Name a worse piece of research: Troppo competition
Posted by Nicholas Gruen on Thursday, August 21, 2008
I am calling on all Troppodillians to nominate a worse research paper than this. From a very quick squiz the people who wrote the paper are against rape. After an introductory poem the paper begins thus:
Women who are raped or who suffer domestic violence are somehow thought of in the popular imagination as a stereotype. According to this, the women are asking for it, dressed inappropriately, provoking it – responsible for it.
No evidence that I could see was cited for this.
The methodology of the paper appears to be this:
- Interview women who have been raped within relationships
- Begin the paper with a poem
- Let yourself go
According to the paper, the overwhelming majority of the women who were interviewed said that the men who raped them wouldn’t recognise what they did as rape. The conclusion?
It appears that there is a disparity between the rights of women as expressed in Australian law and the way women are related to by their husbands, partners and professionals.
So there you go - rape really is on the end of every wolf whistle. I guess, if I wasn’t tapping away on this keyboard, I could be raping someone right now, and unless there’s something wrong with the research methodology it’s overwhelmingly likely that I wouldn’t even recognise what I was doing as a crime.
I didn’t realise it before, but like so many things, it seems obvious when pointed out.
ShareThis
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 21st, 2008 at 9:03 AM and filed under Blogging - general.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
At least they can spell!
Yeah, that is seriously poor. I’ve had to mark far worse, but this is graduates, right? Parts of it read okay, with references(!), but you couldn’t publish that abstract with a straight face, could you?
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:17 am | PermalinkOh! so many examples. Especially in the climate change denial genre. But for a new front-runner, try this one:
The Gardasil ‘miracle’ coming undone?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7786
Verily, if I had that author’s e-mail address, I’d be adding it to my spam filter.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:24 am | PermalinkThe depravity of what passes for “research” and “scholarship” among the Gender Studies/Women’s Studies set is matched only by its vacuity.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:37 am | PermalinkI actually couldn’t be bothered more than flicking through it, so I don’t know how good the content is, but it is pretty challenging doing empirical research on a topic like this. Any research on sexual assault, for example, is going to have problems with subject selection — those who attend a rape crisis centre are not a random sample and are not necessarily representative, but the same is true of those who report to police.
The actual content of the report looks like it has lots of quotes, which is a decent indicator of face validity in qualitative research. One of the obvious problems is that of external validity. Qualitative research like this isn’t about external validity (being able to generalise the results to the wider population), but about the experience of one subset of the population, but what I have read of the report doesn’t make that clear. I think Nicholas’ quote highlights this issue pretty well.
It’s probably not the worst research I’ve seen in what is a pretty politically-charged field (I used to work in domestic violence research, and that also has a lot of poor quality research), but is pretty much what you’d expect from what appears to be a community agency. Such places often don’t have a lot of resources or research experience, but are interested in making their experiences in working in the field public in some way. The writing style is quite jarring form the perspective of a professional researcher, but again, not outside what you’d expect from such a source.
The best thing about this sort of research report is that it’s a great way of proving that there is still a need for us folk who design and publish research for a living!
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 10:15 am | PermalinkI think it’s generally called qualitative research
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 12:08 pm | PermalinkSorry, Dr Faustus, you beat me to it.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 12:09 pm | PermalinkYou read that report - the whole thing, all the quotes, all the experiences of these women - and all you can come up with is a defensive, miffed whine about how you’re not a rapist?
Wow.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 2:47 pm | PermalinkName a worse piece of self-absorbed bullshit troll-blogging. Jesus, it’s not all about you, it’s a report for and by health workers in rural areas not an undergradute essay. “A very quick squiz” will be more than I’ll bother with your posts in the future. FFS.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 3:16 pm | PermalinkA report “for and by health workers in rural areas” should still not use hearsay in it’s conclusions…
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 3:19 pm | Permalink“Hearsay”? You mean what the interviewees said about their own experiences? Whatevs.
“And now in conclusion after countless hours of interviewing people we shall now discard the results. Soz, forget we said anything.”
In any event, Nick is not objecting to the methodology really because this could hardly be the most egregious example if it, even if the impressions culled from “a very quick squiz” and partly based on the inclusion of a poem were somehow significant, I submit his methodology in coming to his conclusion is many magnitudes worse than even the worst things one could say about this report.
Someone had the gall to write about women that didn’t include specific reference to him, that’s his beef. Nick demands his Gold Star for being a Top Bloke from the raped women of southern NSW and he didn’t get it and spat the dummy.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 3:36 pm | PermalinkNico: A report about the nature of women’s experiences with partner rape should use what, exactly, if not women’s experiences?
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 3:37 pm | Permalinkconrad is right. it’s a qualitative study. it has its uses. think of it as someone doing fieldwork instead of you so you get a feel for what’s going on second hand.
Nick- word of advice. If you find John Greenfield agreeing with you, reexamine your premises.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 3:45 pm | PermalinkDon’t be ridiculous Jason Soon. The opening para, if I may paraphrase, is saying most people think women who are raped deserved it. That is a bizarre and highly inflammatory view that has no reasonable basis in research.
I had to read and hear this type of crap from typically unintelligent grudge-bearing women during my social science degree and pretend to take it seriously. Nick is right to ridicule this nonsense.
John Greenfield might be a paunchy middle aged chap in a silk bathrobe and fluffy bunny slippers but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right once or twice a year.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:04 pm | PermalinkFair point Jason.
lauredhel,
No problem with a report about the nature of women’s experiences. With qualitative research. (In that context) I have no problem with the poem. I have a problem with the way in which a qualitative exploration of women’s experiences is an excuse for rattling off a pretty much random bunch of slogans - so much so that the slogans don’t even match the occasion.
The study opens with this comment “Women who are raped or who suffer domestic violence are somehow thought of in the popular imagination as a stereotype. According to this, the women are asking for it, dressed inappropriately, provoking it – responsible for it.”
Now if the study was of date rape, at least the slogan would be the right one. I’m sure lots of people would think that - at least in some circumstances - girls who get date raped ‘asked for it’. You could then debate that view.
But is it really a widespread stereotype in our society that women who are repeatedly and brutally raped in marriage are ‘asking for it’? Even amongst the rapists, the bit I read had them behaving as if they were owed sex. Now I can recognise that as a problem, as a stereotype. If they’d led with that claim, then at least they would have picked the right slogan for the occasion - and it may be justified.
I can even come at the idea that some of these men would have said in their pathetic way that the women were ‘asking for it’ - with quite a few not actually even thinking that - but just lying to themselves or others to make themselves feel better about what they’d done.
But the idea that there are widespread stereotypes in society that women who are repeatedly and brutally raped in marriage or long standing domestic relationships - raped by their partners as if it’s their right - are being raped because they’re ‘asking for it’. I’m afraid I find that far fetched and ridiculous.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:10 pm | Permalink“I can even come at the idea that some of these men would have said in their pathetic way that the women were ‘asking for it’ - with quite a few not actually even thinking that - but just lying to themselves or others to make themselves feel better about what they’d done.”
That’s fair enought too, Nick. But to generalise from “deviants” to the popular imagination is absurd …
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:19 pm | PermalinkNick: It’s a random bunch of slogans.
Reality: It’s 200 pages and I haven’t read it.
I am looking right now at the pages which talk about the way these actions are excused and minimised by individuals and organisations.
Mate, give up. You had a bad morning and posted rubbish in a dickheadish fashion. It happens. Stop digging.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:23 pm | Permalink“Mate, give up. You had a bad morning and posted rubbish in a dickheadish fashion. It happens. Stop digging.”
Did I sit next to you in tutorials?
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:25 pm | PermalinkYeah, I was the fat hairy one in the boiler suit.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:25 pm | PermalinkMelaleuca,
“But to generalise from “deviants” to the popular imagination is absurd …”.
Ummm - that’s my point.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:30 pm | PermalinkYes I know. I’m in furious agreement
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:33 pm | PermalinkSo the crime against Scholarship committed here is there’s maybe a poorly worded generalisation on the first of it’s 200 pages? Clearly your personal outrage is not absurd at all.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 4:54 pm | PermalinkHere’s a useless piece of research that dropped into my email last night. How anyone can earn brownie points off this type of research is beyond my reckoning. Did they factor in The Hawthorne Effect?
Hope Therapy for Depression.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/08/19/hope-therapy-for-depression/2778.html
….
“We’re finding that hope is consistently associated with fewer symptoms of depression. And the good news is that hope is something that can be taught, and can be developed in many of the people who need it,” said Jennifer Cheavens, assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 5:02 pm | PermalinkThere’s a pretty fundamental problem with unsupported claims, tangential to the thrust of the research, in the first line of an abstract.
Rather than poor research, what we have here is poor writing.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 5:10 pm | PermalinkI was impressed by your link Melaleuka. I didn’t know I even needed a new vacuum tank.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 5:14 pm | PermalinkIs it tangential to the research? How so? From reading it, it appears completely on topic.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 5:21 pm | PermalinkFrankly, I find most sociologically based ‘research’ to be either over-generalised for fear of appearing accusatory or seriously subjective for fear of appearing over-generalised To each their own, but I prefer to make my own judgements.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 5:39 pm | PermalinkAmanda, perhaps you could enlighten us. You seem to have read the paper. How much of the paper is dedicated to the ‘inappropriateness’ of dress within a relationship? How much is focussed on partner-involving rapes that were ‘provoked’ by a woman’s clothing? If the answer us: none, then you will see FDB’s point about tangential openings. I can’t really see how this relatively small issue in the abstract morphed into Worst Research Evar, so if that is the extent of it then Nick’s remarks are unreasonable. But we should at least be able to agree that screwing up the second sentence is not exactly covering yourself in scholarly glory.
BBB
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 8:01 pm | PermalinkNicholas - I don’t understand why you posted this.
When I looked at the report my first reaction wasn’t to start critiquing the methodology. I couldn’t get past stories the interviewees were telling.
Did you read any of things the 21 women told the researchers? Did they sound like they were complaining about wolf whistling?
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 8:41 pm | PermalinkWhat Amanda said, actually. It’s time to give Club troppo reading a nice, long, rest.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 8:42 pm | PermalinkNot at all Don,
I would have thought it was obvious.
I was reacting to the write up at the beginning of the piece. And I thought it was dreadful. And I said so. It was clear that my critique is of the way in which it is written up. And I’m not critiquing the ‘methodology’. It’s a qualitative study - an exercise in story telling and the story is worth telling. So why start it in the stupid way it is started?
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 8:48 pm | PermalinkLet’s get this clear- criticism of the presentation of the report is NOT belittling the experiences of the women who were surveyed. Their stories are horrifying and I feel a great deal of sympathy for them and anger at the perpetrators.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 8:59 pm | PermalinkAnd the last two paragraphs of your post?
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:11 pm | PermalinkDon,
Take a look at this sentence:
It’s a more than a little offensive, no? Do you know of any person that would actually think a woman is asking to be raped and that it fits the popular imagination. There is nothing that can be said to defend this statement.
It does the victims a disservice as it belittles them and it would be reasonable to expect any of them to be damn angry with the writer for even suggesting this. It’s wrong and is actually putting the victims down because of its sheer inaccuracy in the way the vast majority of people would at victims of rape.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:13 pm | PermalinkBBB, for a start the various dynamics involved in the commission, experience of and any subsequent outside engagement in “partner rape” cannot be unilaterally divorced from those involved in “stranger rape.” There are others more able than I to cogently detail that. Also: The sentence says “women who were raped or suffered domestic violence” — see the word “or”? Women who are raped (by men, BTW. Apologies if that shocking revelation hurts your feefees), whatever the circumstance, is the topic of the flipping sentence. And if you aren’t hip to the victim blaming that goes on with this issue in all its complex forms then, I can but suggest you make yourself be.
Nick, you do realise that the post we’re talking about is right above these comments, yes?
So when you furiously retrofit in comments what the post was about and what you said people can just scroll up a bit and see that that was not, in fact, what it was about nor what you said at all? You realise this, right? Your claims now its purely about Felicitous Sentence Construction 101 do not fly.
You cherry picked a sentence at the start (one.fucking.sentence), a sentence in the conclusion and ignored everything in middle, including the many things which are directly relevant to your “concerns”. The rest was a frankly weird demand it Be All About You and some victim blaming of your own.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:16 pm | PermalinkNG,
You think the study is actually worthwhile, but yours is just a complaint about the writing style?
Then your 2nd last paragraph seems like a bit of self-indulgent nonsense.
We could start a ‘name a worse peice of blog writing comp’ and put you up as the primary case.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:17 pm | PermalinkAmanda:
To be perfectly honest the rest of the paper is essentially an interview process with the writer doing little else than drawing on the accounts of the victims etc.
“that little sentence” is the conclusion that only a dipstick could reach. Any victim would be perfectly entitled to feel she was figuratively raped a second time as a result, as they were obviously used to advocate something that was patently false.
So yea, words have meaning…. even ” that little sentence’.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:24 pm | PermalinkBBB, for a start the various dynamics involved in the commission, experience of and any subsequent outside engagement in “partner rape” cannot be unilaterally divorced from those involved in “stranger rape.” There are others more able than I to cogently detail that. Also: The sentence says “women who were raped or suffered domestic violence” — see the word “or”? Women who are raped (by men, BTW. Apologies if that shocking revelation hurts your feefees), whatever the circumstance, is the topic of the flipping sentence. And if you aren’t hip to the victim blaming that goes on with this issue in all its complex forms then, I can but suggest you make yourself be.
That’s a lot of words to use in not responding to anything I wrote. Well done. I should add that although I’ve pasted the whole paragraph, I didn’t actually read past this bit: “Women who are raped (by men, BTW. Apologies if that shocking revelation hurts your feefees”. From time to time we are all forced to read rubbish written by adolescents, but I figure that on the internet I’ve got options. Bye now!
BBB
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 9:34 pm | PermalinkMichael - and various others.
It’s not writing style. It’s what is said.
The study starts off with a piece of complete nonsense about popular stereotypes regarding people being repeatedly raped by husbands and long standing partners ‘asking for it’ by dressing inappropriately. If ever there was a sign of someone on propaganda autopilot it’s that one. The very first sentence.
I didn’t go hunting round the study to pick out something to find fault with. I began reading it and was taken aback with how tendentiously it said what it said.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 10:06 pm | PermalinkI can’t help but think that a title along the lines of “Name a worse piece of abstract drafting” would have saved a lot of heartache here, Nick.
BBB
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 10:15 pm | PermalinkIt’s a fair cop.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 10:17 pm | PermalinkNic,
It’s the first sentance of the Exec Summary. Why not start at the introduction if you find it so unbearable.
It’s a lengthy and useful piece of work, and it seems a bit churlish to suggest it might be the worst piece of research out there, based on two sentances.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 10:47 pm | PermalinkI can’t for the life of me see a problem with the first sentence of the abstract. If they’d said “discursive construct” or something JG and Kevin Donnelly and all that crew would be screaming from the rooftops.
And aside from the last bit of this post saying much more about your assumptions than any supposed defect in the research, as Dr Faustus said, a piece of good qualitative research attains validity by being faithful to the subjects - reporting their words in depth is good practice because it reduces the interpreter effect of the researcher. The statistics on which the offending “stereotype” is based are plain from all sorts of other quantitative research.
This post is just prejudice.
Posted on 21-Aug-08 at 10:53 pm | Permalink“a piece of good qualitative research attains validity by being faithful to the subjects”
No it doesn’t. The idea is that you interview subjects and extract all the main themes from their stories. These then give you some idea of what the important issues are. As it turns out, if you interview a hopelessly biased group of subjects (as is evident here) or your interviewing technique gives hopeless biased comments, it means that you *haven’t* interviewed enough subjects or done it in a fashion well enough to get a good idea of the area and the main themes. If you then conclude things from your hopelessly biased subject pool, then all you are doing is junk and your study has no validity at all. If you also assume that the area you are in allows subjects to perfectly introspect the main themes, your study will also not necessarily be valid.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 5:19 am | PermalinkThere seems to be some confusion over what this report is about.
It’s not a piece of research for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but a self published report from a health NGO in rural Vic. For that, it’s not a bad effort.
As for a “hopelessly biased group of subjects”, I think someone is missing the entire point and misunderstanding the relevancy of bias.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 5:54 am | PermalinkThe opening statement about the stereotype of women “asking for it” certainly provides a misleading impression having regard to the body of the report. As Nicholas suggests, it’s a stereotype which no doubt fits many people’s attitudes towards “date” rape and “stranger” rape but appears not to characterise community attitudes to rape by a spouse.
The report deals with the women victims’ experiences of community reactions at pages 49-60, and I couldn’t find even a single report of anyone suggesting she was “asking for it” or similar. Instead, responses ranged from supportive (a minority) to denial (it couldn’t have happened, you must be misinterpreting or manufacturing the claim for vengeance or some such motive), an attitude that the wife has a duty to submit to sex and the husband a right to expect/take it, or an attitude that although rape might be regrettable the woman should be stoic and put up with it for the sake of the kids and preserving the marriage.
However, although the somewhat misleading opening seems to have alienated Nicholas at the outset, the report itself seems to me a perfectly respectable piece of qualitative research. The methodology looks to be an appropriate way of eliciting the experiences and understandings of a particular group of people (spousal rape victims in Victoria’s Goulburn valley), existing research is decribed thoroughly and both the women and people from responding agencies (especially police) are interviewed thoroughly on an individual basis by 2 researchers and in focus groups, and later counselled/debriefed.
As others have noted, several of the comments seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of this sort of qualitative research. The comment about a “hopelessly biased group of subjects” is especially misconceived. They are seeking to elicit the experiences and understandings of a particular group of women, so accusations of sample bias are by definition irrelevant. As dr faustus explains in an earlier comment:
Such research seeks to capture the experiences and understandings of a particular group. The sorts of deep understanding it aims to capture almost certainly could not be examined effectively by quantitative methods. The findings might or might not generalise over time and different places; that coould only be ascertained by replicating the research elsewhere. I strongly suspect that most of them would be reflected elsewhere to a considerable extent.
One of the aspects of the report I found most striking was that, although the responses of friends, extended family, doctors etc were mostly experienced by the victims as negative, the responses of police (particularly specialist crime squad members) were mostly found to be appropriate and helpful. It suggests that the efforts of the Victoria Police to overcome entrenched prejudices have been very successful. It’s an encouraging observation in a report that otherwise mostly makes depressing reading.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 8:18 am | PermalinkWhat is most worrying about the opening post is not that such a frivolous, imperceptive and insensitive post could be written, but that it has been written by someone who I would never previously have imagined to be capable of demeaning himself in this way. I’m forced to conclude that Nick simply wasn’t thinking about what he was writing, and did not seek advice from others before posting.
As for “a hopelessly biased group of subjects”, can one imagine such a comment being made about qualitative research based on interviewing Holocaust survivors or former Gulag inmates about their experiences?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 8:36 am | PermalinkMike & KP,
if the idea of the report is to learn about attitudes to rape, then I’ll stick by the claim that it’s completely biased.
Alternatively, if the idea of the report is to learn about what people who have been raped think about societies attitudes to rape, then it isn’t biased.
Let’s have a look at which of these is true:
Here is the first sentence:
“Women who are raped or who suffer domestic violence are somehow thought of in the popular imagination as a stereotype”.
That’s a general comment about everyone.
Here is the first thing that comes after the general blurb on their population
Recommendations:
Recommendation 1.1 Create public awareness of partner rape through the myriad forms of the media
That’s clearly using the data to make some general claim. What has the normal population go to do with this? It’s a qualitative study that doesn’t generalize.
I’ll go to the next paragraph:
“Name it as rape
Our health professionals, religious leaders, police and legal sector workers need education informing them that partner rape is a crime, and ongoing professional development about how to help people affected by it.”
I’d better watch out for those religious leaders (of which we have no sample that was interviewed), who probably think rape is just a big joke (Hilali excluded).
I could go on here, but many aspects of the report use languages as if they are talking not about the perceptions of people who have been raped attitudes to rape (which is what you learn from the qualitative data), but as if the results were general community attitudes. That’s clearly sloppy work if that is the intention.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 8:45 am | PermalinkKen: I think where the criticism has gone off the rails is here: the opening statement isn’t meant to be a summary of the conclusions of the report. Just as in the majority of health sciences abstract formats (and, as has been noted, this is a long report, not a brief abstracted peer-reviewed article), the opening statement is a background statement, not a conclusion. It shouldn’t be taken in isolation and assumed to be such. It needs to be put in context with the rest of the introductory paragraph of background/summary, upon which it makes perfect sense:
This introduction is situating the work not purely within the realm of parter rape, but within the larger problem of sexual violence against women.
It’s a largeish piece of qualitative research, with a series of recommendations, which are probably the closest thing it comes to to a “conclusion” as such. There is no soundbite conclusion to wave around and poke sticks at.
If there are people here who truly think there is no systemic problem (clue: “systemic” doesn’t mean “100% of people think this way”) with women in general being frequently thought to be responsible for men raping them, you’re really, really not paying attention. I suggest speed-lurking at a blog like The Curvature and abyss2hope for an education in the matter, with a wealth of examples from government and judiciary on down. Cases where a judge considered the issue of a frilly bra and G-string to be relevant when summing up a case of rape of a preteen girl, the prosecutor who labelled a raped ten-year-old girl “naughty”, the list goes on. Feel free to cruise unmoderated rape related threads at non feminist sites to get an idea of what people in general are saying about rape and responsibility.
It is also true that DV victims are blamed in other ways. The first thing people tend to ask is “Why didn’t she leave? Why did she put up with that?”, shaking their heads. The first behaviour examined is the behaviour of the woman.
If you choose to characterise the vast number of people involved in this sort of thinking as individual “deviants” … not much I can do about that, except say that I strenuously disagree - your definition of “deviant” is clearly far more all-encompassing than mine. There’s no need to delve into remote history for datapoints - just this week in the UK, the Criminal Injuries Authority said that it had been cutting criminal injuries compensation as a routine for women who had been drinking at the time that men raped them.
For an Australian example of a victim-blaming construction: “Police say sex attacks in the CBD could be reduced if revellers took care not to drink too much and not wander off with people they have just met.”
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:10 am | PermalinkAnother way of approaching this: perhaps Nicholas could give us some examples of what he would consider to be good qualitative research into women’s experiences of partner rape, so that we might compare and contrast.
Still haven’t heard back on what the penultimate paragraph was about. Perhaps if Nicholas wishes to retract it, he could strikethrough?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:16 am | Permalink“interviewing technique gives hopeless biased comments”
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:27 am | PermalinkHopelessly malodorous statement …
I’d better watch out for those religious leaders (of which we have no sample that was interviewed), who probably think rape is just a big joke (Hilali excluded).
See page 50.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:30 am | Permalinkit’s a stereotype [that she was "asking for it] which no doubt fits many people’s attitudes towards “date” rape and “stranger” rape but appears not to characterise community attitudes to rape by a spouse - Ken Parish
I think even that’s untrue these days. It was only ever a minority view, and one of the good effects of feminism is to convert it to only a tiny minority view.
Bugger it, Amanda. Why shouldn’t Nic take offense at the slur that, as a member of the “community” (a term susceptible of terrible abuse, BTW) he must hold such a repugnant attitude? An attitude that neither he nor the overwhelming majority of people holds. Especially as comments like yours make it hard not to think that what is really meant by “community” is “one particular half of the community”. You’ve been entirely too reasonable in your response Nic.
IMO this sort of qualitative research is in its nature incapable of being generalised, and therefore of very limited value, even if done well. And given the prejudice and shoddiness of that abstract you’d have to suspect it wasn’t done well. In fact it appears to have done nothing but reinforce bigotry.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:31 am | PermalinkI just did a quick Google search to test DD’s hypothesis that the claimed stereotype about women “asking for it” is only held by a tiny minority these days. the first hit I found was this 2001 RMIT report:
This Goulburn valley report is entirely consistent with most other research about rape and community attitudes towards it (much of that research is discussed in the subject report). The thing I find remarkable is the aggressively polarised responses to the report apparent in both Nicholas’s post and the comment thread. Why are we discussing and challenging the report (or at least some tangential semantic aspects of it) while completely ignoring/dismissing the toxic social attitudes it reveals?
Perhaps it has to do with the point the RMIT report seems to make: there are “educational level differences” in people’s responses. The revealed attitudes seem to be very common (in fact almost universal) in parts of country Victoria, but might be expected to be much less evident in the trendier parts of Sydney’s Balmain or Port Melbourne. It seems that Nicholas and some others feel that they personally are being accused of holding the stereotypical views mentioned in the introduction to the report. However I don’t see how one can draw that meaning from it. There was certainly a brand of radical feminism prevalent in the 1970s and early 80s which conclusively deemed all men to be potential rapists who were at the very least
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:48 am | Permalinkinnocent until proven guiltyguilty until proven innocent. However, I don’t detect such attitudes here, and I frankly don’t understand the evident hostility towards the report.I never assume the phrase “community attitudes” means “every single person in the community, end of story.” I can’t imagine why anyone would, unless they were falling over themselves to find any excuse to make themselves the centre of a story that isn’t about them. I take the phrase quoted to mean quite plainly “the specific men who committed the crimes” and “systemic attiutudes within relevant institutions.”
The bit at the end — which is the bit that got me — as it reads right now to me trivialises rape. Conclusions in research into domestic abuse = hysteria about wolf whistles. Research into womens experience of domestic violence < Nick’s hurt feelings.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:49 am | Permalink“See page 50.”
I’ve seen it. It’s one comment. Should I now feel scared next time I go into a church? This is smearing an entire group based on the reported comments of one individual. This is the problem with overgeneralizing qualitative research. This is _not_ generally its purpose. (c.f., All Muslims beat their wives because Hilali does, or I should be worried about getting eaten by sharks because my fisherman friend got eaten by one). It’s basically denigrating what is a very serious issue and pointing fingers at people that don’t deserve it. What might have been a rather useful study into the perceptions of people that have been raped gets lost in a myriad of other stuff. It also suggests researcher bias, which is clearly a bad thing if you want people to accept the other findings.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:54 am | PermalinkIn fact the section dealing with the responses from the religious sector begins on page 58. It reports 2 of the 21 victims as experiencing negative reactions from their pastor/priest (”The two women who were spoken to by Church representatives were disappointed and felt they were meant to offer themselves up in sacrifice. Both women were told to go home and do as their husbands asked.”) Another woman mentioned her religious faith to the interviewers but was prevent by her husband from accessing the church throughout her marriage, while a fourth woman found her church helpful and supportive in having her marriage annulled after she decided to leave her rapist husband.
Two negative experiences no doubt isn’t enough to make sweeping unqualified generalisations, but it’s concerning just the same and, like the rest of the report, provides a probative basis for recommending public awareness/education programs at least in country Victoria. As Amanda has pointed out, the fact that ignorant stereotypes about rape exist does not imply that everyone or even a majority believes those stereotypes, nor would a public awareness campaign be accusing everyone of holding them.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 10:26 am | PermalinkWhy if I object to something is this then said to be me expressing hurt feelings and wanting it to be ‘all about me’? I am expressing offence, outrage if you like that a report with a serious message with which I would be broadly sympathetic, so crudely puts itself on propaganda auto-pilot that it’s very first sentence is nonsensical pretty much on its face.
I then made fun of that, and of associated and similar comments that I found. That is an explanation of the last two paras since I’ve been called to account for it.
And yes I can write the comeback line myself. That’s trivialising rape etc etc.
Well the report constantly generalises rape - hence the relevance of my comment about rape being on the end of every wolf whistle and following paras.
After its disastrous beginning few sentences the report goes on “[O]ur sample provides yet more evidence that any woman is vulnerable to rape. We do not need to be a certain type of woman, or to behave in particular ways, or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Now the charitable interpretation of what they mean is that rape is not restricted to certain social classes or types. What they say, especially after the absurd last sentence is that “any woman is vulnerable to rape”. Well yes, but then any woman is vulnerable to being hit by a meteorite too. What point is being made here and why is it made in the way it is?
I sent that up.
I’m pleased that a few people seem to appreciate what I am trying to get at enough to feel like defending it - not the red meat types, but the reasonable types like Melaleuca and DD.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 10:40 am | PermalinkWhy don’t we announce a competition to rewrite the executive summary in a way that: (1) explains, without overstating it, the significance of the research findings, (2) suggests future directions for research, and (3) advocates whatever actions on the part of public authorities, that might be justified by the findings so far.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:04 am | Permalinkthis isn’t credible in the present day……. that is if the author is suggesting clerics were advocating this line from mainstream churches. If it were cult like sects like the EB that’s a different story. This is why I think the study is an advocacy push.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:13 am | Permalink“Two negative experiences no doubt isn’t enough to make sweeping unqualified generalisations, but it’s concerning just the same and, like the rest of the report, provides a probative basis for recommending public awareness/education programs at least in country Victoria”
No it doesn’t. Like almost all qualitative research, it should be used as the basis for a more comprehensive study before any serious suggestions are made. Its good that it identifies various issues that might otherwise have been missed (such things would be handy for counselors to know, for example), but that should essentially be the end of its scope, otherwise you might well be implementing things, annoying people and so from data that turns out not to be correct. This is one of the reasons false negative stereotypes occur (e.g., Most Muslim men beat their wives because there is a program teaching them not too). If that next rather more well controlled study happens to find that 8% of priests think that rape is all fine and dandy, then it’s a serious problem.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:16 am | PermalinkKim says:
“The statistics on which the offending “stereotype” is based are plain from all sorts of other quantitative research.”
No Kim, it’s an offensive stereotype and it is NOT supported by the weight of reliable quantitative research.
I’ve thrown in the word reliable because, as anyone who has studied research methods knows, cause-pushers can easily massage a study to get the desired outcome.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 12:19 pm | Permalink@Melaleuca:
No Kim, it’s an offensive stereotype and it is NOT supported by the weight of reliable quantitative research.
I take it you’re completely familiar with quantitative research on attitudes towards rape then? I’m not, so I can’t flat-out contradict you, but I can say that my extensive consumption of mass media leads me to disagree with you. Victim-blaming mindsets do not just include people who actively stand up and say that women who are stranger-raped deserve it. They include mindsets which criticise women for drinking heavily, which repeatedly tell women not to drink or get drunk outside the home, which seek to make sure women walk, talk, and behave certain ways in certain places in order to protect them.
@NG: After its disastrous beginning few sentences the report goes on “[O]ur sample provides yet more evidence that any woman is vulnerable to rape. We do not need to be a certain type of woman, or to behave in particular ways, or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Now the charitable interpretation of what they mean is that rape is not restricted to certain social classes or types.
I’m really surprised by how completely you’re misunderstanding the context of this sentence. This sentence does *not* intend to say that rape is not restricted to certain classes or types of personality. This sentence - like the rest of the introduction you disdain - is trying to point out that public perception, in which “rape” usually means stranger rape (and occasionally date rape), is wrong. Rape occurs within marriages and partnerships, as well as within families. Consequently, strategies to combat rape which focus on victim-blaming and victim-restraining - that is, “men rape women. So *women* need to change their behaviour” - are inherently flawed. No kind of behavioural restriction of women will stop them being raped by their husbands, partners, boyfriends, fathers, or brothers (except radical lesbianism and gender segregation, which I’m sure both genders would take exception to.) This piece of research intends to foreground partner rape as a problem, and alert people with misconceptions of rape to the fact that rape doesn’t just occur in alleys and bars, but in homes and families.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 2:35 pm | PermalinkITT: Girls gone wild.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 3:06 pm | Permalink“They include mindsets which criticise women for drinking heavily, which repeatedly tell women not to drink or get drunk outside the home, which seek to make sure women walk, talk, and behave certain ways in certain places in order to protect them.”
Leaving aside the criticism for drinking, which is unacceptable, can I ask what is the alternative? There are bastards out there. They rape women. They seem to rape drunk women more frequently that sober women. We can’t lock up every man who is realistically capable of rape, so do we just not talk about the risk factors? Surely warnings about the risk factors should go hand in hand with a justice system that punishes rapists and deters others (which is what we have by the way).
BBB
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 4:59 pm | PermalinkThis may be an opportune time to point out that violence, including sexual violence, is a major issue in the lesbian community. A number of social worker friends and acquaintances have told me the problem is very real and not uncommon.
I note this research from the US National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center :
“About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner.”
“Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians”.
“Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples”.
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
Oddly enough, this subject never came up during my years in the humanities and social science departments of our universities.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 5:29 pm | PermalinkBBB I don’t think there will ever be an opportune time to try to make the claim that women are just as violent as men. 17-45%?? an interesting set of numbers.
I don’t see why not.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 5:50 pm | PermalinkCaroline:
your last comment was a joke, right?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 5:56 pm | PermalinkThey seem to rape drunk women more frequently that sober women.
This is the whole point of this study: no. They don’t. Women are more likely to be raped by people they know than by strangers (by a great percentage; in terms of reported rapes, it’s still more frequent, but partner-rape is less likely to be reported - for obvious reasons - than stranger-rape.) I can’t give you precise statistics, but I believe that in stranger rape statistics women are about as likely to be raped sober as they are drunk (with the obvious exception of women who are date-raped, because, uh, that’s kind of the issue there); acquaintaince rape-wise women are much *more* likely to be sober. On the other hand, alcohol is a huge factor across the board in one group associated with rape: rapists. Why don’t we tell men that they shouldn’t drink in case they rape women? Why don’t we tell men not to get drunk in big crowds in town? Why don’t we tell men not to get drunk and go home to their wives and beat them up? Why, instead, do we tell women not to get drunk and walk home? What women are doing *is not wrong*; drinking and walking home doesn’t hurt anyone. Drinking and raping hurts people.
Domestic abuse is certainly an issue in the LGBT community (it’s also a big problem, anecdotally, with gay men.) I’m not sure what you intended to achieve by bringing this up. Oh gosh, some women do bad things just like some men do! Obviously my entire argument is irrelevant! *falls over like a pack of cards* Oh wait, no. Everything I’m saying is still applicable except my pronouns.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 6:18 pm | PermalinkTui,
I suggest you look at Caroline’s comment at #66. Some women, and some men, think violence is all or chiefly about men. The idea that women are just as violent in same-sex relationships is confronting and challenges some of the Leftist mythology promulgated on sites like Larvatus Prodeo.
This American book- Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships- one of several on the topic, has been summarised thusly:
“Based on a study of violence in lesbian relationships, this comprehensive book derives from a common theme expressed by the subjects - the sense of having been betrayed, first by their lovers, and subsequently by the lesbian community which tended to deny the problem when the victims sought help. The study’s findings are immediately helpful to clinicians working with those battered in lesbian relationships and provides a deeper understanding of lesbian relationship dynamics. Professionals in victimology, gender studies, sociology, psychology, criminology, social work, clinical psychology, counseling, and family studies will not want to miss this brilliant work.” http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 6:33 pm | PermalinkA group of Belgian researchers believe that research has already demonstrated a link between vaginal orgasm and better mental health (although I’d argue such a link is nebulous at best). They wondered if one could determine whether a woman experienced vaginal orgasms just by observing everyday body movement. Specifically, walking.
Looking at a group of healthy Belgian women, half of whom have vaginal orgasms and half who do not, trained sexologists discovered that they could pick out the vaginal orgasmic women 81% of the time — far better than chance. They could not, however, pick out women who had clitoral orgasms. (Vaginal orgasms were defined for this study, according to the researchers, by penile-vaginal intercourse, not orgasm from direct clitoral stimulation.)
How did they do it?
Exploratory analyses suggest that greater pelvic and vertebral rotation and stride length might be characteristic of the gait of women who have experienced vaginal orgasm (r = 0.51, P < 0.05).
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 6:43 pm | PermalinkThat has got to be one of the stupidest comments I have read in a long time, and believe me, there’s competition. Well, maybe a tie with the US idiot who threatened to sue LP for using written English.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 8:23 pm | PermalinkAsk any cop what they think about getting involved in a domestic and they will tell you, “Loser’s game, can’t win”. This thread certainly falls into that category.
… half a bottle of wine later and everything looks a lot more fun …
So I followed lauredhel’s link, and while I’m not smart enough to appreciate victim blaming constructions, I did find:
I have to admit that if I were on a jury, and a witness said that they drank until they had a memory blackout, I would in all good faith, somewhat discount their testimony of what happened that evening. I fully expect to get called a lot of harsh names over this, but I assure you that it won’t change my position.
I’m brave enough to admit that I have more than explored my personal right to consume alcohol, and I have also done some stupid things. More often than by accident those two factors were correlated. Let me ask a few home truths here, if you were a rapist (and this is completely hypothetical) would you pick on someone in sound mind with full faculties, or would you pick on someone incapacitated? Let me ask one more question, if you were to wake up in a gutter early one morning and come to the unfortunate realization that you were dead… would it really matter who was to blame for that? Just a bit of something to think about, only tangentially related to the topic at hand.
So.
Can we talk about the price of gold now? I want to make some money
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:08 pm | PermalinkSo I sez: We can’t lock up every man who is realistically capable of rape
Then Caroline sez: I don’t see why not.
Then Helen sez: That has got to be one of the stupidest comments I have read in a long time.
Glad to see Helen is on the side of fundamental human rights! You were referring to Caroline’s comment, weren’t you Helen?
BBB
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:16 pm | PermalinkSo, you think you have the right to have sex with someone if they’re drunk?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:16 pm | PermalinkRight.
BBB, as you can clearly see I was referring to “Ka Ching”, who might or might not be an actual person.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:17 pm | PermalinkReally? You think that Ka Ching’s absurd and off-topic missive was more stupid than Caroline’s apparently sincere call for innocent men to be rounded up and gaoled because they may in future commit rape? Actually wait, it cannot have been sincere. I’ve been had, haven’t I?
BBB
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:23 pm | PermalinkHelen,
That is an actual piece of published research. I quoted directly from the news release so please don’t call me stupid or being off topic, the thread is about stupid research.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:27 pm | PermalinkOh, I see, Ka Ching, this was not some gratuitous meandering about womenz and their vaginaz but an *example* of terrible research as per Nick’s suggestion and therefore completely on topic. Apologies. It was so creepy, though, it set my “aaargh!” reaction into overdrive.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:41 pm | PermalinkNo worries Helen, it is very creepy and here is the abstract:
J Sex Med. 2008 Jul 15. [Epub ahead of print]
A Woman’s History of Vaginal Orgasm is Discernible from Her Walk.
Nicholas A, Brody S, de Sutter P, de Carufel F.
Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut d’études de la famille et de la sexualité, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Introduction. Research has demonstrated the association between vaginal orgasm and better mental health. Some theories of psychotherapy assert a link between muscle blocks and disturbances of both character and sexual function. In Functional-Sexological therapy, one focus of treatment is amelioration of voluntary movement. The present study examines the association of general everyday body movement with history of vaginal orgasm. Aim. The objective was to determine if appropriately trained sexologists could infer women’s history of vaginal orgasm from observing only their gait. Methods. Women with known histories of either vaginal orgasm or vaginal anorgasmia were videotaped walking on the street, and their orgasmic status was judged by sexologists blind to their history. Main Outcome Measure. The concordance between having had orgasms triggered by penile-vaginal intercourse (not orgasm from direct clitoral stimulation) and raters’ inferences of vaginal orgasm history based on observation of the woman’s walk was the main outcome measure. Results. In the sample of healthy young Belgian women (half of whom were vaginally orgasmic), history of vaginal orgasm (triggered solely by penile-vaginal intercourse) was diagnosable at far better than chance level (81.25% correct, Fisher’s Exact Test P < 0.05) by appropriately trained sexologists. Clitoral orgasm history was unrelated to both ratings and to vaginal orgasm history. Exploratory analyses suggest that greater pelvic and vertebral rotation and stride length might be characteristic of the gait of women who have experienced vaginal orgasm (r = 0.51, P < 0.05). Conclusions. The discerning observer may infer women’s experience of vaginal orgasm from a gait that comprises fluidity, energy, sensuality, freedom, and absence of both flaccid and locked muscles. Results are discussed with regard to previous research on gait, the effect of the musculature on sexual function, the special nature of vaginal orgasm, and implications for sexual therapy.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:43 pm | PermalinkSo if a woman is drunk, is she incapable of giving consent? You’d might say no that’s not right, because then every drunken one night stand is rape. But then on the other hand, how can consent be truly given if a woman is affected by alcohol? It ought to be up to the man to ensure that real consent has been given. But if a woman is sober, and engages in intercourse with a drunken man, should that be considered a form of sexual assault? Sure, the physical response by the man may indicate consent, however as we know purely physical responses, e.g. an apparent state of arousal, are not consent, far from it in fact. I have all the questions, and none of the answers I’m afraid.
BBB
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:47 pm | PermalinkMelaleuca, it’s interesting that you would imply that people who study rape with a view to its prevention are “cause pushers” who’d try to distort survey results.
FWIW, nowhere has it been stated that a “popular conception” or whatevs implies unanimity in attitudes. The most recent statistical research done in Australia I’ve seen shows statistically significant variations among males and females in ascribing responsibility for rape, with some questions showing around 30% of males believing in various circumstances women are partly responsible. Of interest is the level of answers which are “undecideds” - which quite possibly indicates that the respondents are unwilling to answer the question because they don’t want to give an answer which they think is not approved. There’s a lot of discussion in the methodological literature about similar problems with measuring racism statistically.
It’s precisely here that qualitative research, particularly using interviews, is useful, and as has been remarked, one can then find other ways of asking survey questions which give you the reliablity and validity you want.
As to your nonsense about violence in same-sex relationships not being discussed in some social science course you did once, so what? As has also been said, it’s well known and a subject of much discussion within the lesbian community. The absence of an explicit mention in a university course proves nothing. I suspect here you just want to insinuate some stoopid point about teh evils of political correctness or rampant postmodernism or whatever. Am I correct?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:52 pm | PermalinkI’m sorry - I meant to add that when you add the undecideds to the agrees on some of the questions you get a majority of respondents. And the undecideds, obvs, are choosing not to disagree with propositions which indicate that women are asking for it (expressed in a more scientific and genteel fashion of course).
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 9:55 pm | PermalinkCalm down Kim.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 10:13 pm | PermalinkI’m perfectly calm, Tal. Why do you say that?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 10:30 pm | PermalinkKim says:
“Melaleuca, it’s interesting that you would imply that people who study rape with a view to its prevention are “cause pushers” who’d try to distort survey results.”
I never said or implied all such researchers are cause pushers, in fact what I wrote clearly implies the opposite. I think you know that and you’re not being intellectually honest in making such a snarky comment.
It is reasonable and sensible to question the motives of researchers. I’m surprised you would disagree since you, correctly in my view, question the so-called motives fallacy. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/12/1q-the-motives-fallacy/
FWIW I think unconscious biases are probably a bigger problem than conscious ones in influencing the results of surveys.
“As has also been said, it’s well known and a subject of much discussion within the lesbian community. ”
Yes I know that. It’s frequently mentioned in the gay press. But people like Caroline above downplay it, and so does the lesbian community itself according to the researcher I cited above, at least in the US.
“As to your nonsense about violence in same-sex relationships not being discussed in some social science course you did once, so what?”
Why must you be so rude?
In the units I did pertaining to sex there was a clear bias in the lectures and recommended reading material pushing the view that “patriarchy” and men are largely responsible for relationship violence. Lesbian relationship violence was not mentioned, downplayed or treated as a symptom of the patriarchy.
This is the type of nonsense that was very much the received opinion in my course:
“It is unlikely that physical violence, coercion and control characterize lesbian relationships to the same extent that repeated research has shown in random samples of women’s experiences in heterosexual relationships. There is no historical and contemporary legacy legitimizing physical violence in lesbian relationships as there is underpinning men’s violence against women in intimate relationships. Clearly this is a fundamental difference in the gender dynamics at play in violence in heterosexual and lesbian/gay relationships. We need a body of methodologically sound empirical research to document the pervasiveness, scale, effect and impact of violence in lesbian relationships. This would help reveal the differences and similarities between lesbian and heterosexual relationships.” http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/intra-lesbian_violence.html
It’s worth noting I studied the social sciences just before the the Cold War ended. Things may well have changed since then, indeed I’m told they have to some extent at least!!
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 10:56 pm | PermalinkI think that you got all riled up about because the lesbian community was mentioned.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:18 pm | PermalinkYou were taught sex at uni in lectures? Which lectures? I missed them while learning corp finance subjects with crap like IIR and bond rates calc. Damn.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:29 pm | PermalinkYes, Tal, men are always rational and calm and women are always emotional and riled up, particularly uppity lesbians.
Melaleuca, I don’t think I was being rude. I don’t see the slightest bit of relevance to what you studied at uni 20 years ago to anything under discussion here.
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:42 pm | PermalinkBy the way, the paragraph you’ve just quoted basically says that the dynamics in female-female relationships will be different from those in male-female relationships, and more empirical research is needed to establish the scale and pattern of violence.
That’s if you read it without reading all sorts of stuff into it. But you seem to think you’ve made some sort of knock down argument?
Why exactly do you feel that claiming that violence isn’t exclusive to men (and no one ever said it was) is so important?
Posted on 22-Aug-08 at 11:58 pm | Permalink“It is unlikely that physical violence, coercion and control characterize lesbian relationships to the same extent that repeated research has shown in random samples of women’s experiences in heterosexual relationships.”
The very first sentence erroneously suggests female same-sex relationships are less violent than heterosexual relationships. This assumption is incorrect, or at least that’s what the weight of research now suggests.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:11 am | Permalink“Why exactly do you feel that claiming that violence isn’t exclusive to men (and no one ever said it was) is so important?”
Again you put words in my mouth. The fact that same-sex female relationships are as likely to be violent as heterosexual relationships challenges feminist notions about patriarchy and violence.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:15 am | PermalinkKim I did’nt say that men are always rational and calm.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 7:02 am | PermalinkTui #62: exactly.
Why is so much of the analysis of this so-called outrageous claim only focussing on the “asked for it” clause in the sentence without hardly any reference to the “inappropriately dressed” clause, and not engaging at all with the “provoking it” or “responsible for it” clauses? Here’s the full paragraph again, with ALL the clauses that make up the victim-stereotype emphasised in bold.
When people are told that a man they know and like has beaten/raped his wife, a very very common response (especially from the man’s family and friends) is “she must have provoked it”. So the stereotype that is being directly related to the domestic violence portion of the first sentence is “provoking it”, not “asking for it”.
There’s been a great deal of sloppy reading of this paragraph displayed on this thread.
Because the idea that ANY woman is vulnerable to rape is presented in direct contrast to the stereotype that had been outlined immediately priot i.e. the stereotype that rape is due to women dressing inappropriately or somehow otherwise provoking it?
The obvious corollary to that stereotype is the view that if women will only wear “appropriate” clothing, or if they will only be submissive enough at home, then they are safe from rape or domestic violence (and it is this corollary that leads to the victim blaming - that they didn’t do the “right” things, thus they are responsible for their own rape). If you don’t believe that this is an extremely prevalent attitude, then (as others have pointed out above) you simply haven’t been paying attention. Cites available on request.
So, the point being made in that sentence is that it doesn’t matter what women are (not)wearing or what they are (not)doing, their own actions can never make them safe from rape, and that no woman is to blame for her own rape (even if she was wearing a skimpy party dress or yelling at her partner).
Have the readers assumed a more sympathetic and knowledgeable readership for their article than what has been on evidence here? No doubt. But I don’t see that this is anything for the authors to be shamed for.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 7:50 am | PermalinkWhat an astounding post. I’m sorry I came here to read it, and gobsmacked for the lack of real world understanding that it was written, let alone sent out to a public which could include people who in reading it could have triggered for them serious hurt.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 8:22 am | Permalink“Cites available on request.”
Yes please.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 9:15 am | PermalinkIt should simply have come with a cigarette pack type label-
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 10:34 am | PermalinkWARNING: This stereotypical, in-group, anecdotal, written form of talkback radio is not for the non-stereotypical listener. Please read the sterotypical poem and stereotyping introduction to assess whether you are non-stereotypical and should switch off immediately now.
Helen
And you think YOU have the right to stomp your jackboot and tell others when they can and cannot have sex? YOU might only ever have sex when you and your partner are sober, but who do you think you are to demand the REST of us follow your Presbyterian po-faced fatwa!?
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:23 pm | PermalinkThe fact is there is more violence in lesbian relationships than in straight relationships and less violence in male-male relationships than is straight - and therefore lesbian relationships.
I don’t know if this is mere correlation, or whether these simple facts also contain a causative agent. Perhaps someone else does?
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:27 pm | PermalinkAnd where do you get that “fact” from JG?
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:29 pm | PermalinkI’m brave enough to admit that I have more than explored my personal right to consume alcohol, and I have also done some stupid things. More often than by accident those two factors were correlated.
Oh, I see - so being raped is a stupid thing a woman does? I understand now! (Any comments on the point that men who rape are very often drunk? Annnnyone? Anyone want to suggest that we encourage men to drink less in case they rape women? Anyone? Bueller?)
WARNING: This stereotypical, in-group, anecdotal, written form of talkback radio is not for the non-stereotypical listener. Please read the sterotypical poem and stereotyping introduction to assess whether you are non-stereotypical and should switch off immediately now.
I think it’s pretty clear from many of the responses to the research that victim-blaming is, in fact, pretty (stereo)typical. (Also, gosh - how dare these researchers include an epigraph! This throws all of their research into doubt!)
@Tigtog: agreed, agreed, agreed.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:29 pm | PermalinkI’m pleased you’ve learned to spell Presybterian, though.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 12:30 pm | PermalinkSomething has just become clear to me. Saying that certain behaviours can place someone at increased risk of attack is considered the same thing as saying the victim is to blame. Which suddenly makes the statistics of people holding the “victin is to blame” view make sense. Given that I would think the increased risk view is held by most people capable of being considered adults.
Now, If I have interpreted that right, I want to scream insults at feminist ideologists. But I will limit it to suggesting that conflating these two very different ideas is massively counter-productive, because it only provides cover for those who actually hold the victim is to blame views.
Anyone has the right to get drunk with strangers and not be raped. Rape is wrong and the victim is not to blame. But getting drunk with strangers will increase the chance of bad things happening to you. None of that should be controversial. I am sure more progress can me made by isolating those who actually blame the victim rather then pretending this is the position held by most of the population.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 1:18 pm | PermalinkFurther to that, I suppose there may be a continuum of thought that runs from sensible risk management through various degrees of the victim is to blame. But in this case, surely there is more to be gained by clearly drawing the line on what is acceptable and what is not. Confusing the issue may please those who are waging war against the patriarchy, but it isn’t going to make anything change at the blunt end of the communiy.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 1:23 pm | PermalinkWell we are now up to comment 103 and not one of Nick’s critics has as yet provided evidence that demonstrates the first two sentences in the executive summary are anything but a crass caricature of the great unwashed.
Why is that, I wonder?
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 1:52 pm | PermalinkNicely put Tim.
Now imagine if someone thought that, no matter how disgusting and despicable the men in the study are, that the very best way for women to avoid the fate of being serially brutalised and raped would be for them to not tolerate abusive behaviour, to get the hell out of one the first time there were clear signs of such a threat.
That someone might even be prepared to say that, while they thought what is happening to women who don’t walk away is a horrible crime that should be punished if it can be, those women who don’t walk away are nevertheless responsible, in the sense that they are the best placed people (other than the perpetrator in whom we have rather lost faith) to prevent the repetition of the outrages.
That someone might wonder if there was any word of censure in the report against women who stay and who put themselves (and perhaps their children) in harm’s way - alongside the much less ambivalently felt censure offered towards the perpetrators.
Of course trying to strengthen women’s resolve wouldn’t solve the problem entirely. But then neither does any strategy.
But imagine if you thought that that would be the one most important strategy your best chance of bringing the rate of these horrendous crimes down - for the women against whom these outrages are perpetrated to leave the animals who perpetrate them on the first occasion when their nature reveals itself.
It wouldn’t mean that you’d can other strategies, that you wouldn’t want to give the women support in getting out. It wouldn’t mean that you want the police or the church or anyone else to go soft on it. It wouldn’t mean that you’d be against most of the proposals made in this study. It wouldn’t mean that you didn’t feel for the women, in their humiliated confusion, their disbelief and denial.
It wouldn’t mean so many things that you mightn’t be able to spell them all out.
Well you’d spend most of your time explaining what you weren’t saying.
It would be a strange and rather unenjoyable position to be in. And you’d be accused of saying or really saying all sorts of things that you would aggrievedly feel you hadn’t said.
So you might not bother.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 1:57 pm | PermalinkNick,
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 2:27 pm | PermalinkYou asked for worse researched stuff than this. Well, go to the web site of the
Federal Senate and read some of the rubbish peddled by the Right to Life and Catholic organisations in their submissions to the recent Senate inquiry into Bob brown’s proposed challenge to the Andrews Bill (which overturned the N.T.’s legislation on euthanesia).
Nick it would have been better if you hadn’t bothered, if you’d just left it alone. Do you actually think rapists are ‘animals’? They’re human beings and ordinary people. One of the women interviewed in the study was raped by her ex-husband. Would you tell her she ought to have left him at the first sign of trouble? She did leave him, and he raped her anyway. Yet you say such women are ‘nevertheless responsible’. Or would you just go back to criticising the report for having a poem in it.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 2:43 pm | PermalinkQED
Laura,
I’d invite you to entertain a hypothesis. That when I spoke about women mentioned in the report who might have avoided repeated rape by leaving, I wasn’t talking about those who could not avoid rape by such means - such as the one you mention. From what I’ve read of the report many if not most of the women were repeatedly raped over periods of many years.
I mean what is the point of you picking an example which I couldn’t have been talking about and then speaking as if I was? This is exactly what I am talking about. Should I have put in an extra sentence about what I wasn’t saying “And I’m not talking about the woman on p. xx who was raped after she left”?
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 2:51 pm | PermalinkI see I have been requested for the relevant cites. I’ve been out most of the day, which is why I don’t have them to hand. I’ll be publishing a post on my own blog about this shortly, which will contain many cites. I’ll post a link to it here when it’s published.
As to the “why won’t she leave” thing on domestic violence: do you happen to know, Nick, what the different rates of intimate partner homicide are between separated intimate partners and still-cohabiting intimate partners? Because I do, and they tend to run counter to the idea that leaving an abusive partner is the obvious way to end the abuse.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 2:54 pm | PermalinkThe “why doesn’t she just leave” thing is not hugely original, it has been explained over and over again in journal articles, popular press and blogs. Please do some more reading, Nick.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 3:03 pm | PermalinkI saw a version of this on a 9MSN news discussion forum in the early noughties - the inhabitants of dictatorships like, say, Burma, Iraq under Saddam or Stalinist Russia, don’t deserve any sympathy because if they were truly aware of the horribleness of their rulers they would have risen up and deposed them long before. Anyone see that one? (It seems to have died a death as a rhetorical trope in favour of “Of course we sympathise, and we’ll help them - with bombs!” )
The other side of the “why doesn’t she just leave” is “why doesn’t he just not do it?”.
Doesn’t have quite the same common-sense feel to it, for some reason. But it’s just as valid (in fact, I’d say it’s a whole lot more to the point). We are dealing with complex human behaviours, where the tangle of love, hope, forgiveness and fear doesn’t always make for perfectly rational decision making of the “just leave” variety.
Posted on 23-Aug-08 at 10:31 pm | PermalinkNicholas, have you read this whole report, or was it just too mushy and sensational for you to take seriously? Did you read the parts dealing with why women did not leave instantly, and what happened to some of them when they attempted to seek help in the small towns where they live, in the environment so amply illustrated in the report, where partner rape is accepted and not spoken about?
You speak of “strengthening womens’ resolve” to leave abusive relationships. In order to do that you have to pass in silence over the many instances of women who found the necessary resolve to ask for help, but who got little support from their communities. I would direct you to section 3 in particular
You’re going to ask me again if I think you should have explicitly excluded the women who tried to get away. Well it’s freaking obvious that you *have* decided not to concern yourself with how to deal with what happened to them. But why do you choose to filter out every woman in the report (and let’s stick to the real women here, not hypothesised women like them) who can’t be held ‘nevertheless responsible’ and go straight to the ones (who I’m not certain exist, to be quite frank) who you feel you can blame with equanimi