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 lost my ability to take anything here said seriously when this happened:
Me: If you don’t comment at all, I have nothing to reply to. True or false?
Them: False.
I look at that, and all I can do is just shrug. You can’t even concede something that’s objectively true. You’ll deny reality just to disagree with me. No explanation given.
No explanation given for most of the points I brought up. Just “asked and answered.” You couldn’t summarize? Maybe give me a link? You seem to have no desire to try convincing me that you’re right. I’m just supposed to already know everything you do. I wonder, how do you get anyone to join you?
There was also this line:
“You’re equating your own hurt feelings(which were deserved) with oppression. I’m sorry sweetie but you are not that important.”
So… I deserve it when one of you deliberately intends to insult me. Because I made use of a slur to demonstrate my disapproval of that slur.
Your feelings are important enough that I have to respect them, but I am not important enough to deserve the same.
Do you really not understand why that’s so surreal? Do you not understand why that’s a perfect example of “It’s okay when we do it, because we’re us, and it’s evil when you do it, because you’re them”? By that logic, any bully tactic you use on me is okay so long as you don’t use certain words.
I oppressed no one. You’re insulting actual oppression to call it that. Especially in light of the trigger warning at the top of this very page.
Being here reminds me of the time I decided to post on the Atheism+ forum. I’d heard MRAs talking about how it was an Orwellian nightmare, and I thought “It can’t possibly be that bad.” I decided to go there, bring up some points of disagreement, and do so civilly, always obeying all of their forum’s rules. Over the next four days, they pretty much broke me. I stayed as long as I could, but the atmosphere there was so toxic, it literally brought me to tears. And not even while I was there; it was in public, hours later. I’m pushing a grocery cart and suddenly start crying uncontrollably. No one else has ever done that to me. I’ve been in countless arguments and flamewars. I’ve had the vilest threats and insults thrown at me. People have told me I deserve to die. I’ve had someone stalk me for over a year, doxxing me, posting photos of my house online, threatening my friends. I’ve had someone post drawings where they brutally murder me, and they included my real street address. None of that hurt me the way the people at Atheism+ did.
I bring that up because I see the same things beginning to happen here. Misinterpretation of my arguments. Nitpicking details of my speech instead of directly addressing my points. Refusing to concede a single thing I say, even if it’s objectively, provably true. Absolute silence in reply to points where I prove someone wrong. Changing the conversation from topics of substance to assumptions and accusations about me personally. Finding any way possible to take what I’ve said in offense, while openly and intentionally being offensive to me and defending that behavior. And most of all, selectively condemning me for behaviors which I haven’t done to others here, but which others have openly done to me.
Being openly bullied for a sustained amount of time by people who attribute all their own malice onto you is a feeling like having your nose pressed into vomit. I’m not going through it again. I know my words are hitting solid glass and bouncing off. I know you will find ways to convince yourself that I am the bad guy, that you are the good guys, and I cannot be right, and you cannot be wrong. I don’t care.
I would be ashamed of myself if I treated anyone like you do. Not all of you, but some of you. I don’t pity you, but I pity the people around you in your real lives.
Have you taken a religious vow that every comment must be at least 2000 words long or something?
RE: Alex
You couldn’t summarize? Maybe give me a link?
We did. IN THE THREAD.
You seem to have no desire to try convincing me that you’re right. I’m just supposed to already know everything you do. I wonder, how do you get anyone to join you?
THEY READ THE THREADS.
Seriously, why would we want anyone to join us… when they don’t read anything we’ve written before?
You’re seriously going to ask someone else to summarize?
Reynard: It’s false because “silence = assent”.
It’s argumentation 101. That you pretend you don’t understand (when the comment to which you made reply said that very thing), is one more reason to point out your mendacity.
Dude, that is what you said to do, just ignore you and you’d take it as read. I went so far as to let you know that it’s been done. You said don’t expect or demand anything from anyone else here.
You lied.
You seem to have no desire to try convincing me that you’re right. I’m just supposed to already know everything you do. I wonder, how do you get anyone to join you?
I have no desire to repeat myself in this thread (yet again) because you don’t have the common decency to catch up, while imposing on us with 4,411 words; on this page alone.
Do you really not understand why that’s so surreal? Do you not understand why that’s a perfect example of “It’s okay when we do it, because we’re us, and it’s evil when you do it, because you’re them”? By that logic, any bully tactic you use on me is okay so long as you don’t use certain words.
Grow up. You used a word to which people took offense. Rather than say, “oh, I see that I offended you, I’m sorry, I won’t do it again”, you said, “tough titties, I didn’t do anything wrong” Then people told you (in strong language) that they didn’t want you around because you were being an asshole you said that “fuck off” was a slur equal to F*****T. That’s dickish.
So tell me why we would want your sort around? Why should we make the extra effort to go back and rewrite things when 1: they have been asked and answered, 2: you don’t demand anything of any of us, 3: you lied about that and are demanding we duplicate our efforts and take time from our lives and amusements to tell you something you will refuse to believe?
That trigger warning, is because shitstains like you refuse to have the decency to take other’s feelings into account.
I’ve had the vilest threats and insults thrown at me. People have told me I deserve to die. I’ve had someone stalk me for over a year, doxxing me, posting photos of my house online, threatening my friends. I’ve had someone post drawings where they brutally murder me, and they included my real street address. None of that hurt me the way the people at Atheism+ did.
I bring that up because I see the same things beginning to happen here.
Sure you do cupcake. It’s so terrible to be told to fuck off. It’s so awful that people who are offended told you about it. It’s so unfair when you were rude to them that they didn’t just lie down and take it.
Must be hell to have to deal with people who expect you be a halfway decent human being.
. Misinterpretation of my arguments. Nitpicking details of my speech instead of directly addressing my points. Refusing to concede a single thing I say, even if it’s objectively, provably true.
If that had happened you might have something to whine about.
Absolute silence in reply to points where I prove someone wrong.
Aw look… just what I said you would do.
Being openly bullied for a sustained amount of time by people who attribute all their own malice onto you is a feeling like having your nose pressed into vomit.
Says the guy who lies about his desires and motives. Must suck to come someplace and have them refuse to play the game you wanted to play.
I would be ashamed of myself if I treated anyone like you do.
I’d be ashamed if I was a obvious, and lousy, a liar as you are. I’d be more ashamed at whining so much when I got caught out, instead of taking my lumps and making a quiet exit.
I’ve gotten plenty of actual rape & death threats on Reddit even though I mostly stay in explicitly feminist subs, and I don’t whine about it nearly as much as Alex. (Who, incidentally, made a comment on Reddit saying that battered woman syndrome was horseshit, but a person could be excused for bashing in the head of a doctor who botched a circumcision. Not that a botched circumcision is okay, but I kind of think systematically battering people is also bad.)
I can’t help but notice he didn’t answer my question, which re-gendered his question to us. I am sure pointing that out makes me a terrible abuser!
Alex, getting told to fuck off because you’re an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest asshat isn’t the same as people threatening to rape you simply because you’re a woman with an opinion on the internet.
Your false equivalency isn’t fazing us.
Also, so apparently being concise is misandry.
I hope this one sticks the flounce. This one has been particularly wearisome.
Doesn’t have time to read whats already been written, but has time to write long essays about it. Deliberately misrepresents what the OP actually said. Accuses CDC if suppressing data. Demands multiple times that CDC should release raw data, then claims such demands were “snark.” Dances the goalposts all over the place. I could go on and on and on.
sparky – I feel this need to go on my computer and do a point by point take down all of a sudden.
Oh, here’s a citation for where he thinks a botched circumcision of someone else is grounds for murder, but a person who is being systematically battered does not have grounds for murder:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1qfcw9/doctors_remove_boys_penis_during_a_botched/cdcd1rd
(I suspect the reasons have to do with who is harmed. If a boy is harmed, murder is allowable. If a woman is harmed, well, we’re not really humans after all, so it couldn’t possibly be an excuse for killing in self defense.)
Alice, you have far more patience than I do. 🙂
I think the best response to his, “woe is me, I iz O-Pressed! is to quote his own words to him.
You’re not getting disagreed with because of where you are, but because of what you said.
We’re big meanies, check. How you tolerate multiple visits to this site, a haven for big meanies, is a wonder, Alex.
Some of what you posted:
“Oh, I’m not saying we won’t do anything. I think it’s a great idea having an MRA rally to showcase myths about male rape.”
Oh please, present a list to illustrate what you’re talking about, then provide citation that your “list” didn’t originate with straw feminism.
” But don’t try to act like I’m “making shit up”. That’s a DIRECT QUOTE that was chanted by counter-protestors at an MRA event in Canada. It didn’t matter that some of the MRA speakers were women, or homosexual.”
Sorry, I’m going to need to see pictures, images or some audio that proves minorites were overwhelmingly represented in the MRA camp.
” The counter-protesters called the MRM those things without having heard a word of what was actually being said. And to be honest, I’m fine with that. I hope that when the MRA does more public events….”
They won’t…at least not in any mainstream venues. If you don’t understand why, we can’t help you.
“… more people show up shouting “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA, go away!” because it makes them look ignorant and cruel. And we look good in comparison.”
Um, it sounds more like there’s a hell of a lot of people out there who think MRAs are a hate group. Ever wonder why? You look good in comparison? By what standards?
” In general, it seems like the more hatred I see directed towards the MRM, the more the mainstream media acknowledges our existence.”
Yeah, but bad publicity doesn’t equal acceptance, despite what any starry-eyed publicist may tell you.
—
You think a publicist would agree to work with these guys?
Absolutely not, Cassandra. But I notice in movies, when there’s a publicist character, they’re always exclaiming that “…even bad publicity is good publicity.” Alex has obviously watched all those films.
sparky – Well, I’m surprised that I haven’t gotten a brain aneurysm from reading NaturalNews. I should look into mocking whale.to next… 😛
I should be doing maths. Damn it.
Oh my… his reddit history is a precious goldmine of lackwittery.
Pecunium — he doesn’t pity us, just the people around us in real life. But if we’re…I’m so confused! Does it even out to pitying us both, or neither of us?!
Argenti: he pities neither of us, because we deserve what we get. But my lovers, he pities them. My friends, he pities them. My co-workers, he pities them.
I’ll be sure to tell them all that they can call on him when they need support.
Oh, the hypocrisy: In a “question” where he posits a need to disprove the idea that epicanthic folds make asians bad drivers he gets all offended that someone called his question r*tar***
“Argenti: he pities neither of us, because we deserve what we get.”
I’m going to take that as solely the cliche, because my brain is breaking trying to wrap itself around the idea that I deserve what I get from you.
You’re way too awesome for me to deserve it.
So, so far we know that he’s sexist, racist, and prone to using violence to solve problems (the thing about beating up an incompetent doctor). What other fascinating forms of bigotry and general assholery remain to be discovered? Stay tuned for the next edition of As The Troll Turns.
Ahaha! He pities my father! I’d pay to see his reaction to listening to my father for, oh, 15. After an hour he’d be homicidal.
Argenti, you deserve all kinds of awesome.
Yeaaaahhhh. Okay, then. Why would we ever question his credibility and good faith?