www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:08:58 +0000 (UTC) dymax1a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Daran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> ...Like the anti-feminists who incorrectly generalise Kanin's 41%, it
> :> looks like feminists have incorrectly generalised the New York City
> :> police's 2%.
>
> : The comparison is unfair.
>
> It is [fair], because they generalize and misrepresent this study,
> completely disguising the fact that Kanin said that no one should
> generalize from his findings.
I did not dispute this.
> : The antifems usually cite their source, and
> : rarely misattribute.
>
> They simply get it off the web - not one person
> that I have confronted has read the actual article.
> This is how they misrepresent the findings - all
> that is available online is an abstract.
Most feminists who quote the 2% figure haven't read their alleged sources
either, not even as much as an abstract. The point about attribution
stands.
> : Nor have they elevated Kanin's percentage to the level
> : of an accepted dogma within the academic community.
>
> Daran, I've spent years in the "academic community". I've
> heard nothing about rape, incidence of rape, or anything
> of the kind. There's not an international feminist
> conspiracy to rule academia.
I didn't say there was.
> Could you please stop making broad, unsupported statements
> and substantiate what you mean? How many people have to
> believe something before it is considered "dogma"?
Dogma was perhaps overstating the case. Greer calls the view "predominant
[...] within legal academia".
For a simple 'finger in the air' test, I did a Google search on 'rape myths
site:.edu'. There was the usual slew of student associations, women's
resource centres, and magazine articles, but what I was looking for in
particular were teaching materials, student essays, and papers which were
scholarly to a greater or lesser degree.
The *very first hit* from Google was this site:
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/4925schd.html
That's right, there's the 2% figure portrayed as 'fact', complete with bogus
attribution as part of the teaching material in an *academic course* about
rape myths!
Moving on, I saw various discussions about rape myths, some quite scholarly.
For example: this paper:
<http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/22_2/05_TXT.htm>
which identifies a number of beliefs as 'myths'. But not once did I find
any discussion of the prevalence and status of the 2% figure. Are these
people unaware of the figure? Or do they not regard it as a myth?
> The "anti-feminists" you refer to are usually not
> *in* the academic community, or the social science
> community for that matter, so they're not in a position
> to "elevate dogma". They usually have other jobs -
> skilled labor jobs, degreed professional jobs or
> something like that. They can't have much influence on
> the social sciences and criminology if they have complete
> disdain for them.
Thank heavens for small mercies.
> : I've frequently seen
> : the 2% figure cited as 'the' false reporting rate.
>
> On the internet. Which is, apparently, an acurate
> representation of all of society.
In police training manuals on the internet. In university teaching
materials on the internet. In what Kate called 'reputable sources'.
Obviously 'all of society' isn't discussing rape myths at all, but if you
want to claim that there's a large body of *reputable* discourse (which
doesn't include the antifems, obviously) debunking this myth, then the onus
is on you to show this.
> : Furthermore, antifeminist discourse, by its nature, presents *disputed*
> : information. Feminist discourse on this issue presents its claims as if
> : they were undisputed facts, when (in this case) they are neither.
>
> Biased and false.
Are you claiming that antifeminist discourse is biased and false? Or that
my statement is biased and false?
> Feminism has spent years "disputing" myths. It still does.
"Myth: Women falsely accuse men of rape
Fact: the FBI has stated that false reports of rape are no higher than
false reports of other crimes. Such accusations account for only 2% of
reported rapes"
Do you deny that this is presented here as an undisputed fact? Do you deny
that it is neither? Do you deny that this is a feminist inspired claim? Do
you deny that this is a typical way of presenting this claim?
> But perhaps it's different in the UK. The United States
> is currently ruled by a neo-conservative, anti-feminist
> administration, where anti-feminist "dogma" is bankrolled
> by the likes of billionaires such as Scaife. Lynne Cheney,
> the wife of the vice-president, has long been part of a
> movement to attack "liberals" in academia - now they're instigating
> blacklists of such people.
This refutes my claim that feminist discourse presents its claims as
undisputed fact? How?
BTW, it is different in the UK. Our government is centre-right with respect
to economic issues, left-wing with respect to social policies. For example,
its recently announced legislative program includes a bill to recognise gay
marriage, which is something I can't imagine emerging from Bush's Office.
> Feminists are among the primary targets of these billionaire-funded
> think tank neo-cons with unrestricted access to the White House.
This refutes my claim that feminist discourse presents its claims as
undisputed fact?
> To argue that feminists have any sort of hegemony in the United
> States is now utterly laughable. Especially when our own
> Attorney General has strong ties with the likes of noted
> anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.
I'm not arguing this. It's a strawman.
You snipped some necessary context: Here are Kate's words restored:
> : >In fact, there's no need to overgeneralise the 2% figure; the firm,
> : >frequent claim that fake reports are a large proportion of reports has
> : >little evidence to support it because little research has actually been
> : >done.
>
> : Feminists 'need' to overgeneralise the 2% figure to support their equally
> : firm, and considerably more frequent claim that fake reports are a small and
> : insignificant proportion of reports, which has, AFAICS even less credible
> : evidence to support it.
>
> How did we get from "reports" to "accusations"? They are two different
> things.
Kate made a remark about "reports", and I replied about "reports". Neither
of us said anything about "accusations" here. I don't understand your point.
> It's a safe guess, given that (apparently) a large percentage of
> rape victims do not even come forward.
I'm quite satisfied, based upon survey data, that the actual number of rapes
exceeds the reported number by a wide margin. However, I do not see how
this can lead us to conclude that the number of false rape claimants is
small.
> ...Also, "small" does not equal "insignificant".
Are you seriously claiming that the sentence "women don't lie about rape",
or various equivalent formulations are intended to imply otherwise?
> The belief that the number is "small" comes not from feminists,
> but from criminal justice experts.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
> : One reason why little research has been done, is
> : that intentionally false rape accusations are a form of (proxy) violence
> : against men, and violence against men (and men's welfare in general) is not
> : a priority, either for government, or for feminists.
>
> I believe that most people don't believe that false reports
> of any crime are a form of "violence", seeing "violence"
> is generally taken to mean "physical".
So when a couple of burly police officers arrive at your door, 'requesting'
that you accompany them down to the station to spend the rest of your week
in a six' by nine' cell, this isn't physical?
> Speaking of men and men's problems - where are the anti-feminists
> when it comes to a much greater problem in this country - that
> of the death rows of the United States being packed with
> men who were tortured by police into making confessions?
>
> Many of these men have since been let go because of DNA evidence.
>
> Yet we hear everything about the perils of false rape
> accusations, and nothing of police and DA corruption.
In my experience antifeminists are quite exercised about these things too,
albeit not as much as about 'lying women'. In any case this has all
wondered rather a long way from the point, which was to criticise one aspect
of feminist discourse which Kate seemed to be praising with faint damns. No
person could look at even a sample of my posts and honestly conclude that I
was an apologist for antifeminism.
> This is because anti-feminism is not really about gender
> politics, but about stealth *right-wing* politics,
> which are all in favor of a ruthless criminal justice
> system, unless it appears to benefit feminists or
> women in some way. Why, when the United States has
> two million people in prison - the majority of them
> men - is there no movement to end the war on drugs
> and the insane criminal justice system which puts
> men who commit victimless crimes behind bars?
That's a good question. I don't see feminists greatly exercised about this
either. If the majority of the two million were women, they would be.
> This is a moral panic - consistent with all of the other
> moral panics that right-wingers try to propagate. It's
> frequently used to smuggle in the rest of the right-wing
> agenda : anti-divorce, anti-abortion, anti-welfare.
>
> The anti-feminists have done precious little to
> distinguish themselves from the right-wing agenda,
> which is why I regard them and their propaganda
> with suspicion.
Yet feminist propaganda gets a free ride.
> : Another blunder/fib/distortion (delete as applicable) is that you are
> : framing the discussion as though all these figures are estimates of the
> : number of false accusations. This is completely incorrect. These numbers
> : are all ostensible *lower limits* to the number of false accusations. And
> : the firmer the criteria become for so classifying a report, the more likely
> : it is, that it is an *underestimate* of the real false reporting rate.
>
> Again, false reports do not equal false "accusations"...
You are correct. I erred here. Substitute "reports" and my remark stands.
> ...Which in turn do not equal indictments and convictions. In an
> accusation, a person is *named*.
Also correct, but not a point against me. I've been arguing these points
for years. The point against Kate stands.
> [snip]
>
> : What is a particular concern to me, is that much of this pressure falls upon
> : the victims of rape themselves. We do not expect someone shot in a robbery
> : to get up and chase after the robbers, nor do we blame them for their
> : robber's subsequent crimes. Yet many, often quite well-meaninged people
> : encourage injured rape victims to report the assault in a way that puts
> : considerable pressure upon them to engage in a process likely to be both
> : highly distressing and inimical to their recovery. I know, from speaking to
> : many, many survivors over several years, that this is a significant
> : contributor to their overall guilt burden, and quite a few have expressed
> : relief when I have argued that not reporting is just as valid and
> : appropriate response as reporting. I think it's a shame that anti-rape and
> : support activists have largely failed to recognise this dynamic.
>
> This is flat-out untrue. I am well-aware that counselors are
> clearly told to not pressure the victim one way or another
> to file charges. This is actually pretty standard policy.
> It's unprofessional to advise a therapy client on their
> legal affairs. They might let them know what their options
> are, and what to expect if the victim chooses to proceed,
> but that's about it.
>
> Why do you trash people who have done a lot of good,
> with no evidence, I might add?
I wasn't even thinking about therapists and counsellors when I wrote the
above, and it's not my intention to trash anyone.
> And what in god's name is a "support activist"??
> That is a smear. There is no such thing. There
> are people who provide much-needed services, and
> who try to raise awareness of those services.
It wasn't intended to be a smear. I've never denied that they provide a
much-needed and valuable service. That doesn't put them above criticism.
I can illustrate my point with reference to a book I just bought. It's
'Rape: your survival guide' by Elizabeth Udall, ISBN 1 86105622 2. Clearly,
from the title, it's intended to be be a support resource for survivors (in
fact it is targeted only at females), and very comprehensive, (and no doubt
valuable to them) it is too. My overall impressions of the book are very
favourable.
Unfortunately it states without qualification that the false allegation rape
is 2% (page 11)
In regard to reporting, it says (under the rubric of "How can you support a
survivor?") "Do not encourage or discourage her to go to the police. This
must be her decision" (page 142). Later it says "Everyone should be able to
make their own decision about whether to report a sexual assault to the
police or not" (page 152). So far, all well and good.
But how well does the book adhere to its own advice? Quite reasonably it
discusses at considerable length and detail the processes involved in
reporting and pursuing a criminal case. Much of this is presented in a very
positive manner. For example, the text immediately following the previous
quote says "Police training and practice in the area of rape has improved
enormously in recent years. There is now a better chance than ever before
that you will be taken seriously, treated sensitively and with respect, and
that you will be kept informed of the progress of the case." and so in, in a
similar tone.
Equally unsurprisingly, there is very little discussion about *not*
reporting. However, what there is, is *wholly* negative. On page 153 there
is a list of reasons women give for not reporting. I'll quote the first
five:
not acknowledging or naming the event as rape oneself
thinking the police/others will not define the event as rape
fear of disbelief
fear of blame (especially if alcohol or drugs are involved)
distrust of the police/courts
and so on. *every single one* is negative. By contrast, the primary
reasons cited for reporting were
doing it automatically/it seeming the right thing to do
wanting to prevent attacks on others
wanting to prevent further attacks on oneself
a desire for justice/redress
someone else making the decision.
All but the last (and perhaps the first half of the first) are positive.
Later (page 154/155) it says "The Metropolitan Police's Project Sapphire
began in January 2001 and is claimed to be the most comprehensive reform of
rape investigation ever undertaken by the police. It has launched
dedicated, 24-hour sexual-offences investigation teams in 30 of the 32
London boroughs. Front-desk staff in police stations are also being trained
in how to talk to and respond to rape victims. Project Sapphire's Richard
Walton wants women to report all offences: 'The vast majority of indecent
exposure is not reported. But many offenders start with minor indecency
[...] Not reporting means the offender could be getting away with it
consistently".
Didn't anyone advise him not to encourage or discourage reporting? The
emotional blackmail here is palpable!
I'll quote the last half page of the chapter in full (page 170):
-----
To report or not to report
'"Letting him get away with it" is a phrase I hear time and time again from
women who both have and haven't reported,' says Susan Van Scoyoc. 'In my
experience, women who don't report feel bad about themselves, that they've
been weak, that they've let him get away with it. The women who don't
report seem to regret it later.
'If you do report, there will probably be a further period of severe
stress involving an examination, investigations, even a trial. But long
term you will probably feel better about yourself for taking a proactive
approach. Even if the case reaches court, and the guy is not convicted,
with all the repercussions that can have on you personally, even those women
say that despite his getting away with it at that stage they feel that at
least they did all they could.'
-----
How is this not encouraging the survivor reading this to report?
I don't object to them presenting the facts. My objection is that there is
*not one word of support* for women who choose not to report. Is it any
wonder, then, that these women feel the way that they do?
> However, in many places, the victim is forced to talk
> to police before she can even receive treatment at
> a hospital.
Which is disgraceful.
> Imagine how wonderfully just it would be if victims
> were automatically treated with skepticism and denied
> medical treatment that they might need.
This is an entirely different matter from advocating skepticism in a
police/judicial context. Different contexts warrant different assumptions.
> : If there was anything that could be done to make the police/court process
> : less of an ordeal for those victims who choose to embark upon it, while at
> : the same time, reduce (or at least not increase) the risk that innocent
> : defendants are convicted, then I'd be for it 100%. Unfortunately "believe
> : the victim" ain't it.
>
> Are people not taken at face value when they make
> a claim of burglary or arson?
If there's no evidence, beyond their claim, that a crime has even taken
place, then no, probably not.
> "Believe the victim" is a policy in offering counseling
> services. There is no official legal "believe the
> victim" policy. You make a report, and it gets
> investigated.
>
> Or do you have first-hand knowledge that I don't?
What the hell's that supposed to mean?
> --
>
> Kerry
--
Daran
2^20996011-1 is prime! <http://www.mersenne.org>
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
