestofHerLife took it to heart. Because I can just picture one of her caricatures of a woman trying to lead a nation.
It would be interesting to see feminists decide on exactly what they want. Do they want to be equal or do they want special treatment and to be coddled and protected. You can’t have both unless you’re willing to put in a lot of cognitive dissonance.
Ugh. Fucking feminists. We’ll continue this later. I need another drink.