The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Proctopeo]

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

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

They're both non-consensual sex. Seems like rape to me.

[Luminesa]

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.

That's...not what he's implying at all. Now you're the one writing the conspiracy theories. Good job.

[Galloism]

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

Yes.

Then Koss is wrong, as are you.

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

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

Nothing - but that also has nothing to do with what I'm charitably calling our discussion.

Our discussion involves Koss's, and now your (apparently), consideration of the same act two different ways depending on the identities of the victim and perpetrator.

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.

No. You can't possibly read this bad, although it would explain your continued defense of Koss's sexism.

I'm saying just because it's the consensus doesn't mean it's not sexist.

Now:

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

[Mavorpen]

Our discussion involves Koss's, and now your (apparently), consideration of the same act two different ways depending on the identities of the victim and perpetrator.

It does not.

I'm saying just because it's the consensus doesn't mean it's not sexist.

Oh, so either you can't read, or you're just deflecting again. This isn't about a concensus. This is about every single sociologist on the planet somehow having the exact same views as Koss, and me requesting an explanation for how this could possibly occur.

[Galloism]

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.

That's a rather good point Tahar. Thank you.

If there's no serious criticism of Koss's sexism, which is plain for all to see, that indicates that academic feminism, as a whole, has a serious sexism problem, at least when it comes to this.

So Mavorpen's argument that there's no serious criticism of Koss among academic feminism is proof positive of a significant sexism in academic feminism if true.

[Galloism]

Our discussion involves Koss's, and now your (apparently), consideration of the same act two different ways depending on the identities of the victim and perpetrator.

It does not.

It does too. Non consenting PIV sex. That's what we're talking about. It's a single act.

I'm saying just because it's the consensus doesn't mean it's not sexist.

Oh, so either you can't read, or you're just deflecting again. This isn't about a concensus. This is about every single sociologist on the planet somehow having the exact same views as Koss, and me requesting an explanation for how this could possibly occur.

Consensus. The same reason every single political theorist for thousands of years regarded the need of an absolute ruler as paramount to a functioning system.

Sexism runs deep.

[Mavorpen]

Consensus. The same reason every single political theorist for thousands of years regarded the need of an absolute ruler as paramount to a functioning system.

Sexism runs deep.

I'm asking for an explanation for why every single sociologist agrees with Koss. Not whether every sociologist is sexist. Not whether sexism runs deep or not. I'm asking for, in detail, the process by which Koss managed to convince every single sociologist on Earth to agree with her.

[Galloism]

Consensus. The same reason every single political theorist for thousands of years regarded the need of an absolute ruler as paramount to a functioning system.

Sexism runs deep.

I'm asking for an explanation for why every single sociologist agrees with Koss. Not whether every sociologist is sexist. Not whether sexism runs deep or not. I'm asking for, in detail, the process by which Koss managed to convince every single sociologist on Earth to agree with her.

first, I'm not sure every sociologist agrees with her. I'm not sure if even every sociologist has considered her work. Not all sociologists work on rape after all.

I don't feel the need to prove strawmen.

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the seual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

[Proctopeo]

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?

Mav, you didn't answer my question. Although perhaps I should update it to "why do you think certain kinds of non-consensual sex shouldn't be called rape?".

[Mavorpen]

first, I'm not sure every sociologist agrees with her.

So then surely you can find one that doesn't, correct?

[Galloism]

first, I'm not sure every sociologist agrees with her.

So then surely you can find one that doesn't, correct?

I'm not sure every sociologist has filed a peer reviewed paper on rape.

Can you prove every sociologist has filed a peer reviewed paper on rape?

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the seual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not sure every sociologist has filed a peer reviewed paper on rape.

That's fine, people publish outside of their sub-diciplines.

If you want to continue deflecting, we can narrow it down to people who have published on rape before. Can you find one?

[Galloism]

I'm not sure every sociologist has filed a peer reviewed paper on rape.

That's fine, people publish outside of their sub-diciplines.

That doesn't mean every sociologist has published a paper on rape definitions.

Consequently, "every sociologist" is a strawman.

If you want to continue deflecting, we can narrow it down to people who have published on rape before. Can you find one?

Not that I know of, but as Tahar pointed out, if there isn't, that's a damning indictment of academic feminism, at least academic feminism that works on rape. So, you better hope there is, or it's a damning indictment against the entire field.

Now:

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the sexual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

[Mavorpen]

That doesn't mean every sociologist has published a paper on rape definitions.

K. No one said that they have.

Not that I know of, but as Tahar pointed out, if there isn't, that's a damning indictment of academic feminism, at least academic feminism that works on rape.

Alright. So that brings us back to the question of you explaining, in detail, how Koss managed to convince every single person who has published about rape to agree with her.

[Galloism]

That doesn't mean every sociologist has published a paper on rape definitions.

K. No one said that they have.

Not that I know of, but as Tahar pointed out, if there isn't, that's a damning indictment of academic feminism, at least academic feminism that works on rape.

Alright. So that brings us back to the question of you explaining, in detail, how Koss managed to convince every single person who has published about rape to agree with her.

You don't have to convince people of things they already believe. The notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization goes back at least the Middle Ages if not before.

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the sexual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

[Mavorpen]

You don't have to convince people of things they already believe. The notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization goes back at least the Middle Ages if not before.

Nice deflection, but at least it's something.

Please provide a source that demonstrates that every single person who has published on rape believes "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization."

[Galloism]

You don't have to convince people of things they already believe. The notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization goes back at least the Middle Ages if not before.

Nice deflection, but at least it's something.

Please provide a source that demonstrates that every single person who has published on rape believes "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization."

Please demonstrate that every single person who has published on rape isn't an alien in disguise.

/sigh

Here's the thing. If you can't find a study that criticizes the rank sexism of Koss's work, and I can't (or haven't yet), it's a severe indictment of them all. If there are no such studies, it's even worse than if there are.

Kind of like how the silence of the republican house in the face of Donald's actions speaks immensely poorly of them, not well of Donald.

Still waiting:

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the sexual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

[Mavorpen]

Please demonstrate that every single person who has published on rape isn't an alien in disguise.

I'll try, right after I get that source that every single person who has published on rape believes "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization."

[Galloism]

Please demonstrate that every single person who has published on rape isn't an alien in disguise.

I'll try, right after I get that source that every single person who has published on rape believes "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization."

I didn't say that. I said that notion goes back to at least the Middle Ages (which it does - statutory rape laws weren't equalized until the late 20th century). You don't have to convince people of things they already are socialized to believe.

However, complete silence on Koss's rank sexism provides strong evidence of broad rank sexism, just as republican silence provides strong evidence on supporting of his corruption.

Now, are you going to defend your assertions?

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the sexual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

[Tahar Joblis]

first, I'm not sure every sociologist agrees with her.

So then surely you can find one that doesn't, correct?

Alright. So that brings us back to the question of you explaining, in detail, how Koss managed to convince every single person who has published about rape to agree with her.

First point of order on the strawman: It's not strictly just sociologists who do research on sexual violence. It's just most commonly sociologists (and sociology is the most common home department for professional feminists). I'm pretty sure that I've personally met sociologists who would agree that women forcing men to have sex is rape, but that doesn't mean sexual violence is their research field.

There is one researcher on sexual violence mentioned in Koss's paper. The Struckman-Johnson (1991) reference she objects to, along with previous Struckman-Johnson papers that uses the word rape in a way that Koss doesn't like. While Cindy Struckman-Johnson may have carefully avoided clear use of the word "rape" in subsequent peer-reviewed papers, I doubt she agrees with Koss.

But let's nail this point down so people can move on, shall we? Here is a paper that clearly sides with Struckman-Johnson (1991) over Koss (1993). Zero citations of any of Koss's studies, cites Struckman-Johnson (1991), and talks about female perpetrators in a way that really wouldn't make sense to do if you bought the definition of Koss (1993). There are some academics doing some research in the area who demonstrably aren't buying Koss's bullshit definition, even if they're not issuing frontal challenges to Koss's paradigm.

Note that the above one slipped through in the School Social Work Journal. Not the usual outlet for research on sexual violence, so it probably didn't go to a radical feminist who works on sexual violence. Even if the reviewer and editor were feminists (pretty likely at least one was at least nominally feminist, if not a professional feminist), most feminists outside of those doing work on sexual violence agree with the normal definition of rape as sex without consent.

Koss and company didn't have to convince every sociologist to agree with them in order to build an academic consensus within their subfield. When you're willing to engage in heavy-duty gatekeeping on the topic - and the paper on domestic violence research I linked to earlier shows that willingness - having a thin majority of senior researchers on your side is sufficient to force the field to largely comply. Most of the time, a single motivated peer reviewer or editor can either force an author to change their language or block publication; and once an author has had to rewrite to use "sexual coercion" or "made to penetrate" instead of rape, a lot of them will just submit it that way the next time they write a paper, and the more times this happens, the more clear the precedent is for future authors and reviewers within the subfield.

So. Let's make this perfectly clear for you.

Not everybody agrees with Koss. Legal codes generally don't (especially as regards statutory rape). Most lay feminists don't. Most peopledon't. I would be pretty surprised if most sociologists did. However, most radical feminists publishing in the area of sexual violence, which means most academics publishing in the area of sexual violence, do agree with her sexist definition of rape, and the academic community of experts researching sexual violence, as a whole, either uses Koss's definition, uses something more sexist (which is something radical feminists are willing to entertain), or quietly ducks those questions.

[Chessmistress]

Koss never alleged that only women need protection from sexual victimization.
She just wished a policy highlighting that within a patriarchal society men being forced to sex don't have, on average, the same negative consequences of women being forcibly penetrated, so the two categories must be treated in a different way by the stats.
She never tried to give a free pass to female perpetrators, they're still punished, rightly, even if the categories are differentiated.

You don't have to convince people of things they already believe. The notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization goes back at least the Middle Ages if not before.

Nice deflection, but at least it's something.

Please provide a source that demonstrates that every single person who has published on rape believes "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization."

You're doing a bad job: being pedantic and deflective isn't going to provide a convincing argument.
What is your tactic? Keep being pedantic and deflective until people give up because they're too tired or bored?
It's a bad idea, and it's mostly due lack of courage, I think.
I also think that your answer to "it's rape or not?" being "depends by the study" was particularly coward. It doesn't depend by the study, it cannot be, and you know. Either it's rape or it's not rape.
However thank you for trying.
I still think that you should call yourself "ally" and not Feminist, and I think that how badly you dealt with such issue is proof enough of my reasons.

My answer to "it's rape or not?" is that both are sexual crimes. But the law should take in account the differences within society - clearly such differences would be properly treated by defining "sexual assault" a man forced to PIV, and "rape" a woman forced to PIV. So my answer is PRECISELY: in our actual society, still, and sadly, it depends by the sex of the perpetrator. You should thank the patriarchy for that, not blaming Feminists highlighting those differences: Feminists didn't invent the idea that "men cannot be raped", it was the patriarchy. And now are you blaming dr. Koss because she highlight that men can be victims but their situation is different and should be classified in a different way? Really? Are you really blaming a progress compared to the previous, fully patriarchal, situation?
Until we, as society, will not recognize the unbalancement of power within our society, those differences aren't going away, and must be properly considered.
I also want to go further: women penetrating an unwilling man should be treated as women forcing a man to have PIV - being classified as something different from men forcibly penetrating a woman, I mean, and I want make it very clear - because the main difference isn't in the act in itself but in the society as whole. The very fact that women are immensely more afraid to be forcibly penetrated by men than men being afraid to be forcibly penetrated by women is very telling...
In my opinion the main distinction isn't therefore between "penetration" and "being forced to penetration" but between who do it and who is the victim, and their psition within a patriarchal society, and how the patriarchal society treat them.
To be clear, again: all the above sex crimes are crimes and should be punished, and indeed Mary Koss never suggested to not punish female perpetrators.
And before claiming that I'm sexist: such distinction shouldn't be applied to the very few women who have power over male victims. In example a professor forcing a boy to sex isn't the same as a female student forcing a male student to sex. In the case of a professor forcing a boy to sex, even if he have male privilege compred to her, she have personal power over him.

[Mavorpen]

I'll try, right after I get that source that every single person who has published on rape believes "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization."

I didn't say that. I said that notion goes back to at least the Middle Ages (which it does - statutory rape laws weren't equalized until the late 20th century). You don't have to convince people of things they already are socialized to believe.

If they don't believe "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization," then give me a detailed explanation as to how Mary Koss convinced them. If they do, then prove it.

[Galloism]

Koss never alleged that only women need protection from sexual victimization.
She just wished a policy highlighting that within a patriarchal society men being forced to sex don't have, on average, the same negative consequences of women being forcibly penetrated, so the two categories must be treated in a different way by the stats.
She never tried to give a free pass to female perpetrators, they're still punished, rightly, even if the categories are differentiated.

The rest of this was your normal sexist identity politics permanent victim status bullshit, but this I wanted to address.

It's not true. In her 2007 study, the recommended questions for sexual violence study excludes men raped by women PIV entirely.

viewtopic.php?p=31955809#p31955809

She didn't recommend recategorizing it. She recommended burying it entirely. The former is sexist, the latter is heinous.

[Galloism]

I didn't say that. I said that notion goes back to at least the Middle Ages (which it does - statutory rape laws weren't equalized until the late 20th century). You don't have to convince people of things they already are socialized to believe.

If they don't believe "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization," then give me a detailed explanation as to how Mary Koss convinced them. If they do, then prove it.

The proof is in the pudding. They don't contradict the rank sexism of Koss at all. In fact, they use it.

If you use sexist bullshit as a basis for your research, it's indicative of belief in it. Your own objection that no one objected to Koss's sexist bullshit is proof said sexist bullshit is widely accepted.

QED.

[Proctopeo]

The very fact that women are immensely more afraid to be forcibly penetrated by men than men being afraid to be forcibly penetrated by women is very telling

While this was most likely not your intent, I acknowledge that this is a problem caused by feminist fearmongering. Blaming society is technically correct, as feminism is part of society, but a bit dishonest.