Feminists often complain, with considerable justification, that Men’s Rights Activists try to turn every conversation about women’s issues into a game of “what about the men?” You’re talking about female rape victims — well, what about the male rape victims?
The trouble with this strategy, from the point of view of the Men’s Rights Activists anyway, is that this little “gotcha” is much less of a “gotcha” then they’d like it to be.
In the case of rape, for example, feminists are well aware that men are raped as well: the “Don’t Be That Guy” ad campaign, which sent so many MRAs into hysterics, focused on male victims as well as female ones. The emergency room rape advocate organization that a friend of mine volunteers for provides advocacy for victims regardless of gender.
So many MRAs have started playing another game: trying to twist the conversation around in order to cast women as the villains. Rape is a bit tough for them here, since the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. So MRAs talk about the alleged epidemic of female false accusers instead. Or they change the topic entirely and make dead baby jokes (see my post yesterday).
Recently, MRAs have tried a new strategy, seizing on data from The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a massive study conducted in 2010 under the aegis of the Centers for Disease Control, to claim that “40% of rapists are women.”
This is a claim repeated by numerous MRAs on numerous websites; see, for example, this post by A Voice for Men’s Typhonblue on the blog GendErratic. Here’s the same claim made into an “infographic” for the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Trouble is, this claim is flat-out false, based on an incorrect understanding of the NISVS data. But you don’t have to take my word for it: the NISVS researchers themselves say the MRA “interpretation” of their data is based on bad math. It’s not just a question of different definitions of rape: the MRA claims are untenable even if you include men who were “made to penetrate” women as victims of rape (as the MRAs do) rather than as victims of “sexual violence other than rape” (as the NISVS does).
I wrote to the NISVS for clarification of this matter recently, and got back a detailed analysis, straight from the horse’s mouth, of where the MRA arguments went wrong. This is long, and a bit technical, but it’s also pretty definitive, so it’s worth quoting in detail. (I’ve bolded some of the text below for emphasis, and broken some of the larger walls of text into shorter paragraphs.)
It appears that the math used to derive an estimated percentage of female rapists … is flawed. First, we will summarize the assertion and what we perceive to be the basis for the assertion.
According to the web links, the “40% of rapists were women” was derived from these two steps:
1) Combining the estimated number of female rape victims with the estimated number of being-made-to-penetrate male victims in the 12 months prior to the survey to conclude that about 50% of the rape or being-made-to-penetrate victims were males;
2) Multiplying the estimated percentage (79%) of male being-made-to-penetrate victims who reported having had female perpetrators in these victims’ lifetime with the 50% obtained in step 1 to claim that 40% of perpetrators of rape or being-made-to-penetrate were women.
None of these calculations should be used nor can these conclusions be correctly drawn from these calculations.
First the researchers clarify the issue of definition:
To explain, in NISVS we define rape as “any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
We defined sexual violence other than rape to include being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. Made to penetrate is defined as including “times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
The difference between “rape” and “being made to penetrate” is that in the definition of rape the victim is penetrated; “made to penetrate” by definition refers to cases where the victim penetrated someone else.
While there are multiple definitions of rape and sexual violence used in the field, CDC, with the help of experts in the field, has developed these specific definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence (such as made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences). We use these definitions to help guide our analytical decisions.
Now the researchers get into the details of the math:
Regarding the specific assertion in question, several aspects of mistreatments of the data and the published estimates occurred in the above derivation:
A. While the percentage of female rape victims and the percentage of male being-made-to-penetrate victims were inferred from the past 12-month estimates by combining two forms of violence, the percentage of perpetrator by sex was taken from reported estimates for males for lifetime (a misuse of the percentage of male victims who reported only female perpetrators in their lifetime being made to penetrate victimization). This mismatch of timeframes is incorrect because the past 12-month victimization cannot be stretched to equate with lifetime victimization. In fact, Table 2.1 and 2.2 of the NISVS 2010 Summary Report clearly report that lifetime rape victimization of females (estimated at 21,840,000) is about 4 times the number of lifetime being made-to-penetrate of males (estimated at 5,451,000).
B. An arithmetic confusion appears when multiplying the two percentages together to conclude that the product is a percentage of all the “rapists”, an undefined perpetrator population. Multiplying the percentage of male victims (as derived in step 1) above) to the percentage of male victims who had female perpetrators cannot give a percentage of perpetrators mathematically because to get a percentage of female rape perpetrators, one must have the total rape perpetrators (the denominator), and the number of female perpetrators of this specific violence (the numerator). Here, neither the numerator nor the denominator was available.
C. Data collected and analyzed for the NISVS 2010 have a “one-to-multiple” structure (where the “one” refers to one victim and the “multiple” refers to multiple perpetrators). While not collected, it is conceivable that any perpetrator could have multiple victims. These multiplicities hinder any attempt to get a percentage of perpetrators such as the one described in steps 1) and 2), and nullify the reverse calculation for obtaining a percent of perpetrators.
For example, consider an example in which a girl has eight red apples while a boy has two green apples. Here, 50% of the children are boys and another 50% are girls. It is not valid to multiply 50% (boy) with 100% (boy’s green apples) to conclude that “50% of all the apples combined are green”. It is clear that only 20% of all the apples are green (two out of 10 apples) when one combines the red and green apples together. Part of the mistake in the deriving of the “50%” stems from a negligence to take into account the inherent multiplicity: a child can have multiple apples (just as a victim can have multiple perpetrators).
D. As the study population is U.S. adults in non-institutional settings, the sample was designed to be representative of the study population, not the perpetrator population (therefore no sampling or weighting is done for the undefined universe of perpetrators). Hence, while the data can be analyzed to make statistical inferences about the victimization of U.S. adults residing in non-institutional settings, the NISVS data are incapable of lending support to any national estimates of the perpetrator population, let alone estimates of perpetrators of a specific form of violence (say, rape or being-made-to-penetrate).
E. Combining the estimated past 12-month female rape victims with the estimated past 12-month being-made-to-penetrate male victims cannot give an accurate number of all victims who were either raped or being-made-to-penetrate, even if this combination is consistent with CDC’s definition.
Besides a disagreement with the definitions of the various forms of violence given in the NISVS 2010 Summary Report, this approach of combining the 12-month estimated number of female rape victims with the 12-month estimated number of male victims misses victims in the cells where reliable estimates were not reported due to small cell counts failing to meet statistical reliability criteria. For any combined form of violence, the correct analytical approach for obtaining a national estimate is to start at the raw data level of analysis, if such a creation of a combined construct is established.
So you’re going to need to go back to the drawing board, MRAs.
What is especially distressing here is that the NISVS data could have been the starting point for a serious discussion of male victims of sexual assault by women, which is a real and often overlooked issue. Unfortunately, MRAs have once again poisoned the well by misusing data in an attempt to exaggerate the purported villainy of women and score cheap rhetorical points.
NOTE: A regular in the AgainstMensRights subreddit approached the NISVS researchers with this same question some months back. Unfortunately, the statement they got back from the NISVS contained an incorrect number. The statement I’m quoting here corrects this number and adds more context.
I can provide contact info for the NISVS representative who got back to me on this to any serious (non-troll) person who requests it.
I am getting credit for what was actually inurashii’s idea about having David list “Actual Resources for Men” — I just had a suggestion about the location. But if we’re making unsolicited suggestions for David… Could I suggest changing all the “Boob Roll” links to donotlink.com versions? I’d be willing to create them for you, since I know it would be kind of time-consuming.
I’d rather group them both under “rape” and then split that into subtypes like “penetrative rape” and “non-penetrative rape” as needed for better specificity.
Prevents MRAs from flipping their shit about that, among other reasons.
katz’s age-related explanation doesn’t work here. That explanation could explain the lifetime numbers being higher than you’d naively expect based on 12 month numbers.
There’s no way it could explain the lifetime numbers being *lower* unless the sample population was extremely implausibly skewed.
2 alternative hypotheses to explain the discrepancy spring to mind:
1) MTP is something a lot of people forget ever happen to them so they’re just not remembering many incidences from before the last year. (I think this hypothesis has to at least be mentioned; it seems dismissive both of the criminal coercion involved and of the genuine trauma victims have experienced to mention this idea, but it may be the case.)
2) The same victims are repeatedly revictimised over their lifetimes.
If it’s explanation 2, the most plausible explanation for repeated revictimisation of the same men is that it’s abusive behaviour within a long term relationship. So not just the same victims, but also same perpetrators, over and over again.
This is deeply disturbing for anyone who cares about abused men, or anyone with basic empathy. It might also be deeply disturbing for the MRM, because this interpretation of the data means that the percentage of female perpetrators is nowhere near as high as they’d like it to be.
I can actually see why people aren’t liking David’s way of defining things, though, since he wants to call MTP rape if the victim was underage, and the stat rape idea hinges on the victim’s inability to consent. If you’re working with a system where each type of sexual assault gets its own classification then sure, make MTP separate from penetrated against your will, but if the classification is rape or other types of sexual assault then I think MTP should be classified under “rape”. I feel like the rape vs other types of sexual assault classification hinges on whether or not things that we’d classify as “sex” in a consensual situation happened, versus groping and other stuff that’s sexual in nature but not what people normally think of if you say “sex”. Does that make sense?
That’s the first time I used gender neutral pronouns, BTW. I thought I’d give it a whirl since other MBZ posters use them.
@ Brooked
A cookie? I want a martini first if I’m going to wade through more than a couple of sentences of that gibberish.
@Athywren
I don’t know how far back I’m going in the comments here (just pressed refresh so it might be a few pages) but basically, all English criminal law uses subjective mens rea (guilty mind/intention). So instead of the prosecution proving that a reasonable person did know, or ought to have known, that doing X would result in Y offence – an objective standard – the defence can show that they, subjectively, did not realise this. It’s a blanket rule based on the idea that guilt should be shown at the highest level before a person loses their liberty. It mainly applies if a defendant is under 18 or of extremely low intelligence. It’s not easy to prove, obviously a jury has to believe them. So yeah, while I can’t think of a specific example as to when it would apply, that’s why it’s phrased in that manner.
/been doing too much law tutoring lately
@Cassandra A wise choice.
@hannasoumaki You should probably keep your tumblr excursions to yourself for now.
@Brooked, is this the sentence you’re talking about?
I think it’s about illiteracy? Something about a call for teaching men’s rights activists to understand how words work?
Mr. Futrelle. I’ve tried to make this a simple point to be made regarding MTP being considered rape.
In multiple replies you have yet to quantify and actually explain your reasoning and justification for why MTP should be considered sexual assault. Your explanations all go back to, “Well that just makes sense to me.” With no real qualifier there.
You even contradicted your own logic a bit by saying that statutory rape by MTP should be called rape and considered rape (you seemed to imply this in a legal context. While adult MTP should be sexual assault and not rape. Where as rape by being penetrated is considered rape with age being considered under statutory rape.
Why does the offense qualify as sexual assault and not rape? Why are you consistently supporting a definition that is legally treated as a lesser crime with lesser punishment?
You support a definition that has being penetrated with objects, body parts of any kind (not just genitalia), being considered rape. But actual sexual intercourse involving someone forcing you to penetrate them or an object is sexual assault?
Mr. Futrelle, I can’t be gentle about saying this. Your stance is completely inconsistent with your stated goal that you want it to be treated as equally heinous. Regardless of the cultural implications of the differences between the terms of “sexual assault” and “rape”. There is a strong legal difference between the two. In many countries and states sexual assault carries a lighter penalty than rape.
By continuing to support this definition that clearly treats sexual assault as a lighter punishment you’re effectively saying that MTP is lesser than rape. Regardless of your intent. Because you’re defending the definition that legally treats it as such.
@Cassandra
I agree with you. I think statutory rape muddies the water because it’s usually classified an a non-forcible sex offense (like incest) rather than a forcible act (like rape and sexual assault). In the US, most states don’t have a “statutory rape law”, but instead have a group of laws that deal with voluntary sexual acts involving minors. Often these laws overlap with child abuse laws, it depends on the specifics of the crime.
I think it means “SirYouAreBeingMocked” doesn’t actually have any facts or evidence to make an argument, so ze is throwing together as many three syllable words as possible, in hopes that the casual reader will be impressed enough to not look too closely.
Ash sure is beating the shit out of that straw David Futrelle.
I love how so many MRAs echo SYABM’s complaints yet at the same time get all pissed off when a feminist comes into a discussion about rape against men and talks about female victims. That’s not hypocritical at all.
SYABM is literally the densest person I’ve seen on Tumblr. And that’s saying a lot.
@ Athywren
Ah, I remember when I wrote like that, thinking it would impress people. I was 12.
I note how on the TS piece a couple of people linked earlier, he basically says “FEMINISTS say MRAs never provide advice, information or any kind of help to male victims and instead just want to rag on feminists, but we TOTES DO THAT”… and then just leaves it there without actually, you know, providing advice, information or help to male victims.
He said his argument is a semantic one, not a legal one. Why are you talking about legal differences? Those are irrelevant to his point.
More r/mr discussion (tangential) on this piece.
@katz
Sounds like a plan, so long as they’re categorised in such a way that they don’t get too confusing to work with.
HAH! You’re funny! :3
@thenatfantastic
Ok, fair point, I can see the value of that. I mean… I still have issues with it, but none that have any obvious solutions.
@augzilliary
Urgh, fuck. I hate “get over it” at the best of times, but that’s just repulsive. As if people have the right to dictate how others feel about what they’ve been through. Other people have dealt with them in supposedly “better” ways, good for them. Not everyone can do that. Mostly, though, I hate the assumptions behind it – that you know exactly how bad it was, exactly how many other things have happened to that person, that there is a correct reaction, and that other reactions are unacceptable.
I’ve had that thrown at me a few times in my life, thankfully never because I’d been raped, however you define it. The most obvious examples were when I was still in school.
One was in winter, when it had snowed: “Get over it! It’s just snow!” I’d been pinned down and had “just snow” stuffed into my mouth, almost suffocating me. This was followed by a fist, apparently made of just snow, in my face when I chased after the bastard with the intention of tearing him limb from limb (I failed at that).
The other was after my grandfather died. It was affecting my school work because I was miserable and don’t work well when miserable. My teacher told me I was milking it, and to get over it. What a brilliant teacher, way to motivate. Because mourning is just the excuse of a lazy student.
So, yeah, fuck “get over it.”
@ Ally
And he has yet to quantify his reasoning and statements regarding even as a semantic issue. The fact of the matter is that legally and culturally there are a number of people who consider sexual assault below rape on some kind of hierarchy of horrible things to happen to you.
This is supported by legal punishments treating sexual assault as a lower crime than rape.
Mr. Futrelle is continuing to support a definition, semantically and legally, that treats rape as a lesser offense.
He also contradicted his thinking as I’ve seen so far by stating that statutory rape of a minor by MTP is rape, but that adult MTP is not. Imagine if he’d said that penetrative rape of a minor is statutory rape, but that penetration without consent is sexual assault?
He has consistently defended the definition semantically when I see no benefit to do so. There is little reason to justify upholding calling MTP sexual assault instead of rape.
It is sexual intercourse without consent.
@Cassandra
Is that aimed at something I said, or at what SYABM said?
(Just want to be clear, so I can correct myself if it’s something I said.)
@Ash
I don’t know how it is in other parts of the world, but in England, sexual assault has a variety of penalties, depending on the specifics – it isn’t universally lighter. In fact, being forced to commit a sexual act, which includes being forced to penetrate, has exactly the same penalty attached. I don’t see the rationale for conflating exactly equal treatment with being considered lesser?
@ Athywren
Aimed at him, not you, sorry. He’s just so wordy and pretentious, and I remember when I thought that writing like that would make people think I was very clever. Like if you throw enough adjectives into the debate then you automatically win.
They shouldn’t. Rape is a sexual assault.
@Cassandra
Most excellent. I shall put away my fears and reinvigorate my literary confidence in this most important of current matters.
I tend to agree in general with the assessment in the body article. There exists a masculine-oriented argument to be made, and that argument is not hiding in the numbers but rather in the fact that researchers deemed it proper to say that a woman forcing sex on a man isn’t rape.
I however STRONGLY disagree with Futrelle’s comments in this section.
Look, from a certain perspective I get it. I cut my teeth on feminist philosophy as both activism and healing for women as well. I get the gut reaction to want to set aside non-penetrative sexual assault as something different. If we do this though we are robbing male survivors (or if indeed that term is underline and defined elsewhere to be something else, “victims” if you prefer) of not only useful labels, but useful language and useful therapeutic measures.
That is should I treat victims of non-penetrative assault differently? How does one advocate for them? Does our philosophy allow for such advocacy? What new language should I develop? RapeBeta perhaps? How long before those words become common enough for the average victim to be able to use them? How much longer before it is in general use by the population? What is gained by demanding that rape be a crime of penetration? Can lesbians rape without the use of a fist or a strap-on? Isn’t it homophobic to define rape of men in terms of things that will most likely happen between men? Isn’t it sexism by apotheosis (putting on a pedestal) to define away the possibility of a woman raping a man without penetrating him?
The most important question up there I think is “what is gained?” What is the point of defining victims of non-penetrative assault as not being victims of rape? Convince me that there is a reason to separate the groups that is beneficial to survivors (and/or victims) of BOTH groups and I will be right there with you defending it until I am blue in the face.
For the moment, granting that your “separate but equal” apologetics stand, how would you go about convincing the current group of male victims that what they experienced was not “rape?” How would that feel if you were in that position and someone told you, “Oh, rape means something every specific that only happens with forced penetration, but you were assaulted just the same?” Or worse yet, “Oh, that support group is only for rape survivors, you weren’t raped, so we really don’t have any offerings.”
Do you really feel comfortable knowing that your philosophy allows for both of the above things with no problems?
As far as I am concerned the NISVS study is all but a lost cause. With such biases creeping in to the final report, who is to say what sort of biases infected the researchers actually collecting the data. We should give this hill up and focus on publishing something of a higher calibre. Perhaps something where I do not need to be a probabilist to understand the final report.