Re: Date Rape Research Controversy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) said:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ellen Mercer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > I've just updated my online essay, "The Date Rape Research 
> > > Controversy". Feedback is very welcome. It's here:
> > > 
> > > http://katesfeminist.info/rape/controversy/
> 
> Hi Ellen - thanks for your reply!
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, I've read Koss, the critics, and the supporting research 
> for myself. (See the list of citations and further reading.)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> They're not "perceived errors", but serious mistakes and distortions, 
> which strongly suggest she relied on Koss' critic Neil Gilbert instead
> of checking the facts for herself.
> 
> > 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".
> 
> No, I don't. I state that the other researchers have found her work 
> valid because it's been accepted for publication in numerous
> peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> > The assertion that criticisms of Koss' work
> > (all) come from "outside the scientific field" while listing Playboy
> > as an example seems prejudicial and tendentious.
> 
> It's simply the truth.
> 
> > 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, the definition of rape used by Koss is stated outright in the
> essay, and referred to repeatedly.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I don't think *you're* being dishonest; I just think you skim-read the
> essay. (Also, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, I think your
> personal experience has led you to be much more concerned about
> protecting men
> from false accusations than protecting women from rape.)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> As I've said, I'm not going to play the "you don't care enough" game. 
> However, I guess you didn't follow the "token" link on male rape,
> which
> leads to my Web site on the subject, including links to help,
> information,
> and my own bibliography on the subject. You may also be interested in
> my
> essay on why feminists should be concerned about male rape:
> 
> http://katesfeminist.info/almanac/greer.html
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Again, I guess you just skim-read the essay, which states clearly that
> regret does not equal rape.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Sadly, when it comes to rape, most of the victims are women and almost
> all the perpetrators are men. When one is discussing the rape of
> women,
> it's impossible to avoid talking about men as criminals and women as 
> victims.
> 
> However, I think you've also skim-read the "safety tips" I link to.
> For
> example:
> 
> http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/coercion.shtml
> 
> This gives good advice *for men* on avoiding "ambiguous situations" -
> for example, when uncertain if a woman is consenting, simply to ask
> her. It
> makes the law clear, so a man can't get himself into trouble through 
> ignorance of what constitutes rape.
> 
> Or how about this one:
> 
> http://www4.nau.edu/fronske/brochures/rape.html
> 
> Which advises women to "communicate clearly", "be assertive", "Mean
> what
> you say", "don't send mixed signals"?
> 
> I don't see a men-evil, women-helpless mentality at work here -
> rather, I
> see activists trying to help both sexes prevent rape. Seems sensible
> to
> me.
> 
> > Well you asked for feedback. I hope it helps.
> 
> Not much, I'm afraid. If you have time to read the essay more
> carefully,
> I'd be grateful for feedback on its actual contents, rather than
> generally
> on whether I'm nice enough to men.
> 
> Yours,
> - Kate Orman

SLUTS LIE