What does that have to do with Drag?
Split Thread violence and harassment by and to different gender identities
- Thread starter FatherLukeduke
- Start date
What does that have to do with Drag?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,799
In fairness to tyr, I think this isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison. In particular, IIRC in the UK "rape" doesn't include "made to penetrate". In other words, if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, the crime isn't rape, it's something else. So those cases wouldn't show up in the statistics you cite, but tyr did actually specify that he was including "made to penetrate" in his definition of rape. And I think that's a perfectly fair definition for him to use.
That being said, he still didn't back up his claim, and while using his broader definition would logically increase the number of male victims, there's no reason to think it would really close the gap. And even just for women where this definition change doesn't apply, the numbers he's claiming are WAY higher than the UK numbers indicate, so that's a discrepancy that needs explaining too. If we knew the source of his claim, we could evaluate possible causes of that discrepancy, but we don't so we can't.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Nobody made that claim.
The claim is that males are raped much less than females. This holds in the US, as well as all across the entire ******* world.
https://supportingsurvivors.humboldt.edu/statistics#:~:text=An%20estimated%2091%25%20of%20victims,1%20This%20US%20Dept.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html
Seriously, you have no idea how enraging it is to see males - males who consider themselves good progressive liberal males no less! - casually insist that females don't have it that bad, and to insinuate that the experience we have of male violence is just blown out of proportion. It's right back to "Oh calm down little lady, don't get so upset about it, it's not a big deal".
It IS a big deal, and it is demoralizing and insulting to have males DICTATE that female rape and sexual assault statistics are "exaggerated" just because THEY don't want to acknowledge that males are a danger to females.
Yes, it needs support. The other actual claim made has a TON of support for it, from a TON of reputable organizations, and it can be demonstrated to be true in every ******* country across the entire ******* globe. Your claim is the one that varies from that, and as such, your claim needs support. Your imagination doesn't make it true.
Okay, kettle.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Nothing, but then neither did Tyr's claim that males are raped about as often as females. If you have a problem with that diversion from the topic, kindly take it up with tyr. Report tyr's post as a derail.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
'I didn't use numbers so I don't have to support my claim' isn't critical thinking. I'm perfectly fine in judging your critical thinking ability.
Hilarious response to a post you quoted that linked to a citation. A citation that supported my actual claim which is not that men and women are raped at the same rate. If I wanted to do, I would have leaned more heavily on the specific finding that..."The CDC found in the 2012 data that 1.715 million[9] (up from 1.267 million in 2010)[10] reported being "made to penetrate" another person in the preceding 12 months, similar to the 1.473 million[9] (2010: 1.270 million)[10] women who reported being raped in the same time period. The definitions of rape and "made to penetrate" in the CDC study were worded with extremely similar language.[10]"
Oh, and your data limits it to 'sexually penetrated' as well, leaving the rape of men artificially low. Thanks for the additional data!
Are you going to hold Zigg or Emily's Cat to the same standard? No? Of course not. You're selectively skeptical.
Flagrantly wrong, especially in the context of why these groups campaign together. "A telephone survey conducted in 2010 for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 43.8% of lesbians reported having been raped, physically abused or stalked at some point by an intimate partner; of these, 67.4% reported the perpetrator or perpetrators as being exclusively female."
But don't worry, now that you've cited numbers, the others are sure to say you need citations too! Wait, no, they won't. They, like you, aren't operating on skepticism nor critical thinking. You're using the same rationalizations and same faulty arguments used against the rest of the people you wonder why group together.
EDIT: Oh wow, props to Zigg for actually trying to apply some rigor to the claims of others, but still ignoring that I did cite an article that supports both my point about the numbers having a huge variance and that if you include 'made to penetrate' the numbers are much closer than Emily's Cat claims.
Last edited:
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
On top of this being not at all what was argued by me, do you know how enraging it is see 'good progressive feminists' claim that the only reason my rape counts as rape is because I was nine, and that it's fine that it wouldn't be included in rape statistics otherwise?
You want to play the victim card, it's rejected.
Last edited:
It's literally all she has.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Especially for juvi. From my link, "Looking across different government survey sources, for a given year male adult and youth inmates are estimated to suffer several times more incidents of sexual victimizations than incarcerated females. Male and female inmates are not included in most national surveys of sexual victimization.[7][8]"
An estimated over 900,000 incidents 2008-2009.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Oh, I am most assuredly not progressive. I am liberal, but to me progressives have a nasty habit of knocking down Chesterton's Fence, assuming they know what's best for other people when they haven't actually got a clue what is important to the people they've assumed they're better than, and frequently engage in undertakings that seem great on the surface but provide solutions that are far worse than the original problem. In short, most progressives seem isolated among their academic theories and their assumption of knowledge, to an extent that they can't even be bothered to engage in extrapolative thinking and consider the easily foreseeable outcomes of their vaunted goals.
Of course your rape counts! Why on earth would you think anyone in this thread would think otherwise? Of course it should be considered in the statistics.
Additionally, for the record, pedophiles are equal opportunity offenders. Child sexual abuse is about evenly split by sex... but the sex of the perpetrators is extremely disproportionately male.
That's the point here, tyr - that males perpetrate far, far more rape, sexual assault, and violence than females do. Nothing in that says that females cannot, but that they are massively less likely to. Nothing says that males can't be the victims of such horrific treatment. Only that once we reach puberty, males are much less likely to be the victimize than females are.
Nobody is playing the victim card. I am, however, playing the "Don't force females to be even more victimized than we already are" appeal to reason.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Only if you can't be bothered to read and comprehend, and to think beyond your innate tendency to be offended by the misdeeds of the male sex in general as if it were personally being directed at you.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
For incarcerated individuals, the rate of assaults that males face are worse than those faced by females. That's largely because males are the ones that are overwhelmingly the perpetrators... and most prisons up until recently are separated by sex.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Yet you ignore that it wouldn't be if I had been made to do the exact same thing nine years later. That statistics you cling to wouldn't have considered it 'rape'.
'Females are in more danger so let us dictate the rest' is poor reasoning regardless.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I think your interpretation is incorrect. I think you're assuming a universal definition of rape that isn't appropriate in all cases.
I would like to ask a personal question, and have you give it some genuine thought. I am inferring from your posts that you were made to penetrate a female, against your will. Being as you were 9, that is unquestionably child sexual abuse and rape, there is no wiggle room in my mind for that. My question is this: If you had been 18 when this happened, and had the physical capabilities of yourself at age 18... do you think that you could still have been forced to do this against your will?
That's not at all my position, and you bloody well know it. My position is "females are in more danger, so let's NOT OPEN THE DOORS TO ALL FEMALE ONLY SPACES AND MAKE IT EVEN EASIER FOR MALES TO GET ACCESS TO THEM"tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Literally using the definitions of rape used in these studies and surveys, which is the opposite of assuming.
I think that such a reductive view of 'rape' to limit it down to only things you could not have hypothetically physically fought against is wrong on its own and doubly wrong when applied selectively like you're attempting to do. Would you use the same argument about a woman who had a weak attacker? There are no other ways to coerce besides threat of literal force?
To be frank, my physical capabilities at nine likely exceeded my rapists because I grew very early. It's one of the reasons my rapist said she did it.
From my link, again...
"By masculine gender socialization, it is thought that males, even younger males, cannot be victims of rape, nor even that they are vulnerable. In some societies, it is considered shameful and unmanly if a male child cries, because the male stereotype depicts males as being able to protect themselves, which may not always be the case.[27][28] Young boys may be weaker and vulnerable to perpetrators, who are usually stronger. The perpetrators can use whatever they have to abuse the child, including money or other bribes.[28] An adult male may also be helpless to fight back, or fearful of doing so."
That's why those strong lesbians need kept out of the same spaces? Why gay men should be kept away from children? This is the same line of argument used against them.
Those doors aren't locked. Men don't need to pretend to be trans to get to their victims. That you have a concern doesn't make the concern rational. Your argument is that this concern be given primacy because women are at greater risk.
Which is your argument. 'Women are victims more, so let me say what goes.'
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,799
First, let's remind everyone what your claim was.
First, well done for providing a source, now let's evaluate what it says. But let's skip the Wikipedia intermediary and go straight to the CDC itself:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
Key data can be found on pages 18 and 19 (PDF pages 28 and 29), tables 2.1 and 2.2. The first thing I want to note is that the CDC did two measurements for the prevalence of rape and made to penetrate: a lifetime total and a one year total.
tyr cites the one year data that wikipedia quoted, and yup, according to the CDC, almost as many men were "made to penetrate" as women were raped in the preceding 12 months (1.267 million vs. 1.27 million). I will admit, that's much closer than I expected. But here's where things get interesting, because tyr's claim was about lifetime victimization rates, not one year victimization rates. So let's look at what the lifetime numbers say.
For lifetime victimization rates, the CDC lists 21.84 million women victims. But for male victims we have 1.58 million victims of rape and 5.45 million forced to penetrate victims, with an unknown overlap between the two groups. Assuming no overlap (an upper bound for male victims) we get 21.84 million lifetime female victims vs. 7.03 million lifetime male victims. Assuming total overlap (lower bound) it's 5.45 million. So we've got about 3x to 4x times more female victims than male victims.
Honestly, I thought the discrepancy would be bigger. But we're not quite done with our analysis. Let's take a moment to look at how these terms are defined. That's on page 17 (27 of the PDF). And it includes both completed and attempted acts of penetration or made to penetrate. It also includes oral sex for both. For rape, they provide numbers for both completed penetration and attempted penetration. Those two numbers don't quite add up to the total (maybe they have some that aren't characterized) but it's close, and for both women and men it's roughly two thirds completed and one third attempted. But they don't break out attempted from completed for made to penetrate. Given the simple logistics of the act, I expect that the ratio of attempted to completed made to penetrate acts is going to be different.
But in either case, should we consider both attempted cases and completed cases? Are we more concerned with just completed cases? Should oral sex be categorized the same as PiV sex? And what was tyr including in his claim?
But getting back to another oddity in the data that I already mentioned. For women, there are 17 times more lifetime victims of rape than victims from just the previous year. But for men, there are only 4.3x more lifetime victims than from the previous year. This is a huge discrepancy. It's true that men live shorter lives, but not that much shorter. What's going on here? Honestly, I don't know. I can think of a couple possibilities. Maybe the data is just bad. Maybe there's a smaller pool of male victims but they get routinely victimized. Since this is all self-reported, maybe men's perception of events changes over time. I don't know, but it's quite curious.
In any case, let's now do a direct comparison of the CDC data to tyr's claim. First, again, the CDC numbers include both attempted and completed. I'm not clear whether tyr is including both. The CDC claims a lifetime rape victimization rate of 18.3% for women, a lifetime rape victimization rate of 1.4% for men, and a lifetime forced to penetrate rate of 4.8%, with an unknown overlap between those last two categories. Zero overlap gives a CDC upper bound of 6.2%. Tyr's lower bound for women was "one in five", or 20%. 18.4% isn't that far off, I'll say it's close enough for rounding (one in six drops to 16.6 percent, so we're sort of between the two). For men, tyr's lower bound was "one in fourteen", which is about 7.1%. One in sixteen is 6.25%, so that's closer. But it's not too far off.
So we can get just below the lowest bound of tyr's claim, using CDC numbers which include both attempted and completed rape/made to penetrate events. With a bit of rounding and a game of telephone, it can fit. His lower bounds have a much greater disparity between males and females than his upper bounds, though. And I have no idea where his upper bound numbers come from, though.
Final addition. The CDC source also has some data on perpetrators, from page 24 (PDF page 34):
Most perpetrators of all forms of sexual violence against women were male. For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%)
Note: "only male perpetrators" means that if a victim was raped multiple times, then all perpetrators were male. This does NOT mean that 98.1% of perps were male and that 1.9% were female. It means that 1.9% of victims had at least one female perp but possibly a male perp as well. So 98.1% is likely an underestimate for rapists of females, but maybe not by much. Males were the vast majority of rape perpetrators against males as well, though by a smaller margin, and the number of male rape victims was lower as well. Females were the majority of perpetrators of made to penetrate crimes, though, so if you want to include that, then the fraction for men will drop.
So was EC's 99% claim wrong? Sure. It's an overestimate. Not a very big overestimate if you don't include made to penetrate, and even if you do the large majority of perps is still male. But in fairness, yes, it's an overestimate.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
That's not at all what I meant, tyr. I'm sorry if that's how it came across.
I just posted this on the thread from hell a couple days ago:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrfsp08.pdf
Sometimes stuff does get challenged. But if it's counter-intuitive, it just gets ignored.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
I'm kind of loath to pick anything in it apart, because it does look like a mostly good attempt to figure things out, but there are some problems with this analysis.
My claims included the very large disclaimer that 'It varies by survey' and my other cited quote makes it clear that I was not basing all the stated claims on the CDC one. The wikipedia article was not just an intermediary but was used because it is fairly indicative of the (muddled) state of the research. More on that below. I also cited other bits of the article in other arguments.
My specific citing that you quote was to point out, again, what I would have leaned on more if my argument was that victimization were roughly equal.
Whatever the case, it should be applied equally. You speculate that there would be a way for the rate of failed attempts to be meaningfully, even largely, different for made to penetrate. That's a handwave. Do you have research that would show such a large difference in attempted and completed? Something to indicate it? It could be, it could not be. I don't know. But it sounds like something one could demand a cite for.
The research that provides the highest proportion of rape and sexual assault victims to general population use expansive definitions of sexual assault and rape for women. When similarly expansive definitions are used for men as well, it leads to as this study did a very different proportion of male victims to female victims and male perps to female perps.
That right there is really one of the largest problems. Sexual violence surveys, no, actually surveys on sexual topics at all, are all highly sensitive to question wording, stipulated definition differences, cultural gender expectations, and the like. It is to the point that men victimized by women will often incorrectly report they were victimized by men at first instead. Changing the wording of a question from 'if you have been assaulted by men, how many have you been assaulted by in your lifetime' to 'how many assailants have you had in your lifetime' changed the number drastically. (This information can be found in the link in this post and the wikipedia article.)
Last time I looked, there were no non-pilot studies on rapist women. It's strange that you have to minimize the correctness of my claim by modifying it to remove the method of rape that is overwhelming used by rapist women. Yes, if we by definition remove the way that is more common for women to use, almost all rapists are men. That isn't surprising.
But there have been papers looking into some of the existing data, and thankfully it was done by researchers with strong feminist credentials and using solid feminist reasoning to support it. This Atlantic article which links to the paper is worth the short read. If I wanted to argue that there isn't much of a difference between the number of male rapists and female rapists, I'd lean of things like...
And “a 2012 study using data from the U. S. Census Bureau’s nationally representative National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions found in a sample of 43,000 adults little difference in the sex of self-reported sexual perpetrators. Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”
My claims included the very large disclaimer that 'It varies by survey' and my other cited quote makes it clear that I was not basing all the stated claims on the CDC one. The wikipedia article was not just an intermediary but was used because it is fairly indicative of the (muddled) state of the research. More on that below. I also cited other bits of the article in other arguments.
My specific citing that you quote was to point out, again, what I would have leaned on more if my argument was that victimization were roughly equal.
Whatever the case, it should be applied equally. You speculate that there would be a way for the rate of failed attempts to be meaningfully, even largely, different for made to penetrate. That's a handwave. Do you have research that would show such a large difference in attempted and completed? Something to indicate it? It could be, it could not be. I don't know. But it sounds like something one could demand a cite for.
The research that provides the highest proportion of rape and sexual assault victims to general population use expansive definitions of sexual assault and rape for women. When similarly expansive definitions are used for men as well, it leads to as this study did a very different proportion of male victims to female victims and male perps to female perps.
That right there is really one of the largest problems. Sexual violence surveys, no, actually surveys on sexual topics at all, are all highly sensitive to question wording, stipulated definition differences, cultural gender expectations, and the like. It is to the point that men victimized by women will often incorrectly report they were victimized by men at first instead. Changing the wording of a question from 'if you have been assaulted by men, how many have you been assaulted by in your lifetime' to 'how many assailants have you had in your lifetime' changed the number drastically. (This information can be found in the link in this post and the wikipedia article.)
Last time I looked, there were no non-pilot studies on rapist women. It's strange that you have to minimize the correctness of my claim by modifying it to remove the method of rape that is overwhelming used by rapist women. Yes, if we by definition remove the way that is more common for women to use, almost all rapists are men. That isn't surprising.
But there have been papers looking into some of the existing data, and thankfully it was done by researchers with strong feminist credentials and using solid feminist reasoning to support it. This Atlantic article which links to the paper is worth the short read. If I wanted to argue that there isn't much of a difference between the number of male rapists and female rapists, I'd lean of things like...
And “a 2012 study using data from the U. S. Census Bureau’s nationally representative National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions found in a sample of 43,000 adults little difference in the sex of self-reported sexual perpetrators. Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”