Here’s a little one-question quiz to see how much you know about Reddit’s Atheism subreddit.
QUESTION ONE: A woman describes being raped by a “friend” while both were intoxicated (though she doesn’t call it rape). Do the r/atheism regulars:
a) Respond with sympathy and support
b) Attack her and furiously downvote her posts, with the assistance of one of the moderators of r/mensrights, then return to posting and upvoting rape jokes
BONUS QUESTION: True or False: Someone on r/menrights links to her comment as “an example of how and why many people believe that rape is everywhere… because their definition of rape includes every sexual misadventure.” The most heavily upvoted comment in the r/mensrights thread declares that the woman who was raped “sounds like a delusional sheltered teen.”
Yes, the correct answers here are the ones you assumed were correct.
Here’s the woman’s post describing what happened to her.
She gives more details on what happened in other, also-highly-downvoted comments.
One highly upvoted rape joke from elsewhere in the thread:
Hilarious!
Amazingly, despite all the jokes and the victim blaming/attacking going on, the thread also contains some highly upvoted comments lamenting the tendency of people to blame the victim in rape cases. Apparently, when a rape victim is drunk, it’s not rape, even when she repeatedly says “no” and gives in because she’s scared, so it’s fine to attack away, and even to accuse the victim of being a rapist too.
This enables Reddit Atheists not only to blame the victim of rape without feeling guilty, or admitting that this is what they’re doing, while simultaneously feeling self-righteous in their condemnation of religious people doing the exact same thing.
And because their rape jokes are also couched as jokes about religious people’s views on rape, they can feel self-righteous while making them too.
Sometimes the actions of Reddit Atheists cause me to begin to doubt just a teensy weensey bit that “atheists are a community that’s pre-selected for clear thinking and empiricism,” as one commenter in r/mensrights put it not that long ago.
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks again to ShitRedditSays for highlighting this awful thread.
EDITED TO ADD 2: More SRS discussion, courtesy of Holly.
Also, if you wouldn’t mind linking to the comments your quoting so we can see the context I’d appreciate it.
*you’re haha oops
I’m new to the formatting, hope this is ok!
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/25/quiz-how-did-reddits-atheist-community-responded-to-a-womans-account-of-rape/comment-page-3/#comment-118143
“Yes, Tamen, you cited the 12 months, but why you only cited that number in a study that had lifetime estimates with much different numbers…”
Explictly stating that the 12 month data is less useful in knowing current conditions
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/25/quiz-how-did-reddits-atheist-community-responded-to-a-womans-account-of-rape/comment-page-3/#comment-118838
“Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question. From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime.”
Explicitly stating that the last year data is less likely to be representitive of current conditions than the lifetime data
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/25/quiz-how-did-reddits-atheist-community-responded-to-a-womans-account-of-rape/comment-page-3/#comment-119375
“Even if true for one year, it’s only one year. How about the lifetime chances for women to be raped vs. men to be raped?”
Explicitly stating that current situation is better calculated by the lifetime data point
A word on the statistics, and hopefully not a teal deer like some of the comments on the last page.
1. Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence obviously measure different things, but the general shape of one set of data should not be hugely out of kilter with the other (if so, this would either be an anomalous year, or an indication of a trend). If you look at the weighted percentage columns of Table 2.1 re: U.S. women, the Lifetime prevalence of sexual violence against U.S. women is approximately one order of magnitude (~ ten times) than the 12 Month prevalence data. (Of the sixteen reported figures, pairwise six are more than ten times greater; two are less than ten times greater.)
2. There may be apparent trends, for example the 12 month prevalence of alcohol/drug facilitated penetration is a higher proportion of all rape than the lifetime prevalence, but to establish the trend would require longitudinal data – i.e. a history of 12 month prevalence figures compiled. The longitudinal data would permit an anomalous year to be distinguished from a trend.
3. When we look at the equivalent of Table 2.1 for U.S. men, which is Table 2.2 of the report, there are a number of evident problems.
4. 12 Month Prevalence of rape of U.S. men is not statistically significant for nearly half of the categories, preventing a comparison of some of the same variables as for U.S. women. This makes having a much larger sample size of men highly desirable.
5. All of the remaining 12 Month Prevalence statistics for U.S. men – the ones which are statistically significant – are less than one order of magnitude smaller than the Lifetime prevalence statistics. The real question is what is going on here to make the men’s stats look so different from those of women?
6. An example comparison of two troubling sets of data, chosen especially since the weighted percentages of the 12 Month Prevalence are identical:
12 Month Prevalence of Rape of U.S. Women: 1.1%
Lifetime Prevalence of Rape of U.S. Women: 18.3%
12 Month Prevalence of U.S. Men being Made to Penetrate: 1.1%
Lifetime Prevalence of U.S. Men being Made to Penetrate: 4.8%
Why are the Lifetime prevalence figures so different when the 12 Month figures are the same?
“Why are the Lifetime prevalence figures so different when the 12 Month figures are the same?”
Which is what I was attempting to answer on the previous page – I posted some studies that have some interesting data on effects of age and other factors on reporting victimisation amongst others.
Errata to paragraph 1:
… (if so, this would either be an anomalous year, or an indication of a trend, or some other problem with the data)
… is approximately one order of magnitude (~ ten times) greater than the 12 Month prevalence data
But JoanofArt those quotes explicitly say none of that. Or implicitly for that matter. If this is the best you’ve got I’m sorry to say I have to agree with the other commenters here, you’re either trolling or arguing (ineptly) just for the sake of arguing.
*Blink* That’s exactly what they say. I, unlike you, am not going to accuse you of trolling or being inept, but how can you think:
““Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question. From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime.”
This explicitly says that the lifetime rate is better – its in the darn words! Maybe I’m seeing something different? I honestly can’t see how that can be interpreted otherwise, seriously
Yeah, I guess you are seeing something different. Because it doesn’t say anything about a lifetime rate being better. Not sure what to say to you here. Read it again maybe?
Joan, thanks. I would be inclined to think more research is sorely needed, and a sufficiently large sample size to be able to obtain statistically significant data. As an example, you’d have noticed on page 25 of the 2010 NISVS report there’s a breakdown by age of the first completed rape for women; 12.3% of women who have been raped were 10 years or younger when first raped. As for men, I’ll quote the report directly:
RIght, breaking it down:
1 From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime
This says the one year data can’t be used to look at lifetime data (note that the one year data is from all age ranges in the survey)
2: Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question.
This is saying that ‘lifetime is the real question’ and that the lifetime rates are what we should be using
In combination they say that the 12 month data isn’t any good for looking at the rate of rape, and that the lifetime data is.
I mean I may have lost the ability to read I guess – I do have some developmental issues with reading, but I don’t think I’m that bad -.-
Definitely. It will be interesting to see what the next big study of this sort brings up, and if there is some kind of trend or not.
No, in combination they do not say that. They don’t even say what you interpreted them as saying separately. Do you have someone else around that you could maybe show this to and get a second opinion since you seem not to trust the opinions of people here?
I do have someone with me, but before I tell you the results can you tell me, fully, what you think this means, both explicitly and implicitly?
JoanofArt, referring to your 8:53 pm,
Re: 1, “From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime” versus “This says the one year data can’t be used to look at lifetime data (note that the one year data is from all age ranges in the survey)”
Which is to say, the more relevant statistic is more relevant for the desired quantity than the less relevant statistic – even if the less relevant one covers all age ranges.
Re: 2, “Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question.” and “This is saying that ‘lifetime is the real question’ and that the lifetime rates are what we should be using” versus “In combination they say that the 12 month data isn’t any good for looking at the rate of rape, and that the lifetime data is.”
The 12 month data is both more relevant to recent trends and more easily perturbed by anomalies, so its utility for looking at the prevalence of rape is delimited, compared to the lifetime stats – and as pointed out, there seem to be glaring issues presented by the 12 month data pertinent to U.S. men – almost half the stats fail to reach statistical significance for a start.
Right, your reading seems to be similar enough to mine that I don’t feel to bad 🙂 I’ll wait till Snowy tells me xis version.
Really? Because her reading actually looks nothing like yours to me. But lets quote this context.
Tamen says: When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures. When it comes to how to prevent future rapes the last 12 months figures are more relevant because the represent the current risk more than the lifetime figures does.
Pecunium responds: Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question. From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime. All I can do is say, “In this year, this happened”. But that’s, to all intents and purposes, a single datum point. It’s not a valid basis for the extrapolation you are making.
JoanofArt’s interpretation of what Pecunium meant: In combination they say that the 12 month data isn’t any good for looking at the rate of rape, and that the lifetime data is.
And now to answer your question of what do I think he meant explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly I think he meant that a single data point is not enough to estimate a lifetime figure. Implicitly I think he may have meant “gtfo troll” but I don’t know for sure, you’d have to ask him.
Oh, and I’m a man in case you were wondering.
Oh. That’s unlikely in context. Both the data to which xe was referring were single points, and xe was supporting one of them for that use.
“and you admit to limiting the actual data, because the lifetime numbers don’t support you.”
only critical of not using the lifetime numbers – only critical of using the 12 month numbers.
In the above statement:
“last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures.”
Direct comparsion of both data points.
Reply:
“Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question. From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime.”
It states that the short term one can not be used – not that the lifetime can not be used,
Now I’m really not sure if you’re trolling. :p
Oh, and the person I asked thinks my interpretation is extremely reasonable. *shrug*
Who are you talking about here? It would be helpful if you gave some indication of who you’re quoting and responding to.
And? So? I would agree that the short term one alone is not enough. Do you disagree? I’m not sure what your point is.
Haha, you know, you’re right! As one of the moderators of the mbz forum my favorite passtime is trolling the blog! Oh wait…
Is her name Ashley by any chance?
Troll troll, trollity trollity troll, the lurkers support me in email!
you are a troll too snowy? ahh!!! first david is revealed as a troll now you! I cannot go on living knowing this!!!
(pays off snowy)
>_>
Ashley? No…Is that meant to be a reference to someone I should know?
At this stage I beginning to think that you are deliberately (whether you think of it as trolling or not) trying to miss the point.
1 A and B are being compared as being used for C
2 It is stated that B can not be used for C
3 It is never stated or implied that A can not be used for C
4 A is praised a good thing
(And one can certainly calculate a lifetime rate from a yearly rate – similar calculations are done all the time in research on FGC – they look at yearly rates (or even lower!) and calculate estimates over much longer than a year – so I guess I’m not sure what your point is there?)
And again, even if you don’t consider it trolling replies like:
“Explicitly I think he meant that a single data point is not enough to estimate a lifetime figure. Implicitly I think he may have meant “gtfo troll” but I don’t know for sure, you’d have to ask him”
When explicitly it’s not what he said and implicitly you’re just being rude – comes across as trolling to me.
(How do I know he’s not saying that – one of the single data points *is* a lifetime figure – to deny that a lifetime figure can’t estimate a lifetime figure would be unusual.)
Well, I’m pretty sure I’m not the one missing the point. But how about we agree to disagree and retire to beneath our respective bridges. Troll truce!
(accepts payoff from jumbo)
Sure. I may stick around if Xanthe has some more to say or some studies to read. And really – those studies I posted on the last page are really interesting and relevant – I do recommend, if you have access and the time, reading them.