The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Mattopilos II]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/health/fathers-shortchanged-partner/index.html

While on the subject of whether or not we live in a society that inherently favors men, here is a great CNN article on why this is false, and why telling dads that they are less important than moms is harmful to society.

Yeah, suggesting one parental role is inherently less important than the other is pretty stupid, imo. I mean, women have had the role of taking after children for various reasons. BUT, and a big but at this - the father can, if possible, have just as much effect on the upbringing of the child. I certainly think the traditional roles place more responsibility on the mother, but I don't think that is needed, nor does this mean the father is "less important" - the child wouldn't exist otherwise, would it?

[Costa Fierro]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/health/fathers-shortchanged-partner/index.html

While on the subject of whether or not we live in a society that inherently favors men, here is a great CNN article on why this is false, and why telling dads that they are less important than moms is harmful to society.

Yeah, suggesting one parental role is inherently less important than the other is pretty stupid, imo. I mean, women have had the role of taking after children for various reasons. BUT, and a big but at this - the father can, if possible, have just as much effect on the upbringing of the child. I certainly think the traditional roles place more responsibility on the mother, but I don't think that is needed, nor does this mean the father is "less important" - the child wouldn't exist otherwise, would it?

There's numerous studies that have shown that children without a father figure in their lives, be it actual fathers or otherwise, often have behavioural issues and do less well in school than children who do have father figures.

[The Blaatschapen]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/health/fathers-shortchanged-partner/index.html

While on the subject of whether or not we live in a society that inherently favors men, here is a great CNN article on why this is false, and why telling dads that they are less important than moms is harmful to society.

Yeah, suggesting one parental role is inherently less important than the other is pretty stupid, imo. I mean, women have had the role of taking after children for various reasons. BUT, and a big but at this - the father can, if possible, have just as much effect on the upbringing of the child. I certainly think the traditional roles place more responsibility on the mother, but I don't think that is needed, nor does this mean the father is "less important" - the child wouldn't exist otherwise, would it?

Indeed, sometimes a father can have tremendous influence, just by naming the boy Sue.

[Luminesa]

Yeah, suggesting one parental role is inherently less important than the other is pretty stupid, imo. I mean, women have had the role of taking after children for various reasons. BUT, and a big but at this - the father can, if possible, have just as much effect on the upbringing of the child. I certainly think the traditional roles place more responsibility on the mother, but I don't think that is needed, nor does this mean the father is "less important" - the child wouldn't exist otherwise, would it?

Indeed, sometimes a father can have tremendous influence, just by naming the boy Sue.

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.

[Mavorpen]

Yes she did.

I feel like I'm talking to a trump supporter. You can literally show them HD video of him doing it, and they still deny it.

I feel like I'm talking to an Alex Jones fan with such an absurd conspiracy theory.

Sonce she's asking you about being forcibly penetrated, you answer no. That seems obvious to me.

To Koss, it's not rape if not forcibly penetrated by a perpetrator. It's all in her paper.

Of course she believes that you shouldn't make men underreport rape. I sincerely don't get why this is an issue.

Thats the sexism.

I wasn't aware it was sexist to literally treat two action the same accross all sexes. Are you saying that she should consider being forced to penetrated the same as being forcibly penetrated? Because that's absurd and surely more sexist.

I give you an academic source from the person themselves and it's not enough.

So that's a no. Have fun with your conspiracy theory.

Actually, let's use your Trump video analogy.

Suppose someone comes up to me and says that Trump said he hates Mexicans, explicitly. It wouldn't surprise me, but I ask for a source anyway. They then provide me with a YouTube video where he says exactly that, but it's a small five second clip. Being suspicious, I ask if any news outlet has reported on this, as it would surely be a big news story. He then tells me that that is an absurd request. After all, he's given me the video and it's plain as day! Furthermore, he claims that Clinton has her hands in everything and was secretly working with Trump all along, so she squashed reporting of it. The only two sources he gives me are blog posts that just repeat the video and the claim and quotes his infamous line about Mexican immigrants, despite that not proving the original claim. He then accuses me of being an avid Trump supporter and claims I'm defending someone who hates Mexicans.

Who is in the right?

If you can find her admitting it, as we found her admitting here.

If by "admitting it" you mean explaining why men underreported rape and seeking to fix that then yes. But your conspiracy theory? No.

Edit: as an aside, she updated in 2007.

No shit. Are you saying that the legal definition of rape was something different in 2007? I mean, it might have been, but I haven't checked.

[Galloism]

Are you saying that she should consider being forced to penetrated the same as being forcibly penetrated?

For classification purposes, YES. That's the point. A man forced to engage in penetrative sex should be considered a rape victim, even if he's the one enveloped, not penetrated.

That's the whole fucking point.

Because that's absurd and surely more sexist.

No, what's sexist is taking penis in vagina sex and classifying it as rape ONLY if the aggressor is male.

If by "admitting it" you mean explaining why men underreported rape and seeking to fix that then yes. But your conspiracy theory? No.


No shit. Are you saying that the legal definition of rape was something different in 2007? I mean, it might have been, but I haven't checked.

In the 1990s, a number of states did away with their rape statutes and replaced them with varying degrees of sexual assault (1st degree being equivalent to rape). In most states, this includes rape by envelopment (the other states are sexist).

Koss actually acknowledges this change in her 1993 paper, then immediately goes on to conclude we should restrict the term rape to situations where victims were penetrated by offenders. She, in fact, criticized Struckman-Johnson (1991) for not excluding men raped by women. That's one of the first studies that actually asked about female violence against men, and found 16% of college men had been raped by women. Koss criticized it in her 1993 paper for including men made to penetrate women. That's why she brought it up.

We have two sources from her, 14 years apart, where she says men raped by envelopment should not be classified as rape victims (remember, classification is done at the data processing level, not the interview level), along with an audio recording of her statement that a man who suffered rape by envelopment should be classified as "unwanted contact".

Two academic sources and a radio interview. Three separate sources of her saying the same thing.

Calling this a conspiracy theory is roughly equivalent to people believing in the moon landing a conspiracy theory.

Actually, let's use your Trump video analogy.

Suppose someone comes up to me and says that Trump said he hates Mexicans, explicitly. It wouldn't surprise me, but I ask for a source anyway. They then provide me with a YouTube video where he says exactly that, but it's a small five second clip.

This is a false equivalence anyway, as I've posted two academic papers with full context, but sure.

Claim:

Trump explicitly stated he hates Mexicans.

Proof:

Video of Trump explicitly stating he hates Mexicans.

Pretty solid proof of the claim.

Who is in the right?

In the example given, he is. In the one we're currently in, me, but even more so, because I have not one source, but three, and two of them were provided with full unteracted context (where they sound just as bad). The third I would if I could find it.


Edit: so we have two sources where she explicitly states rape by envelopment should not be classified by researchers as rape, plus a radio interview where she expresses incredulity that such a thing could even happen, followed by a reflexive classification of it as "unwanted contact" so it wouldn't be classified as rape.

Is anyone besides Mavorpen still in denial? Anyone?

[Luminesa]

I feel like I'm talking to a trump supporter. You can literally show them HD video of him doing it, and they still deny it.

I feel like I'm talking to an Alex Jones fan with such an absurd conspiracy theory.

To Koss, it's not rape if not forcibly penetrated by a perpetrator. It's all in her paper.

Of course she believes that you shouldn't make men underreport rape. I sincerely don't get why this is an issue.

Thats the sexism.

I wasn't aware it was sexist to literally treat two action the same accross all sexes. Are you saying that she should consider being forced to penetrated the same as being forcibly penetrated? Because that's absurd and surely more sexist.

I give you an academic source from the person themselves and it's not enough.

So that's a no. Have fun with your conspiracy theory.

Actually, let's use your Trump video analogy.

Suppose someone comes up to me and says that Trump said he hates Mexicans, explicitly. It wouldn't surprise me, but I ask for a source anyway. They then provide me with a YouTube video where he says exactly that, but it's a small five second clip. Being suspicious, I ask if any news outlet has reported on this, as it would surely be a big news story. He then tells me that that is an absurd request. After all, he's given me the video and it's plain as day! Furthermore, he claims that Clinton has her hands in everything and was secretly working with Trump all along, so she squashed reporting of it. The only two sources he gives me are blog posts that just repeat the video and the claim and quotes his infamous line about Mexican immigrants, despite that not proving the original claim. He then accuses me of being an avid Trump supporter and claims I'm defending someone who hates Mexicans.

Who is in the right?

If you can find her admitting it, as we found her admitting here.

If by "admitting it" you mean explaining why men underreported rape and seeking to fix that then yes. But your conspiracy theory? No.

Edit: as an aside, she updated in 2007.

No shit. Are you saying that the legal definition of rape was something different in 2007? I mean, it might have been, but I haven't checked.

...He literally gave you an academic source...multiple. What more could you possibly want?

[Tahar Joblis]

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence

--Understanding Patriarchy by bell hooks

(1) This means that if you insist we live in a patriarchy, you believe men "dominate and rule over" women, and maintain this dominance through "various forms of psychological terrorism and violence."

What is meant by "psychological terrorism and violence"? Typically, in a feminist context, this is referring to domestic violence and rape, which are almost as frequently directed towards men by women as vice versa.

This framing of patriarchy implies that men commit acts of rape and domestic violence in order to maintain the patriarchal system - that is, a claim that men are motivated, either consciously or unconsciously, by the desire to maintain patriarchy. It also implies - falsely in the case of modern Western society, less falsely in terms of societies with marital rape exemptions or that legitimate "physical discipline" of spouses - that the social-political system endorses such acts.

This is sexist inasmuch as it is perfectly clear that women commit these acts; and as it is perfectly clear that many other motives exist for these acts. You can see how patriarchy theory often involves what amounts to a conspiracy theory; subscribers, after all, believe that men are colluding, either consciously or unconsciously, to force women into collective submission via assorted criminal acts, which is not far from claiming conspiracy. This is also sexist in failing to consider that such exemptions often cut both directions - and that in fact, female-perpetrated intimate partner violence is generally more permissible at present.

If I claimed, using exactly flipped terminology, that we lived in an oppressive matriarchy, the vigorous work of feminists in suppressing recognition of female perpetration and male victimization shows active collusion to endow women with the right to dominate and rule over men and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. It is much more strongly supported, in other words, and only through sexism could we possibly seriously propose the opposite case.

If we cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed. It is not just men who do not take their pain seriously. Most women do not want to deal with male pain if it interferes with the satisfaction of female desire.

Patriarchal culture does not "socialize men to deny feelings." Men were much more open with their feelings in Western culture when it was more patriarchal. This is very well documented, and in several more patriarchal cultures, men are much more open with their feelings.

Men have been pushed towards greater stoicism by the reduction (I would say elimination) of actual patriarchal features.

Why? Well, the last sentence is correct and provides a partial explanation. Women do not want to deal with male pain. Regarding affectionate emotions, feminists' framing of men as sexually predatory has discouraged men from displaying affection of any kind openly lest it be misinterpreted poorly. Regarding the expression of pain, feminists have pushed back against recognition of male victimization, reframing male victims as perpetrators. Feminists have also given women a greater ability to simply abandon men in their lives; a side effect of this is that men have a direct incentive to avoid displaying pain that may be interpreted as weakness, because they are at greater risk of abandonment.

Psychotherapist John Bradshaw's clear-sighted definition of patriarchy in Creating Love is a useful one: "The dictionary defines 'patriarchy' as a 'social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions....' Patriarchy is characterized by male domination and power." He states further that "patriarchal rules still govern most of the world's religious, school systems, and family systems." Describing the most damaging of these rules, Bradshaw lists "blind obedience-- the foundation upon which patriarchy stands; the repression of all emotions except fear; the destruction of individual willpower; and the repression of thinking whenever it departs from the authority figure's way of thinking." Patriarchal thinking shapes the values of our culture. We are socialized into this system, females as well as males. Most of us learned patriarchal attitudes in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers. These attitudes were reinforced in schools and religious institutions.

There is little reason to associate this with male dominance except for sexist interpretation. See above re: emotion in particular, but to a large degree we're looking at the false idealization of matriarchs.

The tl;dr summary of patriarchy is this: patriarchy is an ideology that maintains the supremacy and superiority of men, and it also refers to the structure that is created when this ideology is acted upon by those in power. The philosophy of patriarchy theory as generally presented by feminism recognizes that men hold greater institutional power, but that patriarchy is reinforced and maintained by both men and women, and it also results in harming both of them as well. The notion that patriarchy is the idea that all men are evil super-villains sitting in secret lairs, stroking cats and laughing maniacally as they intentionally keep women down is utterly ridiculous.

And yet it is not very far from how the theory of patriarchy is discussed and defined by any radical feminist.

It's not clear if it's more absurd to think that men are consciously colluding (which is obviously false to any man) or unconsciously colluding (which requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics).

It is true that bell hooks does a much better job at recognizing the ways in which our society does badly by men, and the role that women play in maintaining the system, but there is still sexist content in the theory of patriarchy as expressed by her, just as when expressed by others.

[Proctopeo]

I feel like I'm talking to an Alex Jones fan with such an absurd conspiracy theory.

Of course she believes that you shouldn't make men underreport rape. I sincerely don't get why this is an issue.

I wasn't aware it was sexist to literally treat two action the same accross all sexes. Are you saying that she should consider being forced to penetrated the same as being forcibly penetrated? Because that's absurd and surely more sexist.

So that's a no. Have fun with your conspiracy theory.

Actually, let's use your Trump video analogy.

Suppose someone comes up to me and says that Trump said he hates Mexicans, explicitly. It wouldn't surprise me, but I ask for a source anyway. They then provide me with a YouTube video where he says exactly that, but it's a small five second clip. Being suspicious, I ask if any news outlet has reported on this, as it would surely be a big news story. He then tells me that that is an absurd request. After all, he's given me the video and it's plain as day! Furthermore, he claims that Clinton has her hands in everything and was secretly working with Trump all along, so she squashed reporting of it. The only two sources he gives me are blog posts that just repeat the video and the claim and quotes his infamous line about Mexican immigrants, despite that not proving the original claim. He then accuses me of being an avid Trump supporter and claims I'm defending someone who hates Mexicans.

Who is in the right?

If by "admitting it" you mean explaining why men underreported rape and seeking to fix that then yes. But your conspiracy theory? No.


No shit. Are you saying that the legal definition of rape was something different in 2007? I mean, it might have been, but I haven't checked.

...He literally gave you an academic source...multiple. What more could you possibly want?

Something that reaffirms their narrative, no doubt.

[Forsher]

I just happened the skim the openness of feelings part of TJ's post and absent the context of that discussion, one finds the context for the following:

Observation One: keeping diaries and journals has been [url]feminised[/url], i.e. is non-masculine and/or gay

Observation Two: Samuel Pepys

Observation Three: you can justify diaries and journals as self-reflection, thus introspection, thus some kind of engagement with feelings

[Galloism]

...He literally gave you an academic source...multiple. What more could you possibly want?

Something that reaffirms their narrative, no doubt.

Indubitably. She even repeats it in her conclusion:

2. If men and boys are to be included

You know, like an afterthought

care must be taken to ensure their data are accurate counterparts of rape prevalence among women.

Ok, so she is specifying to limit the data on rape of men so that it's comparable to rape of women. Seems ok so far right?

This means men must be reporting

"Must" is an imperative term. "Reporting" is what respondents do when surveyed. Anything not included in the next few words should be excluded and not reported.

instances where they experienced penetration of their own body (or attempts).

Emphasis mine. Fuck you, Mary Koss. I'm not supposed to report my rape? Fuck you.

I will scream about it until there is change or the day I die, whichever comes first. Fuck you for protecting rapists.

[Mavorpen]

Are you saying that she should consider being forced to penetrated the same as being forcibly penetrated?

For classification purposes, YES. That's the point. A man forced to engage in penetrative sex should be considered a rape victim, even if he's the one enveloped, not penetrated.

That's the whole fucking point.

So you want men to underreport rape. That's an odd position to take.

No, what's sexist is taking penis in vagina sex and classifying it as rape ONLY if the aggressor is male.

Which isnt what she's done. If a female forcibly penetrated a male that's considered rape. Again, you want some sexist system where being forced to penetrate is the same as being forcibly penetrated solely because of your feelings.

In the 1990s, a number of states did away with their rape statutes and replaced them with varying degrees of sexual assault (1st degree being equivalent to rape). In most states, this includes rape by envelopment (the other states are sexist).

Koss actually acknowledges this change in her 1993 paper, then immediately goes on to conclude we should restrict the term rape to situations where victims were penetrated by offenders. She, in fact, criticized Struckman-Johnson (1991) for not excluding men raped by women.

That's not what she criticized that paper for. She criticized them for failing to consider men's underrepresentation of men which skewed the reporting to a lower end.

That's one of the first studies that actually asked about female violence against men, and found 16% of college men had been raped by women. Koss criticized it in her 1993 paper for including men made to penetrate women. That's why she brought it up.

That's not why she brought it up.

Calling this a conspiracy theory is roughly equivalent to people believing in the moon landing a conspiracy theory.

I agree, your belief in this conspiracy theory is equivalent to moon landing conspiracies.

In the example given, he is. In the one we're currently in, me, but even more so, because I have not one source, but three, and two of them were provided with full unteracted context (where they sound just as bad). The third I would if I could find it.

So essentially you're admitting full stop that you believe cherry picked and quote mined clips/quotes where absolutely no one has reporting on it being true are valid. Those gay frogs must keep you up at night.

Is anyone besides Mavorpen still in denial? Anyone?

I'm still waiting on proof for this conspiracy theory of yours.

[Proctopeo]

]
Which isnt what she's done. If a female forcibly penetrated a male that's considered rape. Again, you want some sexist system where being forced to penetrate is the same as being forcibly penetrated solely because of your feelings.

Why, if I may ask, do you want certain kinds of non-consensual sex to be not considered rape in the same grouping as other kinds?

[Galloism]

For classification purposes, YES. That's the point. A man forced to engage in penetrative sex should be considered a rape victim, even if he's the one enveloped, not penetrated.

That's the whole fucking point.

So you want men to underreport rape. That's an odd position to take.

No, I want men who report rape to be classified as rape victims, UNLIKE Koss, UNLIKE the CDC, and unlike other sexist research.

No, what's sexist is taking penis in vagina sex and classifying it as rape ONLY if the aggressor is male.

Which isnt what she's done. If a female forcibly penetrated a male that's considered rape.

Please tell me how penis in vagina sex penetrates the male in any circumstance.

Lrn2Biology.

Again, you want some sexist system where being forced to penetrate is the same as being forcibly penetrated solely because of your feelings.

I want a system where a given act is rape or not rape regardless of the sex or gender of the perpetrator. That's not sexist - the status quo (which Koss had a significant hand in developing) is sexist.

Person A and Person B engage in penis in vagina sex. Person B was not consenting. Is it rape?

In the 1990s, a number of states did away with their rape statutes and replaced them with varying degrees of sexual assault (1st degree being equivalent to rape). In most states, this includes rape by envelopment (the other states are sexist).

Koss actually acknowledges this change in her 1993 paper, then immediately goes on to conclude we should restrict the term rape to situations where victims were penetrated by offenders. She, in fact, criticized Struckman-Johnson (1991) for not excluding men raped by women.

That's not what she criticized that paper for. She criticized them for failing to consider men's underrepresentation of men which skewed the reporting to a lower end.

Try reading the paper sometime.

That's one of the first studies that actually asked about female violence against men, and found 16% of college men had been raped by women. Koss criticized it in her 1993 paper for including men made to penetrate women. That's why she brought it up.

That's not why she brought it up.

Yes it is, or she wouldn't have directly criticized it with a citation.

Calling this a conspiracy theory is roughly equivalent to people believing in the moon landing a conspiracy theory.

I agree, your belief in this conspiracy theory is equivalent to moon landing conspiracies.

Taking a person at their word is a conspiracy theory.

In the example given, he is. In the one we're currently in, me, but even more so, because I have not one source, but three, and two of them were provided with full unteracted context (where they sound just as bad). The third I would if I could find it.

So essentially you're admitting full stop that you believe cherry picked and quote mined clips/quotes where absolutely no one has reporting on it being true are valid. Those gay frogs must keep you up at night.

Academic papers from the 1990s are not widely reported in the news media today. Besides, you have multiple primary sources, and no countermanding evidence of any type.

Is anyone besides Mavorpen still in denial? Anyone?

I'm still waiting on proof for this conspiracy theory of yours.

Conspiracy requires collusion. This is no more a conspiracy than trump making fun of a disabled reporter.

[Galloism]

As a final nail, let's look at the revised questions researchers were to use, and see where a man enveloped by a woman fits. This is a Koss paper from 2007. Keep in mind these questions would be asked to non academics, so plain English is doubly important.

Refresher link:

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/J_Whit ... g_2007.pdf

Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private
areas of my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch or butt) or removed some of my clothes without my consent (but did not attempt sexual penetration) by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon.

Well, no. Sexual penetration was achieved - of the perpetrator.

Someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I
didn’t want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force,
after I said I didn’t want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it
to stop what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon.

Well, no. It wasn't oral sex.

If you are a male, check box and skip to item 4

Okiedokie.

A man put his penis into my butt, or someone inserted fingers or objects without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon.

Well, no. The anus wasn't penetrated.

Even though it did not happen, someone TRIED to have oral sex with me, or make me have oral sex with them without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body
weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon.

Well, no. It was pure PIV.

If you are male, check this box and skip to item 7.

Alrighty.

Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED to put his penis into my butt, or someone tried to stick in objects or fingers without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon.

Nope. It had nothing to do with the butt.

8. I am: Female □ Male □ My age is ______ years and _______ months.
9. Did any of the experiences described in this survey happen to you one or more times?
Yes □
No □
What was the sex of the person or persons who did them to you?
I reported no experiences □ Female only □ Male only □ Both females and males □
10. Have you ever been raped? Yes □
No □

Now, you could, if you are extremely self aware, mark 10 yes. However, most won't because most men are not aware they can be raped by women or their consent matters. So let's focus on 1-7. Where would a man marked the experience of being raped by a woman?

[Mavorpen]

So you want men to underreport rape. That's an odd position to take.

No, I want men who report rape to be classified as rape victims, UNLIKE Koss, UNLIKE the CDC, and unlike other sexist research.

So men underreporting rape it is then.

Which isnt what she's done. If a female forcibly penetrated a male that's considered rape.

Please tell me how penis in vagina sex penetrates the male in any circumstance.

Lrn2Biology

Please telll me where I said anything about "penis in vagina sex" and how forcible penetration via objects doesn't exist.

Just how long did it take for you to master the art of failing to use critical thinking?

Again, you want some sexist system where being forced to penetrate is the same as being forcibly penetrated solely because of your feelings.

I want a system where a given act is rape or not rape regardless of the sex or gender of the perpetrator. That's not sexist - the status quo (which Koss had a significant hand in developing) is sexist.

Huh, the status quo where women and men are treated equally is sexist. Fascinting.

Yes it is, or she wouldn't have directly criticized it with a citation.

No, it's not.

Academic papers from the 1990s are not widely reported in the news media today.

Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not talking about the news media, I'm talking about academic papers. I'm asking you to actually prove to me that your flagrant misunderstanding of Koss' wor is self evident by citing other papers also criticizing her. For fuck's sake, you were willing to post blogs but utterly refuse to entertain doing the same for academic papers, so I have to assume that you believe blogs are superior to peer-review.

What in God's name could possibly result in a situation where only a bunch of random bloggers and irrelevant forum posters are the only individuals who have exposed a prominent feminist researcher for being anti-men and pro-rape? Did she pay off every sociologist? Did she infiltrate the government and puppeteer it from the shadows to squash any possible academic critique? You even posted a paper that directly critiqued many issues within feminist academia yet you can't find a single paper of the same light that is applicable to Koss herself? With that kind of power and authority over the field, who knows, she's probably influencing the government to dump chemicals in the water supply to make everyone hate men.

[Galloism]

No, I want men who report rape to be classified as rape victims, UNLIKE Koss, UNLIKE the CDC, and unlike other sexist research.

So men underreporting rape it is then.

Explain, in detail, how researchers classifying men made to penetrate as rape victims in the data stage results in men under reporting made to penetrate in the interview stage.

Please tell me how penis in vagina sex penetrates the male in any circumstance.

Lrn2Biology

Please telll me where I said anything about "penis in vagina sex" and how forcible penetration via objects doesn't exist.

Just how long did it take for you to master the art of failing to use critical thinking?

Penis in vagina sex is the most common kind. Penis in vagina rape is probably also the most common kind.

So, person A forcibly has penis in vagina sex with person B without person B's consent. Is it rape?

If you can't answer this question without knowing the genders of each person, it's a sexist position.

I want a system where a given act is rape or not rape regardless of the sex or gender of the perpetrator. That's not sexist - the status quo (which Koss had a significant hand in developing) is sexist.

Huh, the status quo where women and men are treated equally is sexist. Fascinting.

Women and men are not treated equally in the status quo. Women who rape men with PIV sex are not rapists and the men not rape victims. Men who rape women with PIV sex are rapists and the women are rape victims.

The same act was performed, but it's treated differently based solely on gender.

Yes it is, or she wouldn't have directly criticized it with a citation.

No, it's not.

Academic papers from the 1990s are not widely reported in the news media today.

Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not talking about the news media, I'm talking about academic papers. I'm asking you to actually prove to me that your flagrant misunderstanding of Koss' wor is self evident by citing other papers also criticizing her.

Why would they criticize her? They use her sexist definition.

For fuck's sake, you were willing to post blogs but utterly refuse to entertain doing the same for academic papers, so I have to assume that you believe blogs are superior to peer-review.

What in God's name could possibly result in a situation where only a bunch of random bloggers and irrelevant forum posters are the only individuals who have exposed a prominent feminist researcher for being anti-men and pro-rape? Did she pay off every sociologist? Did she infiltrate the government and puppeteer it from the shadows to squash any possible academic critique? You even posted a paper that directly critiqued many issues within feminist academia yet you can't find a single paper of the same light that is applicable to Koss herself? With that kind of power and authority over the field, who knows, she's probably influencing the government to dump chemicals in the water supply to make everyone hate men.

Socially, we see women as objects and men as actors. They use her definitions because it fits with our preconceived social biases, and people who go against that grain are frequently pilloried by conservatives and feminists alike.

It takes a while to realize it, heck I didn't at first, but her work stands as self evident.

She says it's inappropriate to view men raped by women as rape victims in the most common way raped by women. This is in the "rape definitions" section.
She then cautions that using terms like sex must be accompanied by clarification to ensure men don't report being raped by women.
Then she reminds researchers, in the conclusion and final recommendations, to make sure rape does not include men raped by women.
Then she publishes another paper reminding people to exclude men made to penetrate from the definition of rape victims in 2007.
In that paper, she provides new recommended questions for rape and sexual assault screenings that specifically exclude men being made to penetrate women vaginally - even from the sexual assault portion. That's right - it's not even included in sexual assault (this makes "she was trying to get more men victimized by women to answer" especially hollow, since the questions she designed exclude them entirely).
Then she goes on the radio and expresses incredulity that men can even be raped by women, and calls it "unwanted contact".


Why do I need a researcher ready to get fired to back up all the evidence presented literally from her own mouth? Think for yourself Mavorpen. Use the evidence in front of you. Do you need an academic paper to prove gravity exists, or your TV needs electricity to run? Observe reality, weigh evidence, use them to draw conclusions, or you'll never be able to publish a single paper. If all you can do is parrot someone else, that's not academia. It's laziness.

To be clear, I don't really think this is utterly and completely "I hate men" malicious. She just can't conceive of a scenario where a woman can rape a man (given her response in the radio interview, my unproven suspicion is that she doesn't think men can say no to any woman) - even when it's thrown in her face (as in the radio interview). She's just deeply sexist, and her works reflect it.

[Luminesa]

For classification purposes, YES. That's the point. A man forced to engage in penetrative sex should be considered a rape victim, even if he's the one enveloped, not penetrated.

That's the whole fucking point.

So you want men to underreport rape. That's an odd position to take.

No, what's sexist is taking penis in vagina sex and classifying it as rape ONLY if the aggressor is male.

Which isnt what she's done. If a female forcibly penetrated a male that's considered rape. Again, you want some sexist system where being forced to penetrate is the same as being forcibly penetrated solely because of your feelings.

In the 1990s, a number of states did away with their rape statutes and replaced them with varying degrees of sexual assault (1st degree being equivalent to rape). In most states, this includes rape by envelopment (the other states are sexist).

Koss actually acknowledges this change in her 1993 paper, then immediately goes on to conclude we should restrict the term rape to situations where victims were penetrated by offenders. She, in fact, criticized Struckman-Johnson (1991) for not excluding men raped by women.

That's not what she criticized that paper for. She criticized them for failing to consider men's underrepresentation of men which skewed the reporting to a lower end.

That's one of the first studies that actually asked about female violence against men, and found 16% of college men had been raped by women. Koss criticized it in her 1993 paper for including men made to penetrate women. That's why she brought it up.

That's not why she brought it up.

Calling this a conspiracy theory is roughly equivalent to people believing in the moon landing a conspiracy theory.

I agree, your belief in this conspiracy theory is equivalent to moon landing conspiracies.

In the example given, he is. In the one we're currently in, me, but even more so, because I have not one source, but three, and two of them were provided with full unteracted context (where they sound just as bad). The third I would if I could find it.

So essentially you're admitting full stop that you believe cherry picked and quote mined clips/quotes where absolutely no one has reporting on it being true are valid. Those gay frogs must keep you up at night.

Is anyone besides Mavorpen still in denial? Anyone?

I'm still waiting on proof for this conspiracy theory of yours.

What conspiracy theory? We've gone through this for three pages, and you have yet to say definitively what the conspiracy theory is. What are you looking for him to say? That men cannot be raped? That society treats men and women equally, and that there is nothing to worry about? I'm genuinely confused. All you've done is made cute comments comparing Gallo to Alex Jones, which adds nothing to the argument. He's given articles and papers and has pointed to various other sources. We've already established that the "cherry-picking" argument is pointless, so why are you continuing it? Literally, I'm completely baffled. What are you trying to prove?

[Mavorpen]

Penis in vagina sex is the most common kind. Penis in vagina rape is probably also the most common kind.

That does not answer my question. Did I say anything about penis in vagina?

So, person A forcibly has penis in vagina sex with person B without person B's consent. Is it rape?

That would depend on the study.

If you can't answer this question without knowing the genders of each person, it's a sexist position.

So it's not sexist, then. Glad we agree.

The same act was performed, but it's treated differently based solely on gender.

So you're saying being forcibly penetrated is the same act as bring forced to penetrate. Alright then.

Why would they criticize her? They use her sexist definition.

Oh, I see. So how exactly did she force every single sociologist in the world to conform to her beliefs? Do tell.

[Galloism]

Penis in vagina sex is the most common kind. Penis in vagina rape is probably also the most common kind.

That does not answer my question. Did I say anything about penis in vagina?

We're discussing Mary Koss's sexist contribution to the rape dialogue. PIV is supremely relevant.

So, person A forcibly has penis in vagina sex with person B without person B's consent. Is it rape?

That would depend on the study.

Doubletalk. What would a study following Koss's recommendations do?

If you can't answer this question without knowing the genders of each person, it's a sexist position.

So it's not sexist, then. Glad we agree.

nonanswering isn't the same as answering. It's a yes or no question.

The same act was performed, but it's treated differently based solely on gender.

So you're saying being forcibly penetrated is the same act as bring forced to penetrate. Alright then.

Forcible PIV sex is, in fact, forcible PIV sex. Rape is rape.

Why would they criticize her? They use her sexist definition.

Oh, I see. So how exactly did she force every single sociologist in the world to conform to her beliefs? Do tell.

How did people maintain male rulers for thousands of years.

Consensus doesn't imply lack of sexism. It doesn't imply conspiracy. It just implies consensus.

Now, explain this:

Explain, in detail, how researchers classifying men made to penetrate as rape victims in the data stage results in men under reporting made to penetrate in the interview stage.

Your argument is that classifying men raped by women as rape victims as researchers will result in fewer men reporting. Explain. Seriously. ESP? Causation is wrong? Effects can take place before causes?

[Luminesa]

Penis in vagina sex is the most common kind. Penis in vagina rape is probably also the most common kind.

That does not answer my question. Did I say anything about penis in vagina?

So, person A forcibly has penis in vagina sex with person B without person B's consent. Is it rape?

That would depend on the study.

If you can't answer this question without knowing the genders of each person, it's a sexist position.

So it's not sexist, then. Glad we agree.

The same act was performed, but it's treated differently based solely on gender.

So you're saying being forcibly penetrated is the same act as bring forced to penetrate. Alright then.

Why would they criticize her? They use her sexist definition.

Oh, I see. So how exactly did she force every single sociologist in the world to conform to her beliefs? Do tell.

Sex without consent is rape. How hard is that to understand? If a group of girls force some dude to penetrate, that's rape. He doesn't want to do it. This is the same as if a group of guys force a girl to give them oral sex. It's just gender-swapped.

And furthermore, did anyone you've quoted also force the rest of the world to apply to their standards? Play by your own rules, or else don't make other people play the game.

[Tahar Joblis]

Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not talking about the news media, I'm talking about academic papers. I'm asking you to actually prove to me that your flagrant misunderstanding of Koss' wor is self evident by citing other papers also criticizing her. For fuck's sake, you were willing to post blogs but utterly refuse to entertain doing the same for academic papers, so I have to assume that you believe blogs are superior to peer-review.

What in God's name could possibly result in a situation where only a bunch of random bloggers and irrelevant forum posters are the only individuals who have exposed a prominent feminist researcher for being anti-men and pro-rape? Did she pay off every sociologist? Did she infiltrate the government and puppeteer it from the shadows to squash any possible academic critique? You even posted a paper that directly critiqued many issues within feminist academia yet you can't find a single paper of the same light that is applicable to Koss herself? With that kind of power and authority over the field, who knows, she's probably influencing the government to dump chemicals in the water supply to make everyone hate men.

It's not a flagrant misunderstanding. It is prima facie obvious that she intends to exclude male victims.

It is all the more obvious because she specifically cites Struckman-Johnson (1991), which is a book chapter in which Struckman-Johnson uses the word "rape" to refer to male victims of female perpetrators of sexual coercion, as an example of inappropriate use of the word rape. This was used similarly although less pointedly in her groundbreaking 1988 paper.

It is quite obvious from the subsequent suppression of the word "rape" in Struckman-Johnson's later peer-reviewed articles that Koss and/or likeminded individuals enforced Koss's definitional standard on the literature on sexual violence.

Unfortunately, I did not copy it while it was still easily available online, but in 2001, Cindy Struckman-Johnson gave a lecture in which she talked about her research. Three key paragraphs from that lecture:

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.

I will footnote that I can give you a paper that is highly critical of the way feminists have ideologically influenced the literature on domestic violence to suppress awareness of female perpetration of domestic violence. See here. It is reasonable to conclude - especially given Struckman-Johnson's account - that the same set of tactics have been used in the literature on rape, with the added tactic of forcing researchers to use the "accepted" (by radical feminists) standard of excluding female perpetration by definition.

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.

Left unspoken were the identities of the reviewers who did so much to block the publication of work exploring female-on-male sexual coercion (i.e., rape) and intimate partner violence. Mary Koss was very likely one of them, given her prominence in the field, but it doesn't really matter whether or not she was: When a field of research is heavily politicized, the current dominant school of thought can fairly effectively block publication of dissenting views.

As I have said earlier, Mary Koss is not the only feminist researcher who jumped on board with defining male rape out of existence. Which is the point. The field of research on sexual violence has been dominated by radical feminists since some time in the 1980s. Her view - the view that male victims of female perpetrators generally do not count as having been raped - is the consensus view among the radical feminists working in the field.

It is not accidental. It is not a misreading. It is the established consensus of academic feminists.

Which in turn means that feminist academics working on sexual violence are, as a whole, sexist. Which in turn brings us back to this thing you said earlier:

You say that as though it's wrong or a bad thing. Yes, you cannot make absurd claims about an entire movement based on your cherry picked instances. Yes, it's impossible to know for sure what feminists as a general group believe. That's why we look at the academic side, because the academic side is what sets the standard and groundwork for the movement. The reality is that I would much rather admit that we can't claim anything about feminism's belief as a mass movement rather than make shit up.

We looked at the academic side of feminism. If this is the standard and groundwork for the movement, then the movement is fundamentally sexist, being as its standards are sexist and its groundwork is sexist.

[Luminesa]

Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not talking about the news media, I'm talking about academic papers. I'm asking you to actually prove to me that your flagrant misunderstanding of Koss' wor is self evident by citing other papers also criticizing her. For fuck's sake, you were willing to post blogs but utterly refuse to entertain doing the same for academic papers, so I have to assume that you believe blogs are superior to peer-review.

What in God's name could possibly result in a situation where only a bunch of random bloggers and irrelevant forum posters are the only individuals who have exposed a prominent feminist researcher for being anti-men and pro-rape? Did she pay off every sociologist? Did she infiltrate the government and puppeteer it from the shadows to squash any possible academic critique? You even posted a paper that directly critiqued many issues within feminist academia yet you can't find a single paper of the same light that is applicable to Koss herself? With that kind of power and authority over the field, who knows, she's probably influencing the government to dump chemicals in the water supply to make everyone hate men.

It's not a flagrant misunderstanding. It is prima facie obvious that she intends to exclude male victims.

It is all the more obvious because she specifically cites Struckman-Johnson (1991), which is a book chapter in which Struckman-Johnson uses the word "rape" to refer to male victims of female perpetrators of sexual coercion, as an example of inappropriate use of the word rape. This was used similarly although less pointedly in her groundbreaking 1988 paper.

It is quite obvious from the subsequent suppression of the word "rape" in Struckman-Johnson's later peer-reviewed articles that Koss and/or likeminded individuals enforced Koss's definitional standard on the literature on sexual violence.

Unfortunately, I did not copy it while it was still easily available online, but in 2001, Cindy Struckman-Johnson gave a lecture in which she talked about her research. Three key paragraphs from that lecture:

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.

I will footnote that I can give you a paper that is highly critical of the way feminists have ideologically influenced the literature on domestic violence to suppress awareness of female perpetration of domestic violence. See here. It is reasonable to conclude - especially given Struckman-Johnson's account - that the same set of tactics have been used in the literature on rape, with the added tactic of forcing researchers to use the "accepted" (by radical feminists) standard of excluding female perpetration by definition.

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.

Left unspoken were the identities of the reviewers who did so much to block the publication of work exploring female-on-male sexual coercion (i.e., rape) and intimate partner violence. Mary Koss was very likely one of them, given her prominence in the field, but it doesn't really matter whether or not she was: When a field of research is heavily politicized, the current dominant school of thought can fairly effectively block publication of dissenting views.

As I have said earlier, Mary Koss is not the only feminist researcher who jumped on board with defining male rape out of existence. Which is the point. The field of research on sexual violence has been dominated by radical feminists since some time in the 1980s. Her view - the view that male victims of female perpetrators generally do not count as having been raped - is the consensus view among the radical feminists working in the field.

It is not accidental. It is not a misreading. It is the established consensus of academic feminists.

Which in turn means that feminist academics working on sexual violence are, as a whole, sexist. Which in turn brings us back to this thing you said earlier:

You say that as though it's wrong or a bad thing. Yes, you cannot make absurd claims about an entire movement based on your cherry picked instances. Yes, it's impossible to know for sure what feminists as a general group believe. That's why we look at the academic side, because the academic side is what sets the standard and groundwork for the movement. The reality is that I would much rather admit that we can't claim anything about feminism's belief as a mass movement rather than make shit up.

We looked at the academic side of feminism. If this is the standard and groundwork for the movement, then the movement is fundamentally sexist, being as its standards are sexist and its groundwork is sexist.

Careful, Tahar, you're going to be accused of cherry-picking. Obviously these are just conspiracies.

[Proctopeo]

It's not a flagrant misunderstanding. It is prima facie obvious that she intends to exclude male victims.

It is all the more obvious because she specifically cites Struckman-Johnson (1991), which is a book chapter in which Struckman-Johnson uses the word "rape" to refer to male victims of female perpetrators of sexual coercion, as an example of inappropriate use of the word rape. This was used similarly although less pointedly in her groundbreaking 1988 paper.

It is quite obvious from the subsequent suppression of the word "rape" in Struckman-Johnson's later peer-reviewed articles that Koss and/or likeminded individuals enforced Koss's definitional standard on the literature on sexual violence.

Unfortunately, I did not copy it while it was still easily available online, but in 2001, Cindy Struckman-Johnson gave a lecture in which she talked about her research. Three key paragraphs from that lecture:


I will footnote that I can give you a paper that is highly critical of the way feminists have ideologically influenced the literature on domestic violence to suppress awareness of female perpetration of domestic violence. See here. It is reasonable to conclude - especially given Struckman-Johnson's account - that the same set of tactics have been used in the literature on rape, with the added tactic of forcing researchers to use the "accepted" (by radical feminists) standard of excluding female perpetration by definition.

Left unspoken were the identities of the reviewers who did so much to block the publication of work exploring female-on-male sexual coercion (i.e., rape) and intimate partner violence. Mary Koss was very likely one of them, given her prominence in the field, but it doesn't really matter whether or not she was: When a field of research is heavily politicized, the current dominant school of thought can fairly effectively block publication of dissenting views.

As I have said earlier, Mary Koss is not the only feminist researcher who jumped on board with defining male rape out of existence. Which is the point. The field of research on sexual violence has been dominated by radical feminists since some time in the 1980s. Her view - the view that male victims of female perpetrators generally do not count as having been raped - is the consensus view among the radical feminists working in the field.

It is not accidental. It is not a misreading. It is the established consensus of academic feminists.

Which in turn means that feminist academics working on sexual violence are, as a whole, sexist. Which in turn brings us back to this thing you said earlier:

We looked at the academic side of feminism. If this is the standard and groundwork for the movement, then the movement is fundamentally sexist, being as its standards are sexist and its groundwork is sexist.

Careful, Tahar, you're going to be accused of cherry-picking. Obviously these are just conspiracies.

Everything that is an unsavory truth is a conspiracy theory.

[Mavorpen]

nonanswering isn't the same as answering. It's a yes or no question.

Yes.

Forcible PIV sex is, in fact, forcible PIV sex. Rape is rape.

What is factual about considering two different acts as the same, precisely?

How did people maintain male rulers for thousands of years.

So you believe that Koss is in control of every government on Earth? That would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.