Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Aurora Novus]

But that's a relatively minor manifestation of a larger problem. Like I said, being perceived as bossy is not a primary reason why girls aren't becoming leaders (the source material for the campaign shows that quite clearly); the only thing that distinguishes the perception of bossiness from the other factors is that girls tended to identify it as a problem more than boys. So my question is why we're predicating this, as you say, broad-based campaign that offers ways to encourage leadership in young girls on such a flimsy premise? How are you going to encourage others to see this as a broader campaign to empower young girls when it's based on junk statistics and a weird, knee-jerk slogan? You don't have to disagree with the message to disagree with how it's being presented.

and why do you have a problem with telling people to leave bossy girls alone? is there a downside to sticking up for bossy girls that im missing?

...Perhaps the fact that they are bossy?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And it's attacking the entire approach of seeing girls as bossy when they show leadership skills, which you agree is a problem. The word symbolizes that issue. However, they don't stop there, giving advice on how to encourage leadership to girls, their parents, teachers, and their future employers.

But that's a relatively minor manifestation of a larger problem. Like I said, being perceived as bossy is not a primary reason why girls aren't becoming leaders (the source material for the campaign shows that quite clearly); the only thing that distinguishes the perception of bossiness from the other factors is that girls tended to identify it as a problem more than boys. So my question is why we're predicating this, as you say, broad-based campaign that offers ways to encourage leadership in young girls on such a flimsy premise? How are you going to encourage others to see this as a broader campaign to empower young girls when it's based on junk statistics and a weird, knee-jerk slogan? You don't have to disagree with the message to disagree with how it's being presented.

The statistics aren't junk. Twice as many girls as boys won't speak up because they're afraid of being seen as bossy. Addressing that issue is part of a larger approach to issues of leadership as regards girls and young women. The "Bossy" thing isn't the entire problem, but it's symbolic of the larger problem, and provides a starting point for discussion and education. If the campaign causes even a few people to shift their approach towards parenting or teaching in a positive way, then it's done its job. Your argument, stripped to the basics, seems to be (and I fear that I repeat myself) "The campaign isn't addressing the entire issue, so it's stupid." Well, no. It's not addressing the entire issue. There is no such thing as a single campaign that will address the entire issue, since a variety of approaches are necessary, and this is only one of them. I'm very sorry that you don't see the use in this, but I'm sure that the Girl Scouts will somehow manage to soldier on in the face of your disapproval.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

But that's a relatively minor manifestation of a larger problem. Like I said, being perceived as bossy is not a primary reason why girls aren't becoming leaders (the source material for the campaign shows that quite clearly); the only thing that distinguishes the perception of bossiness from the other factors is that girls tended to identify it as a problem more than boys. So my question is why we're predicating this, as you say, broad-based campaign that offers ways to encourage leadership in young girls on such a flimsy premise? How are you going to encourage others to see this as a broader campaign to empower young girls when it's based on junk statistics and a weird, knee-jerk slogan? You don't have to disagree with the message to disagree with how it's being presented.

The statistics aren't junk. Twice as many girls as boys won't speak up because they're afraid of being seen as bossy. Addressing that issue is part of a larger approach to issues of leadership as regards girls and young women. The "Bossy" thing isn't the entire problem, but it's symbolic of the larger problem, and provides a starting point for discussion and education. If the campaign causes even a few people to shift their approach towards parenting or teaching in a positive way, then it's done its job. Your argument, stripped to the basics, seems to be (and I fear that I repeat myself) "The campaign isn't addressing the entire issue, so it's stupid." Well, no. It's not addressing the entire issue. There is no such thing as a single campaign that will address the entire issue, since a variety of approaches are necessary, and this is only one of them. I'm very sorry that you don't see the use in this, but I'm sure that the Girl Scouts will somehow manage to soldier on in the face of your disapproval.

As I've said before, saying "twice as many girls as boys won't become leaders because they're afraid of being seen as bossy" is very much misrepresenting the situation. In context, (a) twice as many girls as boys within a subset of young people who have self-identified as not being interested in leadership list "not wanting to seem bossy" as a contributor (b) after all the other, much more common contributors (such as shyness, not wanting the responsibility, etc.). Just like you, this campaign has been pulling that statistic out of context in order to represent the problem as something it isn't. That's my issue, which I think I've made quite clear, not "the campaign isn't doing everything, so fuck it".

If the campaign were representing this for what it is: a small problem that perhaps ought to be identified, I wouldn't have an issue. But it's dragged the problem out of context and distorted it into something way out of proportion. So back to my original point, the foundation is flimsy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The statistics aren't junk. Twice as many girls as boys won't speak up because they're afraid of being seen as bossy. Addressing that issue is part of a larger approach to issues of leadership as regards girls and young women. The "Bossy" thing isn't the entire problem, but it's symbolic of the larger problem, and provides a starting point for discussion and education. If the campaign causes even a few people to shift their approach towards parenting or teaching in a positive way, then it's done its job. Your argument, stripped to the basics, seems to be (and I fear that I repeat myself) "The campaign isn't addressing the entire issue, so it's stupid." Well, no. It's not addressing the entire issue. There is no such thing as a single campaign that will address the entire issue, since a variety of approaches are necessary, and this is only one of them. I'm very sorry that you don't see the use in this, but I'm sure that the Girl Scouts will somehow manage to soldier on in the face of your disapproval.

As I've said before, saying "twice as many girls as boys won't become leaders because they're afraid of being seen as bossy" is very much misrepresenting the situation. In context, (a) twice as many girls as boys within a subset of young people who have self-identified as not being interested in leadership list "not wanting to seem bossy" as a contributor (b) after all the other, much more common contributors (such as shyness, not wanting the responsibility, etc.). Just like you, this campaign has been pulling that statistic out of context in order to represent the problem as something it isn't. That's my issue, which I think I've made quite clear.

If the campaign were representing this for what it is: a small problem that perhaps ought to be identified, I wouldn't have an issue. But it's dragged the problem out of context and distorted it into something way out of proportion. So back to my original point, the foundation is flimsy.

Except you don''t campaign for any cause, no matter how small it seems to others, by saying "Hey, this is a small problem in a much larger and more complicated set of institutional preconceptions, privileges, and structures" You say "This is a major issue", and you get people's attention, and then you can start talking about institutional preconceptions, privileges, and structures, using your initial issue as an introduction. Generally speaking--and don't ask me for a source, this is simply personal observation based upon some decades of interest in the subject--it's difficult to get an American audience to pay attention when you say "This is complicated, but it's worth knowing" unless they can see a specific benefit at the end of the process. On the other hand, if you grab the attention with a simple, basic slogan and message, quite often they'll end up exploring the complicated stuff of their own volition. Say "Ban Bossy", and follow it up with examples of how girls and young women are generally treated differently from their male counterparts at school, at home, and eventually in the workplace, and the argument makes itself.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

As I've said before, saying "twice as many girls as boys won't become leaders because they're afraid of being seen as bossy" is very much misrepresenting the situation. In context, (a) twice as many girls as boys within a subset of young people who have self-identified as not being interested in leadership list "not wanting to seem bossy" as a contributor (b) after all the other, much more common contributors (such as shyness, not wanting the responsibility, etc.). Just like you, this campaign has been pulling that statistic out of context in order to represent the problem as something it isn't. That's my issue, which I think I've made quite clear.

If the campaign were representing this for what it is: a small problem that perhaps ought to be identified, I wouldn't have an issue. But it's dragged the problem out of context and distorted it into something way out of proportion. So back to my original point, the foundation is flimsy.

Except you don''t campaign for any cause, no matter how small it seems to others, by saying "Hey, this is a small problem in a much larger and more complicated set of institutional preconceptions, privileges, and structures" You say "This is a major issue", and you get people's attention, and then you can start talking about institutional preconceptions, privileges, and structures, using your initial issue as an introduction. Generally speaking--and don't ask me for a source, this is simply personal observation based upon some decades of interest in the subject--it's difficult to get an American audience to pay attention when you say "This is complicated, but it's worth knowing" unless they can see a specific benefit at the end of the process. On the other hand, if you grab the attention with a simple, basic slogan and message, quite often they'll end up exploring the complicated stuff of their own volition. Say "Ban Bossy", and follow it up with examples of how girls and young women are generally treated differently from their male counterparts at school, at home, and eventually in the workplace, and the argument makes itself.

As much as I understand where you're coming from, in my view if you can't do that without distorting or omitting pretty crucial information or context, then it's not worth doing. There are other approaches that can be taken (and indeed I don't think this approach has even been particularly successful).

[Tahar Joblis]

The MRA talking point that TJ has embellished is that Dr. Koss has prevented the recognition of male rape victims. In the past, he has claimed (without evidence) that she has testified before Congress and lobbied to this effect.

Don't make shit up about what I've said when it's a single search away. If you are referring to this post, I am quite clearly referring to Koss publishing seminal papers. The reference to testifying in front of Congress is in regards to Dworkin.

The only proof is one and one-half sentences plucked completely out of context from one 24-page article from 1993.

I have read the paper in question. It is not out of context; and I in fact provided context. Koss is objecting to a strain of research examining male victimization.

Before turning to how the quote is being deliberately misconstrued, I should note that this "evidence" is a grain of sand onthe floor of a heavily cited ocean of work. As of January 2012, Dr. Koss (alone or with others) had authored (57p, pdf) the following publications: 7 scholarly books; 7 textbooks; 103 book chapters and monograms; and 137 refereed journal articles.

A body of work in which Koss has continued to state, over and over again, that rape should be defined in exactly such a manner as she does in that article. For example, here.

This is in addition to scores of professional presentations, congressional testimony, lay articles & new reports, etc. Among all this work by a ground-breaking scholar in the study of rape, we are to believe that one small quote evidences her view that men cannot be raped by women and that contrary views must be suppressed. This is even more of a stretch when one finds repeated references throughout Dr. Koss's work to male rape victims and she has other entire publications dedicated to male victimization.

Koss considers men the victims of rape only when they are penetrated, i.e., that is to say that Koss considers only about half of men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by other men the victims of rape, and almost none of the men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by women the victims of rape.

Anyway, the article in question -- "Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods" -- is, shockingly, an examination of methodologies used to identify the prevalence of rape. It is worth noting that Dr. Koss criticizes traditional rape definitions for excluding the rape of men (p. 199), includes studies particularly focused on the rape of men in her review (pp. 200-204), includes multiple studies that include samples of male rape victims in her review (pp. 200-204), and discusses how studies may best elicit information from men about victimization. Dr. Koss discusses at length that one problem with the literature in this field is a failure to use uniform definitions of "rape" and related terms like "sexual assault," "sexual battery," or "criminal sexual conduct." (pp. 199, 206). She notes a preference for using "the traditional term 'rape' to refer to the most highly sanctioned penetration offense." (p. 199) Note that "most highly sanctioned" refers to the legal/punitive categorization of sexual offenses, although it may also reflect her personal view.

It is worth noting that at the point in time that Koss wrote that article, there was not a clear legal consensus on the definition of rape; and in fact, the definition used by Koss to measure rape was not the same definition used by the DoJ. In fact, in the 2011 Cook et al paper linked to above (which she is a co-author of) acknowledges the continuing difficulties in reaching a uniform definition of rape; and in looking at the agenda moving forward, does not at all consider the issue of reforming definitions towards forcible envelopment.

Leading to the "gotcha" quote, Dr. Koss emphasizes that studies should stick to definitions that reflect legal statutes, but that issues remain -- including the "sex neutrality of reform statutes, which has been ignored in all but a handful of studies. Instead, focus has been restricted to female victims. This restriction makes practical sense because over 90% of the rapes identified in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) involve female victims (Jamieson & Flanagan, 1989). Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1991)." (p. 206-207) This allegedly misandrist statement is descriptive as to the state of the law in most jurisdictions -- particularly internationally -- and only prescriptive to the extent that studies of rape should use such definitions for consistency and (at least perceived) validity.* Consistent with Dr. Koss's objection of confusing the legitimate aim of categorizing "a range of unwanted sexual experiences" with identifying the prevalence of rape as legally defined, Dr. Koss supports identifying the prevalence of various forms of rape and unwanted sexual experiences forced upon males but only within as uniform of categories as possible. (pp. 206-207, 209 (citing Ageton (1983b)), 218.) This may or may not be objectionable, but it is not suppression, not sexism, and not misandry.

At the point in time Koss was writing that, the definition used by the DoJ (that most significant judge of the legal consensus within the United States) departed very substantially from her own. As noted in the 2011 paper above, the definition of rape remains non-uniform today in a number of significant ways.

Koss wrote, in 2007, a paper which elaborates some on why she doesn't feel it's rape. She makes reference to legal statutes (which are, we note, non-uniform) and then goes on to claim that:

Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men's experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women's experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).

Given her interest in the reform of legal definitions over the years, the latter reasons are quite significant for her to supply, providing a justification for why she continues to advocate on behalf of a future uniform definition that nevertheless continues to exclude such male victims.

I have discussed these papers before. What Struckman-Johnson found in their rather lengthy series of studies on the subject is that a significant percentage of men react quite poorly to the experience. It is true that women use some particular coercive tactics less often (as little as around half as often, in the case of direct physical force); and it is true that men are less likely to report serious trauma; but it's also true that men report less follow-on trauma following all kinds of traumatic experiences, even ones which are not subject to strong gender narratives as rape is. Even for physical assault, the ratio between reported lifetime incidence and recent incidence is significantly different for men and women.

A similar argument could be provided for claiming that male victims of penetration by other males should not be counted in the same way as female victims of penetration by males. Men simply present more stoic reactions in the data for every conceivable form of victimization, higher levels of forgetting, et cetera - on the whole. There are nevertheless a significant fraction of men whose reactions to the trauma would be considered within the normal range of reactions by women; and a significant number of men victimized by women as forcefully as is typical of women victimized by men. Koss has chosen, continuously and willfully, to contribute to the invisibility of these male victims and the failure of society to provide support for them.

Koss has had ample opportunities to express the views that you suggest she has. She has not, to my knowledge, done so; and every work of hers that I have read takes steps to minimize the importance of male victims and in particular male victims of female perpetrators. (The 2011 paper above uses female gender pronouns to refer to victims, with the footnote of "The vast majority of rape victims are female. Thus, we will use gendered pronouns hereafter.")

The characterization of this sentence is particularly bizarre because Dr. Koss notes later that surveying or questioning individuals using the word "rape" is likely to result in underestimates of the prevalence of rape, including the rape of males. (pp. 207-208)

Not at all. You will underestimate the prevalence of what Koss deems rape of males by doing so.

Koss has every reason to be familiar with precisely what Struckman-Johnson's studies show, and what subsequent data has shown: When you include "made to penetrate" figures, the rate at which men are victimized by women is surprisingly close to vice versa. (Note that the CDC figures there under "rape" include attempted penetration in the count of total rapes, deeming both attempted and completed rapes as types of rape; another fine example of non-uniform definitions used by different official sources.)

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except you don''t campaign for any cause, no matter how small it seems to others, by saying "Hey, this is a small problem in a much larger and more complicated set of institutional preconceptions, privileges, and structures" You say "This is a major issue", and you get people's attention, and then you can start talking about institutional preconceptions, privileges, and structures, using your initial issue as an introduction. Generally speaking--and don't ask me for a source, this is simply personal observation based upon some decades of interest in the subject--it's difficult to get an American audience to pay attention when you say "This is complicated, but it's worth knowing" unless they can see a specific benefit at the end of the process. On the other hand, if you grab the attention with a simple, basic slogan and message, quite often they'll end up exploring the complicated stuff of their own volition. Say "Ban Bossy", and follow it up with examples of how girls and young women are generally treated differently from their male counterparts at school, at home, and eventually in the workplace, and the argument makes itself.

As much as I understand where you're coming from, in my view if you can't do that without distorting or omitting pretty crucial information or context, then it's not worth doing. There are other approaches that can be taken (and indeed I don't think this approach has even been particularly successful).

I dispute the contention that anything was misrepresented. By the way, do you have access to a link to this study? My apologies if you provided one before I got involved in the conversation., but if you could save me the trouble of scrolling and searching, I'd be appreciative.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

As much as I understand where you're coming from, in my view if you can't do that without distorting or omitting pretty crucial information or context, then it's not worth doing. There are other approaches that can be taken (and indeed I don't think this approach has even been particularly successful).

I dispute the contention that anything was misrepresented. By the way, do you have access to a link to this study? My apologies if you provided one before I got involved in the conversation., but if you could save me the trouble of scrolling and searching, I'd be appreciative.

Here's the paper. The table we're looking at is on page 19. For a bit of context, their sample size is 2,475 girls and 1,514 boys. Of that, about 9% of both boys and girls said that they were not interested in being leaders, and it's that small subset that the table is calculated for (so adjusting for that, 2.7% of girls said that being perceived as bossy was a problem for them).

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I dispute the contention that anything was misrepresented. By the way, do you have access to a link to this study? My apologies if you provided one before I got involved in the conversation., but if you could save me the trouble of scrolling and searching, I'd be appreciative.

Here's the paper. The table we're looking at is on page 19. For a bit of context, their sample size is 2,475 girls and 1,514 boys. Of that, about 9% of both boys and girls said that they were not interested in being leaders, and it's that small subset that the table is calculated for (so adjusting for that, 2.7% of girls said that being perceived as bossy was a problem for them).

The greatest differences between girls and boys exist in the categories of bossiness and shyness. The campaign seeks to even out that ground on both by promoting confidence and eliminating negative reinforcement of leadership roles. Some children are naturally shy, but others simply need a more positive environment. An environment in which leadership skills are encouraged in all children equally addresses that, and such environments are promoted by the campaign.

EDIT: And thank you! I always feel so embarrassed asking for a source when I'm simply being lazy, and not actually challenging someone.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Here's the paper. The table we're looking at is on page 19. For a bit of context, their sample size is 2,475 girls and 1,514 boys. Of that, about 9% of both boys and girls said that they were not interested in being leaders, and it's that small subset that the table is calculated for (so adjusting for that, 2.7% of girls said that being perceived as bossy was a problem for them).

The greatest differences between girls and boys exist in the categories of bossiness and shyness. The campaign seeks to even out that ground on both by promoting confidence and eliminating negative reinforcement of leadership roles. Some children are naturally shy, but others simply need a more positive environment. An environment in which leadership skills are encouraged in all children equally addresses that, and such environments are promoted by the campaign.

EDIT: And thank you! I always feel so embarrassed asking for a source when I'm simply being lazy, and not actually challenging someone.

No problem. I think we're on the same page that that's a good thing to emphasise. All I want from the campaign is the recognition that we're maximally talking about 3% of the young people being surveyed and that the differential between boys are girls is no more than 1.5% adjusted over the whole sample (and that's 3% of young people who put "not wanting to seem bossy" anywhere on their list of barriers, not necessarily as the primary barrier). That's where just stating "twice as many girls as boys perceive being bossy as a barrier to leadership" is a misrepresentation; whenever removing a statement from the context causes people to perceive it differently, in my view, you run into problems.

Edit: Clarity.

[Knask]

That really isn't happening.

It really is happening. Look at the evolution of the standard sitcom family. We've gone from "Dad is [unrealistically] competent" to "Dad is [unrealistically] stupid" as a standard genre staple.

Knock yourself out. Remember to compare how many shows had females as the main protagonists while you're at it.

Some of the examples I've cited are, in fact, named after the woman of the leading couple - "I Dream of Jeannie" and "I Love Lucy" are both named after the women in them.

You have a major problem in that it's been a very major tradition to have, in shows set in a domestic setting, to have a leading couple. The presence or absence of female protagonists has as much to do with genre as time; the obvious thing to do is to focus on shows that star both men and women.

Incorrect. Abby is shown to be an expert in her chosen field, not generally smarter than the rest.

Not from what I've seen of the show.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. There really is a the growth of men being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in media

Growth.

... Sorry, I mean, there's a growth of men being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in sitcoms.... Sorry, I mean, there's a growth of men being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in domestic sitcoms... Sorry, I mean, there's a growth of men being portrayed with negative traits in domestic sitcoms...

I'm telling you what genre to find most of the growth in. I can (and have) asserted that this is true of action movies. It is most strongly true of sitcoms in which you have a couple interacting as a couple.

I'm not saying that every single male character is portrayed as incompetent and stupid, which is what you strawmanned my position as.

I'm saying it has been increasing, and that this is related to the rise of negative stereotyping of men. (I'm not even saying, with respect to TV shows, that there's a particular direction of causality; it's not clear to me if the growth of stereotyping of men )

TV tropes as an authoritative source?

TV Tropes as a source on what tropes are prevalent when?

Do you have a better source in mind? I mean, I can actually cite feminists readily admitting that there has been a recent growth of stereotyping male partners as dumb and incompetent.

A number of recent situation comedies on U.S. television depict smart, witty, and attractive women who are married to inept, overweight, and immature men, write a trio of authors in the abstract of an article on how this nevertheless "affirms patriarchy."

This is pretty much the standard position of feminists critically analyzing the dramatic shift in the gender roles of the sitcom: That in spite of the rise of the "dumb dad," and in spite of the rise of intelligent and competent women, leading to a complete reversal in which partner is smarter and more competent, this nevertheless affirms patriarchy.

My position is simpler: Portraying men as foolish and inept promotes and/or reflects negative stereotyping of men.

Your position is plugging your fingers in your ears and going "Prove that there's been a growth of portrayal of men as stupid and incompetent!"

Yes. The bank headquarters gets built, landing Ted, 33, on the cover of New York Magazine as the youngest architect to design a skyscraper in New York City.

A successful architect and a successful professor, having been featured in Time Magazine and New York Magazine, ends the show being headhunted to Chicago after having designed one of the largest skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan. At age 33.

Any career will have ups and downs, but in what world would those merits not be counted as successful?

Ah, so this is one of those sort of situations where the guy who's being lampooned as stupid and incompetent nevertheless eventually stumbles his way to success?

Not true. These characters are all intelligent, and they're all specialized. None of them are "non-intellectual", tho some of them are more partial to taking direct action.

None of the characters are negative stereotypes, and none are stupid and incompetent.

None? Or none of the "main" characters? I'm not agreeing with you, but I'll move on to the next point:

Now tell me, how many stupid people do they deal with? And what gender are the stupid people they deal with?

Is that a bad thing? Is being described as "good-hearted and affectionate" a bad thing?

It's one of the primary virtues assigned to the klutzy titular character of "I Dream of Jeannie." She's good-hearted, affectionate, and attractive (the third is still coded as a feminine virtue). She's also a ditz and a klutz, but that's OK.

It's now the primary virtue of Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin. They may be ditzy and klutzy, but they're good-hearted and affectionate (if not attractive).

I see. Are you relying on "feminist reviews" again? Because he is portrayed as a good father.

"Good" and "competent" are two different things.

He's a good father in the same ways that Homer Simpson is a good father. He's also confused a lot and doesn't really understand his daughter, in sharp contrast to his love interest. What's your definition of "good father"?

He's loving and caring, doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe.

Like Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin. Both of them are loving and caring and will go to great lengths to keep their family safe.

Look, we can agree that the portrayal of male characters have changed over time. Men are no longer portrayed as flawless one-dimensional supermen.

It's gone quite a bit further than that.

You know what, I'm convinced. You've won me over. To be clear, I didn't change my mind because of the link you provided since that was obviously just a misclick from your side (it didn't actually support your point when you read it), it was your expert knowledge of current TV shows.

Castle really isn't being a competent dad since he doesn't understand his teenage daughter, and he's being just as loving and caring as Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin...

They might be alcoholic, abusive, completely self-absorbed, neglecting their families and exposing them deliberately to harm, but they do so in a loving and caring manner...







I didn't add video showing Peter abusing his daughter, including shooting her and molesting her, since that wouldn't mean anything in this context.

I enjoy debating with someone who clearly knows what they're talking about.

[Hallo Island]

One of the best internet quizzes I have take was a "Are you a Feminist" quiz. It had one question. Do you support gender equality?

[Ostroeuropa]

One of the best internet quizzes I have take was a "Are you a Feminist" quiz. It had one question. Do you support gender equality?

See, the problem with that is, i'm never really accused of being a feminist. But I support gender equality.
I don't get feminists arguing that i'm actually a feminist too.

Because that rhetoric of theirs is nonsense. It isn't as simple as that. Feminism as an ideology is larger than that claim.

[Llamalandia]

And if the "Ban Bossy" people were stating that this program was targeting every issue regarding gender roles, your post would be relevant. As they're obviously targeting the 30%, it's not. Kind of like how people try to get kids to stop using "gay" as a synonym for "stupid". Nobody claims that this is going to solve the issues of anti-gay prejudice, but it does attack one element of the problem.

And I'm saying it ought to take a wider approach (and the language of the campaign would lead you to believe it is). The 30% is representative of a subset of a subset of girls (and 15% of boys listed being perceived as bossy as a barrier, so we're actually just looking at a differential of ~15% within a subset of young people). Sure, you can justify this as "attacking one element of the problem" (as you could anything that's remotely correlated with bad outcomes), but realistically we're looking at a problem that is comprised of countably infinite elements, all of which are stemming from social and cultural attitudes that require a much more nuanced approach to solve than "sweeping things under the rug". Also, the equivalence here between "gay" and "bossy" is weak. "Bossy" is primarily a term used to describe a particular style of leadership; overbearing, domineering, etc. Perhaps girls are disproportionately perceived that way when they take leadership roles, and that's a problem. The word itself isn't. Even if actually banning it isn't the objective, it's sending a very fuzzy message.

Besides its not like real life leaders don't have plenty of adversity and obstacles to overcome. That a significant part of what leadership is about, not just commanding people but persuading them to follow you. Besides I think a lesson in freedom speech would be infinitely more valuable. I mean at the end of the day kids should learn that basically no matter what some haters gonna hate and that they should eventually ignore and not respond to those who types of people.
Also sometimes people are bossy ( btw when this become a gender specific term anyway?) and should be called on it. I think a better message would be use bossy only when appropriate.

[Camelza]

Well, I'm sure there's a fair bunch of people who supports sexes' equality, I personally know a few.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And I'm saying it ought to take a wider approach (and the language of the campaign would lead you to believe it is). The 30% is representative of a subset of a subset of girls (and 15% of boys listed being perceived as bossy as a barrier, so we're actually just looking at a differential of ~15% within a subset of young people). Sure, you can justify this as "attacking one element of the problem" (as you could anything that's remotely correlated with bad outcomes), but realistically we're looking at a problem that is comprised of countably infinite elements, all of which are stemming from social and cultural attitudes that require a much more nuanced approach to solve than "sweeping things under the rug". Also, the equivalence here between "gay" and "bossy" is weak. "Bossy" is primarily a term used to describe a particular style of leadership; overbearing, domineering, etc. Perhaps girls are disproportionately perceived that way when they take leadership roles, and that's a problem. The word itself isn't. Even if actually banning it isn't the objective, it's sending a very fuzzy message.

Besides its not like real life leaders don't have plenty of adversity and obstacles to overcome. That a significant part of what leadership is about, not just commanding people but persuading them to follow you. Besides I think a lesson in freedom speech would be infinitely more valuable. I mean at the end of the day kids should learn that basically no matter what some haters gonna hate and that they should eventually ignore and not respond to those who types of people.
Also sometimes people are bossy ( btw when this become a gender specific term anyway?) and should be called on it. I think a better message would be use bossy only when appropriate.

I believe that the fact that girls tended to be more frightened of being identified as bossy suggested that girls tend to be called out on "bossiness" more than boys, which would indicate that leadership traits shown by both sexes tend to be encouraged in boys and discouraged in girls.

[Tahar Joblis]

You know what, I'm convinced. You've won me over. To be clear, I didn't change my mind because of the link you provided since that was obviously just a misclick from your side (it didn't actually support your point when you read it)

It actually did support my point on the rise of the "dumb dad" ... in spite of being written from an opposing perspective on the interpretation of what that meant.

Ladies and gentlemen, for the record, here's a selection of key quotes from the source we're talking about:

Despite this discursive containment of women in early sitcoms, it is striking that over time the genre seems to have worked out a peculiar representation of men

While Butsch focuses on the consistency in the portrayal of sitcom fathers from the 1950s to the 1990s, Erica Scharrer emphasizes the transformation during this time frame. She argues that sitcom fathers move from being regarded as intellectually superior to being mocked for acting unreasonably (23). She contends that in recent decades,female characters tell more jokes at the expense of their husbands than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, suggesting that women have become the more powerful characters on sitcoms (31).

More recently, scholars have found a more positive reading, at least occasionally, on gender and television sitcoms. Laura Linder notices significant differences between gender roles when she compares The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1957) to a more recent show, The Osbournes (2002). Although she states that the shows share common themes, Linder argues that sitcom fathers have “devolved” into a “less respected position” while sitcom mothers have “evolved toward a more respected position” (70).

In the 1950s, television viewers knew that Alice Kramden (Audrey Meadows) was way out of Ralph’s (Jackie Gleason) league in The Honeymooners. A decade later, people wondered what Wilma was thinking when she married Fred Flintstone on the 1960s animated series The Flintstones. Mismatched television couples are nothing new. However, within the past ten years, there has been a proliferation of these couples on U.S. prime-time television, and critics have noticed.

Overall, during the last twenty five years feminist media critics have explained how the portrayal of fathers and men on U.S. situation comedies has evolved and how humor can both contain and empower women on sitcoms. Many scholars argue that even when it appears that women have become more powerful characters on television, hegemonic narrative devices are often used to maintain patriarchal ideology. Some critics say that women and men are no longer “unequal,” while others argue that little has changed, even as post feministmedia representations are on the rise.

The conclusions also maintain Scharrer’s suggestion that sitcom fathers have become increasingly more foolish over the years (23). However, while Scharrer notes an increase in the number of powerful women on television sitcoms, this study reveals that these women are not as powerful as they first appear. While the female characters may be portrayed as smarter and more respectable, their apparent superiority is eclipsed by the overall patriarchal themes of the shows.

At exactly what point in reading this paper did you come to the conclusion that it didn't say what I told you it said... namely, that the paper endorsed the claim that a major and significant rise in the portrayal of men as inept and stupid has occurred, though the paper comes to very different conclusions about what that means than I do?

Because, while the paper quotes and cites the occasional objector, it takes a crystal-clear position that can be summarized as "The more things change [men changing to being portrayed as stupid and incompetent compared to women] the more they stay the same [patriarchy]."

, it was your expert knowledge of current TV shows.

Castle really isn't being a competent dad since he doesn't understand his teenage daughter, and he's being just as loving and caring as Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin...

They might be alcoholic, abusive, completely self-absorbed, neglecting their families and exposing them deliberately to harm, but they do so in a loving and caring manner...

Take all the specific examples of misbehavior you like; but on the occasions where Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson, and any other sitcom dad show virtues and are portrayed as being good dads? Those are it. Those are their sole redeeming virtues. Knowing what they're actually doing? Nope. "I’m not a bad guy. I work hard and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I’m going to hell?" Homer asks God, who we'll note is a character on the show. God finds that a good enough excuse, which, considering that Homer doesn't work particularly hard, suggests that being a loving father is pretty convincing.

But don't take my word for it. I watch comparatively little TV, in large part because of how awful I find it. However disappointed you are in Homer Simpson, it likely does not begin to approach my loathing. But this does not change the normative ideal of good fatherhood expressed through those characters.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Simpsons, despite their arguments, conflicts, and even physical violence toward one another, also regularly demonstrate love, loyalty, and affection. Many journalists and critics in recent years point out this affirmation of “traditional” values on The Simpsons (Cantor; Corliss; Goldberg; Hibbs; Mason), effectively negating the early criticism of the show, particularly Bart's rude, antiauthoritarian attitude toward manners, teachers, and parental discipline. Today critics are much more likely to discuss how the Simpsons ultimately embody the most important tenet of “family values”: a solid nuclear family. The Simpson children, despite their clear-eyed acceptance of Homer's failings as a father, Bart's disregard for authority, and Lisa's frustration with the narrow worldview of her parents, often express their affection for and loyalty to Marge and Homer. Maggie, as the prespeech infant, obviously adores Marge and has a soft spot for Homer, although he is remarkably inattentive to her. As parents, Marge and Homer try to the best of their ability to raise their children right. And at the heart of the Simpson family, like so many other sitcom families, are the domestic roles of Homer and Marge: a male breadwinner and a female homemaker who enjoy an affectionate, faithful (heterosexual) marriage.

...

But on opening night, Marge's performance deeply touches Homer, who sees himself in Stanley. Marge, touched by Homer's shame, forgivingly embraces him. And this, in fact, is how all such episodes end: Homer expresses his love and devotion—he throws back the fish; he books a night out on the town for Marge—and Marge rushes into his arms, with a loving look and an “Aw, Homie.” Marge's satisfaction with her marriage is always restored.

Do they even have those consistently? Not for all "dumb dads." Homer Simpson has his moments. Peter Griffin has his moments.

Consider the standards that you're using for good dad. It mostly boils down to means well and is a good person. Now think about the standards used for good mom. They're a lot higher than that. The good mom is expected to know what the fuck she's doing. If you don't know how to change a diaper, or don't know how to talk to your daughter, et cetera? "BAD MOM!"

Or would you like to deny that what we see is a double standard, one in which the "good father" portrayed on screen is able to meet that bar while being grotesquely inept and stupid?

[Des-Bal]

I believe that the fact that girls tended to be more frightened of being identified as bossy suggested that girls tend to be called out on "bossiness" more than boys, which would indicate that leadership traits shown by both sexes tend to be encouraged in boys and discouraged in girls.

Or that girls have a stronger aversion to being called bossy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I believe that the fact that girls tended to be more frightened of being identified as bossy suggested that girls tend to be called out on "bossiness" more than boys, which would indicate that leadership traits shown by both sexes tend to be encouraged in boys and discouraged in girls.

Or that girls have a stronger aversion to being called bossy.

In which case it's worth exploring why and how this aversion develops.

[Des-Bal]

In which case it's worth exploring why and how this aversion develops.

Certainly is. I blame the notion that gentleness is any more admirable in women than men.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

In which case it's worth exploring why and how this aversion develops.

Certainly is. I blame the notion that gentleness is any more admirable in women than men.

It can be an admirable quality in either sex depending upon the circumstances, but it doesn't need to be the default approach.

[Des-Bal]

It can be an admirable quality in either sex depending upon the circumstances, but it doesn't need to be the default approach.

I'm not implying it's less than admirable in either case but there's a notion that women should be especially gentle. Roles like that are especially damaging because on their face they appear good.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Certainly is. I blame the notion that gentleness is any more admirable in women than men.

It can be an admirable quality in either sex depending upon the circumstances, but it doesn't need to be the default approach.

There's actually an interesting table on that stuff on page 20 of the Girl Scouts report. How boys and girls perceive which gender is better at what.

[Dyakovo]

The MRA talking point that TJ has embellished is that Dr. Koss has prevented the recognition of male rape victims. In the past, he has claimed (without evidence) that she has testified before Congress and lobbied to this effect.

Don't make shit up about what I've said when it's a single search away. If you are referring to this post, I am quite clearly referring to Koss publishing seminal papers. The reference to testifying in front of Congress is in regards to Dworkin.

The only proof is one and one-half sentences plucked completely out of context from one 24-page article from 1993.

I have read the paper in question. It is not out of context; and I in fact provided context. Koss is objecting to a strain of research examining male victimization.

Before turning to how the quote is being deliberately misconstrued, I should note that this "evidence" is a grain of sand onthe floor of a heavily cited ocean of work. As of January 2012, Dr. Koss (alone or with others) had authored (57p, pdf) the following publications: 7 scholarly books; 7 textbooks; 103 book chapters and monograms; and 137 refereed journal articles.

A body of work in which Koss has continued to state, over and over again, that rape should be defined in exactly such a manner as she does in that article. For example, here.

This is in addition to scores of professional presentations, congressional testimony, lay articles & new reports, etc. Among all this work by a ground-breaking scholar in the study of rape, we are to believe that one small quote evidences her view that men cannot be raped by women and that contrary views must be suppressed. This is even more of a stretch when one finds repeated references throughout Dr. Koss's work to male rape victims and she has other entire publications dedicated to male victimization.

Koss considers men the victims of rape only when they are penetrated, i.e., that is to say that Koss considers only about half of men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by other men the victims of rape, and almost none of the men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by women the victims of rape.

Anyway, the article in question -- "Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods" -- is, shockingly, an examination of methodologies used to identify the prevalence of rape. It is worth noting that Dr. Koss criticizes traditional rape definitions for excluding the rape of men (p. 199), includes studies particularly focused on the rape of men in her review (pp. 200-204), includes multiple studies that include samples of male rape victims in her review (pp. 200-204), and discusses how studies may best elicit information from men about victimization. Dr. Koss discusses at length that one problem with the literature in this field is a failure to use uniform definitions of "rape" and related terms like "sexual assault," "sexual battery," or "criminal sexual conduct." (pp. 199, 206). She notes a preference for using "the traditional term 'rape' to refer to the most highly sanctioned penetration offense." (p. 199) Note that "most highly sanctioned" refers to the legal/punitive categorization of sexual offenses, although it may also reflect her personal view.

It is worth noting that at the point in time that Koss wrote that article, there was not a clear legal consensus on the definition of rape; and in fact, the definition used by Koss to measure rape was not the same definition used by the DoJ. In fact, in the 2011 Cook et al paper linked to above (which she is a co-author of) acknowledges the continuing difficulties in reaching a uniform definition of rape; and in looking at the agenda moving forward, does not at all consider the issue of reforming definitions towards forcible envelopment.

Leading to the "gotcha" quote, Dr. Koss emphasizes that studies should stick to definitions that reflect legal statutes, but that issues remain -- including the "sex neutrality of reform statutes, which has been ignored in all but a handful of studies. Instead, focus has been restricted to female victims. This restriction makes practical sense because over 90% of the rapes identified in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) involve female victims (Jamieson & Flanagan, 1989). Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1991)." (p. 206-207) This allegedly misandrist statement is descriptive as to the state of the law in most jurisdictions -- particularly internationally -- and only prescriptive to the extent that studies of rape should use such definitions for consistency and (at least perceived) validity.* Consistent with Dr. Koss's objection of confusing the legitimate aim of categorizing "a range of unwanted sexual experiences" with identifying the prevalence of rape as legally defined, Dr. Koss supports identifying the prevalence of various forms of rape and unwanted sexual experiences forced upon males but only within as uniform of categories as possible. (pp. 206-207, 209 (citing Ageton (1983b)), 218.) This may or may not be objectionable, but it is not suppression, not sexism, and not misandry.

At the point in time Koss was writing that, the definition used by the DoJ (that most significant judge of the legal consensus within the United States) departed very substantially from her own. As noted in the 2011 paper above, the definition of rape remains non-uniform today in a number of significant ways.

Koss wrote, in 2007, a paper which elaborates some on why she doesn't feel it's rape. She makes reference to legal statutes (which are, we note, non-uniform) and then goes on to claim that:

Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men's experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women's experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).

Given her interest in the reform of legal definitions over the years, the latter reasons are quite significant for her to supply, providing a justification for why she continues to advocate on behalf of a future uniform definition that nevertheless continues to exclude such male victims.

I have discussed these papers before. What Struckman-Johnson found in their rather lengthy series of studies on the subject is that a significant percentage of men react quite poorly to the experience. It is true that women use some particular coercive tactics less often (as little as around half as often, in the case of direct physical force); and it is true that men are less likely to report serious trauma; but it's also true that men report less follow-on trauma following all kinds of traumatic experiences, even ones which are not subject to strong gender narratives as rape is. Even for physical assault, the ratio between reported lifetime incidence and recent incidence is significantly different for men and women.

A similar argument could be provided for claiming that male victims of penetration by other males should not be counted in the same way as female victims of penetration by males. Men simply present more stoic reactions in the data for every conceivable form of victimization, higher levels of forgetting, et cetera - on the whole. There are nevertheless a significant fraction of men whose reactions to the trauma would be considered within the normal range of reactions by women; and a significant number of men victimized by women as forcefully as is typical of women victimized by men. Koss has chosen, continuously and willfully, to contribute to the invisibility of these male victims and the failure of society to provide support for them.

Koss has had ample opportunities to express the views that you suggest she has. She has not, to my knowledge, done so; and every work of hers that I have read takes steps to minimize the importance of male victims and in particular male victims of female perpetrators. (The 2011 paper above uses female gender pronouns to refer to victims, with the footnote of "The vast majority of rape victims are female. Thus, we will use gendered pronouns hereafter.")

The characterization of this sentence is particularly bizarre because Dr. Koss notes later that surveying or questioning individuals using the word "rape" is likely to result in underestimates of the prevalence of rape, including the rape of males. (pp. 207-208)

Not at all. You will underestimate the prevalence of what Koss deems rape of males by doing so.

Koss has every reason to be familiar with precisely what Struckman-Johnson's studies show, and what subsequent data has shown: When you include "made to penetrate" figures, the rate at which men are victimized by women is surprisingly close to vice versa. (Note that the CDC figures there under "rape" include attempted penetration in the count of total rapes, deeming both attempted and completed rapes as types of rape; another fine example of non-uniform definitions used by different official sources.)

1. You claim you provided context but that is not true. The “context” is not just a misleading snippet of one and one-half sentences. The actual context was explained and your response ignored it.

2. Dr. Koss was not objecting to Dr. Struckman-Johnson’s research into male victimization. That is absurd. Dr. Koss notes that male victimization fits within the scope of some criminal statutes, but noting that the sexual coercion that research focuses on does not fit the narrow confines of what was then legal defined as rape. Dr. Koss then cites the work of Dr. Struckman-Johnson as evidence of the male victimization “ignored in all but a handful” of other studies.

Moreover, Dr. Koss’s statements are accurate, as the work of Drs. Struckman-Johnson & Struckman Johnson does not describe sexual coercion as “rape.” In fact, in the lecture that you linked, Dr. Cindy Struckman-Johnson states about her research into forced sexual sex: “Most of the acts reported by my male victims would not have met the legal definition of rape.” This is sharply contrasted with her research into the rape of men in prison (which include some rapes of men by women using force).

You complain that Dr. Koss underestimates the number of men who are raped, but you seem to ignore that Dr. Struckman-Johnson’s estimates are lower than your own (especially if one considers your many objections to equating sex with someone who is drunk with rape). She states: “The percentage of men raped by a woman using physical force is low, perhaps 1% or less. However, if it is considered rape when a woman has nonconsensual sex with a drunken man, the rate would climb to somewhere between 5% and 10%.”

3. Your references to the definition of rape “used by the DOJ” are laughable. The "DOJ" definition in question was used by the FBI for statistical purposes until 2012. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/Janu ... g-018.html The old version used in 1993 – which it was already noted that Dr. Koss had criticized – was the 65-year-old, narrow definition of rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” Dr. Koss rejected this definition and, as explained in the article, sought to use definitions that reflected – as universally as possible – the elements of the criminal statutes of the various states. Are you suggesting that Dr. Koss should have used the old definition that excluded male victims entirely? Did you even read the article’s discussion of all of this?

4. Your quote of the draft version of the 2007 paper (of which Dr. Koss is the lead author along with 8 other experts) is both misleading and not the same as the final version (http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/31/4/357.abstract) . (One wonders why someone who claims to have read the document and often links to documents that others cannot access without paying would deliberately quote the draft version.) The article is an evaluation of and collaborative effort to improve the primary research survey used to assess sexual victimization. The relevant quote – in context – is (at pp. 359-360, emphasis added):

“Rape laws in most states are now gender neutral, permitting both victim and offender to be either male or female, although the FBI Uniform Crime Reports continue to limit rape incidence to female victims. The original SES used gendered language. Specifically, each question to detect perpetration included the phrase “with a woman,” and each question about victimization began with “Has a man . . .” This approach precluded men from reporting victimization of any type and perpetration of nonconsensual same-sex acts. Likewise, the original versions did not measure ways in which women may potentially coerce sex from men and also prevented them from reporting same-sex victimization. A number of studies have appeared that attempted gender neutrality in victimization screening by modifying pronouns but no other text (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1988). Further examination of data generated by these modified items revealed that men’s responses primarily referenced incidents in which they penetrated a woman but felt they did so due to perceived coercion including self-imposed, from the woman, or from peers (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003). We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men’s experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women’s experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994). We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items.”

Later, the article notes that, regardless of the gender of the victim, “unwanted sexual acts involving verbal coercion that stops short of threatened physical harm are not crimes . . .”

For all genders, the revised SES seeks to capture: incidents meeting the “legally defining elements of rape, including force or incapacitation, non-consent, and penetration;” incidents within “legal definitions reflected in sexual assault statutes across the various states;” and a wide range of unwanted or coerced sexual incidents whether or not they fit within legal confines.

Finally, the article recommends further research into whether “the gender-neutral wording of SES items work, as we intend, to capture the strategies women may use to coerce sex and situations where men perceive that they are coerced (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003; Anderson, Kantos, Tanigoshi, & Struckman-Johnson, 2005);” whether “there is a category of male genital harm not involving penetration (testicle or penile infliction of pain or humiliation) or other unwanted sexual experiences involving men that are not currently captured on the victimization form;” and whether there a similar uncaptured “forms of female genital assault or other tactics that women use to pressure men into what they perceive as unwanted sex.”

As with the original article you waved as evidence of Dr. Koss’s misandry, your characterization of this article turns it entirely on its head.

5. As to the language in the 2007 article that seems to minimize the sexual coercion of men by women, that language reflects the cited articles: Struckman-Johnson (1988); Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson (1994).

Cindy Struckman-Johnson, “Forced Sex on Dates: It Happens to Men, Too,” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 24 (1988) 234-241, states at pages 2317-238: “As shown in Table 1, men and women differed significantly in the type of coercion used to obtain sex. Most women were physically forced. . . . In contrast to the women, most men were coerced into sex by psychological tactics” (i.e., "verbal tactics such as cajolery, demands, blackmail" with no apparent use of physical restraint or force.) Then, on page 239 (statistical formulas omitted): “Shown in Table 2 are the male and female responses regarding the emotional impact of the forced sex episode. Men and women differed significantly in their immediate reaction and their long-term reaction. Most women’s immediate and long-term reaction were negative.” 88% of female victims experienced a very bad short-term impact and 78% experienced a negative long-term impact. “The largest proportion of men (44%) felt neutral about the episode when it happened, and the remainder were evenly divided between feeling positive or negative. Few men experienced long-term effects.”

Dr. Struckman-Johnson repeatedly describes the subject of her study as “coerced sexual intercourse” or “forced” sex – and not rape.

In Cindy Struckman-Johnson and David Struckman-Johnson, “Men Pressured and Forced into Sexual Experience,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 23, no. 1 (1994) 93-114, the “major finding of the study is that approximately one third of a sample of college men had experienced an episode of being pressured or forced” by another person to have contact which involved touching of sexual parts or sexual intercourse. pp. 96, 111. Twenty-four percent of the sample had experienced female contact only. p. 99. Reported incidents involved only sexual touching for 12% of the men and intercourse (vaginal, anal, oral) for 22%. p. 99

“Only 12% of the incidents reported by subjects could be described as forced sexual contact involving physical restraint, physical intimidation, harm, or threat of harm. The great majority of incidents (88%) involved pressured contact, including verbal persuasion, intoxication, emotional manipulation, and bribery” with 42% involving persuasion as the sole tactic. pp. 101, 111.

The study states that the impact of the average unwanted incident with a female perpetrator “could be described as minimal.” p. 105, 113. “The results suggest that most men had no or very mild negative reactions to their most recent episode of unwanted female contact. However, one fifth of the men with unwanted female contact did have a strong negative reaction to the experience” at the time of the incident. p. 111, 113. “The results of the study indicate that men with touch or intercourse coercion experiences did not differ from noncoerced men according to measures of overall sexual esteem, depression, and preoccupation.” p. 112.

6. You seem either to accuse Dr. Koss of time-travel or to criticize her for lacking that power. The new FBI statistical definition of rape was adopted in 2012, but you suggest a paper she co-authored in 2011 (which was obviously written even earlier) reflects that change. You later claims Dr. Koss “had every reason to know” the results of the CDC’s 2010 report on intimate partner violence in authoring her 1993 and 2007 articles.

7. Given your proven mischaracterization of Dr. Koss's 1993 and 2007 article and of the work or Drs. Struckman-Johnson, your statements about a 2011 article of which Dr. Koss is not the lead author and that we cannot access without paying for are not credible enough to require response.

[Tahar Joblis]

Don't make shit up about what I've said when it's a single search away. If you are referring to this post, I am quite clearly referring to Koss publishing seminal papers. The reference to testifying in front of Congress is in regards to Dworkin.

I have read the paper in question. It is not out of context; and I in fact provided context. Koss is objecting to a strain of research examining male victimization.

A body of work in which Koss has continued to state, over and over again, that rape should be defined in exactly such a manner as she does in that article. For example, here.

Koss considers men the victims of rape only when they are penetrated, i.e., that is to say that Koss considers only about half of men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by other men the victims of rape, and almost none of the men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by women the victims of rape.

It is worth noting that at the point in time that Koss wrote that article, there was not a clear legal consensus on the definition of rape; and in fact, the definition used by Koss to measure rape was not the same definition used by the DoJ. In fact, in the 2011 Cook et al paper linked to above (which she is a co-author of) acknowledges the continuing difficulties in reaching a uniform definition of rape; and in looking at the agenda moving forward, does not at all consider the issue of reforming definitions towards forcible envelopment.

At the point in time Koss was writing that, the definition used by the DoJ (that most significant judge of the legal consensus within the United States) departed very substantially from her own. As noted in the 2011 paper above, the definition of rape remains non-uniform today in a number of significant ways.

Koss wrote, in 2007, a paper which elaborates some on why she doesn't feel it's rape. She makes reference to legal statutes (which are, we note, non-uniform) and then goes on to claim that:

Given her interest in the reform of legal definitions over the years, the latter reasons are quite significant for her to supply, providing a justification for why she continues to advocate on behalf of a future uniform definition that nevertheless continues to exclude such male victims.

I have discussed these papers before. What Struckman-Johnson found in their rather lengthy series of studies on the subject is that a significant percentage of men react quite poorly to the experience. It is true that women use some particular coercive tactics less often (as little as around half as often, in the case of direct physical force); and it is true that men are less likely to report serious trauma; but it's also true that men report less follow-on trauma following all kinds of traumatic experiences, even ones which are not subject to strong gender narratives as rape is. Even for physical assault, the ratio between reported lifetime incidence and recent incidence is significantly different for men and women.

A similar argument could be provided for claiming that male victims of penetration by other males should not be counted in the same way as female victims of penetration by males. Men simply present more stoic reactions in the data for every conceivable form of victimization, higher levels of forgetting, et cetera - on the whole. There are nevertheless a significant fraction of men whose reactions to the trauma would be considered within the normal range of reactions by women; and a significant number of men victimized by women as forcefully as is typical of women victimized by men. Koss has chosen, continuously and willfully, to contribute to the invisibility of these male victims and the failure of society to provide support for them.

Koss has had ample opportunities to express the views that you suggest she has. She has not, to my knowledge, done so; and every work of hers that I have read takes steps to minimize the importance of male victims and in particular male victims of female perpetrators. (The 2011 paper above uses female gender pronouns to refer to victims, with the footnote of "The vast majority of rape victims are female. Thus, we will use gendered pronouns hereafter.")

Not at all. You will underestimate the prevalence of what Koss deems rape of males by doing so.

Koss has every reason to be familiar with precisely what Struckman-Johnson's studies show, and what subsequent data has shown: When you include "made to penetrate" figures, the rate at which men are victimized by women is surprisingly close to vice versa. (Note that the CDC figures there under "rape" include attempted penetration in the count of total rapes, deeming both attempted and completed rapes as types of rape; another fine example of non-uniform definitions used by different official sources.)

1. You claim you provided context but that is not true. The “context” is not just a misleading snippet of one and one-half sentences. The actual context was explained and your response ignored it.

I provided the actual context: That is to say, she was objecting to use of the word "rape" to refer to men made to penetrate women; and doing so in a context in which the present official definition of "rape" was presently in flux, with a substantial number of official definitions of rape (including that used by the DoJ, as well as the statutory definition in a number of US states) not including a substantial number of cases she classified as rape of women, and a number of the statutes that did cover more of what she defines as rape of women had changed their language from rape to sexual assault.

"In legal usage sexual assault is synonymous with rape," she writes in her 1993 paper. By that standard, a crime leading to sexual assault charges ought to be defined as rape.

Germany: Charges of sexual assault possible.
Canada: Sexual assault.

Seriously. And yet in spite of the fact that statutes exist which include the possibility of counting men forced to penetrate women under the label "sexual assault," Koss has continued to support a definition of rape excluding most male victims of female perpetrators, even if by the standards by which she has defended her own definitions of rape as applied to female victims, we have a real reason to include those male victims.

Greater context does not provide a good excuse for Koss labeling it inappropriate to deem men raped by women when made to penetrate them.

2. Dr. Koss was not objecting to Dr. Struckman-Johnson’s research into male victimization. That is absurd. Dr. Koss notes that male victimization fits within the scope of some criminal statutes, but noting that the sexual coercion that research focuses on does not fit the narrow confines of what was then legal defined as rape. Dr. Koss then cites the work of Dr. Struckman-Johnson as evidence of the male victimization “ignored in all but a handful” of other studies.

Moreover, Dr. Koss’s statements are accurate, as the work of Drs. Struckman-Johnson & Struckman Johnson does not describe sexual coercion as “rape.”

Struckman-Johnson described sexual coercion of men by women as "rape" in 1991, and not just in the article Koss is referring to. (Koss is referring to an article in a book.)

I quote:

Smith et al. (1988, p. 110) discovered that male subjects perceived male victims of female stranger rape as feeling more pleasure from the incident than did female victims. In their opinion, men "viewed the episode in sexual terms and failed to grasp the assaultive nature of the rape."

This follows the usage in Smith et al, which makes the further claim that rape statutes that are gender-neutral permit charging women forcing men to perform oral sex with rape. (In studies following Koss's recommended usage, these are classified as "made to penetrate" incidents.

In order to make the assault episodes comparable across experimental conditions, the victim in each of the four conditions was forced under threat of bodily harm to engage in mutual oral-sexual contact with the assailants. This scenario would qualify as aggravated rape in the 39 states having legal definitions of rape that apply to both male and female victims and assailants (Loh, 1981). In a sense, this scenario provided a more stringent test of the experimental hypotheses than would one involving sexual intercourse, since the issue concerning whether or not the male victim was able to have an erection was irrelevant, and no information concerning physical responsiveness was provided.

In fact, in the lecture that you linked, Dr. Cindy Struckman-Johnson states about her research into forced sexual sex: “Most of the acts reported by my male victims would not have met the legal definition of rape.” This is sharply contrasted with her research into the rape of men in prison (which include some rapes of men by women using force).

5. As to the language in the 2007 article that seems to minimize the sexual coercion of men by women, that language reflects the cited articles: Struckman-Johnson (1988); Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson (1994).

Dr. Struckman-Johnson repeatedly describes the subject of her study as “coerced sexual intercourse” or “forced” sex – and not rape.

Struckman-Johnson does not use feminine pronouns generically to refer to all victims (as the 2007 article, or at least the version I provided, does). That lecture states:

The percentage of men raped by a woman using physical force is low, perhaps 1% or less. However, if it is considered rape when a woman has nonconsensual sex with a drunken man, the rate would climb to somewhere between 5% and 10%

You quoted this, so you have no excuse for missing that Struckman-Johnson is in fact making use of the word "rape" in that lecture to refer to men victimized by women (and further uses it in a more hypothetical sense to refer to cases involving intoxication), in spite of the fact that this does not necessarily meet the legal definition of rape.

Note, also, the sections in which Struckman-Johnson discusses the reactions of feminist researchers, including some in gatekeeper positions, to her and her partner's research on female perpetrator / male victim scenarios:

The information was not well received by many researchers on date rape. Some feminist researchers contended that male sexual victimization was trivial compared to the rape of women. Others said that it detracted from the importance of rape of women. One person who did take the findings seriously was Betsy Allgeier, then the editor of the Journal of Sex Research. Betsy, a gifted and prolific researcher from the University of Ohio at Bowling Green, held much power over who and what could be published in the field of sexology. She responded with interest to my paper and declared that I raised some valid concerns. After several fierce rounds of editing made in her signature green ink, Betsy published my article as a research note (Struckman-Johnson, 1988). I remain thankful that a long-time feminist gave light to this controversial topic.

Peter and I eventually joined forces and co-edited a book entitled Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies, published by Guilford, 1998. Completing the book was an accomplishment as we met much resistance along the way. Peter had been told early on by a female journal editor that his work on sexually aggressive women was anti-feminist and would never be published by her or her associates. We had a similar reaction from some of the reviewers of the book. We were forced to exclude a chapter on female aggression in domestic violence situations because a reviewer said that women hit men only in self defense. We had to leave out a discussion of the relationship between female sex drive and sexual aggression because a reviewer insisted that hormones do not influence female behavior.

These beliefs have been created in part by the feminist movement 's well-intended efforts to raise awareness of the difficulties experienced by women in the past. Feminist researchers invested much of the 1970's and 1980's assessing the serious problems of child sexual abuse, date rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. However, in documenting the victimization of women, these researchers failed to acknowledge that woman, in turn, can also be victimizers

These sections are highly relevant to this topic in general, and not simply Koss specifically (though it seems quite likely, given Koss's published objections to Struckman-Johnson using the term "rape" to refer to male victims of female perpetrator, that Koss was among the reviewers and researchers referred to in those sections.

In particular, bringing this topic back into context, while some feminists have fought for equality, a number of feminist organizations and researchers have been complicit in maintaining the gendered narrative of victimhood and perpetration - even if that narrative originated with patriarchal traditions.

You complain that Dr. Koss underestimates the number of men who are raped, but you seem to ignore that Dr. Struckman-Johnson’s estimates are lower than your own (especially if one considers your many objections to equating sex with someone who is drunk with rape). She states: “The percentage of men raped by a woman using physical force is low, perhaps 1% or less. However, if it is considered rape when a woman has nonconsensual sex with a drunken man, the rate would climb to somewhere between 5% and 10%.”

The percentage of women raped by a man using physical force is also relatively low compared to the overall figures. The broader the definition of rape used and the more careful your methodology, the closer the figures between men and women become.

The narrower your definition, the smaller the scope of the problem. To assert the sort of high rates that Koss does without acknowledging female perpetration is simply indefensible; and even in dealing with a lower rate that relies on the use of physical restraint, physical force, threats, and blackmail, we have a rate of female perpetration against men that does not seem much less than half the rate of male perpetration against women (very far from the nearly ~100:1 ratio commonly cited by feminist organizations).

Note, for the record, that my position on alcohol and consent is rather more complex than your statement might lead someone to believe; I hold that [active] drunken consent is logically consent in the event of similar levels of capacity, but do hold that it is possible to be rendered incapable of consenting via application of sufficient alcohol (and am indecisive on the issue of where a gender-neutral differential-capacity line could or should be drawn with alcohol).

3. Your references to the definition of rape “used by the DOJ” are laughable. The "DOJ" definition in question was used by the FBI for statistical purposes until 2012. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/Janu ... g-018.html The old version used in 1993 – which it was already noted that Dr. Koss had criticized – was the 65-year-old, narrow definition of rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” Dr. Koss rejected this definition and, as explained in the article, sought to use definitions that reflected – as universally as possible – the elements of the criminal statutes of the various states. Are you suggesting that Dr. Koss should have used the old definition that excluded male victims entirely? Did you even read the article’s discussion of all of this?

No, I am not saying she should have made use of the DOJ's definition. I am, however, pointing out that the claim that Koss should follow legal consensus in defining rape is, in fact, to claim that Koss's older research on rape of women would be deemed illegitimate; and that articles written by Koss attempt to address both the account of what the definition of rape is, and what it should be. In neither case does Koss, at any point that I have seen, do anything but deny that men forced to penetrate women ought to be counted as being raped.

4. Your quote of the draft version of the 2007 paper (of which Dr. Koss is the lead author along with 8 other experts) is both misleading and not the same as the final version (http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/31/4/357.abstract) . (One wonders why someone who claims to have read the document and often links to documents that others cannot access without paying would deliberately quote the draft version.) The article is an evaluation of and collaborative effort to improve the primary research survey used to assess sexual victimization. The relevant quote – in context – is (at pp. 359-360, emphasis added):

“Rape laws in most states are now gender neutral, permitting both victim and offender to be either male or female, although the FBI Uniform Crime Reports continue to limit rape incidence to female victims. The original SES used gendered language. Specifically, each question to detect perpetration included the phrase “with a woman,” and each question about victimization began with “Has a man . . .” This approach precluded men from reporting victimization of any type and perpetration of nonconsensual same-sex acts. Likewise, the original versions did not measure ways in which women may potentially coerce sex from men and also prevented them from reporting same-sex victimization. A number of studies have appeared that attempted gender neutrality in victimization screening by modifying pronouns but no other text (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1988). Further examination of data generated by these modified items revealed that men’s responses primarily referenced incidents in which they penetrated a woman but felt they did so due to perceived coercion including self-imposed, from the woman, or from peers (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003). We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men’s experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women’s experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994). We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items.”

Later, the article notes that, regardless of the gender of the victim, “unwanted sexual acts involving verbal coercion that stops short of threatened physical harm are not crimes . . .”

For all genders, the revised SES seeks to capture: incidents meeting the “legally defining elements of rape, including force or incapacitation, non-consent, and penetration;” incidents within “legal definitions reflected in sexual assault statutes across the various states;” and a wide range of unwanted or coerced sexual incidents whether or not they fit within legal confines.

Finally, the article recommends further research into whether “the gender-neutral wording of SES items work, as we intend, to capture the strategies women may use to coerce sex and situations where men perceive that they are coerced (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003; Anderson, Kantos, Tanigoshi, & Struckman-Johnson, 2005);” whether “there is a category of male genital harm not involving penetration (testicle or penile infliction of pain or humiliation) or other unwanted sexual experiences involving men that are not currently captured on the victimization form;” and whether there a similar uncaptured “forms of female genital assault or other tactics that women use to pressure men into what they perceive as unwanted sex.”

As with the original article you waved as evidence of Dr. Koss’s misandry, your characterization of this article turns it entirely on its head.

My characterization cuts through the bullshit. Koss continues to endorse, both prescriptively and descriptively, a definition of rape which excludes most male victims of female perpetrators.

Koss cannot, as a matter of empirical fact, deny that men are sexually coerced by women. What she has done is continue to deny that this is as important, and even deny that it is the same form of wrongdoing. Her position is that this isn't rape and shouldn't be defined as rape.

NSG widely disagrees with this.

6. You seem either to accuse Dr. Koss of time-travel or to criticize her for lacking that power. The new FBI statistical definition of rape was adopted in 2012, but you suggest a paper she co-authored in 2011 (which was obviously written even earlier) reflects that change.

In fact, in the 2011 Cook et al paper linked to above (which she is a co-author of) acknowledges the continuing difficulties in reaching a uniform definition of rape; and in looking at the agenda moving forward, does not at all consider the issue of reforming definitions towards forcible envelopment.

Dyakovo, knock off the strawman attacks. You might consider trying to address my actual point there, as well, it's a good one.

You later claims Dr. Koss “had every reason to know” the results of the CDC’s 2010 report on intimate partner violence in authoring her 1993 and 2007 articles.

Koss has every reason to be familiar with precisely what Struckman-Johnson's studies show, and what subsequent data has shown: When you include "made to penetrate" figures, the rate at which men are victimized by women is surprisingly close to vice versa. (Note that the CDC figures there under "rape" include attempted penetration in the count of total rapes, deeming both attempted and completed rapes as types of rape; another fine example of non-uniform definitions used by different official sources.)

Note three things. First, I'm referring first and foremost to what Struckman-Johnson's research has shown, that is, the phenomenon. Second, I'm using the present tense to refer to what Koss currently ought to know. Third, Koss cited Struckman-Johnson in 1993, so we can conclude that Koss was in fact familiar with the phenomenon when writing all of the Koss papers that have come up thus far in this discussion anyway.