NATION

PASSWORD

The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:53 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Purgatio wrote:
Okay thanks, let me just outline why I think the concept of VAW is both fair, and necessary in light of the official statistics on DV and rape/sexual violence (in the next post).


Okey doke. I'll be gone for about 15 mins though.


Kk
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:16 am

Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence

In the US, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), published by the DOJ in May 2000, women were the victims of intimate partner violence at 5 times the rate of men in 1998. Amongst all the people murdered by an intimate partner in that year, 72% were women (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf).

If we turn to NISVS statistics (https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf), 5.4 women per 1,000 women suffered intimate partner victimisation in 2015, compared to 0.5 per 1,000 men in that same year. 16% of women suffered contact sexual violence from an intimate partner, compared to 7% of men. 20% of female victims of IPV reported 1 or more PTSD symptoms, compared to 5% of male victims of IPV. Turning to CDC statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet508.pdf), 1 in 4 women suffer contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 10 men. 1 in 5 women will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. 10% of women report stalking from an intimate partner, compared to 2% of men.

As for the UK, Women's Aid (https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/) compiled statistics from the ONS in 2018 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018) showing in 2014-2017, 73% of victims of homicide from an intimate partner were female, and in March 2018, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse cases were male, and 66% of victims were female. Moreover, according to the ONS Appendix Tables (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables), in March 2018, 7.9% of women suffered domestic abuse, compared to 4.2% of men. 6.3% of women reported suffering partner abuse, compared to 2.7% of men. And amongst abuse victims, women were far more likely to suffer multiple types of abuse (non-physical abuse or threats/use of force, sexual assault, stalking etc.), with 21% of women suffering multiple types of abuse, compared to 17% of men.

In the UK, domestic abuse affects 1 in 4 women, versus 1 in 6 men (https://www.lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics.htm). According to Home Office statistics in 2011, reported by Refuge (http://www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf), 73% of domestic violence victims are female, and 81% of perpetrators of DV are male. Four times as many women are killed by intimate partners than men. 89% of people who experience 4 or more incidents of DV are women. Female DV victims were also 4 times as likely to experience severe and potentially-lethal violence (threats, choking, assaults with a gun or knife), 3 times more likely to suffer a physical injury, twice as likely to report repeated assaults or more than 10 separate incidents of DV, and 5 times as likely to report fearing for their lives.
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54911
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:21 am

Purgatio wrote:Rape and Sexual Violence

According to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv/SV-factsheet_2020.pdf), "sexual violence", which it defines as non-consensual sexual activity, is a problem that disproportionately affects women compared to men. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 4 men. When you narrow it down to rape specifically, the gender-disparity widens. 1 in 5 women suffer attempted or completed rape, compared to just 1 in 38 men. Even when you add in the category of being coerced to penetrate (since rape is typically defined in law as being sexually penetrated against your will), only 1 in 14 men have been forced to penetrate in their lifetime (or attempted thereof), still far smaller than the proportion of women who have suffered rape or attempted rape.

The same gender disparity is observable when you look specifically at sexual violence in the form of human trafficking, where according to the UNODC, the overwhelming majority of human trafficking victims - 71% - are women and girls (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/12/report-majority-of-trafficking-victims-are-women-and-girls-one-third-children/).

Turning to the UK, according to CSEW statistics, 20% of women have suffered sexual assault, compared to 4% of men (https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/). Moreover, in the year ending in March 2017, 3.1% of women experienced sexual assault, compared to 0.8% of men. 2.7% of women experienced indecent exposure and unwanted sexual touching, compared to 0.8% of men. And 0.9% of women suffered rape or assault by penetration (including attempts), the percentage fell to 0.1% amongst men (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017).

I'm gonna make another post about domestic violence after this, so we can debate the issues separately. And wanted to post this earlier so you could respond to it as you wish as I type out my DV/IPV post.


Firstly, the CDC figures utilizing lifetime sexual violence are necessarily of lesser validity than the ones measuring yearly sexual violence because of how sampling for previous events is often poor. The yearly sexual figures show near parity between male victims and female victims, and also exclude the prison population.

There's also a semantic difference between "Have been raped" and "Are raped", and the yearly figures are vastly more relevant when discussing whether men "Are raped" at a similar rate to women. The issues in getting older men to recognize what happened to them after a lifetime of being told it didn't also should be considered, as well as the studies showing that men who we *know* have been raped will often deny this is the case. (I can find this if you wish but i'll assume you'll take it on faith).

There's also a question to be raised as to whether current policy should reflect current problems, or "Lifetime" problems. I doubt you'd think it was sensible to note that legal segregation is still a problem since some percentage of black people have experienced legal segregated businesses "In their lifetime".

As such, not only are the lifetime figures questionable in their own right due to the biases of those surveyed after a lifetime of being propagandized to and having their experiences recontextualized for them, but they're also not relevant to current politics, policy, or attempts to curb rape, and a continuing narrative that rape *IS* (present tense) a womens issue is a misandrist one that relies on statistical manipulation, such as the exclusion of made to penetrate.

On the issue of sexual assault, i'd readily concede that it may well happen more often to women. However, the framing of this as violence against women and stemming from patriarchy is problematic, and misandrist.

Socially inadequate or inexperienced men are pressured into trying to initiate flirting, or they'll never get anywhere. Meanwhile, socially inadequate or inexperienced women can simply wait for a man to flirt with them.

The framing of the issue as one of "violence against women" led by "Male entitlement" and patriarchy and so on is a misframing. It's more akin to a situation where one sex does all the cooking and the other refuses to, and then the one refusing to cook concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory about how the cooking gender hates them and wants them dead, because after all, the food poisoning statistics bare that out. Look at how few non-cooks poison cooks, compared to the reverse.

A simpler explanation, incompetent cooks from one sex are forced to cook, and incompetent cooks from the other gender don't do so, is not given air time.

*because the primary goal of the framework is to demonize men, cast suspicion on them, and make women paranoid about men, rather than to in good faith evaluate why these dynamics exist*. This is then used to demonize male sexuality and males, rather than to tell women to put the work in.

This is how even in this instance the VAW narrative falters and can be shown to be misandrist.

If women initiated flirtation and attempts to get sex at equal rates, there's every reason to suspect that predatory, inadequate, and inexperienced women would sexually assault men as well, OR that people of both sexes without the knowledge of how to do this task safely would sit it out and wait for the other sex to approach them.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54911
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:26 am

Purgatio wrote:Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence

In the US, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), published by the DOJ in May 2000, women were the victims of intimate partner violence at 5 times the rate of men in 1998. Amongst all the people murdered by an intimate partner in that year, 72% were women (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf).

If we turn to NISVS statistics (https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf), 5.4 women per 1,000 women suffered intimate partner victimisation in 2015, compared to 0.5 per 1,000 men in that same year. 16% of women suffered contact sexual violence from an intimate partner, compared to 7% of men. 20% of female victims of IPV reported 1 or more PTSD symptoms, compared to 5% of male victims of IPV. Turning to CDC statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet508.pdf), 1 in 4 women suffer contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 10 men. 1 in 5 women will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. 10% of women report stalking from an intimate partner, compared to 2% of men.

As for the UK, Women's Aid (https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/) compiled statistics from the ONS in 2018 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018) showing in 2014-2017, 73% of victims of homicide from an intimate partner were female, and in March 2018, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse cases were male, and 66% of victims were female. Moreover, according to the ONS Appendix Tables (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables), in March 2018, 7.9% of women suffered domestic abuse, compared to 4.2% of men. 6.3% of women reported suffering partner abuse, compared to 2.7% of men. And amongst abuse victims, women were far more likely to suffer multiple types of abuse (non-physical abuse or threats/use of force, sexual assault, stalking etc.), with 21% of women suffering multiple types of abuse, compared to 17% of men.

In the UK, domestic abuse affects 1 in 4 women, versus 1 in 6 men (https://www.lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics.htm). According to Home Office statistics in 2011, reported by Refuge (http://www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf), 73% of domestic violence victims are female, and 81% of perpetrators of DV are male. Four times as many women are killed by intimate partners than men. 89% of people who experience 4 or more incidents of DV are women. Female DV victims were also 4 times as likely to experience severe and potentially-lethal violence (threats, choking, assaults with a gun or knife), 3 times more likely to suffer a physical injury, twice as likely to report repeated assaults or more than 10 separate incidents of DV, and 5 times as likely to report fearing for their lives.


I've addressed this with my previous link.

As for the UK ONS stats, I don't think it's reasonable to use prosecution statistics in this instance given that what is being alleged is a structural bias that would lead to female perpetrators being ignored by the justice system.

Many of these studies also use loaded terminology.

But the coup-de-gras on this notion that it's a "Violence against women" issue is work like this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/research ... n_b_222746

Which suggests that many of the stats you're citing are the result of men defending themselves.

(I'm a little light on this one, I'm a bit busy, but if you could cover these two rebuttals and explain how/why they don't work, i'll get back to you later more in depth. Apologies for that, I've been inundated with shit to do).

Basically; it's not "Violence against non-boxers" that is an issue if random people go out and assault boxers, and then get their face smashed up. It's a matter of different strengths, not different mentalities or moralities. But feminists use the VAW issue to recast this as something wrong with men mentally and socially rather than just concede women suffer most injuries because they are physically weaker and keep assaulting people stronger than them. That seems to me to suggest that the issue is violence against men, and resolving it would resolve the issue far more effectively.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:35 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Purgatio wrote:Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence

In the US, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), published by the DOJ in May 2000, women were the victims of intimate partner violence at 5 times the rate of men in 1998. Amongst all the people murdered by an intimate partner in that year, 72% were women (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf).

If we turn to NISVS statistics (https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf), 5.4 women per 1,000 women suffered intimate partner victimisation in 2015, compared to 0.5 per 1,000 men in that same year. 16% of women suffered contact sexual violence from an intimate partner, compared to 7% of men. 20% of female victims of IPV reported 1 or more PTSD symptoms, compared to 5% of male victims of IPV. Turning to CDC statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet508.pdf), 1 in 4 women suffer contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 10 men. 1 in 5 women will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. 10% of women report stalking from an intimate partner, compared to 2% of men.

As for the UK, Women's Aid (https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/) compiled statistics from the ONS in 2018 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018) showing in 2014-2017, 73% of victims of homicide from an intimate partner were female, and in March 2018, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse cases were male, and 66% of victims were female. Moreover, according to the ONS Appendix Tables (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables), in March 2018, 7.9% of women suffered domestic abuse, compared to 4.2% of men. 6.3% of women reported suffering partner abuse, compared to 2.7% of men. And amongst abuse victims, women were far more likely to suffer multiple types of abuse (non-physical abuse or threats/use of force, sexual assault, stalking etc.), with 21% of women suffering multiple types of abuse, compared to 17% of men.

In the UK, domestic abuse affects 1 in 4 women, versus 1 in 6 men (https://www.lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics.htm). According to Home Office statistics in 2011, reported by Refuge (http://www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf), 73% of domestic violence victims are female, and 81% of perpetrators of DV are male. Four times as many women are killed by intimate partners than men. 89% of people who experience 4 or more incidents of DV are women. Female DV victims were also 4 times as likely to experience severe and potentially-lethal violence (threats, choking, assaults with a gun or knife), 3 times more likely to suffer a physical injury, twice as likely to report repeated assaults or more than 10 separate incidents of DV, and 5 times as likely to report fearing for their lives.


I've addressed this with my previous link.

As for the UK ONS stats, I don't think it's reasonable to use prosecution statistics in this instance given that what is being alleged is a structural bias that would lead to female perpetrators being ignored by the justice system.

Many of these studies also use loaded terminology.

But the coup-de-gras on this notion that it's a "Violence against women" issue is work like this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/research ... n_b_222746

Which suggests that many of the stats you're citing are the result of men defending themselves.

(I'm a little light on this one, I'm a bit busy, but if you could cover these two rebuttals and explain how/why they don't work, i'll get back to you later more in depth. Apologies for that, I've been inundated with shit to do).


So first of all, I'm sceptical of the response that we can't rely on official crime statistics because the claim is that there are many invisible men whose cases of DV never get to the police in the first place. Its an argument that's certain plausible, but also unfalsifiable (Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria), and hence ultimately a bit pointless in the discussion. We have to start the argument from somewhere, and official crime statistics are a valid basis to discuss, at least prima facie, the prevalence of different crimes in society, otherwise this conversation will just degenerate into an abstract, speculative "how can we know anything" type of Socratic dialogue, which isn't useful to anyone, I'm sure you'd agree. Also, not all the ONS data relies on prosecution statistics, just the one about the percentage of men and women amongst perpetrators in prosecuted cases (92% and 66%), the rest are based on official crime statistics and surveys and respondents, if I'm not wrong.

As for the second, its pretty easy, I don't agree with the idea that men who report violence suffered from female intimate partners were all perpetrators and their female partners simply acted in self-defence. You can't cite a single researcher making a bad inference from the data and suggest that that discredits the notion of VAW completely. VAW, in my view, only suggests that women are disproportionately more likely to suffer rape, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence, as compared to men. It doesn't mean, crucially, that men who suffer these kinds of violence should not be taken seriously, or heard, or should not receive support and resources accordingly. The illustration I gave in the Reddit thread was how we could highlight the problem of homophobic violence targeted at LGBT people (Matthew Shepard, Orlando nightclub shooting etc.), and the homophobic bigotry that motivates said violence, without suggesting that violence against straight people is unimportant or not worth addressing. The point of a VAW analysis is merely to call attention to certain types of violence that may be motivated by misogynistic ideas or values held by the perpetrators, rather than to dismiss or ignore or trivialise the impact of male victims of rape and DV.

Not that this should be relevant to the discussion, but I was raped back in February 2017 (by a man, not a woman), so I'm probably the last person to argue that sexual violence and domestic violence against men is unimportant or should be ignored. But that's not what the VAW concept is advocating for.
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:41 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Purgatio wrote:Rape and Sexual Violence

According to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv/SV-factsheet_2020.pdf), "sexual violence", which it defines as non-consensual sexual activity, is a problem that disproportionately affects women compared to men. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 4 men. When you narrow it down to rape specifically, the gender-disparity widens. 1 in 5 women suffer attempted or completed rape, compared to just 1 in 38 men. Even when you add in the category of being coerced to penetrate (since rape is typically defined in law as being sexually penetrated against your will), only 1 in 14 men have been forced to penetrate in their lifetime (or attempted thereof), still far smaller than the proportion of women who have suffered rape or attempted rape.

The same gender disparity is observable when you look specifically at sexual violence in the form of human trafficking, where according to the UNODC, the overwhelming majority of human trafficking victims - 71% - are women and girls (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/12/report-majority-of-trafficking-victims-are-women-and-girls-one-third-children/).

Turning to the UK, according to CSEW statistics, 20% of women have suffered sexual assault, compared to 4% of men (https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/). Moreover, in the year ending in March 2017, 3.1% of women experienced sexual assault, compared to 0.8% of men. 2.7% of women experienced indecent exposure and unwanted sexual touching, compared to 0.8% of men. And 0.9% of women suffered rape or assault by penetration (including attempts), the percentage fell to 0.1% amongst men (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017).

I'm gonna make another post about domestic violence after this, so we can debate the issues separately. And wanted to post this earlier so you could respond to it as you wish as I type out my DV/IPV post.


Firstly, the CDC figures utilizing lifetime sexual violence are necessarily of lesser validity than the ones measuring yearly sexual violence because of how sampling for previous events is often poor. The yearly sexual figures show near parity between male victims and female victims, and also exclude the prison population.

There's also a semantic difference between "Have been raped" and "Are raped", and the yearly figures are vastly more relevant when discussing whether men "Are raped" at a similar rate to women. The issues in getting older men to recognize what happened to them after a lifetime of being told it didn't also should be considered, as well as the studies showing that men who we *know* have been raped will often deny this is the case. (I can find this if you wish but i'll assume you'll take it on faith).

There's also a question to be raised as to whether current policy should reflect current problems, or "Lifetime" problems. I doubt you'd think it was sensible to note that legal segregation is still a problem since some percentage of black people have experienced legal segregated businesses "In their lifetime".

As such, not only are the lifetime figures questionable in their own right due to the biases of those surveyed after a lifetime of being propagandized to and having their experiences recontextualized for them, but they're also not relevant to current politics, policy, or attempts to curb rape, and a continuing narrative that rape *IS* (present tense) a womens issue is a misandrist one that relies on statistical manipulation, such as the exclusion of made to penetrate.

On the issue of sexual assault, i'd readily concede that it may well happen more often to women. However, the framing of this as violence against women and stemming from patriarchy is problematic, and misandrist.

Socially inadequate or inexperienced men are pressured into trying to initiate flirting, or they'll never get anywhere. Meanwhile, socially inadequate or inexperienced women can simply wait for a man to flirt with them.

The framing of the issue as one of "violence against women" led by "Male entitlement" and patriarchy and so on is a misframing. It's more akin to a situation where one sex does all the cooking and the other refuses to, and then the one refusing to cook concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory about how the cooking gender hates them and wants them dead, because after all, the food poisoning statistics bare that out. Look at how few non-cooks poison cooks, compared to the reverse.

A simpler explanation, incompetent cooks from one sex are forced to cook, and incompetent cooks from the other gender don't do so, is not given air time.

*because the primary goal of the framework is to demonize men, cast suspicion on them, and make women paranoid about men, rather than to in good faith evaluate why these dynamics exist*. This is then used to demonize male sexuality and males, rather than to tell women to put the work in.

This is how even in this instance the VAW narrative falters and can be shown to be misandrist.

If women initiated flirtation and attempts to get sex at equal rates, there's every reason to suspect that predatory, inadequate, and inexperienced women would sexually assault men as well, OR that people of both sexes without the knowledge of how to do this task safely would sit it out and wait for the other sex to approach them.


It does seem semantic, I don't see how changing the question of "have been raped" to "are raped" changes anything, and this seems highly-speculative at best, rather than undermining the validity of the data collected. The idea that there's some gigantic misandrist conspiracy to convince men they aren't victims of sexual violence, influencing the data collected, is also inherently unfalsifiable and makes this debate impossible - yes, theoretically, that's possible, but there's absolutely no empirical proof of that, and this is a blanket argument against trusting any official data or statistics, anywhere, of any kind.

I don't see how recognising women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men is misandrist. I really don't. Its just an acknowledgement of the prevailing crime statistics. I also don't see how socially-inexperienced men having to make the first move and flirt with women, rather than the other way round, is in any way relevant to VAW and sexual violence. Saying it means women aren't being asked to put the "work in" is also....confusing to me. Because, again, I really don't see how that's relevant to sexual violence and assault. At all. Maybe I'm missing something here, idk.

Its also not a demonisation of male sexuality generally to recognise that entitlement, or a view that women in certain situations are viewed by certain specific men as 'owing' them sex, contributes to rape culture and a belief that forcing sex in certain circumstances is not a form of morally-contemptible sexual violence (for example, date rape or acquaintance rape situations, or marital rape where a husband feels entitled to his wife's body because she 'owes' him sex). That's not a demonisation of all men, nothing about discussing the scourge of rape and sexual violence demonises consensual sex between men and women, clearly everyone recognises that in the case of consensual sex, male and female sexuality alike should be celebrated and approved of. I really don't see how combating rape and sexual violence involves a demonisation of male sexuality, there must be some link there that I'm missing.
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:36 am

Purgatio wrote:So first of all, I'm sceptical of the response that we can't rely on official crime statistics because the claim is that there are many invisible men whose cases of DV never get to the police in the first place. Its an argument that's certain plausible, but also unfalsifiable (Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria), and hence ultimately a bit pointless in the discussion.

I might address other parts later, but let me address this.

It's not that we can't use official crime statistics, but we need to place them in the proper social context. For basically forever, men have been expected to "control" their wives and were actually mocked and punished by the community for being abused by their wife. Notably, they were made to ride a donkey backwards while holding its tail while being subject to the town's derision and contempt.

And yes I have a source for this:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 9400300203

Notably, we can get around some of the bias by surveying the public, which is something that the CDC does and Harvard has done, etc, and generally find that men and women suffer domestic violence at about equal rates year to year, +/-. Most of the studies that actually do this neutrally with behavioral questions find men suffer slightly more and women perpetrate slightly more - based on both men's AND women's responses.

Here's a study from harvard:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newslett ... _one_sided

Some folks have had trouble opening that link, so let me post contents here:

Mention of domestic violence immediately brings to mind an intimidating male batterer. But a 2007 article shows that the problem — also called intimate partner violence — is often more complicated and may involve both women and men as perpetrators.

Nearly 11,000 men and women, a representative sample of the American population ages 18 to 28, participated in a national survey. They were asked the following questions about their most important recent sexual or romantic relationship:

How often in the past year have you threatened your partner with violence, pushed him or her, or thrown something at him or her that could hurt, and how often has your partner done that to you?

How often in the past year have you hit, slapped, or kicked your partner, and how often has your partner done that to you?

If there has been any violence in your relationship, how often has either partner suffered an injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut?

Almost 25% of the people surveyed — 28% of women and 19% of men — said there was some violence in their relationship. Women admitted perpetrating more violence (25% versus 11%) as well as being victimized more by violence (19% versus 16%) than men did. According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike.

Violence was more frequent when both partners were involved, and so was injury — to either partner. In these relationships, men were more likely than women to inflict injury (29% versus 19%).

When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%).

That means both men and women agreed that men were not more responsible than women for intimate partner violence. The findings cannot be explained by men's being ashamed to admit hitting women, because women agreed with men on this point.

The authors say they have no intention of minimizing the very real problem of serious domestic violence — the classic male batterer. The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering. Domestic disputes that turn physical because of retaliation and escalation do not have the same causes or the same consequences as male battering. Couples counseling is generally regarded as ineffective for batterers, but if the violence is moderate and the injuries are minor, both partners are involved, and they want to stay together, it makes sense for a therapist to work with both of them.

Whitaker DJ, et al. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence," American Journal of Public Health (May 2007): Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941–47.


So why the disparity in arrests? Well, we have data on that too! It's a small study, more qualitative than quantitative, but it gives us an insight into things:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

This is a study of men who are being beaten so hard they overcome all the social stigma against calling the police. And that's a lot, by the way - men are the black people of gender in this regard, and so calling the police is generally a desperate move. In 26.5% of cases, they arrested the violent abuser. In 33.3% of cases, they arrested the victim. The victim was also more likely to go to jail and less likely to get the charges dropped.

This goes along with the training we've received to see Domestic Violence as a women's issue. Police make snap judgements all the time based on their training and experiences, and if they're trained to see women as the victims and men as the perpetrators - and they are, explicitly and on purpose, via the Duluth model - they will wind up being more likely to arrest men and less likely to arrest women in the same circumstances.

Note a few of the qualitative responses they got from police:

“They determined she was the aggressor but said since I was a man it was silly to arrest her.”

“Told me to get her help. Told me to spend the night in a hotel.”

“They saw mw [sic] as a large male and…took her side. I was at the hospital with bruising and burned eyes from hot coffee thrown in them. They didn’t believe that she did this…and refused to arrest her… The next incident…the police…saw me bleeding they charged her with felony DV but later dropped it to misdemeanor assault because we are not married and do not live together.”


So we should use the police statistics - as a measure of bias. We can see that although men and women suffer DV at comparable rates (depending on your study, it might be +/- a few percentage points either way), but if she's an abuser, we often don't arrest anybody, and when we do, we often arrest the victim. The arrests of men for DV should be read as "men arrested for being perpetrators or victims of DV".

Really, things haven't changed all that much in this regard since the middle ages.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:07 am

Galloism wrote:-snip-


This is one of the things I find a little bit espistemically difficult about this debate (and, in my experience, is generally how these feminism vs. MRA debates boil down). Someone will bring up an interesting study like the Douglas & Hines study that shows police are more likely to arrest male DV perpetrators than female DV perpetrators, ceteris paribus, because of prevailing social stereotypes, and its always important to put these studies within a wider context, because there are studies out there which show the exact opposite. The one I tend to cite the most is the Marianne Hester study for Bristol University, which found that, all else being equal, a female DV perpetrator was actually 3 times more likely to be arrested by the police than a male DV perpetrator, when identified as the primary aggressor when responding to a DV incident (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077801212461428):

Across the whole sample of 692, the vast majority of IPV perpetrators recorded by the police were men (92%). Across the comparative subsamples of 96 cases, men were also recorded as primary aggressors in many more incidents (n = 467) than women were (n = 114), leading to more arrests overall of men than of women. Nonetheless, women were arrested to a disproportionate degree given the fewer incidents in which they were perpetrators. Women were 3 times more likely than men to be arrested when they were identified as a primary aggressor in a particular incident, and the police appeared more ready to arrest women despite patterns of violent behavior that were less intense or severe than the patterns exhibited by men. During the 6-year tracking period, women were arrested every 3 incidents in which they were deemed perpetrators (in 32% of incidents), but men were only arrested in about every 10 incidents (in 11% of incidents). Women were also arrested for a wider range of, and more serious, offenses involving assault than men—from common assault, to grievous bodily harm, to grievous bodily harm with intent. The tendency of the police to focus on individual incidents rather than patterns of behaviors meant that women’s use of weapons, albeit for protection, led to women being arrested more often for high-level assaults than men. McMahon and Pence (2003) argue that this is a gendered approach because it does not take into account the wider IPV pattern of women using weapons in self-defense rather than as main aggressors. In one example from the English police data, the police state that the woman is the primary aggressor, seemingly because she is arrested for a very serious offense (grievous bodily harm with intent) following retaliatory violence. Despite the husband’s long history of violence against her (he has 28 incidents of perpetration recorded by the police, compared to 2 for her) and a civil restraining order against him, he was only arrested for lower-level offenses and mainly for Breach of the Peace. The police record states: “Usually it is female assaulting male. She has previous for grievous bodily harm with intent.”


Hester also concludes that "At the same time, the emphasis by the criminal justice system on individual incidents, without a questioning of gender dynamics and constructions, meant that women were 3 times more likely to be arrested, often for violence used to protect themselves from further harm from male partners."

Again, however, I think there are nuances to be recognised here. The study was published following the UK's enactment of 'mandatory-arrest' policies for DV incidents, in which the police are required to identify and log down a primary perpetrator or aggressor when responding to a DV incident. Hester basically found that men were more likely to be identified as a primary aggressor than women - is this because of law enforcement bias, or because in those instances, men legitimately were more likely to be the aggressor or the abuser? I think there's room for debate here - the more reasonable inference in my view is the latter, precisely because of the study's findings that female primary aggressors were 3 times more likely to be arrested by the police than male primary aggressors, which is a strange result if we're supposed to believe that police officers act on misandrist stereotypes when responding to DV incidents. This conclusion is further bolstered by Hester's findings that female DV perpetators were arrested for a wider range of DV offences, and arrested for more serious DV offences, and were oftentimes arrested even if there was evidence that the violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents which did not result in arrests.

I also think its necessary to situate that research in the existing literature - in particular, Michael Johnson's famous 1995 study for the National Council on Family Relations (https://www.jstor.org/preview-page/10.2307/353683?seq=1), which found that domestic violence generally fell into two categories of 'patriarchal violence' and 'situational couple violence', in which the former was characterised by more serious and repeated DV, a gender disparity (male perpetrators and female victims), and a pattern of coercive control, whereas the latter was characterised by less-frequent, less-severe DV, gender-equity (equivalent numbers of male and female perpetrators), and no overall pattern of power and control between the parties, with the violence often being sporadic and reciprocal. Johnson's findings were largely confirmed by the famous Dobash & Dobash study (http://www.brown.uk.com/domesticviolence/dobash.pdf) which, in particular, debunked the Straus-Gelles hypothesis that men and women committed DV at roughly-equal rates, confirming a gender-asymmetry hypothesis in respect of DV, in the following terms:

We began with a ‘puzzle’ about contradictory research findings concerning the violenceof men and women against an intimate partner. Research findings are contradictory,suggesting, on the one hand, symmetry, with men and women equally likely to perpetrateviolence against an intimate partner, and, on the other hand, asymmetry, with men theprimary perpetrators of violence against women partners. These contradictory researchfindings not only have implications for academic research but also for policies and inter-ventions. This adds importance to the task of trying to unravel the puzzle of how research-ers arrived at such contradictory findings. In order to do this, we considered how this ‘violence’ is conceptualized, defined, measured and reported. We suggest that research that uses a narrow, ‘act-based’ approach to the definition and measurement ofviolence is more likely to find ‘symmetry’ or equivalence of ‘violence’ between men andwomen. This is because it conflates acts of violence and aggression and does not exam-ine the context, consequences, motivations, intentions and reactions associated with theoverall violent ‘event’ or the relationships in which the violence occurs. The more com-prehensive methodology used in VAW research provides additional data about the prob-lem, including a more detailed look at the violence itself, as well as inclusion of factorssuch as context, consequences and intentions. This approach provides a wider base ofrelevant knowledge about the violence and illustrates important differences betweenmen and women in the perpetration of violence, as well as its consequences. Findings from this more comprehensive methodology support the notion that serious intimatepartner violence is asymmetrical, with men usually violent to women.

In those cases where women had used violence against their male partner, the find-ings reported here suggest that women’s violence differs from that perpetrated by menin terms of nature, frequency, intention, intensity, physical injury and emotionalimpact. All of the women in this study had been the victims of repeated physical vio-lence from their male partner, often over many years. Despite this, just over half hadused any form of violence against their abuser, none had used sexual violence and onlya few had used serious or injurious violence. Of the women who had used violence, theconsequences in terms of emotional impact were usually inconsequential; the conse-quences in terms of injuries were usually, though not always, less severe; the violenceoften, though not always, occurred in the context of ‘self-defence’ or ‘self-protection’;and women’s violence was usually, although not always, rated by both partners as ‘notserious’. In addition, women did not use intimidating or coercive forms of controllingbehaviour associated with the ‘constellation of abuse’. Men who were the recipients ofwomen’s violence usually reported that it was ‘inconsequential’, did not negativelyaffect their sense of well-being and safety, and these men rarely, if ever, sought protec-tion from the authorities. These findings regarding the nature and consequences ofwomen’s violence make it impossible to construe the violence of men and women as either equivalent or reciprocal.

Men’s and women’s reports about their own violence and the violence of their partnerreveal that they tend to agree about the nature, frequency and impact of the violence per-petrated by women but disagree about men’s violence. With respect to women’s violence,there is considerable concordance between men and women in reporting that women donot usually perpetrate violence. When women do use violence, men and women agree that it is generally infrequent, is rarely ‘serious’, results in few, if any, injuries and has few, if any, negative consequences for men. By contrast, there is considerable discordancebetween men’s and women’s reports about men’s violence. Men and women disagreeabout the nature, frequency and impact of violence perpetrated by men—women reportmore and men report less. Curiously, while men never report more of their own violence than that reported by women partners, women sometimes do. These results correspond to findings from other research (Szinovacz 1983; Margolin 1987).
Last edited by Purgatio on Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Stylan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1014
Founded: Sep 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Stylan » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:08 am

I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.
Tankie, I guess.
"Dirtbag Leftist" and Chapo Trap House Stan!
Devout Catholic and Christian.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:20 am

Purgatio wrote:
Galloism wrote:-snip-


This is one of the things I find a little bit espistemically difficult about this debate (and, in my experience, is generally how these feminism vs. MRA debates boil down). Someone will bring up an interesting study like the Douglas & Hines study that shows police are more likely to arrest male DV perpetrators than female DV perpetrators, ceteris paribus, because of prevailing social stereotypes, and its always important to put these studies within a wider context, because there are studies out there which show the exact opposite. The one I tend to cite the most is the Marianne Hester study for Bristol University, which found that, all else being equal, a female DV perpetrator was actually 3 times more likely to be arrested by the police than a male DV perpetrator, when identified as the primary aggressor when responding to a DV incident (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077801212461428):

Across the whole sample of 692, the vast majority of IPV perpetrators recorded by the police were men (92%). Across the comparative subsamples of 96 cases, men were also recorded as primary aggressors in many more incidents (n = 467) than women were (n = 114), leading to more arrests overall of men than of women. Nonetheless, women were arrested to a disproportionate degree given the fewer incidents in which they were perpetrators. Women were 3 times more likely than men to be arrested when they were identified as a primary aggressor in a particular incident, and the police appeared more ready to arrest women despite patterns of violent behavior that were less intense or severe than the patterns exhibited by men. During the 6-year tracking period, women were arrested every 3 incidents in which they were deemed perpetrators (in 32% of incidents), but men were only arrested in about every 10 incidents (in 11% of incidents). Women were also arrested for a wider range of, and more serious, offenses involving assault than men—from common assault, to grievous bodily harm, to grievous bodily harm with intent. The tendency of the police to focus on individual incidents rather than patterns of behaviors meant that women’s use of weapons, albeit for protection, led to women being arrested more often for high-level assaults than men. McMahon and Pence (2003) argue that this is a gendered approach because it does not take into account the wider IPV pattern of women using weapons in self-defense rather than as main aggressors. In one example from the English police data, the police state that the woman is the primary aggressor, seemingly because she is arrested for a very serious offense (grievous bodily harm with intent) following retaliatory violence. Despite the husband’s long history of violence against her (he has 28 incidents of perpetration recorded by the police, compared to 2 for her) and a civil restraining order against him, he was only arrested for lower-level offenses and mainly for Breach of the Peace. The police record states: “Usually it is female assaulting male. She has previous for grievous bodily harm with intent.”


Hester also concludes that "At the same time, the emphasis by the criminal justice system on individual incidents, without a questioning of gender dynamics and constructions, meant that women were 3 times more likely to be arrested, often for violence used to protect themselves from further harm from male partners."

Again, however, I think there are nuances to be recognised here. The study was published following the UK's enactment of 'mandatory-arrest' policies for DV incidents, in which the police are required to identify and log down a primary perpetrator or aggressor when responding to a DV incident. Hester basically found that men were more likely to be identified as a primary aggressor than women - is this because of law enforcement bias, or because in those instances, men legitimately were more likely to be the aggressor or the abuser? I think there's room for debate here - the more reasonable inference in my view is the latter, precisely because of the study's findings that female primary aggressors were 3 times more likely to be arrested by the police than male primary aggressors, which is a strange result if we're supposed to believe that police officers act on misandrist stereotypes when responding to DV incidents. This conclusion is further bolstered by Hester's findings that female DV perpetators were arrested for a wider range of DV offences, and arrested for more serious DV offences, and were oftentimes arrested even if there was evidence that the violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents which did not result in arrests.


I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite what you think it is.

More likely, it's that to be identified as a primary aggressor, a woman must take far more violent actions. As you note - arrested for a wider range of offenses, more serious offenses, and even if there was evidence that violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents that did not result in arrests (notably, that's not self defense even though it's phrased like that - that's revenge).

So, for example, and I'm being egregious on purpose, if they only identify a woman as the primary aggressor when the man is so injured he has to go to the hospital and she doesn't have a mark on her, yes, she's more likely to be arrested. Because it took much much more to identify her as a primary aggressor in the first place.

I won't particularly hazard a guess whether men or women are more likely to be the primary aggressor (the data is so close and conflicting it's hard to be sure), but ultimately, you're likely seeing only the most severe incidents of female perpetrated DV having her identified as the primary aggressor, and as a result she's more likely to be arrested. Grayer cases all tilt towards the man, because of sexist stereotypes carrying over from antiquity.

I also think its necessary to situate that research in the existing literature - in particular, Michael Johnson's famous 1995 study for the National Council on Family Relations (https://www.jstor.org/preview-page/10.2307/353683?seq=1), which found that domestic violence generally fell into two categories of 'patriarchal violence' and 'situational couple violence', in which the former was characterised by more serious and repeated DV, a gender disparity (male perpetrators and female victims), and a pattern of coercive control, whereas the latter was characterised by less-frequent, less-severe DV, gender-equity (equivalent numbers of male and female perpetrators), and no overall pattern of power and control between the parties, with the violence often being sporadic and reciprocal. Johnson's findings were largely confirmed by the famous Dobash & Dobash study (http://www.brown.uk.com/domesticviolence/dobash.pdf) which, in particular, debunked the Straus-Gelles hypothesis that men and women committed DV at roughly-equal rates, confirming a gender-asymmetry hypothesis in respect of DV, in the following terms:

We began with a ‘puzzle’ about contradictory research findings concerning the violenceof men and women against an intimate partner. Research findings are contradictory,suggesting, on the one hand, symmetry, with men and women equally likely to perpetrateviolence against an intimate partner, and, on the other hand, asymmetry, with men theprimary perpetrators of violence against women partners. These contradictory researchfindings not only have implications for academic research but also for policies and inter-ventions. This adds importance to the task of trying to unravel the puzzle of how research-ers arrived at such contradictory findings. In order to do this, we considered how this ‘violence’ is conceptualized, defined, measured and reported. We suggest that research that uses a narrow, ‘act-based’ approach to the definition and measurement ofviolence is more likely to find ‘symmetry’ or equivalence of ‘violence’ between men andwomen. This is because it conflates acts of violence and aggression and does not exam-ine the context, consequences, motivations, intentions and reactions associated with theoverall violent ‘event’ or the relationships in which the violence occurs. The more com-prehensive methodology used in VAW research provides additional data about the prob-lem, including a more detailed look at the violence itself, as well as inclusion of factorssuch as context, consequences and intentions. This approach provides a wider base ofrelevant knowledge about the violence and illustrates important differences betweenmen and women in the perpetration of violence, as well as its consequences. Findings from this more comprehensive methodology support the notion that serious intimatepartner violence is asymmetrical, with men usually violent to women.

In those cases where women had used violence against their male partner, the find-ings reported here suggest that women’s violence differs from that perpetrated by menin terms of nature, frequency, intention, intensity, physical injury and emotionalimpact. All of the women in this study had been the victims of repeated physical vio-lence from their male partner, often over many years. Despite this, just over half hadused any form of violence against their abuser, none had used sexual violence and onlya few had used serious or injurious violence. Of the women who had used violence, theconsequences in terms of emotional impact were usually inconsequential; the conse-quences in terms of injuries were usually, though not always, less severe; the violenceoften, though not always, occurred in the context of ‘self-defence’ or ‘self-protection’;and women’s violence was usually, although not always, rated by both partners as ‘notserious’. In addition, women did not use intimidating or coercive forms of controllingbehaviour associated with the ‘constellation of abuse’. Men who were the recipients ofwomen’s violence usually reported that it was ‘inconsequential’, did not negativelyaffect their sense of well-being and safety, and these men rarely, if ever, sought protec-tion from the authorities. These findings regarding the nature and consequences ofwomen’s violence make it impossible to construe the violence of men and women as either equivalent or reciprocal.

Men’s and women’s reports about their own violence and the violence of their partnerreveal that they tend to agree about the nature, frequency and impact of the violence per-petrated by women but disagree about men’s violence. With respect to women’s violence,there is considerable concordance between men and women in reporting that women donot usually perpetrate violence. When women do use violence, men and women agree that it is generally infrequent, is rarely ‘serious’, results in few, if any, injuries and has few, if any, negative consequences for men. By contrast, there is considerable discordancebetween men’s and women’s reports about men’s violence. Men and women disagreeabout the nature, frequency and impact of violence perpetrated by men—women reportmore and men report less. Curiously, while men never report more of their own violence than that reported by women partners, women sometimes do. These results correspond to findings from other research (Szinovacz 1983; Margolin 1987).



Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:21 am

Stylan wrote:I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.

Well I know what it's done for me as a man.

Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)
Last edited by Galloism on Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:28 am

Galloism wrote:I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite what you think it is.

More likely, it's that to be identified as a primary aggressor, a woman must take far more violent actions. As you note - arrested for a wider range of offenses, more serious offenses, and even if there was evidence that violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents that did not result in arrests (notably, that's not self defense even though it's phrased like that - that's revenge).

So, for example, and I'm being egregious on purpose, if they only identify a woman as the primary aggressor when the man is so injured he has to go to the hospital and she doesn't have a mark on her, yes, she's more likely to be arrested. Because it took much much more to identify her as a primary aggressor in the first place.

I won't particularly hazard a guess whether men or women are more likely to be the primary aggressor (the data is so close and conflicting it's hard to be sure), but ultimately, you're likely seeing only the most severe incidents of female perpetrated DV having her identified as the primary aggressor, and as a result she's more likely to be arrested. Grayer cases all tilt towards the man, because of sexist stereotypes carrying over from antiquity.


This is what I mean by an epistemic problem that comes from competing inferences from the same data. I get what you're saying - what if women aren't identified as the primary aggressor except in the most egregious and serious of cases, then of course they'll be more likely to be arrested - but the point of the study was to try and identify, if men and women were placed in equivalent positions, controlling for other variables, which person is more likely to actually be put under arrest for DV, as compared to all the non-arrest responses (i.e. giving police warnings and cautions without arrest or prosecution).

The fact that female DV perpetrators who were labelled primary aggressors were more than 3 times as likely to be arrested than male DV perpetrators labelled as primary aggressors, is to me at least strongly indicative that the police aren't acting on misandrist or male-discriminatory assumptions when they exercise their police discretion in response to calls of this kind. As evidenced by the fact that, as Hester points out, female perpetrators were arrested for a wider range of offences, charged with more serious crimes than the male perpetrators, and sometimes were arrested even though their male partners had committed previous DV incidents in the past and weren't arrested for those incidents. Now, you might respond "oh, that just means female perpetrators were more likely to commit more serious crimes, not that the police and prosecutors were more willing to institute serious charges vis-a-vis the women as compared to with the men". The problem with that response, is that I could make the EXACT same response in respect of both the arrest data in the Douglas & Hines study you cited, and in respect of Hester's observation that most primary perpetrators were male. Maybe, instead of discrimination, men are more likely to commit more serious DV than women (and hence, more likely to be arrested, and to be identified as the primary perpetrator by police responding to the DV incident). Or, maybe its discrimination. This is the issue. Its all a matter of data interpretation.

But for me, Hester's findings that a female DV perpetrator, identified as primary perpetrator, controlling for other factors, is more than 3 times likely to be placed under arrest than a male DV perpetrator in that same position (i.e., identified as primary perpetrator), is at least strongly persuasive to me that police aren't acting on misandrist biases. But I'm also trying to, as far as possible, acknowledge the epistemic holes (i.e., what we can't know for sure, and what gaps have to be plugged by inferences from data that can go either way, as I've discussed above).
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Lanoraie II
Diplomat
 
Posts: 636
Founded: Jan 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lanoraie II » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:31 am

I utterly despise third wave feminism, but came into the thread to see what was up.

Why exactly are people debating the numbers for domestic violence and rape? It's no secret that those are majority-men crimes. Men tend to be physical in their violence while women tend to be verbal in their's. If a woman is to abuse you, chances are it's emotional and financial; it's spreading rumors behind your back, demanding you constantly show her your phone, outing you on twitter for whatever reason, crying crocodile tears when you finally fight back, etc. Women are f*cking nasty and men can do all that to (and women can physically abuse) but the sexes have their preferences for how they destroy peoples' lives. Another distinction could be that women focus on controlling how others see you/how you see yourself while men focus on controlling you.

Speaking from experience, my male bullies in school would call me weird to my face and stick shit on my back (I think they were too afraid to hit me because I was taller than all of them), but otherwise would avoid me at all costs. My female bullies on the other hand would talk mad shit behind my back and then pretend to be my friend. They'd invite me to their parties just so they could mock me and the other girls they invited to harass.

DV and rape are absolutely horrible and I say that as a victim of both. AND, so is emotional and financial abuse, which is shoved under the rug much more than I'd like it to, probably because so many women (and men) do it and don't like being called out on it.

Cultural nationalist. Left-Center. Passionate for freedom of speech, conservationism, and parenting licenses. Say "allegedly" a lot, allegedly. Buttrock is cool. Trying to be okay.

User avatar
Stylan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1014
Founded: Sep 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Stylan » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:32 am

Galloism wrote:
Stylan wrote:I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.

Well I know what it's done for me as a man.

Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)

That's disgusting. I don't see how that is the fault of feminism, in fact it is the opposite.

The disbelief is male rape victims is caused by a inherent belief in a misogynist society that men are "stronger," and therefore cannot be raped or abused. Not true. Any real feminist would tell you that that is equally as bad as male-on-female rape.
Tankie, I guess.
"Dirtbag Leftist" and Chapo Trap House Stan!
Devout Catholic and Christian.

User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:32 am

Galloism wrote:
Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.


According to Dobash & Dobash, they based their research on interviews with men and women that were part of a criminal justice IPV intervention studied that Dobash conducted in 2000. Thus, the men in the study had already been criminally-convicted of domestic violence. Before you say this skews the results of the study, Dobash & Dobash state specifically that " It should be noted that while the focus of this paper is on women’s violence to a malepartner, the sample is drawn from men who have used violence against a woman part-ner. As such, women’s violence is being examined in the context of men’s violence. While it might be useful to study only women who have been arrested for using non-lethal violence against a male partner, this is such a rare occurrence that it would bedifficult to obtain an adequate sample. As such, women’s violence within the contextof a sample of male abusers may be the most realistic approach to sampling, given that the focus is on violent behaviour and not domestic conflicts, disagreements, arguments, name calling and the sort of ‘aggressive’ behaviour often measured using the CTS and, in turn, defined as violence. As with all samples, this one has its limitations, but this sample has allowed us to open a window on the existing body of knowledge by providing intensive and extensive knowledge about intimate partner violence from both men and women partners, who discussed at length and in great detail their ownviolence and that of their partner."
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:35 am

Galloism wrote:
Stylan wrote:I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.

Well I know what it's done for me as a man.

Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)


This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.

You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:38 am

Purgatio wrote:
Galloism wrote:I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite what you think it is.

More likely, it's that to be identified as a primary aggressor, a woman must take far more violent actions. As you note - arrested for a wider range of offenses, more serious offenses, and even if there was evidence that violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents that did not result in arrests (notably, that's not self defense even though it's phrased like that - that's revenge).

So, for example, and I'm being egregious on purpose, if they only identify a woman as the primary aggressor when the man is so injured he has to go to the hospital and she doesn't have a mark on her, yes, she's more likely to be arrested. Because it took much much more to identify her as a primary aggressor in the first place.

I won't particularly hazard a guess whether men or women are more likely to be the primary aggressor (the data is so close and conflicting it's hard to be sure), but ultimately, you're likely seeing only the most severe incidents of female perpetrated DV having her identified as the primary aggressor, and as a result she's more likely to be arrested. Grayer cases all tilt towards the man, because of sexist stereotypes carrying over from antiquity.


This is what I mean by an epistemic problem that comes from competing inferences from the same data. I get what you're saying - what if women aren't identified as the primary aggressor except in the most egregious and serious of cases, then of course they'll be more likely to be arrested - but the point of the study was to try and identify, if men and women were placed in equivalent positions, controlling for other variables, which person is more likely to actually be put under arrest for DV, as compared to all the non-arrest responses (i.e. giving police warnings and cautions without arrest or prosecution).

The fact that female DV perpetrators who were labelled primary aggressors were more than 3 times as likely to be arrested than male DV perpetrators labelled as primary aggressors, is to me at least strongly indicative that the police aren't acting on misandrist or male-discriminatory assumptions when they exercise their police discretion in response to calls of this kind. As evidenced by the fact that, as Hester points out, female perpetrators were arrested for a wider range of offences, charged with more serious crimes than the male perpetrators, and sometimes were arrested even though their male partners had committed previous DV incidents in the past and weren't arrested for those incidents. Now, you might respond "oh, that just means female perpetrators were more likely to commit more serious crimes, not that the police and prosecutors were more willing to institute serious charges vis-a-vis the women as compared to with the men". The problem with that response, is that I could make the EXACT same response in respect of both the arrest data in the Douglas & Hines study you cited, and in respect of Hester's observation that most primary perpetrators were male. Maybe, instead of discrimination, men are more likely to commit more serious DV than women (and hence, more likely to be arrested, and to be identified as the primary perpetrator by police responding to the DV incident). Or, maybe its discrimination. This is the issue. Its all a matter of data interpretation.

But for me, Hester's findings that a female DV perpetrator, identified as primary perpetrator, controlling for other factors, is more than 3 times likely to be placed under arrest than a male DV perpetrator in that same position (i.e., identified as primary perpetrator), is at least strongly persuasive to me that police aren't acting on misandrist biases. But I'm also trying to, as far as possible, acknowledge the epistemic holes (i.e., what we can't know for sure, and what gaps have to be plugged by inferences from data that can go either way, as I've discussed above).

I would say that position is about as likely as a unicorn fucking a keebler elf. Police are explicitly trained to see domestic violence in a sexist way - both in the US and the UK and a large number of other countries. I was, other NSers who have been police have, hell the Duluth Model - which is explicitly sexist in its training by the way - is used in all 50 states and a large number of countries.

We have a large number of studies (a couple hundred) showing rough symmetry (women slightly more likely to batter, also somewhat more likely to be injured, and about twice as likely to be killed), a system which has been discriminating against men as domestic abuse victims for centuries, explicit training to the police force to BE sexist in their assessments, and a society that literally has the mantra #believewomen, which also includes #believehalftheabusers.

It's hard to imagine with this societal backdrop that police could disregard all their sexist training, disregard the sexism prevalent through society that's centuries old, and have a perfect 100% nonsexist view of the situation, in spite of all efforts to make them see it in a sexist fashion.

That's just not reasonable.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Stylan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1014
Founded: Sep 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Stylan » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:39 am

Purgatio wrote:
Galloism wrote:Well I know what it's done for me as a man.

Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)


This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.

You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.

Exactly.

Again, if we lived under a feminist society, victims would be believed more often, and Galloism, your abuser would have likely been brought to justice.
The fact that your abuser was let off free is once again, because of a culture that views men as too strong to be raped or abused, the opposite of what feminists want.
Tankie, I guess.
"Dirtbag Leftist" and Chapo Trap House Stan!
Devout Catholic and Christian.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54911
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:39 am

Purgatio wrote:

It does seem semantic, I don't see how changing the question of "have been raped" to "are raped" changes anything,


Gallo seems to have covered the DV example, so i'll address this.

Semantic = the meaning of words. It changes an awful lot, it means that in terms of policy discussion of how to curb rape, we need to discuss male victims as often as female victims and recognize they are raped at the same rate. The notion that rape is a womens issue belongs in a history class, not a politics one.


and this seems highly-speculative at best, rather than undermining the validity of the data collected.


It's hardly speculative. Check they yearly incidents data. It clearly shows the yearly rate of victimization is the same for men and women, once you account for made to penetrate cases.

The idea that there's some gigantic misandrist conspiracy to convince men they aren't victims of sexual violence, influencing the data collected, is also inherently unfalsifiable and makes this debate impossible - yes, theoretically, that's possible, but there's absolutely no empirical proof of that, and this is a blanket argument against trusting any official data or statistics, anywhere, of any kind.


Bias is not a conspiracy. It's something academics are supposed to guard against, and it's especially relevant here given the decades of denial on the part of feminist academics that bias against men as even possible.

I don't see how recognising women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men is misandrist.
I really don't. Its just an acknowledgement of the prevailing crime statistics.


It isn't, not by itself. It's what you do with that information that matters.

I also don't see how socially-inexperienced men having to make the first move and flirt with women, rather than the other way round, is in any way relevant to VAW and sexual violence.Saying it means women aren't being asked to put the "work in" is also....confusing to me. Because, again, I really don't see how that's relevant to sexual violence and assault. At all. Maybe I'm missing something here, idk.


Ofcourse it's relevant. The cooking example should have illuminated it for you. By pressuring men into doing this task, those unskilled at the task will end up failing to perform it safely. Women, meanwhile, do not perform the task. This is the root of the disparity, womens entitlement. (I.E, the entitlement to feel like the social task of flirtation should be performed for them without their own input). Again, compare it to cooking.
Suppose men just outright refused to cook and women were pressured into doing all of the cooking. Then suppose that men got it into their heads one day that women were trying to kill them and hated them, because after all, look how many women were giving men food poisoning, and look how few women were poisoned by men. Suppose the men then decided to blame womens "Entitlement" and make this dynamic about something being wrong with womens mentality and perception of men, rather than the more obvious answer; that it was happening because men weren't doing the cooking.

Its also not a demonisation of male sexuality generally to recognise that entitlement, or a view that women in certain situations are viewed by certain specific men as 'owing' them sex, contributes to rape culture and a belief that forcing sex in certain circumstances is not a form of morally-contemptible sexual violence
And yet, this entitlement is just as common among women. The difference being they don't *act on it* as often, and the reason they don't is they have offloaded the labor of flirtation to men and feel *additionally* entitled to have it performed for them, without their own contribution. That's the reason for the disparity. You're now waffling about how women are "Bad at cooking" and "Stupid enough to think you can serve chicken raw" and so on, and blaming their femininity for that, If we follow our example. Putting out the meme that they're destructive, dangerous, and stupid rather than admit men are being lazy, is absolutely sexist. And it's what your narrative is here regarding sexuality and flirtation.

(for example, date rape or acquaintance rape situations, or marital rape where a husband feels entitled to his wife's body because she 'owes' him sex).

Is there a reason you're characterizing these as male-on-female experiences? There's a difference between rape and sexual assault, and it's a crucial one. Sexual assault can occur as a result of a clumsy, inconsiderate, and overly aggressive flirtation. Sex can't. And that's why the figures for rape are much more equal between the sexes than the ones for sexual assault.

That's not a demonisation of all men, nothing about discussing the scourge of rape and sexual violence demonises consensual sex between men and women, clearly everyone recognises that in the case of consensual sex, male and female sexuality alike should be celebrated and approved of. I really don't see how combating rape and sexual violence involves a demonisation of male sexuality, there must be some link there that I'm missing.


Because it's linking rape and its occurrence to masculinity and men without sufficient justification, in the process smearing men.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:40 am

Purgatio wrote:
Galloism wrote:Well I know what it's done for me as a man.

Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)


This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.

You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.

The police likely wouldn't have laughed.

And I do mean big belly guffaw laughed.

But in any case, I'm not really talking about the police response except as part of a wider societal problem - framing these things as "women's issues" and "almost always perpetrated by men" leaves a large number of victims literally out in the cold with no recourse.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54911
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:43 am

Stylan wrote:
Purgatio wrote:
This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.

You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.

Exactly.

Again, if we lived under a feminist society, victims would be believed more often, and Galloism, your abuser would have likely been brought to justice.
The fact that your abuser was let off free is once again, because of a culture that views men as too strong to be raped or abused, the opposite of what feminists want.


I mean, you're trying to gaslight two victims of womens violence here by pretending feminism had nothing to do with it, given the extensively covered history of the feminist movement and how it has entrenched these trends which both me and Galloism are well aware of.

It would be more honest to say "Yes, feminism has been a hate movement in the past, but this second third confederate states of America will be better, trust us" and at least that would be bordering on honest, as opposed to outright erasing the history of your shitty hate movement.

It kind of looks like feminists in the modern wave are chiefly concerned with damage control, denial of their movements own history, and trying to gaslight its victims into ignoring what happened, more so than actually helping men and recognizing their issues, what caused them, etc.

Are you actually genuinely open to hearing about how feminism made these problems worse, or not?
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:47 am

Stylan wrote:
Purgatio wrote:
This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.

You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.

Exactly.

Again, if we lived under a feminist society, victims would be believed more often, and Galloism, your abuser would have likely been brought to justice.
The fact that your abuser was let off free is once again, because of a culture that views men as too strong to be raped or abused, the opposite of what feminists want.

No, victims of men would be believed more often.

Victims of women would have no recourse at all under law, because it would not even be recognized as a crime. That's what the feminist movement has been pushing towards.

You can see it here - minimizing women who batter their husbands. You can see it in feminist research about rape - redefining rape so the victim must be the one penetrated so the vast majority of male rape victims, who were raped by women via being made to penetrate, aren't counted. It's all about protecting women. Whether those womens are victims or perpetrators, feminism is about protecting women and women's empowerment.
Last edited by Galloism on Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54911
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:47 am

Purgatio wrote:
Galloism wrote:
Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.


According to Dobash & Dobash, they based their research on interviews with men and women that were part of a criminal justice IPV intervention studied that Dobash conducted in 2000. Thus, the men in the study had already been criminally-convicted of domestic violence. Before you say this skews the results of the study, Dobash & Dobash state specifically that " It should be noted that while the focus of this paper is on women’s violence to a malepartner, the sample is drawn from men who have used violence against a woman part-ner. As such, women’s violence is being examined in the context of men’s violence. While it might be useful to study only women who have been arrested for using non-lethal violence against a male partner, this is such a rare occurrence that it would bedifficult to obtain an adequate sample. As such, women’s violence within the contextof a sample of male abusers may be the most realistic approach to sampling, given that the focus is on violent behaviour and not domestic conflicts, disagreements, arguments, name calling and the sort of ‘aggressive’ behaviour often measured using the CTS and, in turn, defined as violence. As with all samples, this one has its limitations, but this sample has allowed us to open a window on the existing body of knowledge by providing intensive and extensive knowledge about intimate partner violence from both men and women partners, who discussed at length and in great detail their ownviolence and that of their partner."


That's what the researcher claims, but it's an example of the catch 22 we're discussing here. When you don't skew the results, you end up with figures showing parity. As Galloism said, the justice figures are useful *only when used in comparison to others* because it shows the presence of the bias within the justice system. Your example here shows that bias is so pronounced that studying it means you can't even find enough female abusers to be statistically reliable, and so they have to look outside the system for them.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67311
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am

Purgatio wrote:
Galloism wrote:
Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.


According to Dobash & Dobash, they based their research on interviews with men and women that were part of a criminal justice IPV intervention studied that Dobash conducted in 2000. Thus, the men in the study had already been criminally-convicted of domestic violence. Before you say this skews the results of the study, Dobash & Dobash state specifically that " It should be noted that while the focus of this paper is on women’s violence to a malepartner, the sample is drawn from men who have used violence against a woman part-ner. As such, women’s violence is being examined in the context of men’s violence. While it might be useful to study only women who have been arrested for using non-lethal violence against a male partner, this is such a rare occurrence that it would bedifficult to obtain an adequate sample. As such, women’s violence within the contextof a sample of male abusers may be the most realistic approach to sampling, given that the focus is on violent behaviour and not domestic conflicts, disagreements, arguments, name calling and the sort of ‘aggressive’ behaviour often measured using the CTS and, in turn, defined as violence. As with all samples, this one has its limitations, but this sample has allowed us to open a window on the existing body of knowledge by providing intensive and extensive knowledge about intimate partner violence from both men and women partners, who discussed at length and in great detail their ownviolence and that of their partner."

So the system is so sexist they can't even sample it with the correct population.

Great.

Quelle surprise.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Purgatio
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6315
Founded: May 18, 2018
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:51 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Purgatio wrote:

It does seem semantic, I don't see how changing the question of "have been raped" to "are raped" changes anything,


Gallo seems to have covered the DV example, so i'll address this.

Semantic = the meaning of words. It changes an awful lot, it means that in terms of policy discussion of how to curb rape, we need to discuss male victims as often as female victims and recognize they are raped at the same rate. The notion that rape is a womens issue belongs in a history class, not a politics one.


and this seems highly-speculative at best, rather than undermining the validity of the data collected.


It's hardly speculative. Check they yearly incidents data. It clearly shows the yearly rate of victimization is the same for men and women, once you account for made to penetrate cases.

The idea that there's some gigantic misandrist conspiracy to convince men they aren't victims of sexual violence, influencing the data collected, is also inherently unfalsifiable and makes this debate impossible - yes, theoretically, that's possible, but there's absolutely no empirical proof of that, and this is a blanket argument against trusting any official data or statistics, anywhere, of any kind.


Bias is not a conspiracy. It's something academics are supposed to guard against, and it's especially relevant here given the decades of denial on the part of feminist academics that bias against men as even possible.

I don't see how recognising women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men is misandrist.
I really don't. Its just an acknowledgement of the prevailing crime statistics.


It isn't, not by itself. It's what you do with that information that matters.

I also don't see how socially-inexperienced men having to make the first move and flirt with women, rather than the other way round, is in any way relevant to VAW and sexual violence.Saying it means women aren't being asked to put the "work in" is also....confusing to me. Because, again, I really don't see how that's relevant to sexual violence and assault. At all. Maybe I'm missing something here, idk.


Ofcourse it's relevant. The cooking example should have illuminated it for you. By pressuring men into doing this task, those unskilled at the task will end up failing to perform it safely. Women, meanwhile, do not perform the task. This is the root of the disparity, womens entitlement. (I.E, the entitlement to feel like the social task of flirtation should be performed for them without their own input). Again, compare it to cooking.
Suppose men just outright refused to cook and women were pressured into doing all of the cooking. Then suppose that men got it into their heads one day that women were trying to kill them and hated them, because after all, look how many women were giving men food poisoning, and look how few women were poisoned by men. Suppose the men then decided to blame womens "Entitlement" and make this dynamic about something being wrong with womens mentality and perception of men, rather than the more obvious answer; that it was happening because men weren't doing the cooking.

Its also not a demonisation of male sexuality generally to recognise that entitlement, or a view that women in certain situations are viewed by certain specific men as 'owing' them sex, contributes to rape culture and a belief that forcing sex in certain circumstances is not a form of morally-contemptible sexual violence
And yet, this entitlement is just as common among women. The difference being they don't *act on it* as often, and the reason they don't is they have offloaded the labor of flirtation to men and feel *additionally* entitled to have it performed for them, without their own contribution. That's the reason for the disparity. You're now waffling about how women are "Bad at cooking" and "Stupid enough to think you can serve chicken raw" and so on, and blaming their femininity for that, If we follow our example. Putting out the meme that they're destructive, dangerous, and stupid rather than admit men are being lazy, is absolutely sexist. And it's what your narrative is here regarding sexuality and flirtation.

(for example, date rape or acquaintance rape situations, or marital rape where a husband feels entitled to his wife's body because she 'owes' him sex).

Is there a reason you're characterizing these as male-on-female experiences? There's a difference between rape and sexual assault, and it's a crucial one. Sexual assault can occur as a result of a clumsy, inconsiderate, and overly aggressive flirtation. Sex can't. And that's why the figures for rape are much more equal between the sexes than the ones for sexual assault.

That's not a demonisation of all men, nothing about discussing the scourge of rape and sexual violence demonises consensual sex between men and women, clearly everyone recognises that in the case of consensual sex, male and female sexuality alike should be celebrated and approved of. I really don't see how combating rape and sexual violence involves a demonisation of male sexuality, there must be some link there that I'm missing.


Because it's linking rape and its occurrence to masculinity and men without sufficient justification, in the process smearing men.


Dude your whole "men bear the burden of flirting" argument has literally nothing to do with rape and sexual assault, and your cooking example doesn't help to back that up. It honestly doesn't matter whether men or women are 'expected' to flirt or make the first move, and therefore 'bungle it up' (a very trivialising way of describing sexual assault, which is far more than just messing up your flirtation). Whether or not men or women are expected to flirt first, the fact remains that women are more likely to be the victims of rape and sexual violence. Whether that would be true in some alternative universe whether men and women flirt at equal rates is kind of irrelevant to the question of which sex is more likely to suffer lifetime sexual violence in the current, present world that we live in. And no, sexual assault is not the "result of a clumsy, inconsiderate, and overly aggressive flirtation". It's the result of not respect the bodily and seuxal autonomy of another person, and viewing them as an object, property, or play-thing that you can use for your own sexual gratification, disregarding their wishes and desires in the process. Sexual assault is not 'flirtation gone wrong'. Its sexual violence that comes from a particularly toxic type of sexually-entitled mentality and the sexual objectification of women.

Its not smearing men because, again, the statistics from the CDC and ONS both show women are more likely to suffer rape and sexual violence than men, so clearly there's a gendered aspect to sexual violence that we can't ignore. Its not saying every man is a rapist or women can't rape men, which would be smearing men.
An Introduction to Purgatio

Results
Work, Liberty, Order
Essentialism - 57%
Punitive Justice - 93%
Progressivism - 71%
Nationalism - 64%
Capitalism - 100%
Laissez-faire - 100%
Productivism - 93%
Reformism - 86%
Other Values - Monarchism

Results
Fanatic Unitary - 94%
Fanatic Authoritarian - 94%
Moderate Isolationist - 62%
Militarist - 78%
Extreme Security - 86%
Fanatic Markets - 98%
Moderate Religious - 62%
Progressive - 58%
Fanatic Assimilationist - 90%

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -Astoria-, Abserdia, Adamede, Agarntrop, An Alan Smithee Nation, Borderlands of Rojava, British West Zuzunia, Corrian, Dwarf Land4, Esalia, Galloism, Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum, Hodori Motorsports, Kiu Ghesik, Lysset, Mandicoria, Nakena, Nation444, Nuroblav, Omniabstracta, Polish Prussian Commonwealth, Punished UMN, Salandriagado, Sleet Clans, The Blaatschapen, The Greater Nordics, The Huskar Social Union, The Marlborough, The Reformed American Republic, The United Confederacy of Texas, Trollzyn the Infinite, Valrifell, Vassenor, Zizou

Advertisement

Remove ads