Re: Date Rape Research Controversy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ellen Mercer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...


Ellen....she's ignore ALL of your advice.  Count on it.

She's only interested in demonizing men, so as to justify her
man-hating.


> > I've just updated my online essay, "The Date Rape Research 
> > Controversy". Feedback is very welcome. It's here:
> > 
> > http://katesfeminist.info/rape/controversy/
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > - Kate Orman
> 
> I spent some time trying to critically evaluate your writings but
> found it very frustrating. The premise that seems to interest you is
> to defend the claims of a particular rape 'researcher', Mary Koss.
> That's fine- I went in waiting to be convinced one way or another.
> However, the approach you have taken makes it very difficult to
> determine whether you are correct or not in your assessments of Koss.
> Instead, you look at the writings of others who have written about
> Koss, intending to find ways to dismiss the interpretations of the
> critics and support the interpretations of Koss's supporters.
> 
> For example, you assert that Katie Roiphe "may not have read" Koss
> before attacking her study, and tell us about perceived errors that
> Roiphe makes in The Morning After. You assert that because you've not
> identified scientific articles that directly dispute Koss's paper, it
> follows that "other researchers have repeatedly checked Koss's work
> and accepted it as valid". The assertion that criticisms of Koss' work
> (all) come from "outside the scientific field" while listing Playboy
> as an example seems prejudicial and tendentious.
> 
> In other words, the reader is left with the perception that you are
> going to support Koss's work because you are predisposed to do so,
> perhaps for quite unscientific reasons. You make a concerted effort to
> discredit any and all critics, but the defense is not satisfying
> because the reader is unable to verify what it is that you are calling
> rape and decide for themselves whether they do or do not agree with
> that assessment. In fact, you actually seem to be dodging this effort,
> which almost seems dishonest given your underlying premise that rape,
> including acts that are apparently not always recognized as rapes, are
> extremely common and have affected very large numbers of women.
> 
> There are some things that people get upset over when they see this
> kind of tendentiousness. These are things that you should consider
> watching out for in the interest not only of being a more effective
> writer but also of getting at truth itself, rather than just proving a
> preconceived opinion that may or may not in fact be true. Consider
> this:
> 
> 1. People don't like to come away with the impression that you believe
> that only crimes against women, violence against women, is worthy of
> study or concern. Your links pages link to "violence against women"
> and "violence against women and girls", "toolkits to help prevent
> violence against women", etc, but there is nothing but a single token
> "rape of males" link to offer any kind of balance. I think the trend
> now is to back off from the perception that only violence against
> women is important- and in favor of the idea that any kind of violence
> is wrong.
> 
> 2. Many men are frightened and concerned about the fact that they are
> socially expected to be the aggressor in a relationship- given the
> virtual certainty that if they don't aggressively court women
> romantically, they will not get any woman because the aggressive males
> will get them all. The impression is rather widespread now among men
> and women that "rape" can now be claimed by any woman who gets herself
> intoxicated at a party and partakes of sex that she later regrets.
> What can you offer men as evidence that you are not taking that
> stance? Please don't cite the "legal definition of rape" because that
> definition definitely can, in practice, encompass the above scenario.
> 
> 3. The above two points speak to a larger issue: it is just inhumane
> to fail to consider the forces and pressures experienced by both
> sexes, rather than this singular concern for the wellbeing of only one
> sex. Anything that you can offer to show that you've thought through
> the man's POV and care about him and not only women would greatly
> increase your effectiveness.
> 
> 4. You offer some safety tips, through links, for preventing rape.
> That is fine, but they avoid the subject of the kinds of things that
> women can do that can put men into the ambiguous situations (e.g., the
> intoxicated woman who's consented but might later decide that she was
> raped) that terrify them. In other words, your links are very
> consistent about the causes of rape: men, violent men, men who "don't
> listen to women", "thoughtless, uncaring men" who "don't believe it
> when a woman says no", but never "women who put men in ambiguous
> situations which may lead to FRAs", "women who use their sexuality or
> threats of false accusations to create legal problems", etc. The truth
> is that women are an equal partner in most relationships, good and
> bad, and the constant reference to women as innocent victims and men
> as violent abusers just perpetuates the kind of thing that you seek to
> avoid.
> 
> Well you asked for feedback. I hope it helps.
> ________________________________
> "The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy,
> but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher
> standard."
> --George McGovern