Honey Badger Radio: Mary Koss and the American Rape Machine

typhonblue · 2014-02-13T16:48:25+00:00

Mary Koss is the feminist researcher behind the factoid that one in four women will be raped in her lifetime. In Mary Koss's original survey only one in...

[–]notnotnotfred 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[M] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maregal -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Canada:

http://nawl.ca/en/issues/entry/custody-and-access

The US:

http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm

Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/shared-care-laws-damaging-many-children-20100826-13tqm.html

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Would%20legislation%20for%20shared%20parenting%20time%20help%20children)OXLAP%20FPB%207.pdf

Belinda Fehlberg is a feminist. And, of course, Gillard.

Here's a feminist paper on the subject:

http://www.academia.edu/1490030/A_Feminist_Family_Agenda_Putting_the_mother_back_into_sole_parenting

Hell even wikipedia has something:

Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children.[45] The National Organization For Women and the American Bar Association also question the motives of those promoting shared parenting, noting that it would result in substantial decreases in or termination of child support payments.[64][65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement

[+]maregal -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]maregal -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarcastiCock 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (212 children) | Copy Link

I mean, there are lots of crimes with definitions that people don't know about, or may not think about. That's how pretty much every crime victims survey goes - you ask people if they've experienced the specific parameters of the crime, not just the name of the crime.

You could ask someone "Have you ever been robbed?" and they think, Yeah, someone stole my tv when I was out of town once! and answer, "Yes, I have been robbed," when actually what they experienced was burglary.

It's easier and more accurate to ask people about specific events or behaviors than to rely on their understanding of law.

Unless you're suggesting that we should let victims decide the crime, and not the law. For example, if someone was embezzled and didn't know that was legally considered theft, and you asked if they had ever experienced theft, and they said "No," does that mean that they never experienced theft? Is that the big bad "Mary Koss" of the law "deciding" that you've experienced theft? Or is that, simply put, what actually happened?

[–]typhonblue[S] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (211 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (210 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (203 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ripowal1 -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago* (188 children) | Copy Link

Ok. I mean, I'm not surprised that you would refuse to admit to intellectual dishonesty about the very nature of crime victimization surveys, but at least I tried.

Also, nice bait in your edit. Considering your loose understanding of what the words you use actually mean, I'm not sure I can have a good faith debate with you.

EDIT: Seriously, stop editing seconds after you comment - try thinking about everything you want to say BEFORE you hit save.

If you’re a woman and you don’t think you’re raped, you don’t get to decide that, Mary Koss does.

Was this not a lament? A dig? Was this actually gleeful? Or a neutral observation? I'd love to see you dig your way out of your own words again. Were you actually suggesting that this was a good thing? Please, please explain how that wasn't a complaint.

[–]typhonblue[S] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (185 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (184 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (183 children) | Copy Link

They certainly are inflating the statistics to inspire fear in women.

I felt it, as a woman, until I realized the books were cooked to create an asymmetrical victimhood.

My quality of life increased remarkably once that burden of fear was lifted. After all, rather than being enemies, me and the men around me were all in it together.

Now as to a direct response to this...

However, that doesn't mean that crime victimization surveys are big brutes telling women that they've been raped when they've experienced acts consistent with rape. Savvy?

My cat has developed a liking to eating my pineapple plants. I've found some success deterring him by using a bitter spray, but it seems I have to reapply it every few days.

I'm not sure why you're saying I shouldn't have apply the spray more than once a week. Savvy?

[–]Ripowal1 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]maregal -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (173 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (172 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wrecksomething -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wrecksomething -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm saying that you're pretending you logically flounced me when all that happened is that your dutiful supporters have come out in force to pat you on the back for talking in circles.

Why don't you respond to this:

Why don't you answer for this?:

Jack is equally likely to experience physically forced sex as Jill in the last twelve months.

However the CDC found that only 20% of the victims who reported being physically forced into sex in their lifetime were male.

Why is this?

When witnessing two criminals, one female and one male, who are both equally violent, witnesses “misremember” the violence of the female over time. The force she uses is remembered as being less relative to the male. The witnesses’ perception of her agency is whittled away.

Here you admit that self-report isn't reliable, but now you're arguing that it's "criminal" to not rely solely on self-report measures? Which is it, typhon? And do try not to dance around the point again (I'm ignoring your request here because it seems you don't understand how dishonest it is when you're the one doing it).

I'll be sure to remember that you think Koss' 1/4 research is totally accurate except for the hypocrisy but next time you try to say that feminists are over-inflating the number of rape victims. ;)

[–]typhonblue[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Once again Ripowal.

The statement references Mary Koss's quote here:

We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items.

In which Mary Koss apparently respects men's self-reported appraisal while dismissing women's.

Here you admit that self-report isn't reliable, but now you're arguing that it's "criminal" to not rely solely on self-report measures?

It's criminal to engage in this kind of hypocrisy to distort statistics. On the one hand arguing that men's "self-reports" are grounds for reclassifying behaviour-based measures as "not rape" while ignoring women's "self-reports" to classify behaviour-based measures as "rape".

(Anyone who's down voting Ripowal, please stop. In fact, give him an up vote for me.)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

because that's what the definition means.

Whose definition? In a language words mean what speakers of said language understand them to mean.
For example, what if we find a huge number of men being raped, like in the 2010 CDC study, if we include made to penetrate into the category. This data could be used to argue that there is a problem that the state needs to address. Now what if 90% of the victims thinks what happened to them is not that big of a deal. Doesn't this change our perception of the magnitude of the problem?
The physical harm caused by rape is often not particularly grave, often less grave than the harm done by circumcision. If we disregarded the psychological effects on the victim, we wouldn't take rape as a crime as seriously. Now what if a group of victims doesn't show sign of being psychologically significantly harmed?

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dolandoes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, except for SarcastiCock, who seems to be almost exclusively an MRM subreddit poster (and was very vocal about disagreeing with you); the other two (maregal/Ripowal) are a mix, according to their Reddit history (maregal clearly just don't like you, and is a Pro-AMR user).

IOIOOIIOIO seems to actually only visit AMR to disagree with them/flame/troll (being primarily an MRM-subreddit-positive user).

Didn't see any ShitRedditSays in any of the history information for those users though, so I assume that you were just guessing there, or it wasn't on the first 3-4 pages of their posting histories.

EDIT: Missed one. Manzboobz also looks to be someone who is virtually exclusive to this subreddit with their posting (Pro-MRM). Out of the 4-5 mentioned, only two appear to be from AMR. Still didn't see any SRS anywhere, except in Manzboobz's history, and he was promoting a Pro-MRM show/event.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]dolandoes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jcea_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dolandoes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Deflection. My perspective is that one should concede when valid points are made regardless of the speaker, and that she shouldn't be given a free pass for being female because "she's probably not serious." I have spoken to her many times and have never seen any evidence that she isn't serious, but she has always been nice and thoughtful. I am against the ideas, not the person.

If a man said the same things, no one would care whether he's a troll or not, and I have yet to see proof of that from her, so I advocate that she be taken seriously and that her ideas should be scrutinized accordingly on that basis.

When she says something I agree with, I admit to agreeing, as I would with anyone. When she says something I don't like, I don't give it a pass due to her sex and blow it off as "probably satire."

I do not, however, believe personal attacks to the extent of driving things into personal and private matters is acceptable for anyone. So I oppose that for everyone including her.

If that makes me an apologist, then so be it, but that also wasn't the topic at hand. This is just deflection and derailment.

Title	Honey Badger Radio: Mary Koss and the American Rape Machine
Author	typhonblue
Upvotes	21
Comments	68
Date	February 13, 2014 4:48 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1xtb1i/honey_badger_radio_mary_koss_and_the_american/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/honey-badger-radio-mary-koss-and-the-american-rape.1003797 https://theredarchive.com/post/1003797

Comments