The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Galloism]

I will agree that at the higher end of violence (death), adult women suffer more than adult men. Women's battering is less likely to lead to death or serious injury.

However, given women are more likely to be first to strike (if you think about social influences, there's a logical reason for that to be the case - we tell them their violence isn't bad and even laugh if they do it in public), there's probably a fair number of those women killed in self defense, and we just don't recognize that as a society when that happens.

There's a reason men's rate of death in domestic violence scenarios dropped dramatically when we introduce women's shelters. This was a good thing. It's because desperate women were killing their abusive partners in self defense. It's not unlikely that women's didn't really budge for the same reason.

There's a reason CTS was developed and, although it's not perfect, people don't always recognize what's been done to them as a crime, so we have to ask specific behavioral questions to get the right answers. Asking "have you ever been a victim of domestic violence" is likely to substantially suppress male reporting. Asking "have you ever been punched by your partner?" will get a lot of "yes's" where the former answer go "no's".

But thats precisely the point Dobash & Dobash was making. Male DV against women is, generally, more severe, more violent, and more frequent or persistent, than female DV against men, which tends to be less severe and more sporadic/infrequent in quantity. And the statistics do seem to suggest that male DV against women tends to carry more severe outcomes, whether you measure it by the quantity of DV (more than 10 separate DV incidents), or lethality (homicide), or outcome (likelihood to report a physical injury), female DV victims are far more likely to report these severe outcomes than male DV victims (http://www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf). The same is true of the CDC study finding female DV victims were significantly more likely to report IPV-related impacts from said DV than male DV victims (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf). For instance, 24.3% of women experienced severe intimate partner violence, compared to 13.8% of men. 1 in 3 women reported being slapped, pushed or shoved, compared to 1 in 4 men. Women were more likely to be stalked than men. Etc. etc.

First, stalking is defined by fear of the victim, and runs into the same problems as "domestic violence" as a term - men are taught that if they show fear they lose any support from society.

That being said, I'm aware of the stalking discrepancy.

The thing is though, when police show up and they find a beaten and bloodied man and a woman without a scratch on her... odds are they'll arrest him. Because that's what they've been taught. It's what I was taught.

The numbers for IPV are slightly disparate, we've analyzed this before:

Well, the PDF does talk about long term effects (seriously, did ANYBODY look it over? anyone?). They do seem to be slightly less than men, but not as much as you probably assume. There's an entire section (section 7) that talks about physical and mental health conditions by victimization history.

I guess I have to spoon feed.

Differences in diabetes and blood pressure were not statistically significant, for either men or women.

Asthma, Women, 22.1% with history vs 14.7% with no history, a difference of 7.4%.
Asthma, Men, 16.1% with history vs 11.9% with no history, a difference of 4.2%

Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Women, 11.4% with history, 6.2% with no history, a difference of 5.2%.
Irritable bowel syndrome, Men, 4.3% with history, 3% with no history, a difference of 1.3%

Frequent Headaches, Women, 27.4% with history, 15.6% with no history, a difference of 11.8%.
Frequent Headaches, Men, 15.3% with history, 7.7% with no history, a difference of 7.6%.

Chronic Pain, Women, 28% with history, 15.7% with no history, a difference of 12.3%.
Chronic Pain, Men, 23% with history, 12.6% with no history, a difference of 10.4%.

Difficulty Sleeping, Women, 37.5% with history, 19.7% with no history, a difference of 17.8%.
Difficulty Sleeping, Men, 33.5% with history, 17.9% with no history, a difference of 15.6%.

Activity limitations, women, 33.6% with history, 19.1% with no history, a difference of 14.5%.
Activity limitations, men, 29.1% with history, 18.1% with no history, a difference of 11%.

Poor physical health, women, 6.2% with history, 3.0% with no history, a difference of 3.2%.
Poor physical health, men, 4.9% with history, 2.8% with no history, a difference of 2.1%.

Poor mental health, women, 3.6% with history, 1.1% with no history, a difference of 2.5%.
Poor mental health, men, 2.9% with history, 1.4% with no history, a difference of 1.5%.

It strikes me that relative changes would be more appropriate than absolute changes here, so they are below:

Asthma, Women: +50.3%
Asthma, Men: +35.3%

IBS, Women: +83.9%
IBS, Men: +43.3%

Frequent Headaches, Women: +75.6%
Frequent Headaches, Men: +98.7%

Chronic Pain, Women: +78.3%
Chronic Pain, Men: +82.5%

Difficulty Sleeping, Women: +90.4%
Difficulty Sleeping, Men: +87.2%

Activity Limitations, Women: +75.9%
Activity Limitations, Men: +60.8%

Poor Physical Health, Women: +106.7%
Poor Physical Health, Men: +75%

Poor Mental Health, Women: +227.3%
Poor Mental Health, Men: +107.1%

Generally agrees with your conclusions with regards somewhat higher effects on women, but by less than you might expect.

But again, not as different as everyone assumes.

[Purgatio]

I don't see the issue with using lifetime figures, since it gives an indication of whether an individual man is likely to suffer sexual violence in his life at the same likelihood as an individual woman in her life. The figures are perfectly comparable and, unlike an annual statistic, they give an indication of the likelihood of a man suffering sexual violence, versus a woman. X% of men are raped in one year doesn't tell you the likelihood that an individual man has to be raped, period.

They really don't, given that society today is vastly different to society 30 years ago, let alone 50 or 60 years ago. They're not useful for determining future likelihoods compared to the yearly statistics.

It doesn't matter, since in my original post on sexual violence (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37346586#p37346586), if you look at the statistics I cited, some of them like the CDC numbers concerned lifetime sexual violence, others like the CSEW numbers concerned sexual violence in a single year (specifically, the year ending in March 2017). Both reported a gender-asymmetry amongst the victims, which kinda undermines this whole hypothesis or explanation of lifetime victim numbers based on past trends.

[Galloism]

I understand, but words have impact and meaning. When we repeatedly reclassify things as "not rape" based on the gender of the perpetrator and victim, it drives a social narrative. Since the lay person sees "rape" as sex without consent, when you say that 90 or 99 percent of victims of rape are women repeatedly (whatever the number is today), and women never commit rape (which is impossible for them in the UK), it means that the person is even less likely to recognize what happened as rape. The police are less likely to recognize it as rape. Juries are less likely to convict for the same reason - because they're told repeatedly this never happens.

When you believe something basically never happens, it requires a much higher level of proof to convict. Hence why there's almost no convictions for that scenario.

Its not based on the gender of the victim, btw. Just the gender (or sex, rather) of the perpetrator. What happened to me in the UK when I was at Oxford is considered rape under Section 1 of the SOA 2003, even though I'm male and my rapist was male. The discrimination is solely on the perpetrator end, not the victim end. Both men and women can be victims of rape under UK law. But only biological males can commit rape. I agree that that's discrimination as well, but ultimately a man being forced to penetrate a woman is still criminal behaviour under UK law, and still considered a sexual offence.

I also don't see why it would result in less convictions, as long as the act fits the definition of Section 4 of the SOA 2003 of non-consensual sexual activity, and being coerced or forced to penetrate someone with your penis quite obviously fits the legal definition.

Again, while this is true, most men are raped by women, and most women are raped by men.

Although in your case it was male on male, that's the unusual case for men, not the usual case. And I agree what you are talking about should be considered rape.

But so should being made to penetrate someone else with your penis. Since the public is told this basically never happens and we use sexist definitions of rape (in the US, in survey methodlogy, in the UK, explicitly in the law itself), it's very hard to convict on. You might as well try to get a jury to order an award for McDonalds conspiring with aliens to fatten up humans and make them easier to slaughter in a civil suit.

Actually, that might be easier.

[Ostroeuropa]

They really don't, given that society today is vastly different to society 30 years ago, let alone 50 or 60 years ago. They're not useful for determining future likelihoods compared to the yearly statistics.

It doesn't matter, since in my original post on sexual violence (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37346586#p37346586), if you look at the statistics I cited, some of them like the CDC numbers concerned lifetime sexual violence, others like the CSEW numbers concerned sexual violence in a single year (specifically, the year ending in March 2017). Both reported a gender-asymmetry amongst the victims, which kinda undermines this whole hypothesis or explanation of lifetime victim numbers based on past trends.

The CSEW numbers you're citing run afoul of the problem we've discussed; it's only counting victims of men. Not victims of women rapists. It's thus worthless for determining how many actual rapes occur between the sexes.

And most male victims are the victims of female rapists.

[Purgatio]

It doesn't matter, since in my original post on sexual violence (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37346586#p37346586), if you look at the statistics I cited, some of them like the CDC numbers concerned lifetime sexual violence, others like the CSEW numbers concerned sexual violence in a single year (specifically, the year ending in March 2017). Both reported a gender-asymmetry amongst the victims, which kinda undermines this whole hypothesis or explanation of lifetime victim numbers based on past trends.

The CSEW numbers you're citing run afoul of the problem we've discussed; it's only counting victims of men. Not victims of women rapists. It's thus worthless for determining how many actual rapes occur between the sexes.

And most male victims are the victims of female rapists.

Yet the gender-asymmetry was also evinced in the CSEW numbers on sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching, which doesn't suffer from the bias you talk about (in respect of the rape statistics). Yet men are less likely to be victims than women. Ultimately, the common thread seems to be that, for all the different types of sexual violence being considered, women seem to be more likely to suffer said sexual violence than men.

[Purgatio]

Its not based on the gender of the victim, btw. Just the gender (or sex, rather) of the perpetrator. What happened to me in the UK when I was at Oxford is considered rape under Section 1 of the SOA 2003, even though I'm male and my rapist was male. The discrimination is solely on the perpetrator end, not the victim end. Both men and women can be victims of rape under UK law. But only biological males can commit rape. I agree that that's discrimination as well, but ultimately a man being forced to penetrate a woman is still criminal behaviour under UK law, and still considered a sexual offence.

I also don't see why it would result in less convictions, as long as the act fits the definition of Section 4 of the SOA 2003 of non-consensual sexual activity, and being coerced or forced to penetrate someone with your penis quite obviously fits the legal definition.

Again, while this is true, most men are raped by women, and most women are raped by men.

Although in your case it was male on male, that's the unusual case for men, not the usual case. And I agree what you are talking about should be considered rape.

But so should being made to penetrate someone else with your penis. Since the public is told this basically never happens and we use sexist definitions of rape (in the US, in survey methodlogy, in the UK, explicitly in the law itself), it's very hard to convict on. You might as well try to get a jury to order an award for McDonalds conspiring with aliens to fatten up humans and make them easier to slaughter in a civil suit.

Actually, that might be easier.

Ultimately, the jury will still be given the legal definition of a Section 4 SOA 2003 offence, and told how to reach a guilty or not guilty verdict, and its beyond clear that coercing someone to penetrate with their penis qualifies. If there is an obstacle to conviction, as I've mentioned earlier, it comes in the fact that juries are oftentimes just so suspicious and distrustful of complainants and accusers' testimonies that they refuse to convict if said testimony is less-than-perfect, hence why conviction rates are so low even for female accusers against male rapists, which don't suffer from the cultural bias you're hinting at.

The issue, ultimately, has to do with the problems complainants face in the criminal justice system when they (or rather, I suppose I should say 'we' in this case, which is accurate unfortunately) report sexual violence, not the minutiae of whether the crime is a Section 1 or a Section 4 offence under the SOA 2003, which makes no difference to the conviction or acquittal. These are far broader and more systemic issues and obstacles in how the system treats complainants of sexual violence, that don't rest or turn on semantic statutory classification or taxonomy.

[Ostroeuropa]

The CSEW numbers you're citing run afoul of the problem we've discussed; it's only counting victims of men. Not victims of women rapists. It's thus worthless for determining how many actual rapes occur between the sexes.

And most male victims are the victims of female rapists.

Yet the gender-asymmetry was also evinced in the CSEW numbers on sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching, which doesn't suffer from the bias you talk about (in respect of the rape statistics). Yet men are less likely to be victims than women. Ultimately, the common thread seems to be that, for all the different types of sexual violence being considered, women seem to be more likely to suffer said sexual violence than men.

As I've noted, the sexual assault figures disparity has an explanation, in that women do not do an equal share of the work with regards to flirtation, and thus more incidents of dangerous flirtation are committed by men. Same as the driving example.

However, sex is different.

Women are more likely to suffer *some* kinds of sexual violence than men, but not all types of sexual violence. There is parity with regards to rape, for example.

It's an error to extrapolate from the kinds they do suffer more from and claim that it therefore follows this is always the case, and data which you know has a great big honking flaw in it should not be overlooked on that basis, especially where other data without these flaws suggests parity with regards to rape incidents.

[Purgatio]

Yet the gender-asymmetry was also evinced in the CSEW numbers on sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching, which doesn't suffer from the bias you talk about (in respect of the rape statistics). Yet men are less likely to be victims than women. Ultimately, the common thread seems to be that, for all the different types of sexual violence being considered, women seem to be more likely to suffer said sexual violence than men.

As I've noted, the sexual assault figures disparity has an explanation, in that women do not do an equal share of the work with regards to flirtation, and thus more incidents of dangerous flirtation are committed by men. Same as the driving example.

However, sex is different.

Women are more likely to suffer *some* kinds of sexual violence than men, but not all types of sexual violence. There is parity with regards to rape, for example.

It's an error to extrapolate from the kinds they do suffer more from and claim that it therefore follows this is always the case, and data which you know has a great big honking flaw in it should not be overlooked on that basis, especially where other data without these flaws suggests parity.

Dude what is with your insistence in characterising sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching as essentially flirtation gone wrong? Its not. Its a creep or a pervert who thinks he is entitled to touch or grope someone's body without that person's permission or consent. Which has nothing to do with innocent, consensual flirtation. You are linking two completely and totally irrelevant things to try and explain away a gender-asymmetry in sexual violence with an explanation that is not cultural misogyny or sexual objectification/entitlement.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I've noted, the sexual assault figures disparity has an explanation, in that women do not do an equal share of the work with regards to flirtation, and thus more incidents of dangerous flirtation are committed by men. Same as the driving example.

However, sex is different.

Women are more likely to suffer *some* kinds of sexual violence than men, but not all types of sexual violence. There is parity with regards to rape, for example.

It's an error to extrapolate from the kinds they do suffer more from and claim that it therefore follows this is always the case, and data which you know has a great big honking flaw in it should not be overlooked on that basis, especially where other data without these flaws suggests parity.

Dude what is with your insistence in characterising sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching as essentially flirtation gone wrong? Its not. Its a creep or a pervert who thinks he is entitled to touch or grope someone's body with that person's permission or consent. Which has nothing to do with innocent, consensual flirtation. You are linking two completely and totally irrelevant things to try and explain away a gender-asymmetry in sexual violence with an explanation that is not cultural misogyny or sexual objectification/entitlement.

I disagree they're as disparate as you are making out, as it involves skills in both cases. Firstly in reading a situation, the persons reactions, and in managing your own expectations, in empathy, and so on. All of these are skills. This is why "Teach about consent" is a valid solution to the issue, rather than it just being a problem of some evil men somewhere.

Women without these skills do not act, while men without these skills are pressured into acting.

The line between a clumsy pass and an aggressive one is not so clear as you might like to imagine.

[Ostroeuropa]

To return to the driving example;

Women don't drive, and feel entitled to have men drive them everywhere.

Not all men know how to drive.

Men thus cause the most number of crashes, and women cause very few.

This is then argued to be because society teaches men car crashes are awesome, or some stupid shit.

The sexual assaults done to men by women, and some number of sexual assaults done to women by men, are done by knowing predators who genuinely don't care about consent and are out to exploit and hurt people. I put it to you that these people are as common in either sex, and these peoples entitlement and objectification of other is than projected onto men and masculinity as a whole by feminism because of a refusal to draw a distinction between the two types of perpetrator, the other portion of them is due to the lack of skills required, not a willful ignoring of the other persons boundaries.

That's why there's a disparity.

[Galloism]

Again, while this is true, most men are raped by women, and most women are raped by men.

Although in your case it was male on male, that's the unusual case for men, not the usual case. And I agree what you are talking about should be considered rape.

But so should being made to penetrate someone else with your penis. Since the public is told this basically never happens and we use sexist definitions of rape (in the US, in survey methodlogy, in the UK, explicitly in the law itself), it's very hard to convict on. You might as well try to get a jury to order an award for McDonalds conspiring with aliens to fatten up humans and make them easier to slaughter in a civil suit.

Actually, that might be easier.

Ultimately, the jury will still be given the legal definition of a Section 4 SOA 2003 offence, and told how to reach a guilty or not guilty verdict, and its beyond clear that coercing someone to penetrate with their penis qualifies. If there is an obstacle to conviction, as I've mentioned earlier, it comes in the fact that juries are oftentimes just so suspicious and distrustful of complainants and accusers' testimonies that they refuse to convict if said testimony is less-than-perfect, hence why conviction rates are so low even for female accusers against male rapists, which don't suffer from the cultural bias you're hinting at.

The issue, ultimately, has to do with the problems complainants face in the criminal justice system when they (or rather, I suppose I should say 'we' in this case, which is accurate unfortunately) report sexual violence, not the minutiae of whether the crime is a Section 1 or a Section 4 offence under the SOA 2003, which makes no difference to the conviction or acquittal. These are far broader and more systemic issues and obstacles in how the system treats complainants of sexual violence, that don't rest or turn on semantic statutory classification or taxonomy.

Statutory classification is not "semantic". It drives statistics which drive public perception. There's a reason US feminist academia worked so hard to put down the notion that "made to penetrate" should be counted as rape, and have worked so hard to downplay it when it came out men were raped by women at nearly the same rate as the reverse. When feminists in India fought to reverse a gender neutral definition of rape and replace it with a sexist one, it wasn't because it was semantic and made no difference. In israel when the women's council fought against having the rape statute degendered, it was not because it was semantic and made no difference. If it made no difference, they wouldn't fight against it so hard. They would shrug and say "ok".

And here's the thing, public perception drives jury outcomes. When you use a definitional framework at odds with public understanding, it drives a perception. And we know it. And that's why female perpetrated rape against men is the least prosecuted crime in the world - because the public interpreted those statistics in exactly the way they wanted, to protect rapists.

[Galloism]

As I've noted, the sexual assault figures disparity has an explanation, in that women do not do an equal share of the work with regards to flirtation, and thus more incidents of dangerous flirtation are committed by men. Same as the driving example.

However, sex is different.

Women are more likely to suffer *some* kinds of sexual violence than men, but not all types of sexual violence. There is parity with regards to rape, for example.

It's an error to extrapolate from the kinds they do suffer more from and claim that it therefore follows this is always the case, and data which you know has a great big honking flaw in it should not be overlooked on that basis, especially where other data without these flaws suggests parity.

Dude what is with your insistence in characterising sexual assault and unwanted sexual touching as essentially flirtation gone wrong? Its not. Its a creep or a pervert who thinks he is entitled to touch or grope someone's body without that person's permission or consent. Which has nothing to do with innocent, consensual flirtation. You are linking two completely and totally irrelevant things to try and explain away a gender-asymmetry in sexual violence with an explanation that is not cultural misogyny or sexual objectification/entitlement.

I actually think the disparity is probably the other way. I just can't prove it, so I don't try to.

Men are not taught that they have ownership of their body the way women are in our society (quite the reverse, actually), and are less likely to realize that a number of things, from physical assault to sexual assault to rape - are actually crimes.

[Purgatio]

Ultimately, the jury will still be given the legal definition of a Section 4 SOA 2003 offence, and told how to reach a guilty or not guilty verdict, and its beyond clear that coercing someone to penetrate with their penis qualifies. If there is an obstacle to conviction, as I've mentioned earlier, it comes in the fact that juries are oftentimes just so suspicious and distrustful of complainants and accusers' testimonies that they refuse to convict if said testimony is less-than-perfect, hence why conviction rates are so low even for female accusers against male rapists, which don't suffer from the cultural bias you're hinting at.

The issue, ultimately, has to do with the problems complainants face in the criminal justice system when they (or rather, I suppose I should say 'we' in this case, which is accurate unfortunately) report sexual violence, not the minutiae of whether the crime is a Section 1 or a Section 4 offence under the SOA 2003, which makes no difference to the conviction or acquittal. These are far broader and more systemic issues and obstacles in how the system treats complainants of sexual violence, that don't rest or turn on semantic statutory classification or taxonomy.

Statutory classification is not "semantic". It drives statistics which drive public perception. There's a reason US feminist academia worked so hard to put down the notion that "made to penetrate" should be counted as rape, and have worked so hard to downplay it when it came out men were raped by women at nearly the same rate as the reverse. When feminists in India fought to reverse a gender neutral definition of rape and replace it with a sexist one, it wasn't because it was semantic and made no difference. In israel when the women's council fought against having the rape statute degendered, it was not because it was semantic and made no difference. If it made no difference, they wouldn't fight against it so hard. They would shrug and say "ok".

And here's the thing, public perception drives jury outcomes. When you use a definitional framework at odds with public understanding, it drives a perception. And we know it. And that's why female perpetrated rape against men is the least prosecuted crime in the world - because the public interpreted those statistics in exactly the way they wanted, to protect rapists.

If calling something "rape" were an automatic solution to get the public up in arms and take something seriously, then when women accuse men of rape, rape conviction statistics would be through the roof, and my rapist would be in jail right now. Clearly, life is far more complicated than that, and the distinction is ultimately semantic, with the obstacles to conviction lying not in how we classify offences, but the fact that the criminal justice system as it currently exists or is set up, is not sensitive to complainants in sexual violence cases, and is unwilling for a whole host of reasons to return guilty verdicts against sexual assailants in the vast majority of cases.

Again, if it were a simple matter of "do we call it rape or not" that explains the problem, then the kinds of sexual violence that are in fact classfied as rape at present (being penetrated by a rapist's penis, S. 1, SOA 2003) should easily result in prosecution and conviction. They clearly don't.

[Purgatio]

To return to the driving example;

Women don't drive, and feel entitled to have men drive them everywhere.

Not all men know how to drive.

Men thus cause the most number of crashes, and women cause very few.

This is then argued to be because society teaches men car crashes are awesome, or some stupid shit.

The sexual assaults done to men by women, and some number of sexual assaults done to women by men, are done by knowing predators who genuinely don't care about consent and are out to exploit and hurt people. I put it to you that these people are as common in either sex, and these peoples entitlement and objectification of other is than projected onto men and masculinity as a whole by feminism because of a refusal to draw a distinction between the two types of perpetrator, the other portion of them is due to the lack of skills required, not a willful ignoring of the other persons boundaries.

That's why there's a disparity.

I'm worried we'll talk in circles about this, because it ultimately comes down to a question of intuitive perception, but yes there is a gigantic disparity in my view between innocent flirting and sexual assault/groping/molestation. You seem to be suggesting that sexual assault is simply the byproduct of some people being socially-incompetent or failed flirters, which is a bizarre concept to me. You don't need to be a particularly socially-aware person to realise how fucked up and immoral it is to grab someone's crotch, ass, genitals, or breasts without that person's approval, permission, or consent, you just need to respect them as a human being and realise they have rights over their person and they aren't your property. The fact that men are encouraged to make the first move and flirt with women first, rather than the other way round, in no way explains the gender-asymmetry, since its relatively easy to flirt with someone and not end up molesting them. You just need to, you know, not be a pervert or a creep.

Sexual assault is not failed flirtation. If a person is a creep or a pervert who believes other people's bodies exists for their own sexual gratification, and is unable to respect boundaries or another person's autonomy, they'll commit sexual assault. Its literally not a question of seduction or flirtation, we're talking about sexual violence here, which should not be minimised or trivialised.

[Galloism]

Statutory classification is not "semantic". It drives statistics which drive public perception. There's a reason US feminist academia worked so hard to put down the notion that "made to penetrate" should be counted as rape, and have worked so hard to downplay it when it came out men were raped by women at nearly the same rate as the reverse. When feminists in India fought to reverse a gender neutral definition of rape and replace it with a sexist one, it wasn't because it was semantic and made no difference. In israel when the women's council fought against having the rape statute degendered, it was not because it was semantic and made no difference. If it made no difference, they wouldn't fight against it so hard. They would shrug and say "ok".

And here's the thing, public perception drives jury outcomes. When you use a definitional framework at odds with public understanding, it drives a perception. And we know it. And that's why female perpetrated rape against men is the least prosecuted crime in the world - because the public interpreted those statistics in exactly the way they wanted, to protect rapists.

If calling something "rape" were an automatic solution to get the public up in arms and take something seriously, then when women accuse men of rape, rape conviction statistics would be through the roof, and my rapist would be in jail right now. Clearly, life is far more complicated than that, and the distinction is ultimately semantic, with the obstacles to conviction lying not in how we classify offences, but the fact that the criminal justice system as it currently exists or is set up, is not sensitive to complainants in sexual violence cases, and is unwilling for a whole host of reasons to return guilty verdicts against sexual assailants in the vast majority of cases.

Again, if it were a simple matter of "do we call it rape or not" that explains the problem, then the kinds of sexual violence that are in fact classfied as rape at present (being penetrated by a rapist's penis, S. 1, SOA 2003) should easily result in prosecution and conviction. They clearly don't.

Ok, let me put it to you this way. As a comparison - because you seem to be driving at "using the right definitions and words makes things PERFECT!" which is not true.

Bill and Jamal are both murdered. Bill is white and Jamal is black. Bill's murderer is black, and Jamal's murderer is white.

In the late 1800s somehow even more racist south, where this occurred, "Murder" was defined as the intentional killing of a white person with malice aforethought. Killing a black person is "unauthorized life termination". They both carry the same maximum penalty, but unauthorized life termination has a lower minimum penalty.

All the statistics say that white people make up 100% of those murdered, and this is bandied about continuously.

How much easier will it be to prosecute Bill's murderer than Jamal's murderer? Does that mean there's a 100% chance of Bill's murderer being convicted? Does that mean there's no chance of Jamal's murderer being convicted?

Does it mean there's no problem?

[Purgatio]

If calling something "rape" were an automatic solution to get the public up in arms and take something seriously, then when women accuse men of rape, rape conviction statistics would be through the roof, and my rapist would be in jail right now. Clearly, life is far more complicated than that, and the distinction is ultimately semantic, with the obstacles to conviction lying not in how we classify offences, but the fact that the criminal justice system as it currently exists or is set up, is not sensitive to complainants in sexual violence cases, and is unwilling for a whole host of reasons to return guilty verdicts against sexual assailants in the vast majority of cases.

Again, if it were a simple matter of "do we call it rape or not" that explains the problem, then the kinds of sexual violence that are in fact classfied as rape at present (being penetrated by a rapist's penis, S. 1, SOA 2003) should easily result in prosecution and conviction. They clearly don't.

Ok, let me put it to you this way. As a comparison - because you seem to be driving at "using the right definitions and words makes things PERFECT!" which is not true.

Bill and Jamal are both murdered. Bill is white and Jamal is black. Bill's murderer is black, and Jamal's murderer is white.

In the late 1800s somehow even more racist south, where this occurred, "Murder" was defined as the intentional killing of a white person with malice aforethought. Killing a black person is "unauthorized life termination". They both carry the same maximum penalty, but unauthorized life termination has a lower minimum penalty.

All the statistics say that white people make up 100% of those murdered, and this is bandied about continuously.

How much easier will it be to prosecute Bill's murderer than Jamal's murderer? Does that mean there's a 100% chance of Bill's murderer being convicted? Does that mean there's no chance of Jamal's murderer being convicted?

Does it mean there's no problem?

Let me put it this way, maybe then you'll understand my problem.

If we're talking about the late 1800s when there are a whole host of racist institutional obstacles that would obviously make an all-white jury unwilling to return a guilty verdict in respect of a black victim like Jamal, because of all sorts of negative prevalent cultural attitudes about the victims in that scenario (much like with rape cases today), I don't believe it would be any easier to convict Jamal's murderer if the law were changed to call the crime against him "murder" instead of "unauthorised life termination". It is ultimately a semantic difference that does nothing to change the underlying racist social and cultural attitude against the black victim in that scenario that are the actual, root causes of the difficulties in garnering a conviction, rather than the semantic label one puts on the crime in question.

[Galloism]

Ok, let me put it to you this way. As a comparison - because you seem to be driving at "using the right definitions and words makes things PERFECT!" which is not true.

Bill and Jamal are both murdered. Bill is white and Jamal is black. Bill's murderer is black, and Jamal's murderer is white.

In the late 1800s somehow even more racist south, where this occurred, "Murder" was defined as the intentional killing of a white person with malice aforethought. Killing a black person is "unauthorized life termination". They both carry the same maximum penalty, but unauthorized life termination has a lower minimum penalty.

All the statistics say that white people make up 100% of those murdered, and this is bandied about continuously.

How much easier will it be to prosecute Bill's murderer than Jamal's murderer? Does that mean there's a 100% chance of Bill's murderer being convicted? Does that mean there's no chance of Jamal's murderer being convicted?

Does it mean there's no problem?

Let me put it this way, maybe then you'll understand my problem.

If we're talking about the late 1800s when there are a whole host of racist institutional obstacles that would obviously make an all-white jury unwilling to return a guilty verdict in respect of a black victim like Jamal, because of all sorts of negative prevalent cultural attitudes about the victims in that scenario (much like with rape cases today), I don't believe it would be any easier to convict Jamal's murderer if the law were changed to call the crime against him "murder" instead of "unauthorised life termination". It is ultimately a semantic difference that does nothing to change the underlying racist social and cultural attitude against the black victim in that scenario that are the actual, root causes of the difficulties in garnering a conviction, rather than the semantic label one puts on the crime in question.

And, notably, in the current day, there's a whole host of sexist institutional obstacles that would make any jury unwilling to return a guilty verdict in respect of a male victim in the UK (and US, and most of the world really) far far far more than women, because of all sorts of negative prevalent cultural attitudes about the victim in that scenario (ie, he's lucky, wanted it, he had an erection therefore consent, why didn't he stop her, etc).

While it may not be easier the next day to convict if we start calling things by the right names, we'd start to see a cultural shift in accepting that... hey, maybe men CAN be raped by women. At least we won't have government statistics that say "100% of murder victims are white". We can It's not a panacea, it doesn't fix all the underlying issues, but it's a start. Basic equality in law is a necessity to even begin to right the social wrongs, as otherwise, you will have people constantly bandying about that only white people are murdered.

And only women are raped. Or basically only women are raped. Like happens now.

[Ostroeuropa]

To return to the driving example;

Women don't drive, and feel entitled to have men drive them everywhere.

Not all men know how to drive.

Men thus cause the most number of crashes, and women cause very few.

This is then argued to be because society teaches men car crashes are awesome, or some stupid shit.

The sexual assaults done to men by women, and some number of sexual assaults done to women by men, are done by knowing predators who genuinely don't care about consent and are out to exploit and hurt people. I put it to you that these people are as common in either sex, and these peoples entitlement and objectification of other is than projected onto men and masculinity as a whole by feminism because of a refusal to draw a distinction between the two types of perpetrator, the other portion of them is due to the lack of skills required, not a willful ignoring of the other persons boundaries.

That's why there's a disparity.

I'm worried we'll talk in circles about this, because it ultimately comes down to a question of intuitive perception, but yes there is a gigantic disparity in my view between innocent flirting and sexual assault/groping/molestation. You seem to be suggesting that sexual assault is simply the byproduct of some people being socially-incompetent or failed flirters, which is a bizarre concept to me. You don't need to be a particularly socially-aware person to realise how fucked up and immoral it is to grab someone's crotch, ass, genitals, or breasts without that person's approval, permission, or consent, you just need to respect them as a human being and realise they have rights over their person and they aren't your property.

Yes, but i'm alleging these people are not even particularly socially aware, and may in fact have next to no social awareness. They have internalized a script of what happens in these situations akin to;

"We talk, I make suggestive comment, she doesn't leave, I touch her breasts, she grabs my junk, we go to have sex.".

It's done with the expectation of reciprocal escalation and with a lack of awareness on the impropriety and so on. As I said, there is also a subset of people who *are* socially competent but behave this way in any case because they are predatory individuals rather than merely dangerously incompetent and in need of instruction.

I disagree with this part especially:

The fact that men are encouraged to make the first move and flirt with women first, rather than the other way round, in no way explains the gender-asymmetry, since its relatively easy to flirt with someone and not end up molesting them. You just need to, you know, not be a pervert or a creep.

Sexual assault is not failed flirtation. If a person is a creep or a pervert who believes other people's bodies exists for their own sexual gratification, and is unable to respect boundaries or another person's autonomy, they'll commit sexual assault. Its literally not a question of seduction or flirtation, we're talking about sexual violence here, which should not be minimised or trivialised.

Because women likewise feel entitled to mens bodies, and often flip out if denied sex on the occasions they do decide to ask. The entitlement and incompetence is not a sufficient explanation for the disparity, and seems to me to be equally prevalent in both sexes. So does the outright predatory behavior.

The fact it's relatively easy doesn't make it moron-proof mate. The issue is, only male morons are expected to do the job, female morons have an opt-out. Hence the disparity. You'll find just as many women who find it absurd that a man could decline sex and believe they're "Always up for it" as men who believe similar about women. The difference is, those women aren't doing the work, and thus don't have the opportunity to fuck it up.

[Purgatio]

Let me put it this way, maybe then you'll understand my problem.

If we're talking about the late 1800s when there are a whole host of racist institutional obstacles that would obviously make an all-white jury unwilling to return a guilty verdict in respect of a black victim like Jamal, because of all sorts of negative prevalent cultural attitudes about the victims in that scenario (much like with rape cases today), I don't believe it would be any easier to convict Jamal's murderer if the law were changed to call the crime against him "murder" instead of "unauthorised life termination". It is ultimately a semantic difference that does nothing to change the underlying racist social and cultural attitude against the black victim in that scenario that are the actual, root causes of the difficulties in garnering a conviction, rather than the semantic label one puts on the crime in question.

And, notably, in the current day, there's a whole host of sexist institutional obstacles that would make any jury unwilling to return a guilty verdict in respect of a male victim in the UK (and US, and most of the world really) far far far more than women, because of all sorts of negative prevalent cultural attitudes about the victim in that scenario (ie, he's lucky, wanted it, he had an erection therefore consent, why didn't he stop her, etc).

While it may not be easier the next day to convict if we start calling things by the right names, we'd start to see a cultural shift in accepting that... hey, maybe men CAN be raped by women. At least we won't have government statistics that say "100% of murder victims are white". We can It's not a panacea, it doesn't fix all the underlying issues, but it's a start. Basic equality in law is a necessity to even begin to right the social wrongs, as otherwise, you will have people constantly bandying about that only white people are murdered.

And only women are raped. Or basically only women are raped. Like happens now.

Right, but as I already mentioned above, we don't have a system that says "100% of murder victims are white", because men and women can both be the victims of rape under the SOA 2003. There are legally-defined male victims of rape out there, we don't live in a society where the media churns out numbers showing only women getting raped and no men getting raped.

Regardless, this is not really a substantive disagreement since I basically agree that a man being forced to penetrate with his penis should be classified as 'rape' under present law. I just don't think that that difference is so significant that it results in this massive misandrist criminal justice system as you suggest. I think we have a criminal justice system that just doesn't take sexual violence, and sexual violence complainants, seriously, with the gravity and severity those prosecutions deserve. This is a problem that afflicts male and female victims of sexual violence, but since women seem to be more likely to suffer a whole host of types of sexual violence, like unwanted touching, molestation, sexual assault etc., this specific failing of the criminal justice system disproportionately prejudices and harms women, while also harming male victims of rape and sexual violence in the process.

[Galloism]

This is a problem that afflicts male and female victims of sexual violence, but since women seem to be more likely to suffer a whole host of types of sexual violence, like unwanted touching, molestation, sexual assault etc., this specific failing of the criminal justice system disproportionately prejudices and harms women, while also harming male victims of rape and sexual violence in the process.

This is actually a form of the empathy gap.

We, as a society, just don't care about men's suffering compared with women's. That's why it's notable in that if you murder a man you get a shorter sentence than killing a woman on average. This is also true in vehicular homicide scenarios. This is also why maybe 18% of those investigated for rape of women are convicted, while something nearing 0% are for men, and men are actually threatened with charges if they try to report female rapists on average. Over and over, we see a disproportionate lack of care for men who are victims, especially men who victims of sexual crimes.

Basically, if 18% (your figure you used earlier) of rapists of women are convicted, while 1% (being extremely generous) of rapists of men are convicted, these are not equivalent problems.

And you can see this throughout society. Like your post, for instance.

[Purgatio]

This is a problem that afflicts male and female victims of sexual violence, but since women seem to be more likely to suffer a whole host of types of sexual violence, like unwanted touching, molestation, sexual assault etc., this specific failing of the criminal justice system disproportionately prejudices and harms women, while also harming male victims of rape and sexual violence in the process.

This is actually a form of the empathy gap.

We, as a society, just don't care about men's suffering compared with women's. That's why it's notable in that if you murder a man you get a shorter sentence than killing a woman on average. This is also true in vehicular homicide scenarios. This is also why maybe 18% of those investigated for rape of women are convicted, while something nearing 0% are for men, and men are actually threatened with charges if they try to report female rapists on average. Over and over, we see a disproportionate lack of care for men who are victims, especially men who victims of sexual crimes.

Basically, if 18% (your figure you used earlier) of rapists of women are convicted, while 1% (being extremely generous) of rapists of men are convicted, these are not equivalent problems.

And you can see this throughout society. Like your post, for instance.

It wasn't 18%, to be clear, as I mentioned earlier if you include the fact that not all rapes are reported and not all reports result in police investigations and prosecution or the formal institution of charges against the accused, then only a pathetic and meagre 3.4% of all women who are raped will ever see their rapists get criminally-convicted in a court of law.

Like I said, I accept that male victims of sexual violence aren't taken seriously by the criminal justice system, this is something I know from personal experience and obviously it goes without saying that I think that's awful and reprehensible about the world we live in. I think complainants who bring forth accusations of sexual violence, assault, and rape, are often dismissed, their concerns not treated with the gravity they deserve, an unkind and hostile process awaits them, with victim-blaming and slut-shaming and other minimising or rape-trivialising cultural attitudes abounding in the criminal justice system and wider society alike. All victims of sexual violence, male and female, encounter these terrible obstacles and problems, and its why sexual violence remains such a prevalent problem. That's why only 3.4% of rapes of women ever result in a formal criminal conviction.

I disagree, however, with the attempts of MRAs and other such groups to imply that female rape victims are privileged over male rape victims, or get an easy ride by the criminal justice system. There is a disturbing pattern of attempting to minimise or trivialise the very real obstacles that rape victims, including female rape victims, face in the criminal justice system, yet increasingly the rhetoric I'm hearing from these groups portrays society as so incredibly empathetic to women who are raped, that women who are raped get an easy time when they come forward with an accusation while men who are raped are shafted and ignored, and that characterisation ignores the very real obstacles and hurdles that prevent men who rape and commit sexual violence against women from being punished and held accountable for their actions. Its unacceptable that MRAs and so many other such groups paper over that reality.

[Galloism]

This is actually a form of the empathy gap.

We, as a society, just don't care about men's suffering compared with women's. That's why it's notable in that if you murder a man you get a shorter sentence than killing a woman on average. This is also true in vehicular homicide scenarios. This is also why maybe 18% of those investigated for rape of women are convicted, while something nearing 0% are for men, and men are actually threatened with charges if they try to report female rapists on average. Over and over, we see a disproportionate lack of care for men who are victims, especially men who victims of sexual crimes.

Basically, if 18% (your figure you used earlier) of rapists of women are convicted, while 1% (being extremely generous) of rapists of men are convicted, these are not equivalent problems.

And you can see this throughout society. Like your post, for instance.

It wasn't 18%, to be clear, as I mentioned earlier if you include the fact that not all rapes are reported and not all reports result in police investigations and prosecution or the formal institution of charges against the accused, then only a pathetic and meagre 3.4% of all women who are raped will ever see their rapists get criminally-convicted in a court of law.

I don't know how anyone expects the police to investigate crimes not reported to them. This is also a problem with men who suffer sexual violence.

Like I said, I accept that male victims of sexual violence aren't taken seriously by the criminal justice system, this is something I know from personal experience and obviously it goes without saying that I think that's awful and reprehensible about the world we live in. I think complainants who bring forth accusations of sexual violence, assault, and rape, are often dismissed, their concerns not treated with the gravity they deserve, an unkind and hostile process awaits them, with victim-blaming and slut-shaming and other minimising or rape-trivialising cultural attitudes abounding in the criminal justice system and wider society alike. All victims of sexual violence, male and female, encounter these terrible obstacles and problems, and its why sexual violence remains such a prevalent problem. That's why only 3.4% of rapes of women ever result in a formal criminal conviction.

I disagree, however, with the attempts of MRAs and other such groups to imply that female rape victims are privileged over male rape victims, or get an easy ride by the criminal justice system. There is a disturbing pattern of attempting to minimise or trivialise the very real obstacles that rape victims, including female rape victims, face in the criminal justice system, yet increasingly the rhetoric I'm hearing from these groups portrays society as so incredibly empathetic to women who are raped, that women who are raped get an easy time when they come forward with an accusation while men who are raped are shafted and ignored, and that characterisation ignores the very real obstacles and hurdles that prevent men who rape and commit sexual violence against women from being punished and held accountable for their actions. Its unacceptable that MRAs and so many other such groups paper over that reality.

Again, it's relative..

So if Sally gets punched in the face on Wednesdays, and John gets punched in the face every day, both of them have a problem. But John has a bigger and more serious problem than Sally does, because he's suffering more punches in the face. The fact that I recognize men suffering sexual violence by women as a greater problem from a justice system problems standpoint, due to the justice system literally threatening victims with charges if they try to report it, does not mean that women have no problems. Again, Sally may still be getting punched on Wednesdays, but I think John getting punched every day is a larger issue.

The problem is your framing - you assume that because I'm talking about the greater problem, I'm trivializing the lesser problem that women face in the justice system. This is not the case - it's merely me focusing where the largest problem lies. I'm totally ok with you wanting to work on lesser problems as well. I encourage it - we can work on many problems at once.

But it's relative.

It's sort of like the whole black lives matter thing. They're focusing on the very real problem of black people getting killed by police. It's kind of a big problem. We also have a problem of white people, american indians, hispanic people, etc getting killed by police, but not nearly at the rate black people are killed by police. I'm focusing on the largest problem - black lives matter (rape of men matters, and they're treated horribly by the justice system), and you're telling me all lives matter (women aren't treated well by the justice system either). I know. It's a problem. Even the privileged class has problems.

But when you hear me say black lives matter (men are treated horribly based on their gender when victims of rape by the justice system), you reflexively say "all lives matter" (everybody has trouble with reporting rape and getting justice in the justice system). Why is that?

[VVerkia]

So if Sally gets punched in the face on Wednesdays, and John gets punched in the face every day, both of them have a problem. But John has a bigger and more serious problem than Sally does, because he's suffering more punches in the face. The fact that I recognize men suffering sexual violence by women as a greater problem from a justice system problems standpoint, due to the justice system literally threatening victims with charges if they try to report it, does not mean that women have no problems. Again, Sally may still be getting punched on Wednesdays, but I think John getting punched every day is a larger issue.

And what about power of punches, where this punches goes on body, did punches are only problem, how body react depend of individual being, how react mind, emotions etc. etc. etc. I can't measure who have bigger and serous problem, but all of them have big problem.

[Purgatio]

It wasn't 18%, to be clear, as I mentioned earlier if you include the fact that not all rapes are reported and not all reports result in police investigations and prosecution or the formal institution of charges against the accused, then only a pathetic and meagre 3.4% of all women who are raped will ever see their rapists get criminally-convicted in a court of law.

I don't know how anyone expects the police to investigate crimes not reported to them. This is also a problem with men who suffer sexual violence.

Like I said, I accept that male victims of sexual violence aren't taken seriously by the criminal justice system, this is something I know from personal experience and obviously it goes without saying that I think that's awful and reprehensible about the world we live in. I think complainants who bring forth accusations of sexual violence, assault, and rape, are often dismissed, their concerns not treated with the gravity they deserve, an unkind and hostile process awaits them, with victim-blaming and slut-shaming and other minimising or rape-trivialising cultural attitudes abounding in the criminal justice system and wider society alike. All victims of sexual violence, male and female, encounter these terrible obstacles and problems, and its why sexual violence remains such a prevalent problem. That's why only 3.4% of rapes of women ever result in a formal criminal conviction.

I disagree, however, with the attempts of MRAs and other such groups to imply that female rape victims are privileged over male rape victims, or get an easy ride by the criminal justice system. There is a disturbing pattern of attempting to minimise or trivialise the very real obstacles that rape victims, including female rape victims, face in the criminal justice system, yet increasingly the rhetoric I'm hearing from these groups portrays society as so incredibly empathetic to women who are raped, that women who are raped get an easy time when they come forward with an accusation while men who are raped are shafted and ignored, and that characterisation ignores the very real obstacles and hurdles that prevent men who rape and commit sexual violence against women from being punished and held accountable for their actions. Its unacceptable that MRAs and so many other such groups paper over that reality.

Again, it's relative..

So if Sally gets punched in the face on Wednesdays, and John gets punched in the face every day, both of them have a problem. But John has a bigger and more serious problem than Sally does, because he's suffering more punches in the face. The fact that I recognize men suffering sexual violence by women as a greater problem from a justice system problems standpoint, due to the justice system literally threatening victims with charges if they try to report it, does not mean that women have no problems. Again, Sally may still be getting punched on Wednesdays, but I think John getting punched every day is a larger issue.

The problem is your framing - you assume that because I'm talking about the greater problem, I'm trivializing the lesser problem that women face in the justice system. This is not the case - it's merely me focusing where the largest problem lies. I'm totally ok with you wanting to work on lesser problems as well. I encourage it - we can work on many problems at once.

But it's relative.

It's sort of like the whole black lives matter thing. They're focusing on the very real problem of black people getting killed by police. It's kind of a big problem. We also have a problem of white people, american indians, hispanic people, etc getting killed by police, but not nearly at the rate black people are killed by police. I'm focusing on the largest problem - black lives matter (rape of men matters, and they're treated horribly by the justice system), and you're telling me all lives matter (women aren't treated well by the justice system either). I know. It's a problem. Even the privileged class has problems.

But when you hear me say black lives matter (men are treated horribly based on their gender when victims of rape by the justice system), you reflexively say "all lives matter" (women aren't treated well either). Why is that?

Like I said, the 18% was a conviction rate amongst charges actually instituted against the accused, it doesn't include cases that were reported to the police, but which the police refused to investigate, and it doesn't include cases that the police did investigate, but a prosecutor refused to institute actual criminal charges, hence why the 3.4% figure is a more accurate representation as to the likelihood of a man actually getting convicted when he rapes a woman.

As for your BLM/ALM comparison, again I think you misunderstand my argument, as evidenced by the part of your comment about John getting punched more than Sally. We disagree on that, and we could rehash that debate all over again but it'll probably go in the same direction as before. I don't agree that John is getting punched more than Sally. I believe that women are more likely to suffer rape, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence, ceteris paribus, than men, and I believe the CDC and ONS data on the matter supports that conclusion. You have a different interpretation of the prevailing data, and so you believe that men are more likely to suffer all those things than women. Our disagreement lies, therefore, in whether men or women are more likely to suffer all those kinds of violence, which is a fair disagreement that many academics out there have. It doesn't mean that when I hear you talk about the problems men face when reporting sexual and domestic violence, that I reflexively think you are trivialising the problems women face when reporting the same - my disagreement is not about that, but about the prior debate we've already had about whether men or women are more likely to even suffer those kinds of violence in the first place. That's the core issue, really.

[Galloism]

So if Sally gets punched in the face on Wednesdays, and John gets punched in the face every day, both of them have a problem. But John has a bigger and more serious problem than Sally does, because he's suffering more punches in the face. The fact that I recognize men suffering sexual violence by women as a greater problem from a justice system problems standpoint, due to the justice system literally threatening victims with charges if they try to report it, does not mean that women have no problems. Again, Sally may still be getting punched on Wednesdays, but I think John getting punched every day is a larger issue.

And what about power of punches, where this punches goes on body, did punches are only problem, how body react depend of individual being, how react mind, emotions etc. etc. etc. I can't measure who have bigger and serous problem, but all of them have big problem.

The punches are delivered by a punch machine, which gives exactly 100 newtons of force to the face in the same area each time, calibrated by lasers to always hit the person square in the nose, and is recalibrated regularly.