Men - the silent multitudes....
Kate Orman
>
>Karen Gordon (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: A large number of men continue to be silent about male violence against
>: women. Men need to recognize that by not criticizing their sexist and
>: abusive male peers, they help perpetuate the tradition of male violence.
>
>Uh, I think this, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
>problem" schtick went out circa 1969 or so. But, then, you seem mired in
>the past glories of femthink, and will blame the innocent with the guilty
>(just like Stalin, Hitler, and a whole host of nasty people, come to
>think of it) to make your point.
James, don't you think that if men start to challenge other men's
attitudes about rape and other sexual aggression towards women, those
attitudes will start to change?
When another man acts sexually aggressively towards a woman, what do *you* do?
>: Male silence makes it difficult to know where many men stand on the
>: issue of violence against women. No percentage estimates exist, for
>: example, to tell us how many of the silent multitudes actively practice
>: violence; how many might be aware of the problem but not involved in
>: working to effect change; or how many individuals, though they are not
>: offenders, remain oblivious to the problem of male violence.
>
>Hmm, nobody has ever surveyed how many martians are living in Beverly Hills,
>either. But I remember seeing a tv show with a martian in it, AND NOBODY
>HAS INVESTIGATED! I smell a coverup. All those silent martians, they
>aren't helping solve the problems the poster is concerned about, hey,
>let's blame them for the world's problems. Or, better yet, as in "The
>Ship of Fools", why not blame the bicycle riders? Why not indeed!
Actually, this rather over-the-top response really only enforces Karen's
point. Instead of blasting violence, James blasts Karen...
>: We have yet to reach a stage where it is common, or, better still, com-
>: mendable, for men to speak out against violence against women. Granted,
>: there is a historic tradition within the current concept of hegemonic
>: masculinity of protecting women, but it is a custom based in paternalism
>: and repressive notions of women - either as physically inferior, men's
>: chattels, or both. What has yet to emerge among many men is a willing-
>: ness to see mae violence as a crime that they should be involved in
>: ending.
>
>We haven't? Practically every politician who won in the last election
>here in the States (i.e., Republicans) was "hard on crime." Last time I
>looked in the criminal statutes, rape and assault and battery and all
>those nasty things were against the law. But how can this be, if men
>through the "patriarchy" have controlled and subjugated women all these
>years, and simply want to brutalize and kill them? Hmmm, must be those
>martians or bicycle riders.....
Rape has been illegal for a long time now. But the laws - which were
originally designed with protecting men's property interests, which is why
marital rape and male rape were left out - haven't stopped rape because so
few rapes make it through the sifting process: not reported, unfounded,
ignored... if the police and judges believe rape myths, how can the law
truly help women?
[lots of rantings about Karen's "femspeak" snipped]
--
Kate Orman
"You are endlessly agitating, unceasingly mischievous. Will you never
stop?" - Light, in Marc Platt's "Ghost Light", 1989
James J. Bjorkman
: In article <3diah0$1...@cmcl2.nyu.edu> jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
: >
[snip]
: James, don't you think that if men start to challenge other men's
: attitudes about rape and other sexual aggression towards women, those
: attitudes will start to change?
What, do you honestly believe that rape is a commonly accepted and
encouraged practice? Do you think men go around slapping each other on
the back, congratulating each other on how many rapes we have committed?
You don't think this kind of "challenge" has "started?" If I ever meet
any rapists, I will certainly "challenge" them.
: When another man acts sexually aggressively towards a woman, what do *you* do?
Hmmm, depends on the situation. If I'm in a bar, and the woman appears
receptive (some women *like* male advances at times), would you have me
go over and say, "In the name of Eleanor Smeal, DESIST!" Feminist
over-generalization, mixing the good with the bad, is a major problem.
As for what happens in inappropriate situations, I'll just say that once,
while I was walking home from work through Penn Station late at night, I
saw a woman being accosted. I interposed my body between them, and she
was able to get away. My conscience is certainly clear on that score.
: >: Male silence makes it difficult to know where many men stand on the
: >: issue of violence against women. No percentage estimates exist, for
: >: example, to tell us how many of the silent multitudes actively practice
: >: violence; how many might be aware of the problem but not involved in
: >: working to effect change; or how many individuals, though they are not
: >: offenders, remain oblivious to the problem of male violence.
: >
: >Hmm, nobody has ever surveyed how many martians are living in Beverly Hills,
: >either. But I remember seeing a tv show with a martian in it, AND NOBODY
: >HAS INVESTIGATED! I smell a coverup. All those silent martians, they
: >aren't helping solve the problems the poster is concerned about, hey,
: >let's blame them for the world's problems. Or, better yet, as in "The
: >Ship of Fools", why not blame the bicycle riders? Why not indeed!
: Actually, this rather over-the-top response really only enforces Karen's
: point. Instead of blasting violence, James blasts Karen...
And it is so easy! Actually, I thought my response was kind of humorous,
but, then, feminists are renowned for their sense of humor, right? "Male
silence" and "silent multitudes" indeed. Such paranoid posturings make me
ill. What KG is engaging in is akin to McCarthyism, with his blank
sheets of paper supposedly containing names. "Who knows how many men are
just waiting for the chance to rape us." Do you really think her
unfounded, open-ended, malignant aspersions against all men advance this
debate? Answer: they don't. They just alienate people who may otherwise
sympathize with her ultimate goals to some extent.
[snip]
: Rape has been illegal for a long time now. But the laws - which were
: originally designed with protecting men's property interests, which is why
: marital rape and male rape were left out - haven't stopped rape because so
: few rapes make it through the sifting process: not reported, unfounded,
: ignored... if the police and judges believe rape myths, how can the law
: truly help women?
Well, you are just assuming the answers to your own questions, aren't
you? You are debating with yourself, a nice rhetorical tactic, but not
one designed to foster honest discussion. First, it matters not what the
"original design" of the laws was: such ranting about "protecting men's
property interests" only serves to denigrate any attempt made by men in
the past to protect women. It is absolutely impossible to argue about
it, because it either was the case or it wasn't, and only the original
legislators knew what their real intent was. Your raising of this
feminist red herring is illuminating. What mattered about the original
rape laws is that they were enacted, and they protected women against
rape. Period. And the fact that marital rape, etc., was not included
reflects different mores, different times, not some eternal male plot to
subjugate women.
Next, without support, you say that rape laws don't work anyway. Funny,
I see rapists being arrested on the news often (including women, on
occasion). The prisons are full of convicted rapists. Your argument
depends on the feminist assumption (never proven, never in fact provable,
thus never refutable) that "lots" of rapes go unreported, or "guilty"
rapists go free, and the like. From this flows the paranoid idea that
there are lots of rapists free, walking the streets, just waiting to rape
you. Well, if we are going to talk about "rape myths," that is best
example of one. The laws work quite well in other contexts - most
murders are solved, most fugitives located - and yet femthink posits that
in areas relating to women, the laws don't work. I think not.
Finally, you blame this mythical failure to prosecute/convict/report on
"police and judges" who "believe rape myths." I have to tell you, I am
good friends with some cops - my sister dates the Chief of Police of a
nearby community - and if you think they are soft on crime, *any* crime,
you are sadly mistaken. I have also known a few judges in my day,
including a number of *female* judges, and if you think they go easy on
sex offenders, you are quite wrong.
In short, there is no male conspiracy, men (and women) have been working
tirelessly for years to prevent *all* crime, and yet crime has always
been with us and always will be. Making men feel guilty, making them
"question" things that do not need questioning will not solve anything, will
only lessen their own self-esteem. This is what I dispute, and that is
why blaming all men for the sins of a few (yes, the offenders are
relatively few) is wrong.
Kate Orman
>
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: In article <3diah0$1...@cmcl2.nyu.edu> jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
>: >
>[snip]
>
>: James, don't you think that if men start to challenge other men's
>: attitudes about rape and other sexual aggression towards women, those
>: attitudes will start to change?
>
>encouraged practice? Do you think men go around slapping each other on
>the back, congratulating each other on how many rapes we have committed?
>You don't think this kind of "challenge" has "started?" If I ever meet
>any rapists, I will certainly "challenge" them.
The problem is that people carry a stereotyped "definition" of rape. They
may well vehemently oppose what they consider to be a "true rape" - but
not be so opposed to the rape of a prostitute, or a "loose" woman, or not
recognise certain acts of sexual violence as rape at all. That was
certainly the case with Koss' rapists.
>: When another man acts sexually aggressively towards a woman, what do *you* do?
>
>Hmmm, depends on the situation. If I'm in a bar, and the woman appears
>receptive (some women *like* male advances at times), would you have me
>go over and say, "In the name of Eleanor Smeal, DESIST!" Feminist
>over-generalization, mixing the good with the bad, is a major problem.
>As for what happens in inappropriate situations, I'll just say that once,
>while I was walking home from work through Penn Station late at night, I
>saw a woman being accosted. I interposed my body between them, and she
>was able to get away. My conscience is certainly clear on that score.
That's heroic. But you were clearly able to tell the difference between a
wanted come-on in the bar, and an act of aggression in the station.
There's a difference between being hit on when you want to be hit on, and
being attacked when you've said "No" or "Leave me alone".
>: >: Male silence makes it difficult to know where many men stand on the
>: >: issue of violence against women. No percentage estimates exist, for
>: >: example, to tell us how many of the silent multitudes actively practice
>: >: violence; how many might be aware of the problem but not involved in
>: >: working to effect change; or how many individuals, though they are not
>: >: offenders, remain oblivious to the problem of male violence.
>: >
>: >Hmm, nobody has ever surveyed how many martians are living in Beverly Hills,
>: >either. But I remember seeing a tv show with a martian in it, AND NOBODY
>: >HAS INVESTIGATED! I smell a coverup. All those silent martians, they
>: >aren't helping solve the problems the poster is concerned about, hey,
>: >let's blame them for the world's problems. Or, better yet, as in "The
>: >Ship of Fools", why not blame the bicycle riders? Why not indeed!
>
>: Actually, this rather over-the-top response really only enforces Karen's
>: point. Instead of blasting violence, James blasts Karen...
>
>And it is so easy! Actually, I thought my response was kind of humorous,
>but, then, feminists are renowned for their sense of humor, right? "Male
>silence" and "silent multitudes" indeed. Such paranoid posturings make me
>ill. What KG is engaging in is akin to McCarthyism, with his blank
>sheets of paper supposedly containing names. "Who knows how many men are
>just waiting for the chance to rape us." Do you really think her
>unfounded, open-ended, malignant aspersions against all men advance this
>debate? Answer: they don't. They just alienate people who may otherwise
>sympathize with her ultimate goals to some extent.
Let me tell you, until they develop the portable rape-o-meter, there's
*no way* a woman can tell a rapist from a good man. (Even the woman you
rescued may have been afraid of you - men "rescuing" women from rape have
been known to turn around and rape them.)
Karen's point - that it's difficult to know where men *really* stand on
rape, since there are few male organisations devoted to getting rid of
rape the way that women's organisations have done - is valid. Fortunately,
there are such male organisations. But given the big difference in the
effort being put it, it would be easy to just look at the rape statistics
and assume that *that's* what men think about rape.
>[snip]
>
>: Rape has been illegal for a long time now. But the laws - which were
>: originally designed with protecting men's property interests, which is why
>: marital rape and male rape were left out - haven't stopped rape because so
>: few rapes make it through the sifting process: not reported, unfounded,
>: ignored... if the police and judges believe rape myths, how can the law
>: truly help women?
>
>Well, you are just assuming the answers to your own questions, aren't
>you? You are debating with yourself, a nice rhetorical tactic, but not
>one designed to foster honest discussion. First, it matters not what the
>"original design" of the laws was: such ranting about "protecting men's
>property interests" only serves to denigrate any attempt made by men in
>the past to protect women. It is absolutely impossible to argue about
It does not. If the rape laws are designed to protect male interests, they
will not, for instance, protect wives or sex workers.
>it, because it either was the case or it wasn't, and only the original
>legislators knew what their real intent was. Your raising of this
>feminist red herring is illuminating. What mattered about the original
>rape laws is that they were enacted, and they protected women against
>rape. Period. And the fact that marital rape, etc., was not included
>reflects different mores, different times, not some eternal male plot to
>subjugate women.
If legally raping your wife is *not* a form of subjugation, I don't know
what is. I think you should read about the history of rape laws and see
what you think.
>Next, without support, you say that rape laws don't work anyway. Funny,
>I see rapists being arrested on the news often (including women, on
>occasion). The prisons are full of convicted rapists. Your argument
Convincted rapists represent a tiny percentage of actual rapists. The
majority of rapes are never even reported. - and this is not some evil
"feminist" figure, but the opinion of the Bureau of Justice and other
reputable sources. How can we say the laws are working?
>depends on the feminist assumption (never proven, never in fact provable,
>thus never refutable) that "lots" of rapes go unreported, or "guilty"
>rapists go free, and the like. From this flows the paranoid idea that
>there are lots of rapists free, walking the streets, just waiting to rape
>you. Well, if we are going to talk about "rape myths," that is best
>example of one. The laws work quite well in other contexts - most
>murders are solved, most fugitives located - and yet femthink posits that
>in areas relating to women, the laws don't work. I think not.
>
>Finally, you blame this mythical failure to prosecute/convict/report on
>"police and judges" who "believe rape myths." I have to tell you, I am
>good friends with some cops - my sister dates the Chief of Police of a
>nearby community - and if you think they are soft on crime, *any* crime,
>you are sadly mistaken. I have also known a few judges in my day,
>including a number of *female* judges, and if you think they go easy on
>sex offenders, you are quite wrong.
Can you be certain that your personal experience is representative? Again,
if the police only think of certain rapes as "true" rapes, the rest are
simply filtered out (and may not even be reported).
And since most rapes aren't even reported, not being "soft" or "easy" on
the tiny percentage of rapists who are charged doesn't make much difference.
>In short, there is no male conspiracy, men (and women) have been working
>tirelessly for years to prevent *all* crime, and yet crime has always
>been with us and always will be. Making men feel guilty, making them
>"question" things that do not need questioning will not solve anything, will
>only lessen their own self-esteem. This is what I dispute, and that is
>why blaming all men for the sins of a few (yes, the offenders are
>relatively few) is wrong.
I'm not blaming all men for the sins of a few.
And I doubt there's *anything* in our society which "does not need
questioning". Your statements above are based on several erroneous
beliefs, which I hope I've made clear. I *question* your beliefs and I
*question* your conclusions.
James J. Bjorkman
: In article <3edl86$1...@cmcl2.nyu.edu> jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
[snip]
: The problem is that people carry a stereotyped "definition" of rape. They
: may well vehemently oppose what they consider to be a "true rape" - but
: not be so opposed to the rape of a prostitute, or a "loose" woman, or not
: recognise certain acts of sexual violence as rape at all. That was
: certainly the case with Koss' rapists.
Hard to argue with this. If you are asking every man to be the Supreme
Court, knowing when the Justices will split 5-4 in one direction rather
than the other, knowing exacly where we are to draw the fine line today,
then I submit you are being unrealistic. I have a feeling we could argue
about what constitutes rape all night, and it won't matter a whit,
because unless every other person on earth is also in on the discussion,
it won't change a thing. Women are much better off if there are bright
lines of conduct, and everyone knows what the *simple* limits are. But
your point is well taken.
: That's heroic. But you were clearly able to tell the difference between a
: wanted come-on in the bar, and an act of aggression in the station.
: There's a difference between being hit on when you want to be hit on, and
: being attacked when you've said "No" or "Leave me alone".
No dispute here.
: Let me tell you, until they develop the portable rape-o-meter, there's
: *no way* a woman can tell a rapist from a good man. (Even the woman you
: rescued may have been afraid of you - men "rescuing" women from rape have
: been known to turn around and rape them.)
Actually, she was quite grateful, and I made sure she got out all right.
I think the error is in automatically assuming the worst. But, then,
some people have to have ten locks on their front doors to be able to
sleep well at night, which is OK, if a bit...paranoid.
: Karen's point - that it's difficult to know where men *really* stand on
: rape, since there are few male organisations devoted to getting rid of
: rape the way that women's organisations have done - is valid. Fortunately,
: there are such male organisations. But given the big difference in the
: effort being put it, it would be easy to just look at the rape statistics
: and assume that *that's* what men think about rape.
What, that all men *endorse* rape? If that is what you mean, then who is
guilty of (unfair) stereotyping? As to the "big difference" in effort
being put in, I note simply that NOW's membership is only about 280,000
(according to the book The Top Ten of Everything), while (predominantly
male) law enforcement organizations number many multiples of that (or
don't you think that *they* "put an effort in" to solve sex crimes?). I
will grant you that feminists are more *vocal* than men on this subject.
No argument there (thank you, Susan Brownmiller).
: >[snip]
: >
: It does not. If the rape laws are designed to protect male interests, they
: will not, for instance, protect wives or sex workers.
Well, if your sole beef is with the scope of rape laws in the 1800's, I
concede the point. I think it kind of irrelevant to what is happening in
1995 (though I am kind of a history buff myself).
[snip]
: If legally raping your wife is *not* a form of subjugation, I don't know
: what is. I think you should read about the history of rape laws and see
: what you think.
Hmmm, I just finished a long post regarding ethnocentrism. I won't go
through it all again, except to say that it is unfair to judge a culture
in another time by our enlightened standards. In future years, people
may say that we were beasts for subjugating animals and keeping them in
zoos. Yes, *today* we agree that raping anyone is bad (by calling it
rape, you are posing a rhetorical question, obviously, but we don't want
to stray too far afield here), but what was defined as rape in the
1800's, well, that is best left to historians and, IMHO, has no bearing
on the current rape situation. You clearly feel anger about the
treatment of women in the past, since you keep bringing this up, which
obviously is a perfectly proper feeling for you to have if the past
upsets you, but doing so is counterproductive because
it alienates the people you and KG seem to want to reach most (men). I
suggest - and this is a sincere suggestion - that you stop waving the
bloody shirt. You may win more friends that way.
[snip]
: Convincted rapists represent a tiny percentage of actual rapists. The
: majority of rapes are never even reported. - and this is not some evil
: "feminist" figure, but the opinion of the Bureau of Justice and other
: reputable sources. How can we say the laws are working?
Ah, here we go with statistics. "Actual rapists," well, it depends on
how you define it. We could define "rapists" as "those convicted of
rape" and you would be flat wrong. Obviously, you want to define it
differently, which I will concede most (including me) would view as
reasonable. So, how *will* we define it? This is very tricky. I
believe you indicated above that you are familiar with the Koss study.
You will recall that it found, when released in 1988, that "one in four"
of female respondents had an experience that met the legal definition of
rape. I concede that that many men have not been convicted. But is
the figure accurate or meaningful? No. A passage discussing the Koss
study follows:
"Koss also found taht 42 percent of those she counted as rape
victims went on to have sex with their attackers on a later occasion.
For victims of attempted rape, the figure for subsequent sex with
reported assailants was 35%.... [snip in interest of brevity].
[Investigative reporters] calculated that if you eliminate the
affirmative responses to the alcohol or drug question ["Have you had
sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you
alcohol or drugs?], and also subtract from Koss's results the women who
did not think they were raped, her one in four figure for rape and
attempted rape 'drops to between one in twenty-two and one in
thirty-three.'"
Christina Hoff Summers, Who Stole Feminism (Simon & Schuster 1994) pp.
211-215.
Now, we can engage in a massive debate (I have a feeling we will) over
rape statistics in another post. I will just say here that there is no
conclusive evidence that "convicted rapists constitute a fractional
percentage of actual rapists" or, for that matter, of actual numbers
regarding any sex crimes. Problems of both definition and analysis enter
in. In summary, your response is meaningless.
[snip]
: Can you be certain that your personal experience is representative? Again,
: if the police only think of certain rapes as "true" rapes, the rest are
: simply filtered out (and may not even be reported).
There, now you are making my point. What exactly *is* rape? This may
seem a somewhat metaphysical question, but it makes all the difference in
the world when you start throwing around statistics.
: And since most rapes aren't even reported, not being "soft" or "easy" on
: the tiny percentage of rapists who are charged doesn't make much difference.
Well, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a
sound? If a woman is cajoled or even coerced into having sex and doesn't
report it as rape, is it actually "rape" (she may not report it for
reasons of her own self-advantage even if coerced)? These are not always
easy questions. Maybe you agree with Andrea Dworkin that *all* sex is rape?
In that case, I certainly agree with you. But your blanket assumptions
are not something I automatically agree with.
[snip]
: I'm not blaming all men for the sins of a few.
: And I doubt there's *anything* in our society which "does not need
: questioning". Your statements above are based on several erroneous
: beliefs, which I hope I've made clear. I *question* your beliefs and I
: *question* your conclusions.
Well, as you see, I question yours as well.
JB
Derek Rose
jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
> I won't go
> through it all again, except to say that it is unfair to judge a culture
> in another time by our enlightened standards. In future years, people
> may say that we were beasts for subjugating animals and keeping them in
> zoos.
I just finished responding to your long post on ethnocentrism, but I
just wanted to add on something. People are, after all, human. They
grow up in a specific culture, and that influences all that they do.
The Founding Fathers owned slaves, and since that was accepted back
then as normal at that time, I don't think you can say they were bad
people. But that doesn't mean you can't condemn the _act_.
-------
Derek Rose
ro...@world.std.com
Sometimes evenings
Problems two-fold
I know how to solve them
Why go overboard
Kate Orman
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: The problem is that people carry a stereotyped "definition" of rape. They
>: may well vehemently oppose what they consider to be a "true rape" - but
>: not be so opposed to the rape of a prostitute, or a "loose" woman, or not
>: recognise certain acts of sexual violence as rape at all. That was
>: certainly the case with Koss' rapists.
>
>Court, knowing when the Justices will split 5-4 in one direction rather
>than the other, knowing exacly where we are to draw the fine line today,
>then I submit you are being unrealistic. I have a feeling we could argue
>about what constitutes rape all night, and it won't matter a whit,
>because unless every other person on earth is also in on the discussion,
>it won't change a thing. Women are much better off if there are bright
>lines of conduct, and everyone knows what the *simple* limits are. But
>your point is well taken.
Raping a woman who was wearing sexy clothes is no less a crime than raping
a woman wearing conservative clothes. But that won't stop a defence lawyer
trying to convince the jury that the complainant "asked for it".
It's not a matter of arguing about "what constitutes rape". That's pretty
well-defined legally. The problem is, judges and lawyers ignore the legal
definition, or consider some rapes less "damaging" than others because of
the rape myths and stereotypes they believe.
[snip]
>: Karen's point - that it's difficult to know where men *really* stand on
>: rape, since there are few male organisations devoted to getting rid of
>: rape the way that women's organisations have done - is valid. Fortunately,
>: there are such male organisations. But given the big difference in the
>: effort being put it, it would be easy to just look at the rape statistics
>: and assume that *that's* what men think about rape.
>
>What, that all men *endorse* rape? If that is what you mean, then who is
>guilty of (unfair) stereotyping? As to the "big difference" in effort
As I have repeatedly said, *that isn't my view*. But I *do* understand why
some women and feminists are cynical about men's input into the anti-rape
movement.
>being put in, I note simply that NOW's membership is only about 280,000
>(according to the book The Top Ten of Everything), while (predominantly
>male) law enforcement organizations number many multiples of that (or
>don't you think that *they* "put an effort in" to solve sex crimes?). I
>will grant you that feminists are more *vocal* than men on this subject.
>No argument there (thank you, Susan Brownmiller).
While no-one's putting down the good work done by the police in preventing
and prosecuting rape, it's important to remember that for decades police
have ignored rape, harassed rape victims, and, of course, raped. Their
importance in *stopping* rape, in keeping women safe, makes it even more
devastating when *they* believe rape myths.
>: >[snip]
>: >
>
>: It does not. If the rape laws are designed to protect male interests, they
>: will not, for instance, protect wives or sex workers.
>
>Well, if your sole beef is with the scope of rape laws in the 1800's, I
>concede the point. I think it kind of irrelevant to what is happening in
>1995 (though I am kind of a history buff myself).
>[snip]
It was very recently than an Australian judge ruled raping a prostitute
less of a crime than raping a "chaste" woman. (This was the decision
overturned by the UN.)
>: If legally raping your wife is *not* a form of subjugation, I don't know
>: what is. I think you should read about the history of rape laws and see
>: what you think.
>
>Hmmm, I just finished a long post regarding ethnocentrism. I won't go
>through it all again, except to say that it is unfair to judge a culture
>in another time by our enlightened standards. In future years, people
Marital rape was legal in Australia until 1983. I believe it's still legal
in some US states. I'm not judging another time.
>may say that we were beasts for subjugating animals and keeping them in
>zoos. Yes, *today* we agree that raping anyone is bad (by calling it
>rape, you are posing a rhetorical question, obviously, but we don't want
>to stray too far afield here), but what was defined as rape in the
>1800's, well, that is best left to historians and, IMHO, has no bearing
>on the current rape situation. You clearly feel anger about the
>treatment of women in the past, since you keep bringing this up, which
>obviously is a perfectly proper feeling for you to have if the past
>upsets you, but doing so is counterproductive because
>it alienates the people you and KG seem to want to reach most (men). I
>suggest - and this is a sincere suggestion - that you stop waving the
>bloody shirt. You may win more friends that way.
"Patronising - can *you* say that?" :-)
Again, I'm talking about the here and now. I'm angry (and concerned) about
*what's happening now*. Changes don't happen overnight.
I'm going to answer your comments on Koss' study in a separate posting.
[snip]
>: Can you be certain that your personal experience is representative? Again,
>: if the police only think of certain rapes as "true" rapes, the rest are
>: simply filtered out (and may not even be reported).
>
>There, now you are making my point. What exactly *is* rape? This may
>seem a somewhat metaphysical question, but it makes all the difference in
>the world when you start throwing around statistics.
Rape is sex without consent. As the T-shirt says, "Which part of the word
'no' don't you understand?" :-)
>: And since most rapes aren't even reported, not being "soft" or "easy" on
>: the tiny percentage of rapists who are charged doesn't make much difference.
>
>Well, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a
>sound? If a woman is cajoled or even coerced into having sex and doesn't
>report it as rape, is it actually "rape" (she may not report it for
>reasons of her own self-advantage even if coerced)? These are not always
>easy questions. Maybe you agree with Andrea Dworkin that *all* sex is rape?
>In that case, I certainly agree with you. But your blanket assumptions
>are not something I automatically agree with.
*Your* blanket assumptions about what *I* believe aren't very helpful.
Please don't generalise.
If the woman doesn't report the rape, that doesn't mean she wasn't rape.
If she doesn't realise that her experience constituted rape, that doesn't
mean it wasn't rape. If she is so hurt that she denies she was raped, that
doesn't mean she wasn't. Again, sex without consent is rape. How much
clearer can a definition be?
[snip]
James J. Bjorkman
: In article <3elf7n$l...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
: jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
[snip]
: I just finished responding to your long post on ethnocentrism, but I
: just wanted to add on something. People are, after all, human. They
: grow up in a specific culture, and that influences all that they do.
: The Founding Fathers owned slaves, and since that was accepted back
: then as normal at that time, I don't think you can say they were bad
: people. But that doesn't mean you can't condemn the _act_.
Well, we are basically in agreement. Condemn anything you want! I'm
sure the Founding Fathers aren't exactly spinning in their graves over this.
JB
Kate Orman
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
I said:
>: Convincted rapists represent a tiny percentage of actual rapists. The
>: majority of rapes are never even reported. - and this is not some evil
>: "feminist" figure, but the opinion of the Bureau of Justice and other
>: reputable sources. How can we say the laws are working?
And James replied:
>Ah, here we go with statistics. "Actual rapists," well, it depends on
>how you define it. We could define "rapists" as "those convicted of
>rape" and you would be flat wrong. Obviously, you want to define it
>differently, which I will concede most (including me) would view as
>reasonable. So, how *will* we define it? This is very tricky. I
>believe you indicated above that you are familiar with the Koss study.
>You will recall that it found, when released in 1988, that "one in four"
>of female respondents had an experience that met the legal definition of
>rape. I concede that that many men have not been convicted. But is
>the figure accurate or meaningful? No. A passage discussing the Koss
>study follows:
>
> "Koss also found taht 42 percent of those she counted as rape
>victims went on to have sex with their attackers on a later occasion.
>For victims of attempted rape, the figure for subsequent sex with
>reported assailants was 35%.... [snip in interest of brevity].
However, as Koss points out, it was not known whether the later sex was
*consensual* or not. They may have been further rapes.
> [Investigative reporters] calculated that if you eliminate the
>affirmative responses to the alcohol or drug question ["Have you had
>sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you
>alcohol or drugs?], and also subtract from Koss's results the women who
>did not think they were raped, her one in four figure for rape and
>attempted rape 'drops to between one in twenty-two and one in
>thirty-three.'"
>
>Christina Hoff Summers, Who Stole Feminism (Simon & Schuster 1994) pp.
>211-215.
Some commentators believe that the questions "Have you had a man attempt
sexual intercourse... when you didn't want to by giving you alcohol or
drugs..?" and "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to
because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" were potentially misleading.
They argue that some respondents may have simply had "morning after
regrets" and blamed the unpleasant sex on the intoxicants.
Why did Koss include the questions at all? Because, as she points out, the
deliberate giving of intoxicants to help reduce a victim's ability to
resist is part of the broad legal definition of rape.
In addition, 5% of the *men* surveyed said they had attempted rape after
deliberately using alcohol or drugs to reduce their victim's ability to
resist; and 4% said they had succeeded in raping a woman under those
circumstances.
Clearly, there's more to those questions than just the "morning after
regrets". On future surveys the questions could possibly be phrased more
clearly, but the figures can't simply be dismissed out of hand.
As to removing those women who didn't call it rape: this is irrelevant,
misleading, and extraordinarily cynical. In fact, only 27% of those women
who had been forced into sex against their will answered yes to the
question of whether it was "definitely rape".
The fact that a woman believes rape myths, blames herself, denies her
experience out of shock, or is unaware of her rights, DOES NOT MEAN SHE
WAS NOT RAPED. Excluding such women is not only convenient for rapists; it
is a denial of the simple truth.
>Now, we can engage in a massive debate (I have a feeling we will) over
>rape statistics in another post. I will just say here that there is no
>conclusive evidence that "convicted rapists constitute a fractional
>percentage of actual rapists" or, for that matter, of actual numbers
>regarding any sex crimes. Problems of both definition and analysis enter
>in. In summary, your response is meaningless.
You can *ignore* the evidence all you want; it's clear you haven't read
Koss' study, but are relying on Sommer's third-hand reporting of it.
In the very first paragraph, Koss cites a study which showed that only a
small fraction of rape survivors even tell their *close friends and
family* - let alone the police! Citing the LEAA, she says: "Government
estimates suggest that for every rape reported to the police, 3-10 rapes
are not reported."
>[snip]
>
>: Can you be certain that your personal experience is representative? Again,
>: if the police only think of certain rapes as "true" rapes, the rest are
>: simply filtered out (and may not even be reported).
>
>There, now you are making my point. What exactly *is* rape? This may
>seem a somewhat metaphysical question, but it makes all the difference in
>the world when you start throwing around statistics.
Koss' definition, based on the broad legal definition (she uses the Ohio
code as an example), is *right there for you to see*. There's no
metaphysics involved. I strongly suggest you read the study yourself.
James J. Bjorkman
[snip]
: >
: >: The problem is that people carry a stereotyped "definition" of rape. They
: >: may well vehemently oppose what they consider to be a "true rape" - but
: >: not be so opposed to the rape of a prostitute, or a "loose" woman, or not
: >: recognise certain acts of sexual violence as rape at all. That was
: >: certainly the case with Koss' rapists.
: >
: >Hard to argue with this. If you are asking every man to be the Supreme
: >Court, knowing when the Justices will split 5-4 in one direction rather
: >than the other, knowing exacly where we are to draw the fine line today,
: >then I submit you are being unrealistic. I have a feeling we could argue
: >about what constitutes rape all night, and it won't matter a whit,
: >because unless every other person on earth is also in on the discussion,
: >it won't change a thing. Women are much better off if there are bright
: >lines of conduct, and everyone knows what the *simple* limits are. But
: >your point is well taken.
: Raping a woman who was wearing sexy clothes is no less a crime than raping
: a woman wearing conservative clothes. But that won't stop a defence lawyer
: trying to convince the jury that the complainant "asked for it".
This is so off topic I don't feel the urge to respond.
: It's not a matter of arguing about "what constitutes rape". That's pretty
: well-defined legally. The problem is, judges and lawyers ignore the legal
: definition, or consider some rapes less "damaging" than others because of
: the rape myths and stereotypes they believe.
Well, then, as I said, it is much better if there are bright lines of
conduct that are easily understood. As for what judges and lawyers do,
the issue in court (except at sentencing, and rightly so) is *never* the
extent of "damage" caused by the rape. When proving the elements of
rape, that just doesn't enter into the equation. Either an element is
met, or it isn't. Period.
: [snip]
: As I have repeatedly said, *that isn't my view*. But I *do* understand why
: some women and feminists are cynical about men's input into the anti-rape
: movement.
And why is that, pray tell? Because we aren't women? Great logic.
: >being put in, I note simply that NOW's membership is only about 280,000
: >(according to the book The Top Ten of Everything), while (predominantly
: >male) law enforcement organizations number many multiples of that (or
: >don't you think that *they* "put an effort in" to solve sex crimes?). I
: >will grant you that feminists are more *vocal* than men on this subject.
: >No argument there (thank you, Susan Brownmiller).
: While no-one's putting down the good work done by the police in preventing
: and prosecuting rape, it's important to remember that for decades police
: have ignored rape, harassed rape victims, and, of course, raped. Their
: importance in *stopping* rape, in keeping women safe, makes it even more
: devastating when *they* believe rape myths.
Thanks for agreeing with me. Your "qualifications" that there are good
cops as well as bad is so obvious as to not merit any response.
: >: >[snip]
: >: >
: >
: >: It does not. If the rape laws are designed to protect male interests, they
: >: will not, for instance, protect wives or sex workers.
: >
: >Well, if your sole beef is with the scope of rape laws in the 1800's, I
: >concede the point. I think it kind of irrelevant to what is happening in
: >1995 (though I am kind of a history buff myself).
: >[snip]
: It was very recently than an Australian judge ruled raping a prostitute
: less of a crime than raping a "chaste" woman. (This was the decision
: overturned by the UN.)
And I am sure you meant to say what the hell this has to do with rape
laws in the 1800's, and why they are significant in today's world, but
just forgot. (The answer is nothing).
: >: If legally raping your wife is *not* a form of subjugation, I don't know
: >: what is. I think you should read about the history of rape laws and see
: >: what you think.
: >
: >Hmmm, I just finished a long post regarding ethnocentrism. I won't go
: >through it all again, except to say that it is unfair to judge a culture
: >in another time by our enlightened standards. In future years, people
: Marital rape was legal in Australia until 1983. I believe it's still legal
: in some US states. I'm not judging another time.
No, you are (for us Americans) judging another place. Same thing. I
don't think its legal anywhere in the US, though I am sure you will
provide some support for your assumption if I am mistaken. And as for
Australian rape laws, well, every country is entitled to its own rule of
law without my passing judgment on it.
: >may say that we were beasts for subjugating animals and keeping them in
: >zoos. Yes, *today* we agree that raping anyone is bad (by calling it
: >rape, you are posing a rhetorical question, obviously, but we don't want
: >to stray too far afield here), but what was defined as rape in the
: >1800's, well, that is best left to historians and, IMHO, has no bearing
: >on the current rape situation. You clearly feel anger about the
: >treatment of women in the past, since you keep bringing this up, which
: >obviously is a perfectly proper feeling for you to have if the past
: >upsets you, but doing so is counterproductive because
: >it alienates the people you and KG seem to want to reach most (men). I
: >suggest - and this is a sincere suggestion - that you stop waving the
: >bloody shirt. You may win more friends that way.
: "Patronising - can *you* say that?" :-)
You really can't get past this historical bit, can you. Too bad.
: Again, I'm talking about the here and now. I'm angry (and concerned) about
: *what's happening now*. Changes don't happen overnight.
Then why do you keep talking about the history of rape laws? *I'm* not
the one who keeps bringing them up. I may be concerned about
them...should I learn how to time-travel.
: I'm going to answer your comments on Koss' study in a separate posting.
: [snip]
: >: Can you be certain that your personal experience is representative? Again,
: >: if the police only think of certain rapes as "true" rapes, the rest are
: >: simply filtered out (and may not even be reported).
: >
: >There, now you are making my point. What exactly *is* rape? This may
: >seem a somewhat metaphysical question, but it makes all the difference in
: >the world when you start throwing around statistics.
: Rape is sex without consent. As the T-shirt says, "Which part of the word
: 'no' don't you understand?" :-)
Oh, now who's being patronizing?
: >: And since most rapes aren't even reported, not being "soft" or "easy" on
: >: the tiny percentage of rapists who are charged doesn't make much difference.
: >
: >Well, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a
: >sound? If a woman is cajoled or even coerced into having sex and doesn't
: >report it as rape, is it actually "rape" (she may not report it for
: >reasons of her own self-advantage even if coerced)? These are not always
: >easy questions. Maybe you agree with Andrea Dworkin that *all* sex is rape?
: >In that case, I certainly agree with you. But your blanket assumptions
: >are not something I automatically agree with.
: *Your* blanket assumptions about what *I* believe aren't very helpful.
: Please don't generalise.
Actually, I am just trying to understand your point, so I can respond.
Talking about ancient rape laws, you see, tends to deflect the discussion.
: If the woman doesn't report the rape, that doesn't mean she wasn't rape.
: If she doesn't realise that her experience constituted rape, that doesn't
: mean it wasn't rape. If she is so hurt that she denies she was raped, that
: doesn't mean she wasn't. Again, sex without consent is rape. How much
: clearer can a definition be?
I understand your point (I think), and agree to a large extent. As for
the clarity of the definition, well, your definition begs the whole
question (which *is* the question) of what constitutes consent. And that
is a *very* unclear proposition, as anyone in the field will tell you.
JB
Derek Rose
jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
> : I just finished responding to your long post on ethnocentrism, but I
> : just wanted to add on something. People are, after all, human. They
> : grow up in a specific culture, and that influences all that they do.
> : The Founding Fathers owned slaves, and since that was accepted back
> : then as normal at that time, I don't think you can say they were bad
> : people. But that doesn't mean you can't condemn the _act_.
>
> Well, we are basically in agreement. Condemn anything you want! I'm
> sure the Founding Fathers aren't exactly spinning in their graves over this.
Well, sure. But our sense of what is right and wrong effects of whole
lot of public policy decisions. In another post to Gail, you wrote
that cultures should be given the right to develop without outside
intereference. (a view that, in my mind at least, ranks "culture" as
more imporant than people, by putting its "rights" above human rights).
Suppose there is a small island that is could be of importance to us,
but the people there have no conception of human rights and routinely
rape women and kill their racial minorities. Why would it be wrong for
us to go in there and lay down the law, to tell them, "look, you've had
your 'fun,' but no more. We know your culture tells you that women are
property and ethnics aren't human: but from now on, you respect their
rights, or you we'll shoot you."?
Derek Rose
27...@tccn.com (Jim Mork) writes:
> : The Founding Fathers owned slaves, and since that was accepted back
> : then as normal at that time, I don't think you can say they were bad
>
> By whom? Norwegians and Swedes didnt enslave Africans. Neither did
> Canadians. Who gets the right to define "normal"?
Nor mal. 1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm,
standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature.
Perhaps I should have said it was normal for the culture in which they
lived.
James J. Bjorkman
: In article <3et9iv$9...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
: jjb...@is.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
[snip]
: Suppose there is a small island that is could be of importance to us,
: but the people there have no conception of human rights and routinely
: rape women and kill their racial minorities. Why would it be wrong for
: us to go in there and lay down the law, to tell them, "look, you've had
: your 'fun,' but no more. We know your culture tells you that women are
: property and ethnics aren't human: but from now on, you respect their
: rights, or you we'll shoot you."?
This, clearly, is the question posed in its most difficult form. Is it
"right" to interfere in a culture because it suits our purposes?
There are competing values here. One is our sense of moral outrage. The
other is the inherent unfairness (and, in a long-term sense, self-harm) of
eradicating competing cultures that have developed along different lines.
The side of moral outrage is clear. We do not wish to see people,
physically like us (though, being from another culture, they really are
quite different from us, however much we look the same), being treated in a
matter we find inhumane. It is averse to our notions of justice (I say
"notions" because the scope of the acts we find repugnant change over
time) and morals. We want to stop the pain we see in others.
The other side is not so clear, but has moral imperatives of its own.
There is an inherent moral problem with our dictating how other people
should live merely because we are (currently) more powerful. It is as if
we said the school bully has a moral right to rule in the playground
because he/she is strongest. We represent only one culture, no matter
how strong, so we cannot even say we have some right based on a
"majority" or some similar notion. It is simply us versus them, and,
because we are able to impose our will, they lose.
Is this the only factor on this side of the ledger, though? No. It is
ultimately in our own self-interest to have diversity among cultures. It
is generally accepted that diversity makes for a stronger whole. This,
incidentally, is a key argument used by minorities to be admitted in
greater numbers to prestigious schools here in the US, so there is
nothing remotely "racist" about this line of analysis.
Non-interference also has the reversibility factor in its favor. If we
were someday faced with a power greater than ours (this is not some
flight of fantasy; some, such as Richard Nixon (I know, boo, hiss), have
suggested that China could be in this position vis a vis ourselves
someday), we would not want *it* telling *us* what to do. I think Kant
called this the "categorical imperative." In plain english, we wouldn't
have a moral leg to stand on if the roles became reversed someday.
Finally, there is simply the *right* of others to live as they choose and
as their previous choices and evolutionary twists and turns dictate.
Their economy, for example, might collapse and they could *all* live in
misery if we go in and "tidy things up." This, arguably, has already
happened in various less developed nations around the world (I am
thinking in particular about some US Trust territories in the Pacific
which have become corrupted by US aid, to the extent that they probably
could not survive without it; there are other examples). Our meddling
could destroy all the inhabitants, whereas otherwise, left to their own
devices, based on their changing response to environmental factors, the
locals might work through their current social mode and eventually
become more "righteous" in our eyes.
There aren't any altruistic souls around to support the broken culture
once we've gotten what we want and leave. The culture might be destroyed.
This could happen through forces beyond our control, such as budgetary
pressures, so the argument "we would never let that happen" is unavailing.
I know, this is kind of a long-winded response. The bottom line is that
there *are* aspects that are "wrong" with interfering. This is not to
say that the balance automatically comes out on one side or the other.
The problem is not simple, and requires a great deal of
thought as to the short and long term consequences. How would I come
out? I am not sure; I would probably favor at least minimal
involvement to correct the worst of the abuses. I would
understand people advocating a complete hands off policy, even if I
disagreed with them. We cannot live in a moral vacuum, though. I would
thus understand people advocating a total takeover.
History indicates that the most likely policy would be to
"clean things up" completely, with all of the perhaps unintended
consequences that that entails. One could say the US did that with the
American Indian, BTW. Such a policy would most likely be a mistake, for
the reasons set forth above, besides being morally questionable.
JB
Alan Popiel
>: The Founding Fathers owned slaves, and since that was accepted back
>: then as normal at that time, I don't think you can say they were bad
In article <3eqcs2$8...@jeeves.tccn.com> 27...@tccn.com (Jim Mork) writes:
>
>By whom? Norwegians and Swedes didnt enslave Africans. Neither did
>Canadians. Who gets the right to define "normal"?
How about the agrieved class? Let's see, in that time frame that would
have been black Africans. But wait a second, it was primarily black
Africans who sold other black Africans to the slave ship owners, who were
mostly white. After all, very few, if any, whites made slaving expeditions
into the African interior. Blacks always met them on the coast with other
blacks to sell.
And of course we all know Canadians are without fault. As my son's
Canadian girl friend explained to us backward Coloradans, Canadians don't
care very much about skin color, but if you speak the wrong LANGUAGE in
some areas, you risk getting the crap beat out of you.
Get a life, Jim. What I understand Derek as saying is that judgments of
right and wrong must at least consider the mores of the time. It is not
really very meaningful to judge people from long ago by our exalted
standards, unless you REALLY want to be hauled up in front of some time
traveling court of the future for violating their standards, which we
haven't even dreamed of yet.
--
| R. Alan Popiel | Internet: al...@den.mmc.com |
| Martin Marietta, SLS | |
| P.O. Box 179, M/S 3810 | All std disclaimers apply. Cute ones, too. |
| Denver, CO 80201-0179 USA | Void where prohibited. Your mileage may vary. |
Derek Rose
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
> Why did Koss include the questions at all? Because, as she points
out, the
> deliberate giving of intoxicants to help reduce a victim's ability to
> resist is part of the broad legal definition of rape.
Which is something that has been really bothering me. I've gotta admit
it: I've bought a women drinks at a bar and gone back to her place and
had sex with her. To tell the truth, though, she seemed to know my
cunning plan all along, and thankfully this happened in New York State,
not Ohio, which has no such evil rules.
Derek Rose
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>
> Koss was using the legal definition of rape. The courts, ideally, use a
> legal definition of rape.
>
Well, here in America the legal definition of rape changes from state
to state. I can't claim familarity with all 50 defintions, but have
looked up about 10, and only know 2 (Ohio and Georgia) where if a woman
is intoxicated _with her consent_ does sex with her become rape.
Also, the standard definition of the term given in Black's Law
Dictionary says nothing of alchohol; it uses the classic "by force (or
threats of force) and against her will" definition.
Rolfe G. Petschek
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: >Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: >For victims of attempted rape, the figure for subsequent sex with
>: >reported assailants was 35%.... [snip in interest of brevity].
>
>: However, as Koss points out, it was not known whether the later sex was
>: *consensual* or not. They may have been further rapes.
>
>continuation that I snipped in the interest of brevity:
>
>Why not indeed? Koss attempts to gloss over this unpleasant (for her
>conclusion) reality by counting women who did not think they had been
>raped as having been raped! Who is in a better position to judge, her or
>the alleged victim? I, for one, think we should allow women to decide
>whether the facts warrant calling something a rape. Koss treats these
>women as though they are too stupid to know the difference. How morally
>superior, and how presumptuous.
On the other hand it is certainly false no rape victim would
ever have consensual sex with someone who has previously raped her.
On the contrary, it is reasonably well known that women who are forced to
have sex with boyfriends / husbands who use forcible compulsion to have
sex with them then, later have consensual sex with them, continue
relationships etc. I knew such a woman, who despite her anger at being
beaten and raped and then left and divorced for a younger woman *still*
continued to have sex with her former husband. I agree it seems
strange, but it does happen. Possibly this simply underscores the very
different nature of rape and consensual sex.
I tend to agree, however, that some of the Koss questions may not have
been sufficiently precise to screen out non-rapes. Even (e.g. in Ohio)
you have to be *quite* drunk before you are considered incapable of
consent. Taking a woman out, giving her 2 drinks and taking her to bed
is probably not illegal, even if you suspect that inhibitions might have
prevented her from having sex, otherwise. I don't think that the Koss
questions rule out this (legal and if immoral only marginally) option.
Mind, personally I prefer sober, responsive sexual partners.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek Pets...@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics r...@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University (216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
James J. Bjorkman
: Funny how James Bjorkman's "interest in brevity" leads to small books
: online so long as the data supports his system of illusions.
Nothing funny about it at all. If you are suspicious of my excepts, go
read the book. It will open any unbiased reader's eyes regarding these
issues that are so near and dear to your heart.
If you are so against "small books" on-line, go whine to Karen Gordon,
not me. I must really be hitting home to get this type of response.
JB
James J. Bjorkman
: the women counted as having been raped by koss met the legal
: dfefinition of rape but did not use the term rape to describe their
: experiences. many of the women in the study said they had considered
: suicide after the experience koss definaed as rape and they just
: described without that term attached.
Actually, this is erroneous. Koss counted instances that specifically
fell outside the legal definition of rape in the jurisdiction in question
- Ohio - and included them in her findings (these included instances of
seduction with alcohol and drugs that were explicitly excluded by the
statute). Now, you may say that many people view this as rape. However,
it wasn't in Ohio. People tend to do things that are illegal much less
often than things that are legal (look at the prevalence of insider
trading in the 1920's, when it was legal, versus today, when it is not).
Koss' findings were grossly over-stated as a result. She later admitted
as much.
JB
Kate Orman
[snip]
>Koss' findings were grossly over-stated as a result. She later admitted
>as much.
Perhaps you could provide a citation for this statement on Koss' part.
Or perhaps you couldn't.
Kate Orman
>
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: In article <3fpbfo$2...@cmcl2.nyu.edu> jjb...@is2.nyu.edu (James J. Bjorkman) writes:
>
>: [snip]
>
>: >Koss' findings were grossly over-stated as a result. She later admitted
>: >as much.
>
>: Perhaps you could provide a citation for this statement on Koss' part.
>
>: Or perhaps you couldn't.
>
>who would prefer not to have to read passages such as this):
>
>"In a special three-part series on rape called "The Making of an
>Epidemic," [in the Blade, a small progressive Toledo, Ohio newspaper],
>published in October 1992, the reporters, Nara Shoenberg and Sam Roe,
>revealed that Koss was quoting the Ohio statute in a very misleading
>way: she had stopped short of mentioning the qualifying clause of the
>statute, which specifically *excludes* 'the situation where a person
>plies his intended partner withdrink or drugs in hopes that lowered
>inhibition might lead to a liaison.' Koss now concedes that question
>eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the
>time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous."
>That concession should have been followed by the admission that her
>survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told
>the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the
>finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted
>rape drops to one in nine."
>
>Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism (Simon & Schuster 1994) p. 213
>(footnotes omitted).
>
>I am always happy to educate you on this.
So let's see. Koss said that the question was "ambiguous" and "could have
been better worded". From this, you have repeatedly stated that Koss
dismissed her own results and that her claim was "grossly over-stated".
D'you not think you have distorted what Koss *really* thinks? Let's hear
what she has to say from some more reliable source than Sommers.
--
___
Kate Orman
"What she may do with a word or two is much to grim to tell."
- Jack Prelutsky, "The Witch"