Author: has written 212 posts for this blog.

Guest Bloggers are most welcome to diversify the range of views and experiences presented on this blog. The opinions of Guest Bloggers do not necessarily represent other bloggers on Feministe: differing voices are important to us. Readers are cordially invited to follow our guidelines to submit a Guest Post pitch for consideration.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

72 Responses

  1. TMK
    TMK January 7, 2014 at 5:02 pm |

    The most reliable method for preventing rape is teaching men to not rape.

    Surely you meant The most reliable method for preventing male perpetrated rape is teaching men not to rape.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/

    1. EG
      EG January 7, 2014 at 5:19 pm |

      Where there is a direct comparison (eg the very first reference) they tend to show that men are at least twice as likely to sexually aggress as women.

      From the linked site. Certainly the links demonstrate that female sexual violence and coercion against men are significant problems, but they in no way demonstrate that they’re comparable to male sexual violence/coercion against women. If one group is at least twice as likely to do something as another, it seems reasonable to say that targeting that group is an effective/efficient way of preventing that something.

      1. ldouglas
        ldouglas January 7, 2014 at 6:02 pm |

        If one group is at least twice as likely to do something as another, it seems reasonable to say that targeting that group is an effective/efficient way of preventing that something.

        Sure, but if your chosen method of prevention doesn’t even attempt to address a third of the problem or more, I’d argue that you can probably do better. For example, modifying the statement to read: “the most effective method of rape prevention is teach people not to rape.”

        Around half of rape victims in the US are men. Around a third of offenders are women. I’m pretty much down with the sentiment that any piece of writing about rape that elides these realities is problematic. I have zero problem with someone wanting to write about male rape against women, but they can’t pretend they’re writing about rape in general when the do it; not when those numbers are what they are.

        1. TomSims
          TomSims January 8, 2014 at 9:32 am |

          “Around half of rape victims in the US are men. Around a third of offenders are women.”

          The only way to be able to say half of rape victims are men is to include prison rape, and even that’s a stretch.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States

          According to RAINN http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

        2. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 3:14 pm |

          The only way to be able to say half of rape victims are men is to include prison rape, and even that’s a stretch.

          And another way is to read details of studies like NISVS. And definitely details, because NISVS made weird decision to not classify made-to-penetrate as rape*, which i am sure most commenters here would disagree with. Or one could simply read the post by Ally Fogg linked by me.

          *And decisions like that are likely the source of misleading statistics quoted by RAINN etc. Heck, RAINN could quote NISVS itself, since the summary clearly states something like rape victims being 98% female.

        3. trees
          trees January 8, 2014 at 3:52 pm |

          @TMK

          Thank you for posting that link, including the reference to the NISVS report. I’m still totally lost on the source for that 50% claim; would you please point me to its origin.

        4. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 4:20 pm |

          Hey, i am not sure what do you mean by 50%? Was there something in the Ally post about it? I read it some time ago (its half years old).

          IIRC, there werent much numbers that were split 50-50. Not female perpetrators… that was a minority.

          Perhaps you mean gender of victims? I think last year (2010) victimization had almost exactly equal gender split, and i think it was table 2.1 or table 2.2 in NISVS.

          On a side note, Ally made a sort of followup post, about similar British survey called NATSAL.

        5. trees
          trees January 8, 2014 at 4:39 pm |

          @TMK

          Thanks for the response.
          Up thread ldouglas says “Around half of rape victims in the US are men.” Check out TomSims comment just above yours. I looked at Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and there’s nothing approaching this statement.

        6. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 5:25 pm |

          @trees

          Thanks for the response.
          Up thread ldouglas says “Around half of rape victims in the US are men.” Check out TomSims comment just above yours. I looked at Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and there’s nothing approaching this statement.

          Ah, yes, that half. How did i miss that…

          I think it is drawn from the tables i mentioned. Let me check it…

          Link for convenience: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

          (quite important, i first went to findings and not full report that is shorter yet still 40 pages long and it lacked last year statistics)

          Section 2, tables and figures, table 2.1 and 2.2, pages 18 and 19.

          Check the 12 month columns:

          2.1 Women, rape (defined as penetration), 1.270.000
          2.2 Men, other sexual violence (made to penetrate), 1.267.000

          Basically, one would have to interpret made to penetrate as rape, and compare its prevalence to penetration. Well, generally you can see it for yourself, and also all the other categories there, and make your own opinion what should be included in the rape category and what should not.

          There is also another matter, quite interesting if you are into statistics, that the numbers for lifetime and last (2010) year prevalence dont match up – in lifetime, women make up much larger share of victims, about 80% of these two categories. I still am not sure what to make out of it.

          In any case, i think that is the basis for the 50% statement.

        7. trees
          trees January 8, 2014 at 6:12 pm |

          @TMK

          Oh, okay thanks for breaking it down for me. I wasn’t looking in the right section. That’s seems a peculiar comparison.

        8. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 8, 2014 at 6:13 pm |

          2.1 Women, rape (defined as penetration), 1.270.000
          2.2 Men, other sexual violence (made to penetrate), 1.267.000

          Basically, one would have to interpret made to penetrate as rape, and compare its prevalence to penetration. Well, generally you can see it for yourself, and also all the other categories there, and make your own opinion what should be included in the rape category and what should not.

          There is also another matter, quite interesting if you are into statistics, that the numbers for lifetime and last (2010) year prevalence dont match up – in lifetime, women make up much larger share of victims, about 80% of these two categories. I still am not sure what to make out of it.

          In any case, i think that is the basis for the 50% statement.

          That is a totally false and deceitful misrepresentation of the statistics. It doesn’t even make sense.

          The 12 month rates of ‘other sexual violence’ is vaguely 55/45 (women- 6.6m men- 6.0m)

          The rate of ‘rape’ as defined by the very statistics you site is not listed for men, whereas the 12-month rate for women is listed as 1.27m. The lifetime rate of rape is around 22 million for women and 1.5 million for men. Hardly 50/50. The lifetime rates of ‘other sexual violence’ are 53 million for women and 25 million for men. Even that is hardly 50/50.

          Combine the two you have 75 million women as the victims of sexual violence and 26 million men. How on earth is that 50/50?

          The only citation I can see for the 50/50 statistic are the lies you and ldouglas keep repeating.

        9. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune January 8, 2014 at 6:36 pm |

          Lifetime stats for men vs one year’s stats for women. Seems legit.

          I’ve seen these interpretations before; they’re hogwash then and they’re hogwash now.

        10. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 6:50 pm |

          @trees

          Oh, okay thanks for breaking it down for me. I wasn’t looking in the right section. That’s seems a peculiar comparison.

          Interesting, why do you find it peculiar? I would think that they are basically the same thing, that is, instances of forcing a person to make a very typical and intimate sexual act (penetration), so i instinctively view it as rape, which i understand as a case of most serious sexual assault.

          (of course, due to physical differences, it differs for a male or female bodied people in how they can be forced to do it)

          @Fat Steve,

          That is a totally false and deceitful misrepresentation of the statistics. It doesn’t even make sense.

          The 12 month rates of ‘other sexual violence’ is vaguely 55/45 (women- 6.6m men- 6.0m)

          Yes, i know, i initially included it in my reply, along with my own opinion about these categories, but then stroke it and said the above, that the tables are there and anyone can form their own opinion. I assume you wanted to say that putting these two into one category is >false and deceitful…<?

          Why do you say so?

          The rate of ‘rape’ as defined by the very statistics you site is not listed for men, whereas the 12-month rate for women is listed as 1.27m. The lifetime rate of rape is around 22 million for women and 1.5 million for men. Hardly 50/50. The lifetime rates of ‘other sexual violence’ are 53 million for women and 25 million for men. Even that is hardly 50/50.

          Yes, i know. Cdc made a decision to put made to penetrate into >other sexual assaultrape< for men is not listed in the table, since the number of occurences was too small for statistically significant result.

          I also mentioned that lifetime numbers dont match 2010, and that this is very interesting phenomen.

          Combine the two you have 75 million women as the victims of sexual violence and 26 million men. How on earth is that 50/50?

          I explained it above, as well as i can do. If you dont see it, perhaps trees or someone else could put it in their own words if you ask.

          The only citation I can see for the 50/50 statistic are the lies you and ldouglas keep repeating.

          I dont think i stated the 50% number myself. I took up the task of explaining it, since i encountered that claim before, so i felt up to it.

          You will rarely see me making that claim, btw. I am (well, sort of) sociologist by education, so i am much more prone to saying something like:

          In 2010, in USA, the number of raped men was almost equal to the number of raped women.

          Which is something what ldouglas was saying, i assume, more concisely. Or perhaps ldouglas treated the 2010 data as representative for other years, making generalized statement on this basis. Neither are lies or even unintentional falsehoods.

        11. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 6:56 pm |

          Mac,

          Lifetime stats for men vs one year’s stats for women. Seems legit.

          I’ve seen these interpretations before; they’re hogwash then and they’re hogwash now.

          Er, no! How did you get that? I urge you to look again, and find the numbers i quoted, 1.270.000 versus 1.267.000 – they are from the same time, year 2010, but from different categories (penetrated women, men made to penetrate someone else. There are no statistically significant number of women penetrating others nor for men being penetrated, so the categeries are separate. The whole question was more whether they should be, so please do look again).

          Also, long reply above to Fat Steve in moderation.

        12. trees
          trees January 8, 2014 at 7:12 pm |

          Interesting, why do you find it peculiar? I would think that they are basically the same thing, that is, instances of forcing a person to make a very typical and intimate sexual act (penetration), so i instinctively view it as rape, which i understand as a case of most serious sexual assault.

          It’s a strangely narrow definition of rape; it doesn’t include the number of men who are penetrated, or rape of women beyond penetration.

        13. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 8, 2014 at 7:12 pm |

          I would think that they are basically the same thing, that is, instances of forcing a person to make a very typical and intimate sexual act (penetration), so i instinctively view it as rape, which i understand as a case of most serious sexual assault.

          (of course, due to physical differences, it differs for a male or female bodied people in how they can be forced to do it)

          As a ‘sort of’ expert in sociology, I would have thought you would know that statistics have nothing to do with instinct and that you are comparing two entirely different categories.

          Sure, if you want to define ‘men’ as all members of the human race, then 100% of the victims of all crimes are men. But saying that that would be deceitful, false, and give a misleading impression. You can’t just decide that two categories in a particular study have the same meaning, especially as the study itself has specifically delineated categories.

        14. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 7:29 pm |

          @trees

          It’s a strangely narrow definition of rape; it doesn’t include the number of men who are penetrated, or rape of women beyond penetration.

          Ah, thank you. I agree about the later, even thought about it a bit when replying to you. However, I was not sure what better definition i could come up with. One that would be useful for a survey, i mean.

          As for the first (penetrated men), it is included, it just is small enough that it does not affect the >million and a third< number.

          @Fat Steve

          As a ‘sort of’ expert in sociology, I would have thought you would know that statistics have nothing to do with instinct and that you are comparing two entirely different categories.

          Heh, i know. I found statistic classes easy and pleasant (and they were the source of utmost horror for most of my colleagues), but it doesnt prevent occassional horribly wrong mistake on my part, when i try to rely on intuition :d

          That said, categorizing has not much to do with statistics, but general sociology. In any way, care to give your own opinion on this categorization?

          I assume you think there are decisive differences that mean these two things should not be included in the same category. What are they?

          In other words, why do you think forcing a man to penetrate someone is not rape?

        15. ldouglas
          ldouglas January 8, 2014 at 7:30 pm |

          As a ‘sort of’ expert in sociology, I would have thought you would know that statistics have nothing to do with instinct and that you are comparing two entirely different categories.

          So now you’re arguing being forced to penetrate someone isn’t rape?

          And, of course, calling people liars for citing a pretty well supported statistic.

          What is it with you and your reflexive jump to douchebaggery?

        16. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 8, 2014 at 7:52 pm |

          In other words, why do you think forcing a man to penetrate someone is not rape?

          How many different ways do you need it explained to you that interpreting these statistics has nothing to with what you or I think.

          You are comparing a category under ‘rape’ with a category under ‘other sexual violence.’ Yet you do not compare all categories under ‘other sexual violence.’ You don’t add ‘sexual coercion’ under your stats. Does that mean you don’t consider sexual coercion rape?

        17. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 8:08 pm |

          How many different ways do you need it explained to you that interpreting these statistics has nothing to with what you or I think.

          You are comparing a category under ‘rape’ with a category under ‘other sexual violence.’ Yet you do not compare all categories under ‘other sexual violence.’ You don’t add ‘sexual coercion’ under your stats. Does that mean you don’t consider sexual coercion rape?

          Nice dodge. If i answer your question, will you answer mine?

          I was saying that people quoting the 50% number usually think that Cdc categorization of accidents (penetration, made to penetrate, sexual coercion all the way to non-contact accidents) that put made to penetrate into other sexual assault category is wrong categorization. I gather it that you think that means i am lying or something. And that you would categorize the instances differently. So, please tell me, does it mean that forcing to penetrate is not rape? Or does it mean that you would draw the line at incidents with physical contact (excluding the last category)?

          And if you dont know why people, including me, think Cdc made mistake, it is obvious – rape by penetration and made to penetrate seem to be roughly the same things, as i said above, moreover, easy to understand (visualize). Whereas sexual coercion or unwanted sexual contact is more complicated and needs delving into actual responses, and the categorization process, which, since you studied sociology, you know is about 20.000 times more work. One that does not bring anything really new, since the split between genders stays roughly the same. So, to answer your question, i dont know if i consider sexual coercion rape because i dont know what sexual coercion means.

          Now, with that answered, what about my question?

        18. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 8, 2014 at 8:34 pm |

          Now, with that answered, what about my question?

          I don’t know if forcing a man to penetrate someone is rape or not because I’m not sure what forcing a man to penetrate someone is.

        19. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 8:39 pm |

          I don’t know if forcing a man to penetrate someone is rape or not because I’m not sure what forcing a man to penetrate someone is.

          This is both pathetic and hilarious. Umm, Fat Steve, had you ever had an intercourse? You know, the thing when mommy and daddy…

          I would give you a link to some sex education site if it wasnt so obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse.

        20. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 8, 2014 at 8:55 pm |

          This is both pathetic and hilarious. Umm, Fat Steve, had you ever had an intercourse? You know, the thing when mommy and daddy…

          I would give you a link to some sex education site if it wasnt so obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse.

          So ‘coercion’ is a vague and nebulous term but ‘forcing’ is so easily definable?
          You are both full of crap with your 50/50 statistic.

          I’ve played this game long enough. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, good night.

        21. ldouglas
          ldouglas January 8, 2014 at 9:01 pm |

          You are both full of crap with your 50/50 statistic.

          Asserted without evidence.

        22. trees
          trees January 8, 2014 at 10:54 pm |

          Re:

          And, of course, calling people liars for citing a pretty well supported statistic.

          This statement

          Around half of rape victims in the US are men.

          is not supported by this finding

          Check the 12 month columns:

          2.1 Women, rape (defined as penetration), 1.270.000
          2.2 Men, other sexual violence (made to penetrate), 1.267.000

        23. ldouglas
          ldouglas January 9, 2014 at 12:10 am |

          So basically you’re arguing, again, that being forced to penetrate someone isn’t rape. In other words, a woman can’t rape a man.

          Well, I’m not a male survivor, but as a female one, that’s pretty egregiously despicable of you.

        24. trees
          trees January 9, 2014 at 12:51 am |

          So basically you’re arguing, again, that being forced to penetrate someone isn’t rape. In other words, a woman can’t rape a man.

          Well, I’m not a male survivor, but as a female one, that’s pretty egregiously despicable of you.

          I didn’t make that argument the first time. This in no way relates to anything I have said here in my comments, nor do I personally told this belief. In fact, I stated quite the opposite up thread:

          It’s a strangely narrow definition of rape; it doesn’t include the number of men who are penetrated, or rape of women beyond penetration.

          To go from

          Check the 12 month columns:

          2.1 Women, rape (defined as penetration), 1.270.000
          2.2 Men, other sexual violence (made to penetrate), 1.267.000

          to

          Around half of rape victims in the US are men.

          would require a very creative interpretation of the findings.

        25. ldouglas
          ldouglas January 9, 2014 at 4:58 am |

          So for one thing, that’s not actually my link; it’s one study that support my point, but there are a ton of others out there as well. On top of the stuff that’s already been raised, a huge proportion of rapes in the US- quite possibly more than 50%, but certainly not too far below- take place in prison.

          For another, reading that one quote you keep bringing up, it seems the statement “about half of rape victims in the last 12 months were men” is entirely accurate. Also, from what I know, men are even less likely to report than women.

          Look, I’m not an MRA, I’m not a one-time-poster troll, and I’m not even a man. In fact, I’m a survivor. I get that certain fedora-wearing assholes get off on tossing around accusations and insults so they can feel holier-than-thou, but the data is at least strong enough that it’s a necessary conversation.

        26. trees
          trees January 9, 2014 at 7:52 am |

          @ldouglas

          I read your first comment in good faith, but had no idea where that number was coming from. I asked TMK about its source since zie seemed to support your comment. Maybe there’s evidence in the many others that you mentioned, but I’m not seeing anything is the NISVS report that supports your statement.

        27. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 9, 2014 at 9:08 am |

          Except, NDN women rape is four times higher than the national average and that is not included in stats. So….when you actually include us as citizens of the US, the numbers change. Even more so when you factor in how many go unreported, or don’t get reported because no one knows what jurisdiction it occurred in, or a game warden shows up instead of the police and has no idea how to investigate.

        28. trees
          trees January 9, 2014 at 10:11 am |

          Except, NDN women rape is four times higher than the national average and that is not included in stats.

          Yes absolutely, the numbers are untrustworthy to begin with.

        29. Miranda
          Miranda January 9, 2014 at 11:13 am |

          Hi. So maybe I suck with numbers, but I am really confused by this whole argument, and I looked at the graph for a long time last night. The twelve-month numbers suggest the 50:50 split, but the “lifetime” numbers clearly indicate something that is way more skewed than 50:50. Can anyone cleverer than me explain what is going on here? Is it possible that the “lifetime” rates are higher for women for a very good reason: for example, maybe under 18s were NOT surveyed and women have a higher rate of rape in that category, hence far more reporting lifetime?

          I’m really inclined not to just throw out the lifetime numbers under the presumption that “Eh meany poopy pants authors just don’t want to believe men are victims by rape,” unless someone can explain to me why we can assume that for the lifetime stats and not for the 12 month stats?

        30. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 9, 2014 at 11:59 am |

          The twelve-month numbers suggest the 50:50 split

          They only do if you make the arbitrary decision to put ‘forced to penetrate’ in the category of rape and leave out ‘sexual coercion.’

          Why, one wonders, might MRA’s do that? Because due to biology women are much less likely to fall in the ‘forced to penetrate’ category, but as you can see from the figures for ‘sexual coercion’ (which TMK refers to as an “accident” in the comment below,) it isn’t even close to 50/50. This is a load of MRA bullshit and I think it’s time a giraffe with a bit of math skills had a look at this derail.

          TMK’s anti-woman comment about ‘accidents’:

          I was saying that people quoting the 50% number usually think that Cdc categorization of accidents (penetration, made to penetrate, sexual coercion all the way to non-contact accidents) that put made to penetrate into other sexual assault category is wrong categorization.

        31. tigtog
          tigtog January 9, 2014 at 2:40 pm | *

          Steve, I agree that at the very least it’s time for this derail to be taken to #spillover.

          As to TMK’s use of “accidents”, I’m suspecting a non-native English speaker’s error here rather than an anti-woman slant – it reads as if TMK meant to use “incidents”. I don’t like “incidents” much either – it’s way too neutral for my taste – but it’s not as erasing as “accidents” would be. All of the non-consensual events enumerated on the CDC report are sexual assaults, so why not just continue to call them “assaults”?

        32. Esti
          Esti January 9, 2014 at 11:59 am |

          I think the reason the lifetime and 12-month numbers appear at odds is that there is a much higher rate of repeat victimization among men. Most sexual assault of men take place in prison; the prison population is much smaller than the general population, and inmates are much more likely to experience sexual assaults on multiple occasions and thus be counted in each 12-month figure. Women, by contrast, experience more assaults outside of prison, and although there are of course some women who experience multiple sexual assaults over their lifetime, it doesn’t happen with the same frequency as among the prison population. Accordingly, each 12-month report for women contains more people who will only experience one (or perhaps two or three) assaults, and when added together contain more individual women experiencing assault in their lifetimes.

        33. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 9, 2014 at 12:02 pm |

          I think the reason the lifetime and 12-month numbers appear at odds is that there is a much higher rate of repeat victimization among men. Most sexual assault of men take place in prison; the prison population is much smaller than the general population, and inmates are much more likely to experience sexual assaults on multiple occasions and thus be counted in each 12-month figure.

          The original comment was complaining that the video doesn’t specify ‘male-perpetrated’ rape. Surely prison rape of men is mostly ‘male-perpetrated.’ That is why I am more and more convinced that it is a BS derail.

        34. TMK
          TMK January 9, 2014 at 5:16 pm |

          @tigtog

          Steve, I agree that at the very least it’s time for this derail to be taken to #spillover.

          I hope by the very least you mean it does not belong in this thread, not that it should not be written about at all here.

          But, should not the last spillover thread be already retired?

          As to TMK’s use of “accidents”, I’m suspecting a non-native English speaker’s error here rather than an anti-woman slant – it reads as if TMK meant to use “incidents”. I don’t like “incidents” much either – it’s way too neutral for my taste – but it’s not as erasing as “accidents” would be. All of the non-consensual events enumerated on the CDC report are sexual assaults, so why not just continue to call them “assaults”?

          Yep. I actually was somewhat uncomfortable with accidents, and if you browse my post you can see that i switched to incidents later on. I prefer to use neutral language when talking about things like prevalence, personally, although assaults fit as well.

          In any case, my mistake. We have one word for both accident and incident in my native language. Well, actually, it is more complicated. We have three words, one for accident only, one for accident and incident and one for accident, incident and event. Oh well…

        35. tigtog
          tigtog January 9, 2014 at 11:26 pm | *

          @tigtog: Steve, I agree that at the very least it’s time for this derail to be taken to #spillover.

          TMK: I hope by the very least you mean it does not belong in this thread, not that it should not be written about at all here.

          “Derail” is a thread-specific term, so yes, I mean exactly that this extended sidetrack does not belong in this thread, no more no less.

      2. TMK
        TMK January 7, 2014 at 6:04 pm |

        I am not repeating MRA talking point. (i should have explained it, true). My point is not to draw any equivalency, or even to compare anything, my point is drawing attention to overlooked aspects of rape, both of perpetrators and victims.

        If one group is at least twice as likely to do something as another, it seems reasonable to say that targeting that group is an effective/efficient way of preventing that something.

        The problem is that this something is called something else. It was not called solving male perpetrated rape, but rape, without qualifier. It conjures an impression that it would solve the problem of rape, whereas in reality we would leave out in cold the pretty significant* group of people raped by women, whatever gender and age (mentioning it here since for many people children fall into different category altogether) these people are.

        Which would (well, is) be quite big fail, no? The >we target majority, so it is suffiecent< thought got some big problems associated with it, quite often, dont you think?

        1. EG
          EG January 7, 2014 at 9:13 pm |

          Which would (well, is) be quite big fail, no? The >we target majority, so it is suffiecent< thought got some big problems associated with it, quite often, dont you think?

          If the statement had said “and that’s sufficient,” sure, I’d agree. It didn’t. If it had said “The most reliable and only necessary method,” I’d agree. It said “The most reliable method.” If we’re talking about single most reliable or effective steps to take, as using the superlative “the most reliable” means we are, then I think it’s correct.

        2. TomSims
          TomSims January 8, 2014 at 9:49 am |

          It sounds like you are to me.

        3. TMK
          TMK January 8, 2014 at 3:23 pm |

          EG,

          If the statement had said “and that’s sufficient,” sure, I’d agree. It didn’t. If it had said “The most reliable and only necessary method,” I’d agree. It said “The most reliable method.” If we’re talking about single most reliable or effective steps to take, as using the superlative “the most reliable” means we are, then I think it’s correct.

          Yeah, the statement got some ambiguity in it. So we likely should interpret it on the context, right?

          And that is exactly my point. Both in sexual and domestic violence, female perpetrators are almost invisible, and following that, their victims, be they men, lesbian women or children fly under the radar way too often. So, the campaign that was origin of the quoted statement (teach men…) is an example of this, it perpetrates the myth that only men are agressive (sounds somewhat patriarchal, no?), and screws any non-normative victms in the process.

          Thus the change mentioned by ldouglas would be at least non-misleading. There is no problem with focusing on female victims, or on male perpetrators (these categories are not the same! I am somewhat queer so i heard enough stories to know that many lesbian relationships are not all violence free sparkling rainbows), i would even say that feminism is rightly, almost by definition, focused on it.

          But making other, rarer, cases of rape invisible? Not okay.

    2. karak
      karak January 7, 2014 at 6:33 pm |

      Can you go play your bullshit “gotcha” games somewhere else, thanks, the adults are trying to talk here.

    3. Kerandria
      Kerandria January 7, 2014 at 8:05 pm |

      On the first comment..

  2. ldouglas
    ldouglas January 7, 2014 at 5:54 pm |

    But the contradiction in that claim is Sweden also has higher rates of rape, versus Europe. In fact, every Nordic nation with high gun ownership has higher rates of rape, according to UN statistics.

    I’m sorry, but you really failed to do your research here. The reason these nations have higher reported rates of rape is that they have a much, much more robust reporting system than most other countries. Demonstrating correlation isn’t enough to demonstrate causality- if it was, you’d also be arguing that progressive sex crimes legislation lead to more rape.

    Alas, developing countries like Texas are still part of the U.S.

    Yeah, fuck Texas and all the women who live there!

    1. Echo Zen
      Echo Zen January 7, 2014 at 6:12 pm |

      No, you’re correct about Nordic countries having more robust institutions with regards to rape prevention — not just legally, but culturally. I’d have preferred the students went into more detail about this, but to stay within the time limit, I left the narration at that. I’m very seriously considering a future episode that explores what you just mentioned, albeit more along the lines of “what countries with less rape culture do differently”.

      1. ldouglas
        ldouglas January 7, 2014 at 6:17 pm |

        That would definitely be an interesting episode.

        Incidentally, I know I’m repeating myself, but I really, really hate your Texas joke. For one, identifying ‘developing country’ with ‘misogynist, backwards, and stupid’ is incredibly problematic and arguably racist. For another, writing off Texas and saying you wish it wasn’t part of the US erases the fact that half of Texans are women, who have to actually deal with lack of access to abortion, rape-apologetics from their elected leaders, and so on; getting rid of Texas wouldn’t make their lives any easier.

        It just isn’t funny.

        1. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 7, 2014 at 9:46 pm |

          Yep. I live in Texas. So screw you too I guess. Lots of NDN women here as well, and our rape stats are horrifying but never get included.

        2. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 7, 2014 at 11:02 pm |

          For another, writing off Texas and saying you wish it wasn’t part of the US erases the fact that half of Texans are women, who have to actually deal with lack of access to abortion, rape-apologetics from their elected leaders, and so on

          That’s just absolutely silly. That’s like saying those who criticized apartheid-era South Africa by saying ‘South Africa is racist’ were erasing the anti-apatheid activists and all the POC who suffer under apartheid. Or anyone who says ‘Germany between 1933 and 1945 was horribly evil’ is erasing all the resistance fighters and all the Jews, Roma, gays, etc sent to concentration camps.

          Texas is an entity, a government, a corporation, really…and criticizing that entity is NOT the same as criticizing the people who live there, any more than criticizing Wal-Mart is criticizing the people who work and/or shop there.

          I think this is the most ludicrous comment I’ve ever seen posted on Feministe, and that includes things I’ve written.

        3. Donna L
          Donna L January 7, 2014 at 11:17 pm |

          all the resistance fighters

          In Germany? All 20 of them (more or less)?

        4. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 7, 2014 at 11:21 pm |

          I just re-read what I wrote and realize my last paragraph was uncalled for. Sorry in advance, ldouglas, I just got a little upset, because I see Echo Zen who is clearly a young creative person, getting nitpicked instead of encouraged. I know how easy it is to get discouraged by that sort of thing, for myself specifically. However, looking back at your comments, unlike the first poster, your comment was mostly encouraging and supportive, so again I apologize for the nasty tone of my response (though I still agree with the substance of what I said.)

        5. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 8, 2014 at 12:30 am |

          Frankly Fat Steve- I’m sick of these types of remarks. It does feel like being erased so don’t you dare tell me when I’m being thrown under the bus for the sake of a joke.

        6. ldouglas
          ldouglas January 8, 2014 at 12:36 am |

          However, looking back at your comments, unlike the first poster, your comment was mostly encouraging and supportive, so again I apologize for the nasty tone of my response (though I still agree with the substance of what I said.)

          OK, that’s fine- I disagree, but no hard feelings.

        7. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 8, 2014 at 12:50 am |

          Sorry, pheeno. Didn’t mean to come off as a Texist.

        8. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune January 8, 2014 at 12:57 am |

          Steve. Dude. Better timing on the jokes.

        9. Echo Zen
          Echo Zen January 8, 2014 at 1:21 am |

          pheenobarbidoll, I hear your point. I’ll make sure in future episodes to axe jokes that are too generalising of places like TX or people who live there.

          And Fat Steve, I appreciate you understanding that juggling creative and ideological aspects of a project is no small order. Obviously my own jibe at TX is my own doing and unrelated to the vlog, but it probably wouldn’t surprise you to know that writing each episode typically takes 2 days, whilst creating the episode itself can take over 2 weeks. So after plugging away for weeks, sometimes I’ll slip when I write the final vlog post to go with an episode, and then you get a stupid remark about TX. I need to be better about such things, since I’m supposed to be the responsible student project manager here.

          (Also I remember you offering to handle narration duties for some future episodes. I commented on that in the vlog post for the 5th episode, but it hasn’t been published yet.)

        10. ldouglas
          ldouglas January 8, 2014 at 2:49 am |

          And Fat Steve, I appreciate you understanding that juggling creative and ideological aspects of a project is no small order.

          Just wanted to mention that I totally get this; I really like the work you’re doing, and I hope the fact I pushed back against that one comment doesn’t give any contrary impression.

        11. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 8, 2014 at 8:18 am |

          Thank you echo Zen. I hear that sentiment all the time and its like well hell, I guess all of us who are fighting this crap so hard are on our own. We’re forgotten and unsupported or don’t matter enough, it’s easier to write the whole state off. And of course, all other states are just havens of enlightenment that don’t also have racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobia, anti choicers as residents or politicians.

    2. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
      The Kittehs' Unpaid Help January 7, 2014 at 10:12 pm |

      Glad you posted that comment, ldouglas: my gut reaction to the comment was “higher reporting” not “more rapes” and certainly nothing to do with gun ownership.

    3. Mortality
      Mortality January 8, 2014 at 7:41 am |

      Sweden does technically have higher rates of rape compared to much of the rest of Europe. Because we have a lot more liberal laws than much of Europe which means a lot more crimes count as rape where they would be some lesser sexual crime in other countries. That, coupled with a higher reporting frequency leads to what on paper looks like “more rapes”.
      //Swedish law student

  3. Echo Zen
    Echo Zen January 7, 2014 at 6:02 pm |

    Err, what happened to the fifth episode? Is it still in the posting queue?

    1. tigtog
      tigtog January 7, 2014 at 6:14 pm | *

      It’s in the drafts folder, Echo. Perhaps pushing the button to send it to the posting queue was overlooked?

    2. Echo Zen
      Echo Zen January 7, 2014 at 6:25 pm |

      Oh, I usually type up a vlog post and then email Jill to let her know it’s ready to published if it’s a slow day. I just assumed it would be rude to publish or schedule to publish something instead of letting you or Jill do it? (In case anyone’s wondering, that’s also why the post reads like it’s still 2013!)

      1. tigtog
        tigtog January 7, 2014 at 8:16 pm | *

        Looks like this system hit a glitch for #5 then. I suggest taking this to email with Jill and working out what you want to do with #5 now.

      2. Echo Zen
        Echo Zen January 8, 2014 at 12:48 am |

        I’m cool with #5 being published out of consecutive order. But I’ll email Jill to let her know!

  4. Anna
    Anna January 8, 2014 at 10:27 am |

    Swedish gun owner here.

    The misleading bit about Swedish rape statistics has already been adressed. I would like to comment on the gun owning part.

    First of all, we have very strict gun control. There are a lot of guns in Sweden, but they are not a part of everyday life. There is no reason to believe the person next to you on the bus has a gun in her purse. Most Swedish guns are hunting rifles, not hand guns.

    Second, the gun culture, the feeling that guns=protection, isn’t as strong here as it seems to be in the US. My gun is a piece of very regulated sporting equipment for a very regulated sport. It’s no more associated with violence than a golf club or a bat – or even less, since the gun is, by law, securely locked away and hard to get to in a hurry.

    What I’m trying to say is that no matter what the Swedish rape statistics are, the Swedish gun statistics don’t matter in this context.

    Thank you for doing these vlogs. Maybe they are a bit 101, but light-hearted, attractive 101-level material is always good to have. The format of answering one specific question per episode is also good.

    1. smrnda
      smrnda January 8, 2014 at 2:24 pm |

      Good point about that. I was aware that guns existing for hunting in many countries, but were typically not toted around the way they are in the US, and I’m suspecting gun ownership might simply be higher in Sweden because other European nations perhaps don’t do hunting as a sport so much?

      And an issue on gun control and Chicago – Chicago is right next to Indiana, a state with rather lax gun control laws, so any determined person can find a way to get guns into Chicago regardless of these restrictions. The idea that this means ‘bad people’ have guns but ‘good people’ can defend themselves also ignores the nature of violence in Chicago – lots of it is gang and drug trade related, meaning rival factions fighting it out, and most shootings of bystanders are done in such a way that don’t lend themselves to protecting yourself with a gun.

      1. tigtog
        tigtog January 8, 2014 at 3:49 pm | *

        Gun ownership in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries is also high because they had a compulsory National Military Service program where members are required to store and maintain a registered semi-automatic rifle and go to several army training camps a year. Initially an all-male conscript program, it became a volunteer program for both sexes and in recent years some (most?) of these countries have ended these programs to switch to all-professional armies, but the culture of just about every family in the country having at least one army rifle stored in the house remains.

        Switzerland still has an active Military Service culture – all young men are conscripted, young women may volunteer. The last time I was there a few young men in their 20s wandered into the supermarket in fatigues and toting their military rifles slung over their backs and nobody turned a hair.

        1. Anna
          Anna January 9, 2014 at 10:52 am |

          E-hm…

          Swedish conscripts were never allowed to take their weapons off base unsupervised. Not even our professional soldiers carry guns in public unless there is an exercise or a show.

          Our conscripts were never allowed to bring any weapons home, let alone required to do so.

          The training camps… well, I think my father had to go twice in his entire life, and my husband wasn’t called even once.

          It may be that your description is accurate for Finland or Norway, but I don’t know a single Swede who has a military style weapon at home, and most don’t have any weapon at all.

          Sweden does have a sort of semi-civilian “hobby army” though, where enthusiast (mostly older men) train what to do in case of invasion (“play war”), but even they can’t bring their gun when they go shopping.

        2. tigtog
          tigtog January 9, 2014 at 2:50 pm | *

          Thanks Anna – I’m obviously conflating from the Swiss practice where there definitely are registered military weapons stored securely in many households and being carried openly and legally by young men on the way to and from training (and how the shopkeeper explained it to me (“don’t worry, it is just the young men doing annual military camp”)) and extrapolating that to a presumption that Scandinavian military service would be structured exactly the same, which now that I write it down is obviously a foolish generalisation. You would obviously know far better than I.

        3. tigtog
          tigtog January 9, 2014 at 2:58 pm | *

          P.S. despite my over-generalisation, my main point was meant to support your point that although there is a gun culture in some European nations, those are very different gun cultures than that of the USA, because they do not emphasise the principle of self-defence from fellow-citizens alongside demands for zero/minimal regulation, but rather derive from varying proportions of well-regulated sport-shooting and highly-regulated civil defence against potential external foes.

  5. Gumiman
    Gumiman January 17, 2014 at 7:53 am |

    But did Chicago allow carrying guns before 1980? And while I’m very skeptical about the reliability of the UN statistics, nordic countries hardly issue concealed carry permits making the comparison a moot point.

    Fact is that rapists are also humans and not bullet proof terminators.

Comments are closed.