~ archived since 2018 ~

CDC is caught in a lie

Tamen_

April 4, 2014

195 upvotes

Alison Tieman (typhonblue) has made a video using puzzle pieces to illustrate how CDC categorize made to penetrate as not rape. That video have been posted here several times.

About halfway through the video there is an interview where Hannah Wallen (of AVfM I believe) is talking on the phone with a person from the CDC on their decision to categorize made to penetrate as something else than rape.

The person from CDC state that the definitions of rape and made to penetrate is in line with CDC's uniform definitions for sexual violence. This can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ncjGFIFPJI&feature=player_detailpage&list=FLcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg#t=387

That is a lie

They are not in line with CDC's uniform definitions for sexual violence and I have already documented this back in October last year in this post on my blog: http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/did-the-nisvs-2010-report-really-use-cdcs-definition-of-rape/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	CDC is caught in a lie
Author	Tamen_
Upvotes	195
Comments	80
Date	April 4, 2014 1:55 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/225npz/cdc-is-caught-in-a-lie/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cdc-is-caught-in-a-lie.1616000 https://theredarchive.com/post/1616000

Comments

[–]TRPACC26 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_26 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I wrote in a rant quite a while back now:

When one disables the unidirectionalism inherent in many feminist definitions (privilege, rape culture, patriarchy/kirarchy and so on) then feminism itself does not really come off too well when it’s own theory is applied to it.

Feminists track record on male victims of rape and on female perpetrators contributes to rape culture to the extent that a feminist who in an article about rape culture wrote that “only men can stop rape”. Minimizing victims of rape is rape culture according to feminists, but apparently not when the victims minimized are male and the perpetrator female. Not believing a rape victim is rape culture with the exception being if the victim is male. The exception is perfectly exemplified by Marcotte who thinks it is much more likely that a male victim faked it and is abusing the partner by being upset about sex without his consent. And then Marcotte have the audacity to say that what men needs to address and solve their issues is feminism.

[–]Tamen_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haltingstate1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have some facts, that doesn't make me an expert.

It's about time you admit that. You've been trying to impose your own personal interpretation of unconnected facts as connected in a meaningful way on the rape culture dialogue here long enough.

So are your theories and assertions about it.

You wouldn't know. You have neither read nor discussed my assertions or theories. You have merely repeated your own, over and over and over, like a scratched record with an uninterrupted electrical feed.

You have called attributed to my invention theories and thought processes that have long existed, some prior to my birth. You have continually dodged discussion on the logic flaws in your own stated theory. You've approached the entire discussion on autopilot.

When you are ready to prove that your entire string of claims does not rely on imposing a victim narrative on women who don't consider themselves victims, then calling everything they say against that imposition "self-blame," there will be something to discuss. Until then, your argument is just posturing and fluff.

[–]TRPACC-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is you projecting the characteristics of your theorizing and narrative.

No, it's simply a description of the way you have been trying to promote feminist rape culture theory here.

If you don't know even basic facts, your assertion and theories are pointless. I didn't state a theory, you are continuing to state theory as if its fact, and refusing to acknowledge flaws and contradictions, now you are painting your position, onto me.

Again, you wouldn't know, as you have neither read nor discussed what I've actually written. When you reply to comments that link to writing full of linked citations with "that's just your theory" mere seconds after they're posted, it becomes obvious that you're not responding to what was presented, but to your own assumption. This is further cemented by the fact that you didn't even notice that my last link led to the work of Christina Hoff Sommers, not anything I've written. You can't even keep track of the discussion.

You want me to prove a negative?

You can prove a negative in this case by proving that your assertion is based on something entirely different. However, to do that you have to prove a negative; simply show how your argument is valid without relying the feminist method of imposing a victim narrative on women who don't consider themselves victims, then calling everything they say against that imposition "self-blame."

Of course, that means you can't rely on the feminist narrative on rape culture and victim blaming, because that narrative does rely on that imposition/thought-terminating-cliche combo. That is why I've continued to hammer that point. It is a fundamental flaw in what you're advocating here. Your entire claim depends on treating that imposition as a validation of feminist claims regarding rape culture, when it's really the use of a rhetorical fallacy to get to a conclusion that does not logically follow the facts you present.

[–]TRPACC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You attacked me when I said the rape industry were rejecting the idea that men rape by mistake six months ago. Just like you are attacking me for stating facts here again.

Again, you keep saying that when it is not what the discussion was about. You made the same claims then that you are making now, and I made the same argument I'm making now. You've attempted to take the discussion several different directions in order to avoid dealing with your argument's reliance on rhetorical fallacy. Claiming that my previous argument was in response to the red herring points you threw up at the time is no more effective than attempting to eclipse it with the red herring points you're throwing up now. You have painted yourself into a corner here. You want to talk about what the rape industry is rejecting, but you do not admit that even RAINN is rejecting the concepts you're supporting. Rape Culture theory and the feminist narrative surrounding it have been deconstructed and debunked. If you want to continue to support treating them as valid concepts, it's your responsibility to prove that there is good reason. You have not only failed to do so but helped to prove why there isn't.

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duglock5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duglock1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duglock1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen33311 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcea_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcea_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rapiertwit4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3334 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rapiertwit3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rabbit_TAO10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The closes equivalent I could find for CDC in Canada was Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). It's not the same though and it appears that PHAC doesn't collect statistics on sexual violence. It seems like Statistics Canada is the one doing that. I only did a cursory search of their webpages and I haven't looked into details of the resources I have linked so I might be mistaken.

I few years back I looked into Canada's change towards removing rape as a legal term and replacing it with sexual assault. This was done in 1983 so the online records were pretty sparse. I remember finding references to some feminists being positive to the change in the rape laws finally recognizing spousal rape, but at the same time they were against replacing the term rape with the term sexual assault. This is only part of the picture as there is much information from 1983 which aren't available online. It seems like victim's advocate were the foremost proponents of the law and I assume many of those were feminists. I also suspect that any gender neutrality (both for the victim and the perpetrator) caused by the new wording of the law weren't intended as I suspect there was precious little awareness of male victimization and female perpetration in 1983. This statement on the motivation behind removing the term rape seem to support my suspicion:

"The intention behind the change in terminology was to avoid the moral stigma connected to the word 'rape' and to stress the violent nature of the act," according to the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre.

Source: Second to last paragraph in this article

Every once in a while a Tory will attempt to reverse this and re-introduce the legal term rape into the law. Conservative MP Rob Anders in 2014 and then Public Safety Minister Vic Toews in 2010.

I think replacing the legal term rape with sexual assault is a perfectly valid way of making the law on sexual violence gender neutral.

[–]Rabbit_TAO2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bartab7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_fight_demons4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoUsername4me2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ricky2512948 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ricky2512942 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since you're from the UK the following may interest you:

http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/survivors-manchester-excluded-from-rape-support-fund/

http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/uk-natsal-3-and-a-bit-of-nisvs-2010/

http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/one-would-think-so-but-no/

Please consider making a stink in the UK about the sexism in the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 definition of rape.

With that out of the way, back to the scheduled program :) :

The definitions CDC used were not legal definitions. Legal definitions for rape and sexual assaults are defined in state laws and can vary from state to state. Some states have a gender neutral definition of rape, some have a less than gender neutral definition of rape while others are more in line with UK law which requires that a rapist have a penis - meaning that women can never<sup>1</sup> be rapists.

The NISVS 2010 Report by the CDC will be cited by policy makers and victim advocates many years ahead, it'll be cited by research into sexual violence in other countries and so on. Hence it findings will have a real impact on how policies are made, how resources to victims, resources to law enforcement, resources to perpetrator rehabilitation, resources to prevention campaigns and so on are allocated.

That is why the fact that CDC essentially hid a significant number of rape victims in plain sight by making sure to redefine them as not rape victims despite this being against CDC's own uniform definitions of sexual violence is so important to bring to light. That is why I won't shut up, that is why I used the word "lie", that is why I wrote letters to CDC, RAINN and FBI on the definitions of rape, that is why I wrote an open letter to David Futrelle asking him to explain why he thought it made sense to not consider "made to penetrate" as rape.

[–]AloysiusC6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Levy_Wilson4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Funny thing about made to penetrate... I have a feeling someday it will backfire, very hard. Maybe has in jails already, but since it's in jails it's snuffed out.

What I mean, as an example, what if a woman is in a jail, shelter for woman or something like that, and she is sexually assaulted by other women, not men. Say a woman is held down by other women, clothes ripped off, put in sexual positions and forced to preform oral on another woman, or have oral preformed on her... is it technically not rape because there is no penetration? Do her aggressors only get slapped with harassment or a sexual assault crime lesser than rape? What if the victim is forced to use a phallic object on an other woman, does that mean she was only assaulted, but she raped someone else because she was the one to penetrate another women?

I hate this definition because it paints men as the only people who are physically capable of rape. Even though there are countless things a woman can do to a woman (or a man). But by this definition, it is practically physically impossible for a woman to ever rape anyone.

[–]KillJoy5752 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

CDC is US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Its mandate is not constrained to diseases (despite it's name), but basically covers all health threats.

Here is an excerpt from CDC's mission statement:

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

Here are CDC's stated roles:

Taking the health pulse of our nation

Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats

Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans

Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease

Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment

Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives

Violence is a health threat and hence CDC have a National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) which again have a Division of Violence Prevention (DVP).

Here is an excerpt from the About page to The Division of Violence Prevention:

In 1979, violent behavior was identified by the U.S. Surgeon General as a key public health priority. Shortly thereafter, in 1980, CDC began studying patterns of violence. These early activities grew into a national program to reduce the death and disability associated with injuries outside the workplace. In 1992, CDC established the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) as the lead federal organization for violence prevention. The Division of Violence Prevention (DVP) is one of three divisions within NCIPC.

DVP did a national survey during 2010 and published a report on it in December 2011 called the NISVS 2010 Report.

I hope this helped clear things up for you.

[–]Grubnar1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link