Name a worse piece of research: Troppo competition

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:

  1. Interview women who have been raped within relationships
  2. Begin the paper with a poem
  3. 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.

This entry was posted in Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.

260 Responses to Name a worse piece of research: Troppo competition

  1. FDB says:

    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?

  2. Guise says:

    Oh! 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.

  3. John Greenfield says:

    The depravity of what passes for “research” and “scholarship” among the Gender Studies/Women’s Studies set is matched only by its vacuity.

  4. dr faustus says:

    I 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!

  5. conrad says:

    I think it’s generally called qualitative research

  6. conrad says:

    Sorry, Dr Faustus, you beat me to it.

  7. lauredhel says:

    You 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.

  8. Amanda says:

    Name 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.

  9. Nico says:

    A report “for and by health workers in rural areas” should still not use hearsay in it’s conclusions…

  10. Amanda says:

    “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.

  11. lauredhel says:

    Nico: A report about the nature of women’s experiences with partner rape should use what, exactly, if not women’s experiences?

  12. Jason Soon says:

    conrad 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.

  13. Melaleuca says:

    Don’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.

  14. Fair 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.

  15. Melaleuca says:

    “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 theyd done.”

    That’s fair enought too, Nick. But to generalise from “deviants” to the popular imagination is absurd …

  16. Amanda says:

    Nick: 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.

  17. Melaleuca says:

    “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?

  18. Amanda says:

    Yeah, I was the fat hairy one in the boiler suit.

  19. Melaleuca,

    “But to generalise from deviants to the popular imagination is absurd “.

    Ummm – that’s my point.

  20. Melaleuca says:

    Yes I know. I’m in furious agreement :)

  21. Amanda says:

    So 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.

  22. John H says:

    Here’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

    ….

    Were 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.

  23. FDB says:

    There’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.

  24. I was impressed by your link Melaleuka. I didn’t know I even needed a new vacuum tank.

  25. Amanda says:

    Is it tangential to the research? How so? From reading it, it appears completely on topic.

  26. Niall says:

    Frankly, 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.

  27. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    Amanda, 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

  28. Don Arthur says:

    Nicholas – 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?

  29. Laura says:

    What Amanda said, actually. It’s time to give Club troppo reading a nice, long, rest.

  30. Not 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?

  31. Melaleuca says:

    Let’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.

  32. Don Arthur says:

    And the last two paragraphs of your post?

  33. JC says:

    Don,

    Take a look at this sentence:

    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.

    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.

  34. Amanda says:

    BBB, 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.

  35. Michael says:

    NG,

    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.

  36. JC says:

    Amanda:

    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’.

  37. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    BBB, 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 arent 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

  38. Michael – 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.

  39. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    I 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

  40. Michael says:

    Nic,

    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.

  41. Kim says:

    I 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.

  42. conrad says:

    “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.

  43. Michael says:

    There 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.

  44. Ken Parish says:

    The 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:

    “Qualitative research like this isnt about external validity (being able to generalise the results to the wider population), but about the experience of one subset of the population.”

    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.

  45. Paul Norton says:

    What 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?

  46. conrad says:

    Mike & 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.

  47. lauredhel says:

    Ken: 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:

    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. While this is clearly uninformed, our 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.

    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.”

  48. lauredhel says:

    Another 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?

  49. pbrosnan says:

    “interviewing technique gives hopeless biased comments”
    Hopelessly malodorous statement …

  50. Amanda says:

    Id 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.

  51. derrida derider says:

    its a stereotype [that she was “asking for it] which no doubt fits many peoples 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.

  52. Ken Parish says:

    I 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 study expands the empirical and theoretical understanding of attitudes toward rape victims. Six hundred and eight adolescents and young adults were given three brief questionnaires assessing attitudes toward rape victims, attitudes toward women, and sex-role orientation, in addition to three sexual coercion vignettes. The results demonstrated that a significant proportion of students held unfavorable attitudes toward rape victims, perceived the victims as being responsible for the rape, and perceived the victims as contributing to their assault. Negative stereotypes about rape were also related to conservative and traditional beliefs about women’s social roles. Gender and educational level differences regarding rape victims were also found. The direct implications of these results for enhancing the efficacy of rape prevention and education programs is discussed in terms of both content and target group.

    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 innocent until proven guilty guilty until proven innocent. However, I don’t detect such attitudes here, and I frankly don’t understand the evident hostility towards the report.

  53. Amanda says:

    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.

  54. conrad says:

    “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.

  55. Ken Parish says:

    In 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.

  56. Why 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.

  57. James Farrell says:

    Why 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.

  58. JC says:

    (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.)

    this 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.

  59. conrad says:

    “Two negative experiences no doubt isnt enough to make sweeping unqualified generalisations, but its 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.

  60. Melaleuca says:

    Kim 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.

  61. Tui says:

    @Melaleuca:

    No Kim, its 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.

  62. Yobbo says:

    ITT: Girls gone wild.

  63. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    “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

  64. Melaleuca says:

    This 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.

  65. Caroline says:

    BBB 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.

    We cant lock up every man who is realistically capable of rape

    I don’t see why not.

  66. JC says:

    Caroline:

    your last comment was a joke, right?

  67. Tui says:

    They 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.

  68. Melaleuca says:

    Tui,

    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

  69. Ka Ching says:

    A group of Belgian researchers believe that research has already demonstrated a link between vaginal orgasm and better mental health (although Id 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).

  70. Helen says:

    That 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.

  71. Tel says:

    Ask 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:

    Some victims of sex crimes were so drunk they could not remember what had happened.

    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.

    “While we respect the individuals right to consume alcohol, we would be encouraging people to make responsible choices regarding who they drink with and the quantity that is consumed.”

    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 :-)

  72. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    So I sez: We cant lock up every man who is realistically capable of rape

    Then Caroline sez: I dont 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

  73. Helen says:

    So, you think you have the right to have sex with someone if they’re drunk?
    Right.

  74. Helen says:

    BBB, as you can clearly see I was referring to “Ka Ching”, who might or might not be an actual person.

  75. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    Really? 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

  76. Ka Ching says:

    Helen,

    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.

  77. Helen says:

    Oh, 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.

  78. Ka Ching says:

    No 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.

    Universit

  79. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    So 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

  80. Kim 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.

    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?

  81. Kim says:

    I’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).

  82. Tal says:

    Calm down Kim.

  83. Kim says:

    I’m perfectly calm, Tal. Why do you say that?

  84. Melaleuca says:

    Kim says:

    “Melaleuca, its interesting that you would imply that people who study rape with a view to its prevention are cause pushers whod 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, its 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!!

  85. Tal says:

    I think that you got all riled up about because the lesbian community was mentioned.

  86. JC says:

    In the units I did pertaining to sex………..

    You 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.

  87. Kim says:

    Yes, 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.

  88. Kim says:

    By 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?

  89. Melaleuca says:

    “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 womens 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.

  90. Melaleuca says:

    “Why exactly do you feel that claiming that violence isnt 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.

  91. Tal says:

    Kim I did’nt say that men are always rational and calm.

  92. tigtog says:

    Tui #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.

    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. While this is clearly uninformed, our 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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

  93. Robert says:

    What 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.

  94. Melaleuca says:

    “Cites available on request.”

    Yes please.

  95. observa says:

    It should simply have come with a cigarette pack type label-
    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.

  96. John Greenfield says:

    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!?

  97. John Greenfield says:

    The 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?

  98. Kim says:

    And where do you get that “fact” from JG?

  99. Tui says:

    Im 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.

  100. Kim says:

    I’m pleased you’ve learned to spell Presybterian, though.

  101. Tim Quilty says:

    Something 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.

  102. Tim Quilty says:

    Further 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.

  103. Melaleuca says:

    Well 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?

  104. Nicely 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.

  105. Bo says:

    Nick,
    You 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).

  106. Laura says:

    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.

  107. QED

    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”?

  108. tigtog says:

    I 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.

  109. Helen says:

    The “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.
    I 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!” )

  110. Michael says:

    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.

  111. Laura says:

    Nicholas, 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 equanimity.

  112. JC says:

    good one Micheal:

    A poor woman gets the shit beaten out of her by a drunk and you’re advocating nuance in terms of the ” complexities of human responses” or whatever.

  113. Tui says:

    @JC, it’s hard to talk about a woman being raped by her husband in a way that doesn’t reflect the complexities of human behaviour, don’t you agree?

  114. JC says:

    No. Rape is rape. If a thug decides to impose himself on a woman, that’s criminal behavior and if proved ought to be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. I don’t see that as complex or nuanced.

  115. John Greenfield says:

    It is also interesting that the rate of domestic violence is inversely proportional to the fequency of sex. Gay men have the most, straights second, and lesbian last. Maybe there’s some sort of evolutionary tick propelling chicks fighting over men gene that leads to so much violence among lesbian couples and thus very little violence among gay men?

  116. Michael says:

    JC,

    I ws referring to the complexities of “why doesn’t she just leave”.

  117. Melaleuca says:

    John Greenfield says:

    “Maybe theres some sort of evolutionary tick propelling chicks fighting over men gene that leads to so much violence among lesbian couples and thus very little violence among gay men?”

    It is generally understood that gay men are just as prone to relationship violence as gay women. An Australian support site for gay and lesbian victims of domestic violence notes:

    “To date, there is little accurate Australian research that records the level of
    domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships. However, a number of
    overseas studies suggest that the general patterns and levels of domestic
    violence in same sex relationships are about the same as in heterosexual
    relationships. These studies also show that once the violence starts it is likely
    to get worse.” http://ssdv.acon.org.au/information/gayandlesbiandv.php

    JG, you haven’t bothered answered Kim’s request for information at #99 to back up your earlier assumptions nor your new assumptions so I suspect your simply trolling. Get a life.

  118. Pingback: Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony » Blog Archive » Thread of Doom

  119. observa says:

    The overarching problem is like we have with making a purchase. Most go to the shop and make a purchase and win win, although some purchasers regret an impulsive purchase and want their money back. Some even deliberately purchase an article with the intention of using it briefly and then taking it back, pretending it’s still new as purchased. Then there’s the door to door sales and the advertising. Does the punter require protection of cooling off periods as well as from unfair advertising? What about deliberately misleading advertising, or harsh and unconscionable/predatory trading? Then there’s straight out break and enter.

    In all of this broad spectrum there are those of leftist bent that will tell you the customer is always right, because the trader always holds the whip hand and as such the purchaser should always be believed over the seller. They take this same attitude to sexual relationships. One has all the power, while the other has none and hence the latter is always a victim. So when you get a similar spectrum of gentle seduction, the art of salesmanship, the hard sell, deceptive advertising, standover to kicking down the door and absolute force, it’s all the same. There’s always a victim and an oppressor to be found among all this. They really believe it’s that simple and hence behave like radio shock jocks with their ring in crowd. To listen to the callers you’d swear the whole world was like their anecdotal view of the world. Some eggheads even go so far as to call this sort of whinge session ‘qualitative research’ and hence the ‘gummint orta do sumpink about it’, particularly when it means more govt handouts for their particular patch.

    Me? I’ve come to understand that not everyone goes about these matters like I do and I often shake my head in disbelief at their goings on, but as my pappy explained to me on occasions- Son, some people just like it like that, not that they’ll ever admit it to themselves. Quite the philosopher my old man.

  120. Melaleuca says:

    I feel embarrassed on your behalf, Observa. I truly do.

  121. Melaleuca says:

    OK now I’ve done my homework. Let’s read again the sentence that Nick and I find objectionable:

    “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 let’s see some attitude survey results to see if this claim is true or false.

    Survey One- Amnesty International Survey of 1,000 people from England 2005

    “The Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people also found over 25% believe she is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.”

    http://www.womenagainstrape.net/PressCoverage/Oneinthree.htm

    Survey Two- Criminologist Survey of 6,588 people in Australia 1992

    In reply to the question “There is no behaviour on the part of woman that should be considered justification for rape(see Table 9, page 8) 24.7% of men diagreed and 15.6% of men disagreed.

    In reply to the question “In order to protect a male, it should be more difficult to prove rape than other crimes” (see Table 15, page 12) 9% of men and 3.7% of women agreed.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/20/esteal1b.pdf

    Survey Three- Phone Survey of 1,108 people conducted in America 2002

    “Basile found that nearly three-quarters (73%) of respondents believed that wife rape occurs, 18% thought it does not occur, and 5% were unsure. Among those who thought wife rape occurs, 38% said it happens often, and an additional 40% felt it happens somewhat often. Fifteen percent felt wife rape is infrequent and 4% said it is a rare occurrence.

    Basile found support for nearly all her of hypotheses. The older the respondents, the less likely they were to believe that wife rape occurs, and white respondents were 2.5 times more likely to believe that wife rape occurs than blacks and other minorities. Women thought wife rape occurs more frequently than did men and, predictably, victims were more than twice as likely as nonvictims to feel that wife rape occurs.”

    http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2057/Rape-Sexual-Harassment-Around-World-MARITAL-RAPE.html

    If we’re prepared to accept that the survey results are representative and Americans and and Brits have similar attitudes to Australians, the claim that the “popular imagination” blames women for their own rape is simply false.

    Please note I didn’t “cherry pick” these three surveys. They are the first three I came up with when googling survey results.

    Nick is right.

  122. Michael says:

    M.,

    I would have thought that a quarter of people thinking that a womems behaviour justified rape makes the other point.

  123. Melaleuca says:

    One-quarter is a minority and includes the “at least partly responsible” responses. It isn’t the “popular imagination”, which to me means an overwhelming majority.

    Exclude the old folk and certain minorities and the figures look even less like the “popular imagination”, I’d wager.

  124. Michael says:

    That’s quite a high prevalence for what is a disturbing perspective.

    I’m not sure how to account for it but by the existence of a stereotype relating to rape victims. Or is myth a better term?

    If this is the criteria for suggesting it to be one of the worst pieces of research, the state of qualitative research in Australia must be in very robust health.

  125. derrida derider says:

    When people are told that a man they know and like has beaten/raped his wife, a very very common response (especially from the mans family and friends) is she must have provoked it”. – tigtog

    Not from my family or friends, tigtog. The overwhelming reaction of my family or friends would be to quickly cease to like him.

    Back in my proletarian childhood wife-beating was common but it was always considered deeply disgraceful for the man – the sort of thing they would never dream of owning up to with their mates. Real men fought other men, not womenfolk or children. Now this was (and to the extent this concept of male honour still exists, is) a sexist attitude that denies women status or agency, but it was not at all the same thing as condoning that violence. Which, obviously, is not to say that it was sufficient to stop it.

    A further and separate complication is that there really are couples who are into rough sex (a friend of mine once had his jaw broken by his wife this way!). Now perhaps this is a learned response from a rough upbringing, but it does exist and we have to take account of it. To assume all violence within marriage (gay or straight) is completely non-consensual is to do violence to reality.

  126. Melaleuca says:

    Well I’ve obviously upset Comrade Kim big time because she’s gone back to deleting all my comments at Larvatus Prodeo :)

  127. Tui says:

    @dd, I think most people into BDSM would be extraordinarily offended at your suggestion that there’s a similarity between that and between rape and domestic abuse. (Also, IMO rough sex which involves a broken jawbone is neither safe nor sane – safe, sane and consensual being the idea.) Bluntly, this research is not remotely about consensual rough sex, and statistics about domestic violence and partner rape do not include these activities except by error. (Also, frankly, the onus is on members of the BDSM community to take care of each other and of their own reputation; it’s not up to a hospital to decide whether the man or woman with the broken jaw is being honest when they say they’re into rough sex and don’t want to press charges, it’s up to the man or woman and their partner to not put other people in this position – i.e. do not break each others’ jaws, ffs.)

  128. Laura says:

    derrida derider @126, what is the actual difference between ‘condoning’ violence and benignly turning a blind eye to it, not punishing it by law, or tacitly pretending it doesn’t happen? Serious question.

  129. Laura says:

    And the disgrace and shame you’ve described as being attendant on men who are known to be violent towards women is a key reason why it’s hidden away and not acknowledged as a thing that happens to a people living in very ordinary circumstances.

  130. derrida derider says:

    Laua, I hold no brief for wife-beaters. Nor do I hold a brief for the “you don’t beat your wife because its beneath a real man” position as against “you don’t beat your wife because you’ve no right to” one. I’m simply pointing out that both differ from from the “wives are for beating” position. As for the “disgrace and shame” attendant upon both positions, it is indeed a barrier to effective prevention – but it seems to me to be that many of your peers don’t agree. They’d generally prefer to punish practitioners rather than convert them.

    Tui, I don’t think most such couples are actually into the elaborate role-playing BDSM approach with its apparatus and its safe words (NTTAWTT). It’s more that they associate spontaneous physical aggression with eroticism. IMO that’s neither safe nor sane – as I hinted, it may well be to do with childhood abuse. But there is no denying that it can be consensual.

  131. Laura says:

    “Laua, I hold no brief for wife-beaters” – goodness me, nobody’s suggesting you do! I understand that you don’t of course! I asked you how turning a blind eye is different from condoning violence. From your answer I think you were trying to say that condoning violence means explicitly saying ‘wives are for beating.’ Is that what you meant?

    Who are my peers, though? – I don’t deny I would like to see rapists punished as other criminals are. It appears that none of the 24 rapists figuring in the Goulburn Valley report were convicted, although one case was still pending.

  132. Tim Quilty says:

    Can’t let the thread die before achieving true Thread of Doom status. Reading a few of the links. It’s always disturbing to examine these things closely. Having finally read the study in question in all it’s horrible detail, I’d say Nick was a bit off picking it as the example. Not that his criticisms are invalid, but it’s not what I was left thinking by the time I got to the end of it.

    I still can’t help feeling that some of the feminist ideological positions do more to perpetuate the problems then to create solutions. I would still say that some of the blame the victim view is mis-attributed. But two more points strike me.

    First, that rape is not about sex but power is unnecessarily ideological. I see the polemical value, but some categories they talk about, such as drunk “date rape” would seem to me to be mostly about sex. And the perpetrators won’t consider it rape. But also that in the case of many rapists it might be an artificial distinction. They don’t have a seperation between the need for power and the need for sex, it’s the same thing?

    And the idelogical position that this behaviour is evenly spread across the socio-economic spectrum is also not just wrong but counter-productive. Incidents might occur at every level, but any statistical measure is going to show them clustering amongst the poorest and least educated. It’s like they need to prove the problem is all men everywhere, regardless, rather then directing corrective resources to where they can be of most value.

    Meh. I can do without reading any more studies about this for some time. Like the rest of my life.

  133. Tui says:

    And the idelogical position that this behaviour is evenly spread across the socio-economic spectrum is also not just wrong but counter-productive.

    This is neither an ideological position nor what the report is saying; what the report says is that partner rape occurs across the socioeconomic spectrum, not that it occurs equally. And if it was the assertion, it would not be an ideological position but a statistical assertion – just like your own that partner rape offenses would cluster in poor and ill-educated areas. (Which: citation needed, please.)

    Frankly, men who get upset at so-called “feminist ideology” hate men a hell of a lot more than feminists are supposed to. From the assertion that “rape occurs at every level of society” you receive the message “all men are evil!” From the same assertion, I receive “rape is a problem at every level of society (so don’t get smug, rich people.)” It’s more about poverty than it is about gender.

    First, that rape is not about sex but power is unnecessarily ideological.

    And that’s not an ideology, either, but a psychological assertion (whih may or may not be able to be verified by psychologists, I have no idea, but frankly it doesn’t seem related to feminism to me except that it’s broadly talking about gender and power.) Frankly, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  134. Melaleuca says:

    While I feel sympathy for many of the sentiments expressed above, it is interesting to note than no-one has provided evidence to back up the opening statement in the executive summary:

    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.

    This includes Kim and Tigtog who tell us an avalanche of evidence exists to support the claim and who said they would provide citations.

    In fact the weight of evidence refutes the claim and accordingly what we have is a rape myth of a different kind.

    It may even be reasonably argued that this particular myth is an elitist swipe at ordinary folk by their self appointed betters.

    But once again let me reiterate that I feel deeply for the victims of rape, which is a hideous crime, and state that such victims should get all the support they require from the community and government.

    The research paper in question is far from the worst paper produced by social science academics and graduates, but Nick is right to criticise a paper that invents its own myths while purporting to debunk others.

  135. Tui says:

    @melaleuca: no-one has provided evidence to back up the opening statement in the executive summary:

    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.

    Look, I can’t provide a study to support what I feel about this. But I don’t think the studies you cite are good counter-examples. This statement is about *the misperception of rape statistics.* The questions to ask to verify it are not “do you belive partner rape occurs” or “do you think women are responsible for their own rapes” (especially since those questions are ASTOUNDINGLY leading, particularly the ones in the second survey you cited) but “What proportion of rapes do you think occur when women are drunk? What proportion of rapes do you think occur when the rapist is drunk? What proportion of rapes do you think are partner rapes? What proportion of rapes do you think are stranger rapes?”

  136. Tui says:

    Doing some googling! Nothing like rape perception research to make you sick to your stomach.

    @Tim Quilty: One myth that researches have shown to have little basis in reality is that rape is a crime of pure passion, that it is primarly sexualy motivated. Although not all researchers agree on the extent of sexual motivation in rape, it was indicated that rape combines elements of power and anger, as well as sexuality. As early as 1977, Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom (1977) had concluded that, although sexuality was the method chosen to express power or anger, sex was not the dominant motivator in rape.

    @melaleuca: From the same article as above, “Another common myth is that rapists are most often strangers who suddenly attack their victims in a dark alley. According to surveys and crime statistics, most rapes are not commited by a stranger; between 75 and 90% of the perpetrators are known to their victims, on different levels of acquaintance.”

    @everyone claiming that no-body blames the victim, and refusing to acknowledge that victim-blaming is more insidious that “Oh, she asked for it”: “Rape myths are also reflected in the attribution of blame to victims. Victim blame is expressed in several themes: victim masochism (e.g., they enjoy it or want it), victim precipitation (e.g., they ask for it; it happens only to certain types of women), and victim fabrication (e.g., they lie or exaggerate; Koss et al., 1994).” (emphasis mine: denying that rape happens to everyone, and pretending it only happens to women who behave certain ways, is victim blaming!)

    I’m going to keep looking for a study about prevalence of rape myths, but probably not tonight, I have a limited tolerance for this kind of thing.

  137. Helen says:

    @melaleuca: From the same article as above, Another common myth is that rapists are most often strangers who suddenly attack their victims in a dark alley. According to surveys and crime statistics, most rapes are not commited by a stranger; between 75 and 90% of the perpetrators are known to their victims, on different levels of acquaintance.

    Exactly right, and it is this point which is being morphed into, “OMG these feminists say we are all rapists! Every. single. one of us!”

  138. John Greenfield says:

    The suggestions that sex and power are not inextricably linked and that rape has nothing to do with sex are both demented.

  139. Laura says:

    Judgements about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: a review. British journal of social psychology 1992.

    I can’t find a non-institutional access version of this paper to link to but if people are willing to take it in good faith that the abstract is borne out by the full paper, the relevant passage is perhaps this:

    “In particular, it appears that if a female engages in any behaviour deemed to be ‘incautious’ that results in victimization then she may be perceived to be at fault, even though these behaviours would be ‘legitimate’ for males, and that prior romantic involvement with the attacker mitigates the perceived seriousness of, and may even be seen as supplying justification for, a sexual attack. The existence of these attitudes implies that rape may be tacitly condoned in many situations.”

  140. John Greenfield says:

    “Rape Is About Power, Not Sex.”

    “No, Always Means No”.

    Please. Live in the Real World.

  141. Jc says:

    Exactly right, and it is this point which is being morphed into, OMG these feminists say we are all rapists! Every. single. one of us!

    No Helen, that isn’t right.

    It’s “OMG some of these feminists say that attitudes to rape are more tolerant than what is in fact the case”

    If you had characterized it like that you may have been in the right ballpark.

  142. James Rice says:

    Just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t assume the suggestions made in the abstract mentioned above are demonstrated in the full paper. (And unfortunately I can’t find an electronic version of this paper even behind my university’s institutional barriers – I’d have to visit the library to read the full paper.) The author hedges his or her bets a fair amount in the abstract (with a lot of “may”s rather than “is”s) and, in any case, it seems to me this whole discussion revolves around how abstracts (or executive summaries) can include claims that are stronger than the full version of a paper (or report) warrants. And with only the abstract to go on, the paper could, at least potentially, be based on a psychological experiment on 50 or so undergraduate students in Lancashire, perhaps 18 years ago. Would this count as strong evidence of the views of the general Australian population 18 years later? Still, it would be good to have a look at the full paper.

  143. Melaleuca says:

    Thanks for the link to the abstract from the British study, Laura.

    Unfortunately the abstract fails to provide any percentages. It also says this: “These are limits to generalization due to populations studied and methods used, and the observed effects of several factors are either minimal or inconsistent.”

    I’m not convinced there is anything in your abstract that trumps the three studies I cite with a combined sample population of just under 9,000 people, and in particular the Australian study.

    If I had the intellectual rigour and sexist predisposition of Comrade Kim right about now I would be explaining the emotional outbursts of some commenters on this post as some form of gendered phenomenon. But I’m not like that :)

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/03/climate-change-denialism-why-now/#comment-474494

  144. James Rice says:

    Not really on topic, but here are some interesting statistics on gender and violence…

    According to police records reported by the ABS, in 2006 men were 2.04 times as likely as women to be murdered. Men were also 3.72 times as likely as women to be the victims of attempted murder. Women, however, were 1.66 times as likely as men to be kidnapped or abducted.

    (The actual numbers are as follows. Murder: 186 (men), 91 (women). Attempted murder: 186 (men), 50 (women). Kidnapping/abduction: 270 (men), 447 (women).)

    According to an ABS household survey on crime and safety, in 2005 men were 2.95 times as likely as women to be the victims of robbery (that is, an incident in which a person steals or tries to steal property from another person by physically attacking them or threatening them with force or violence). Men were also 1.15 times as likely as women to be the victims of assault. Women, however, were 6.23 times as likely as men to be the victims of sexual assault (this statistic only includes sexual assaults on adults – sexual assaults on children are not included).

    (Here are the actual numbers, in thousands. Victims of robbery: 44.0 (men), 14.9 (women). Victims of assault: 412.6 (men), 358.0 (women). Victims of sexual assault (adults): 6.1 (men), 38.0 (women).)

    Given these figures, campaigns against violence that focus specifically on female victims, while ignoring the majority of victims of violence, who happen to be male, are clearly unfair, even sexist. If you are going to talk about violence that is viewed as acceptable by the general Australian population, you could do worse than mention violence of which men are the victims. When are we going to have the “Violence against Men – Australia says No” campaign? Or, heaven forbid, a campaign against violence, irrespective of who the victim is?

  145. Chris Lloyd says:

    BTW: Tui’s link is to that venerable journal “Sex roles; A journal of research.”

    The papers that I have seen in these areas (by which I mean, diversity, gender studies, indigenous studies) seem to be mere vehicles for supporting a pre-conceived viewpoint that rape is more common than thought, or gender discrimination is more of a problem than thought or diversity in hiring practices will increase team efficiency. When did you ever see a paper that found that gender discrimination was less than previously thought? Did the main contention ever stand a chance of being falsified?

    The papers start off by formally quoting all the relevant literature and theories, desperately trying to sound academic, but the references are equally lacking in weight. Phrases like researchers have long known that.. or Smith (1999) suggests that.. are pure huff. Nothing is actually established. Its a house of cards. Made even weaker by the loose standards that apply to qualitative research.

    Many people, including Nick I suspect, are hostile to this perversion of scholarly traditions. The pro-feminist claims made by commenters on this post may well be true however we just cannot trust the researchers in the area.

  146. Melaleuca says:

    Chris Lloyd says:

    “When did you ever see a paper that found that gender discrimination was less than previously thought? ”

    There is a well known phenomena called “publication bias”. Obviously a study that finds discrimination exists is far more newsworthy, and far more likely to be published in research journals- even respectable journals, than studies that find discrimination is minimal.

    Obviously cause-pushing journals in fields like “womyns studies” will play an even more interventionist gate-keeping role.

  147. Jc says:

    Anyone know what the actual stats are… reliable stats for sexual assault at the national level. It would be interesting to see what well respected criminologists say about sexual assault/ reported incidence vs non reported.

  148. Jc says:

    ooops Didn’t read James’ piece until now.

  149. Adrien says:

    There was an article in a mag with a mainly lesbian readership that discussed the phenomenon of women raping women and how hard it was to get such crimes taken seriously. I’m not sure this is reliable but I’ve read that domestic violence stats same-sex relationships are indistinguishable from heterosexual equivalents. This’d tend to support eh view that domestic violence at least is not a ‘gendered’ phenomenon.

    “Rape is about power, not sex” – a convenient over-simplification if ever there was one. Of course sex is never about power. Snark.

  150. James Rice says:

    For what it’s worth, the first group of statistics I mentioned earlier come from police records reported in:

    Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007) Recorded Crime – Victims, Australia: 2006, ABS Catalogue No 4510.0, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    The second group of statistics come from an ABS household survey on crime and safety described in:

    Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Crime and Safety, Australia: April 2005, ABS Catalogue No 4509.0, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    This survey asked people about incidents of certain crimes, regardless of whether these crimes had been reported to police.

  151. Helen says:

    Melaleuca, I know you’re enjoying your gotcha glee that Tigtog hasn’t been back with the cites. She does have a job and a family you know, and commenting in this place may not be terribly high on her list of priorities. So enough with the cheap taunts – we’re not cheezel-stained fourteen year olds playing a MUD game. At least, I’m not.

    Is the report quoted here the Amnesty International report you mentioned at #122? (and how does either report refute the idea that many people blame women for their own rape in answer to the question is there NO BEHAVIOUR that would justify rape? Many people think rape is justified if certain behaviours are present. It’s not the same thing.) The report as mentioned in Times on Line doesn’t seem to present as rosy a picture as you do.

    MORE than a third of people believe that a woman is totally or partially responsible for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner, a survey has found.
    The poll of more than 1,000 men and women suggests that the vast strides towards equal rights for women in the public spheres of work, pay and reproductive health have not been matched by advances in the more private field of sexual behaviour.
    Womens rights groups said that they were astounded and saddened by the findings, which appear to reflect widespread misconceptions that women are sexually available and that some men simply cannot help themselves.

    Intoxication, either drugs or alcohol, is still a get-out-of-jail free card for rapists. In the US “frat culture” our “yobbo” culture is taken to the extreme, like our AFL culture but a shade worse. Here again, like the husband who subjects his wife to Rougher than Usual Handling (remember that guy?), they define rape away by saying an unconscious or drugged girl can’t be raped.

    Just a couple of weeks ago in the UK,

    Ministers have ordered an inquiry after it emerged that rape victims have had their state compensation slashed because they were drunk at the time.
    Officials at the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority told women their drinking was a ‘ contributing factor’ in their ordeal.
    The standard taxpayer-funded payouts of

  152. Laura says:

    James Rice, re: the abstract / article issue – do you have particular reason to doubt the strength and adequacy of peer review on that journal?

    The executive summary on the report that so offended Nicholas was not peer reviewed.

    I can explain the difference if you like.

  153. Jc says:

    Speaking of lawyers – and judges – unless youve been hiding under a rock for the past fifty years, you would know that courts in Australia, US and UK all submit rape victims to humiliating cross examinations based on their sexual history. Here Peter Faris, who is no cuddly liberal type himself, writes about how this works and how even he couldnt stomach this after a while. Yes, I think the legal system is improving, but its taking its time.

    You think the rules of evidence should be lowered in the case of rape even more compared to say a male/male murder case? Dunno about you Helen, but I kinda like the presumption of innocence of the English derived legal system. You don’t obviously. You think we ought to change it for accusations of rape?

    Is the report quoted here the Amnesty International report you mentioned at #122? (and how does either report refute the idea that many people blame women for their own rape in answer to the question is there NO BEHAVIOUR that would justify rape? Many people think rape is justified if certain behaviours are present. Its not the same thing.) The report as mentioned in Times on Line doesnt seem to present as rosy a picture as you do.

    Is this the same Amnesty international that rates the US highly in its list of nations with human rights abuses, but remains silent on China. Frankly i would be shocked if AI ever published a ‘ research ‘ piece that wasn’t preordained.

    Here’s the rub, Helen and take it for what it’s worth. There is enough evidence around to suggest that the vast number of citizens regard sexual assault as a horrible crime. They are repulsed by it, feel for the victim and would like to see the perpetrator locked up for a very long time. There’s really nothing nuanced about that.

    The unfortunate thing about rape and sexual assault is that it may be hard to prove at times especially when it’s a couple living together or date rape. It’s very hard for the law to get to the truth and under our legal system there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I don’t think most people would like to see anyone go to jail as a result of an accusation without reasonable evidence. That’s the way it should be.

  154. Melaleuca says:

    “And if you dont think it would be present in a rural community like Goulburn, yer dreamin.”

    Believe it or not I’m no less angry about sexual assault than yourself. Just after I moved from Melbourne to Castlemaine I learnt that a girl who had apparently been sexually assaulted by a “popular boy” in a Castlemaine secondary school had suicided. Next to her body was a note from one of her female school peers telling her she was lying etc… Horrifying and depressing.

    My point is that if you really care about the past and future victims of sexual assault and you are a researcher then you owe it to them to produce professional and rigorous research rather than propaganda.

    Propagandistic nonsense, as some of the Neanderthal comments above demonstrate, produces a backlash that harms not helps. Surely this is obvious.

  155. Michael says:

    I just posted a link to some research on community attitudes from the Aust Institute for Criminology, but Askimet has swallowed it (too many links?).

    Here it is again.

  156. Melaleuca says:

    Last year a woman in Britain was jailed for 2 years for making false rape allegations against 4 men in separate incidents dating back to when she was a teenager: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-432637/Church-ministers-daughter-cried-rape-times-jailed.html

    And here we have a lesbian falsely accusing a man with 8 broken bones in his back and a body brace of committing rape: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444298/Lesbian-accuses-innocent-stranger-rape-win-lover.html

    I wonder how often false allegations occur? I assume very infrequently.

  157. Helen says:

    Full marks JC for collapsing “destroying the victims character on the witness stand in order to exonerate the defendant” and presumption of innocence. You may think that’s working well, but many people have disagreed with you over the years. Including lawyers.

  158. conrad says:

    “Anyone know what the actual stats are reliable stats for sexual assault at the national level.”

    You can dig through this for as summary of the last decade:

    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi359t.html

  159. Laura says:

    JC at 154: “There is enough evidence around to suggest that the vast number of citizens regard sexual assault as a horrible crime.”

    Yes of course – the problem is getting to the point where it is called sexual assualt. The women in the Goulburn study all identified what happened to them as rape and it fitted the legal definition, but all women were certain the rapists would not recognise it as rape (except one man who had been charged with a different rape, she thought perhaps he would.)

  160. Jc says:

    Full marks JC for collapsing destroying the victims character on the witness stand in order to exonerate the defendant and presumption of innocence. You may think thats working well, but many people have disagreed with you over the years. Including lawyers

    Collapsing? huh? What’s your solution, Helen? Should conviction occur on simple accusation?

  161. Fine says:

    “That someone might even be prepared to say that, while they thought what is happening to women who dont walk away is a horrible crime that should be punished if it can be, those women who dont 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.”

    Nick, surely you’re proving the point of the report here by your attitude to rape. The woman is responsible if she doesn’t walk away. Why do you think women’s refuges are always in secret locations? Because their partners will harm them.

    There are many reasons why women don’t walk away. Their partners threaten them that they’ll kill them and the kids if they do. This threat often comes true. Look at the Julie Ramage case which Helen cited. Their partner often isolates them from family and friends so they can’t get the necessary support to move away. There are often a lack of resources for women. They may not have family to turn to. They may not have access to any money. The reasons are myriad and very well known.

    You’re attitude really adds to the idea that it’s a woman’s fault if her partner rapes snd bashes her.

  162. Helen says:

    Should conviction occur on simple accusation?

    Reductio ad absurdum, dude. I do not dialogue with absurdity.

  163. derrida derider says:

    Intoxication, either drugs or alcohol, is still a get-out-of-jail free card for rapists … – Helen
    Err, no. It is not a defence or even mitigation to any charge, including rape, to claim intoxication.

    Here again, like the husband who subjects his wife to Rougher than Usual Handling (remember that guy?), they define rape away by saying an unconscious or drugged girl cant be raped.
    I’m afraid both cases you are referring to have entered the realm of myth. In the first case the victim had testified that they had previously enjoyed consensual rough sex and the judge was actually pointing out to the jury that this could not excuse any non-consensual sex, which is pretty much the opposite of the way the myth has it. The “rougher than usual handling” referred to “rougher than is usual for most couples” of the past consensual sex. In the second case the judge was pointing out that had the victim suffered any memory of the event this would have been an aggravation, not that it wasn’t a crime because she didn’t. And he put the bastard away for a long time (13 years IIRC), which is hardly defining the crime away.

    And I agree with Melaleuca. Muddying evidence by confusing it with propaganda seriously damages policy, which ultimately harms the victims. And propaganda that grossly libels people is offensive.

  164. Laura says:

    Let me get this straight: DD, you think it’s offensive and grossly libellous to acknowledge that of all the people involved in the rapes detailed in that report, all the men and most of the women at the time, did not name them as rape, but instead justified it away?

    What did the women do instead of recognising and naming what happened to them as rape? In most cases they rationalised it, temporarily, as somehow just, deserved, or excusable.

    Either they did that because they’re masochists, or because they themselves partook of the sterotype.

    How is that libelling them?

  165. Jc says:

    Of course Helen , that’s because you don’t want to answer the question as your entire hypothesis falls like a deck of cards.

    You’re relying on phony research and you’re making assertions based on that phony research. No wonder you can’t answer a simple question.

  166. Melaleuca says:

    “Either they did that because theyre masochists, or because they themselves partook of the sterotype.”

    I think the victims in abusive relationships have their confidence, self-esteem and self-respect slowly whittled away and hence they begin to rationalise and accept abuse. I doubt this has anything at all to do with stereotypes that pervade the popular imagination.

  167. conrad says:

    Speaking of stereotypes and so on, if some of you guys would have a look at the AIC figures I linked to before, you would find out that sexual assault more commonly occurs to people less than 15 years old than those over that age, hence arguing about what happens in adult-adult relationships is missing the majority of cases. Thus the stereotype you should be thinking of about who gets assualted is unfortunately little kids, and I think there is pretty strong agreement that everyone who does this is bad.

  168. Melaleuca says:

    Michael’s link at #156 would appear to settle the matter in Nick’s favour.

    996 Australians were asked in a telephone interview in 2006 if they agreed that “women who are raped often ask for it”.

    Only 6% agreed (see page 68). Interestingly, 15% agreed in a survey conducted by the Office of the Status of Women in 1995. I can’t help but wonder if some cause-pushing skewed the earlier results.

  169. Yobbo says:

    Women who get agitated about “Violence against women” make me sick, quite frankly.

    Violence against both genders is a huge problem in Australia. Men are disproportionately the victims.

    By only focusing on “Violence against women” are they in fact saying that the male victims of violence are asking for it? Or just that it doesn’t really matter?

  170. Melaleuca says:

    Yobbo you goose, you conveniently ignore the fact that 95% of the violence against men is by men.

    ps. have you been to the Warthog and Anvil lately.

  171. Melaleuca says:

    Actually I should add that I’m referring exclusively to physical violence; women’s tongues can be quite intimidating at times.

  172. Nabakov says:

    Gee golly. This has become an awfully emotive thread.

    And I can’t help noticing it’s the men who are becoming more emotive here than the women.

    Although hats off to that puerile Greenfield creature and Yobbo for what I do hope are witting attempts to inject some light relief into such a highly charged subject. Lesbians are more violent than men? Wot about violence against men by men? Laugh? I nearly bought a round.

    For me the issue is very simple. Yeah sure, there have been and will continue to be cases of women falsely fitting up men for sexual harassment, assault and rape. But the number of such cases immensely pales into insignificance compared to how men have fucked up and over women in every possible sense over the past 50,000 years or so across all races and cultures.

    PS: Guys, wanna improve your consensual bonk ratio? Alway takes the ladies’ side in such debates. Then prove yer not a wimp by changing her tyre afterwards.

    OK, back OT. I really should read what Nick linked to before commenting…

    …nah..I’m just here to watch to watch so many blokes behave like hysterical drama queens at the very suggestion they could possibly share the same chromosomes as men behaving very badly.

    It’s not like the reality of rape/sexual harassment/male bullying just sprang fully formed, like Pallas Athena, out of the foreheads of some pushy seventies feminists.

    It behooves us blokes to lift our game and wear the very odd false accusation along the way. We can afford it. After all we run the bloody planet. Hoo-yah!

    Also, I feel future contributions to this thread should only be made by people who have actually had emotional and/or sexual relationships with sentient organisms existing above room temperature.

    So fuck off Greenfield. You’re way out of your depth here.

  173. Yobbo says:

    It behooves us blokes to lift our game and wear the very odd false accusation along the way. We can afford it. After all we run the bloody planet.

    The penalty for making a false accusation of rape should be just as severe as rape itself. Accusations of that kind can destroy people’s marriages, careers and lives in general.

    “Unfounded” (Those dropped before they even get past the preliminary investigation) rape cases make up anywhere between 10-25% of all rape cases pursued by the US FBI.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE153CF933A1575AC0A966958260

    Feminists would have you believe this is just another example of men getting away with it. Someone like Steven Milne might say otherwise.
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/06/1083635282679.html

    It is believed it was found that there was “no reasonable likelihood of successful prosecutions’ of Milne and Montagna. The formal written advice is expected to be lodged with police within days.

    Once police are formally notified, lawyers for the two men and the woman who accused the pair of sexual assault will be informed.

    “We have not officially been informed, nor has the victim been advised of the outcome,” a police spokesman said.

    Notice how the accuser is still referred to as “The Victim” even after it has been decided that no prosecutable crime has been committed?

    The translation: They are both rapists but we can’t prove it.

  174. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    “Only 6% agreed (see page 68). Interestingly, 15% agreed in a survey conducted by the Office of the Status of Women in 1995. I cant help but wonder if some cause-pushing skewed the earlier results.”

    More likely a lot of old men died in the intervening 11 years.

    BBB

  175. Yobbo says:

    The reality is that any man, who has sex (or even doesn’t) can be accused of rape by any women, even one he doesn’t know, for any reason, and even after it is found he has no case to answer and has done nothing at all wrong, he is tagged as a rapist or a suspected rapist for the rest of his life.

    Was the woman in the Milne case charged with any crime? If not, why not? She publically accused two high-profile sportspeople of raping her. There are all numbers of motives for wanting to do that. There was a crime committed here one way or another.

    Even if you have been going out with the girl for 5 years. If she decides shes pissed off at you one day she can claim she was “Too drunk to consent” last time you had sex and lay rape charges. Even if you are married to her. Men simply cannot win under this system. Even if you gave the woman you slept with a contract to sign every time you had sex, she could still claim she signed it under duress and charge you with rape.

    But yeah, that’s all ok because Men run the world, right? ALL MEN. And of course every man in the world has the same resources with which to defend himself from a rape charge as does the CEO of Halliburton.

  176. Oh, FFS, BBB. Any first year stats text will tell you that when you ask a question about a highly emotive topic about which respondents feel that the answer they will give is likely to be the “wrong” one from a social point of view, you have to ask other subtler questions in order to expose their underlying attitudes. The protocols for doing so are well known and were developed by American researchers in the 1950s and 1960s. You might even (gasp!) want to do some qualitative research or for that matter controlled experiments in order to get a better picture.

    All this rubbish about “cause pushing” just reveals some of the repulsive attitudes expressed by so many on this thread, if any more evidence were needed, who are so quick to jump to ridiculous and illogical conclusions such as “the report says all men are violent” or whatever which have no justification in its text. Not to mention the “it’s all about me” thing which is there in the post.

    It’s a research report which doesn’t purport to generalise – if you actually read it (and just the executive summary would do) you could see that it’s clearly indicated that a range of evidence – including the way in which social workers and others go about their business – reveal the presence of specific attitudes and stereotypes among men in that community. Not “all men”. The most important data is the reports of the women themselves who in 21 out of 22 cases reported that the perps didn’t believe that what they were doing is wrong.

    That’s the crux of it.

    Evidently the great majority have followed Nick’s unedifying lead and had a “squiz” at it and then read into it a load of confected nonsense which tells a tale about their own assumptions about gender but nothing much about the report itself.

    In any case, Melaleuca has selectively quoted from the quant report and hasn’t made the knockdown argument he thinks he has. I’d suggest people do the (not very difficult) work of reading all the tables. That might present a somewhat different picture.

    But I’ll leave you to it. I think this particular “thread of doom” has spoken for itself at sufficient length already.

  177. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    Mark, read what I said, and what I quoted, more carefully.

    BBB

  178. Melaleuca says:

    Mark Bahnish says:

    “All this rubbish about cause pushing just reveals some of the repulsive attitudes expressed by so many on this thread, if any more evidence were needed, who are so quick to jump to ridiculous and illogical conclusions such as the report says all men are violent or whatever which have no justification in its text.”

    You are being your usual holier-than-thou self, Bahnisch. You are also an egregious hypocrite. On your own blog just yesterday you said this:

    “The think tank culture is weird. Although there are certainly think tanks around that put some effort into commissioning and fostering quality research, the origin of the beast lay in the business of shaping and shifting public debate through the media and influencing pollies. Theres nothing wrong with that, as it were, provided that we understand that the research produced may not always be peer-reviewed … and in particular we understand not just the ideological commitments of individual think tanks but where their funding comes from. Thats why there are legitimate questions to be asked – including but not restricted to the propensity to push climate change denialism – about the reluctance of some organisations such as Gerard Hendersons Sydney Institute to even admit that disclosure of funding sources is in the public interest.”

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/08/26/were-theyre-all-neo-liberals-now/#more-7052

    You are more than happy to point out the cause-pushing nature and vested interests associated with right-wing think tanks yet you describe as repulsive anyone who dares raise the same possibility pertaining to an organisation with a “progressive” agenda.

    You, sir, ought be ashamed of your intellectual dishonesty.

  179. Bingo Bango Boingo says:

    Mark, to spell it out: I am simply suggesting that the more likely underlying reason for the discrepancy between the 1995 and 2006 surveys is actually changed social attitudes and not, as melaleuca suggests, ’cause-pushing’ by whomsoever conducted the 1995 survey. Hence my cheeky but apparently obscure reference to the many old men whose lives regrettably ended in the 11 years that had elapsed and whose views, on average, were probably unsympathetic to victims of rape and their stories. It was a fairly narrow comment that related to a fairly narrow point.

    Cheers
    BBB

  180. Nabakov says:

    “The reality is that any man, who has sex (or even doesnt) can be accused of rape by any women, even one he doesnt know, for any reason, and even after it is found he has no case to answer and has done nothing at all wrong, he is tagged as a rapist or a suspected rapist for the rest of his life.”

    And this happens how often? As compared to women actually getting raped – which as you may be aware also has some slight effect on those involved.

    Also, your last comment does sound a wee bit like you’re not that confident that your performance won’t give her grounds for disgruntlement.

    …5,4,3,2,1, blast out

  181. Nabakov says:

    “Men run the world, right? ALL MEN.”

    Well obviously not you.

    And could you losers stop whinging about missing out. You’re really letting the side down here.

  182. Helen says:

    Even if you have been going out with the girl for 5 years. If she decides shes pissed off at you one day she can claim she was Too drunk to consent last time you had sex and lay rape charges. Even if you are married to her [My bold]. Men simply cannot win under this system.

    See Yobbo, you seem to be saying that for a woman to report rape by a husband is unreasonable. This is exactly the attitude cited in the report.

  183. JC says:

    Yobbs:

    just a small point. Why Haliburton? They’re not a large market cap stock and they’re no longer the bogey these days as they once were. If you wanna create the right emotion I’d pick on the Exxon CEO. Huge, very profitable and in the wrong business at the moment.

  184. John Greenfield says:

    Nabakov

    I do worry for your health. Are you secretly Germaine Greer? It seems for years now you have been stalking blogs projecting your own own rage onto those white males who reject your fear of seeing the world as complex; rather you demand twee neat and tidy metanarratives just like Germs and people of her generation and class.

    Like her you also need to make up things to get angry at a lot of blog posts. Your latest? “Lesbians are more violent than men?” Even Germaine has learnt that rage has a deleterious impact on the neocortex reducing your cognitive abilities, such as thinking before you drink and bloviate.

    Go outside, take some excercise, and do yourself a favour. Take a break from blogging. It’s bad for your heart luvvie. ;)

    Poor luv.

  185. Helen says:

    JC
    Halliburton is the parent company of KBR. A KBR employee was held hostage, raped and nearly killed by her “fellow” employees in Iraq. She probably would have died except that she was able to get help using her mobile phone. KBR then mooted banning mobiles in the field (I don’t know whethr or not this was implemented, it seems so patently stupid I would hope it didn’t get up) because, you see, she had thoughtlessly brought down the company image by reporting the rape. I assume that’s the relevance of Halliburton as it was in the news fairly recently.

  186. John Greenfield says:

    Lord save us Mrs. Davis from yet anthor English-teacher type marxist from lecturing us on geopolitics!

  187. JC says:

    I just read up on the case, Helen. How do you justify Haliburten being named in the law suit?

  188. JC says:

    I think youre reading the wrong websites, Helen as I cant see how Haliburten was even remotely responsible for the claim of gang rape. I see the claim as another form of rape. This was an attempt to rape the stockholders. If the womans claims are true, she has every right to seek a criminal case against those who did this to her, however her case against Haliburten is a sick joke.

    If Haliburten hadnt hired the woman to be sent to Iraq as an engineering contractor they would be guilty of sexual discrimination under federal US laws. Her case against Haliburten is nothing other than financial rape.

  189. Helen says:

    It’s the parent company.
    Whether it should be named or not in the case, I dunno. I’m not a lawyer. Why is this relevant? If you have some kind of touching concern for plucky little Halliburton’s good name, I’m afraid that Elvis already left the building.

  190. Pavlov's Cat says:

    Lord save us Mrs. Davis from yet anthor English-teacher type marxist from lecturing us on geopolitics!

    And this is different from assorted affronted male bean-counters lecturing us on feminism how?

  191. JC says:

    It’s not a question of whether I have any concern for Haliburten or not. You raised the issue and asserted that Haliburten’s subsidiary was involved in a cover up of a gang rape in the Baghdad green zone.

    Did the board or senior executives attempt a cover up? Did they institute policies to facilitate criminal behavior? Did the firm actively seek out to hire rapists? As far as I understand it all employees sent there underwent background checks.

    Her case against the sub was a tort claim. She didnt claim criminal wrong doing by KBR. Her claim was a civil wrong demanding compensation. The interesting part is that her lawyer made the allegations against KBR/Haliburten in the media at the outset.

    What do you think KBRs board should have done that wasnt done in such a way that would have placed them in legal jeopardy of facing a sexual discrimination case if they had refused her job application? And what do you think the board did that made the firm liable in her civil claim?

  192. Nabakov says:

    “Your latest? Lesbians are more violent than men? ”

    I was mocking your comment, you dim little Greenfield thing. But then again most mockery of you does woosh completly over your pointy little head doesn’t it.

    However judging by the massive case of projection you exhibited –
    “for years now you have been stalking blogs projecting your own own rage ”
    “need to make up things to get angry at a lot of blog posts.”
    – my last poke of you with a burnt stick did draw some blood.

    Now why don’t you run off and play with Leftist Queers, Hermonie, Jage and the rest of your imaginary playmates and leave this thread to those that have actually had real contact with real people.

  193. JC says:

    Does anyone think this is the new “thread of doom”?

    3556 comments to go to beat the record.

  194. Laura says:

    Some of the comments on it makes me feel fucking sick, JC, if that’s relevant to the criteria. There is a doom-laden quality to the way it keeps drawing me back here. It’s like picking at a scab, and indeed the original post and three or four of the comments under it have opened old wounds.

  195. JC says:

    Laura:

    Most men here are offended at suggestions they /their friends/ acquaintances have views asserted by these so-called studies. I know of no one nor would associate with anyone that thought rape or assault victims we asking for it. That I’m sure would go for most people here. So yes, it is an emotive subject.

  196. Melaleuca says:

    I’m really sorry to hear that, Laura. The reality is that blog comments are the worst of all ways to exchange views on sensitive issues. I note even on “women’s space” blogs like tigtogs, comments can get nasty- for example on issues like transgender. The medium is a large part of the problem. I regret the way many of my comments read and how they are interpreted as you probably do. And as to old wounds, I’ve got more bolts and rods holding me together than the six million dollar man thanks to a female hit and run driver. We’ve all got wounds of one kind or another. Hopefully they make us stronger in some way. Best wishes.

  197. FDB says:

    “And as to old wounds, Ive got more bolts and rods holding me together than the six million dollar man thanks to a female hit and run driver.”

    Is this an oddball metaphor, or are you fessing to the genesis of your (seeming) (to me) (occasional) hostility to women?

  198. Melaleuca says:

    I collected 18 broken bones in that incident.

    You won’t find a single comment from me on any thread anywhere that is hostile to women in general. But I suppose I’ve become intolerant of the confected gender binaries and attitudes to “teh patriarchy” that are unmet be the evidence and contradicted by my lived experience, if I may use that fashionable term.

    And if you want to see some genuine hostility, here it is: http://castironbalcony.media2.org/?p=563

    and here: http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=2120#comment-46476

    The hostility barometer is incredibly lopsided.

  199. Yobbo says:

    Anyone who ever says the word “Patriarchy” and isn’t joking should be automatically dismissed.

    Because the blue collar workers getting slugged 38% of their pretax income in child support are making the decisions that keep women in their place amiright?

    Punishing all men for the actions of a tiny % of the rich and powerful is disgusting. Patriarchy is just a neat way of saying “Men deserve whatever’s coming to them”.

  200. Kim says:

    Re – Laura’s comment at #195.

    I think people need to realise that the atmosphere of this thread has become one, if it wasn’t always one, where a lot of women feel very reluctant to comment further. It’s not only because there’s no engagement, and a sneering tone of dismissal from boys who just want to talk about themselves and their hurt feelings and how anyone child support is a conspiracy against men and lesbians sometimes do domestic violence too. Though it is that. It’s also the fact that the majority of the commenters resolutely avoid discussing the actual ostensible topic – women’s experience of sexual violence and the attitudes that both belittle that experience and contribute to its reproduction. But it’s also the fact that a lot – I’d go out on a limb and say probably all – of us commenting there have had our own brushes with unwanted sexual advances, harrassment, scary partners or boyfriends, wacky cab drivers or blokes in bars who don’t understand how a woman could possibly want to have a drink without being instantly assumed to be available to be picked up, and so on. A post which instantly singles out a serious report about attitudes which facilitate horrible life deforming violence to make some glib and flip and uninformed point – and worse, to have a “competition” – is sickening. It goes beyond incredible insensitivity – but there is that at work. If Nicholas Gruen can’t see how very many people will have lost a lot of regard for him, that’s his problem, not ours. But I’d hope that others might do somewhat better in at least trying to understand how the tone and substance of a lot of comments on that thread makes women feel.

  201. Youie says:

    I have not lost any regard for Nicholas Gruen. He might’ve been unwise in starting this thread, but just about every person who’s commented here has said something inconsistent, inconsiderate or just plain stupid. And that probably includes me.

  202. adrian says:

    Well said, Kim. I’d hope that it makes a lot of men feel similarly repulsed, and I’d also hope that many of the assorted misfits above who aim to speak on behalf of men are not in any way, shape or form, typical.

  203. Melaleuca says:

    Thanks for that, Kim. Here’s what you said at #42

    “The statistics on which the offending stereotype is based are plain from all sorts of other quantitative research.”

    The offending stereotype is the notion that the “popular imagination”- read most folk who aren’t smart and educated like humanities and social science graduates- think women who are raped deserve what they get. There is no ambiguity in the opening lines in the executive summary whatsoever.

    In spite of your protestations, persons of a feminist persuasion do indeed continue to show up here. You’ve now put in 9 appearances. But in spite of repeated threats to do so by yourself and others, no-one has been able to provide any evidence that overturns what a amounts to a nasty and elitist slur directed at the common man (and woman). It is abundantly clear that the report in question is perpetrating an elitist myth that has no basis in reality.

    I understand Nick’s post to be about his disgust with research being tainted with propaganda. Surely this is a commendable stance that should be embraced by everyone. The fact that his example pertains to myths about rape rather favourite brands of breakfast cereal is neither here nor there.

  204. Pavlov's Cat says:

    … the atmosphere of this thread has become one, if it wasnt always one, where a lot of women feel very reluctant to comment further.

    Sure has — but wasn’t that the idea? Were the sorts of women who frequent these sorts of blogs ever intended to engage with (or even read) the original post? And if we were, what on earth were we expected to say? I will say for Nicholas Gruen that he hasn’t ever seemed to me to be the kind of bloke who goes spoiling for a fight, unlike some of the other men on this thread; I think this post simply assumed a male readership as the norm.

    He may be feeling a bit sick himself at the assorted bilge that his post, Pandora-wise, has elicited.

  205. Kim says:

    I hope that’s the case, Dr Cat, I really do, and that’s spot on about the assumption of a male readership.

    Melaleuca, tigtog has pointed out to you what in her opinion the correct interpretation of the survey questions is at her place, to be met by your disingenuous dismissal of that as “womyns studies”.

    It’s absolutely pointless trying to debate this stuff with you, because all your responses are refusals to listen. Contrary to your world view, one set of numbers doesn’t reflect the world as it is in toto, and you’re very clearly uninterested in what women themselves actually feel. If you had been, you might have been interested instead of scornful of the report linked to in the post.

    I have no idea what your motives are, but it’s fairly clear to me that they don’t include some sort of disinterested perspective on sexual violence, judging by all the red herrings you constantly throw into this and other discussions.

    But you have succeeded in stimulating discussions almost wholly centred on your personal view at four blogs. On ya mate! Hope you enjoy all the attention.

  206. melaleuca says:

    Kim says:

    “Contrary to your world view, one set of numbers doesnt reflect the world as it is in toto, and youre very clearly uninterested in what women themselves actually feel.”

    I’ve cited 4 separate sets of numbers, actually, as you well know.

    You speak for yourself only, not all women. The same goes for the other feminists who have shown up here. Need I remind you that most women recoil from the feminist tag?

    As to tigtog, I was startled to discover that she has whittled away several hours going through my blog posts to try to find some dirt on me. This, and her disgusting insults, constitute what some people describe as cyberstalking.

  207. Laura says:

    The people who suffer most from subscribing to damaging stereotypes about what raped women are like are rape victims. Being raped makes you hate yourself and feel ashamed. Most of the women in the study did not immediately acknowledge to themselves that what happened to them was rape. Maybe they would have if they themselves hadn’t felt that they must have somehow deserved their experiences.

    I think this is what the opening sentences were getting at. They could have been worded better.

    I don’t think it’s about how uninvolved random males think of rape victims. Why would it be?

    But poor wording just is not a good enough reason to set up an open running sewer of scorn, suspicion, carping, doubt, Olympian apportioning of responsibility, and trivial sneering, at a report that’s carefully gathered the experiences of 21 raped women and presented them in a way that draws together the common factors (again, widespread failure to name rape as rape) without neutralising or dehumanising them.

  208. Laura says:

    Melaleuca, do you mean how tigtog linked to your Jason Soon ‘chow mein’ post ? She might have seen it when you posted it originally. I did and it’s not the sort of thing one forgets. I doubt she wasted more than a three -second search locating it.

  209. melaleuca says:

    I had a playful dig at Soony in regards to his batman obsession. I’ve now deleted that post so that it want be further misrepresented.

    Anyway, Jason Soon’s views are not what you’d apparently like them to be:

    “The womyns studies brigade has to be Iran given how seriously they take their texts.” http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3684&cp=4#comment-105036

    “whats particularly hilarious about that thread where mel is stirring is that the brigade is this time actually *pushing* the line that women are nurturers and men inclined to conquest when it comes to nature whereas in any other context this wouldve been dismissed as biological determinist.

    I mean is there anything more to this stuff than wordplay and the most shallow wordplay at that?” http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3684&cp=5#comment-105088

    But why all the ad homs?

  210. Laura says:

    I’m not interested in what Jason says about whatever it is there, sorry

  211. melaleuca says:

    Umm, you’re the one who brought in the irrelevant stuff to portray me as a bigot. After tigtog, that is. I’ll have to ask my Asian partner of over 10 years about that, I guess. Sorry for not slotting into your stereotype.

  212. John Greenfield says:

    Are yes the old “wymyn feel uncomfortable” trope. Shorter wymyn: We will not tolerate feminist blandishments being critiqued. Earlier, Laura threatened to take her boilersuit home. And yet here she stays whingeing, whining, and demanding to be exempt from criticism just because she is a gender feminazi. What a joke.

  213. adrian says:

    Good of the chief misfit to make an appearance right on cue.

  214. Melaleuca says:

    Laura’s delightful, but somewhat misguided.

    Oddly, a subsection of radfems identify themselves as feminazis and propagate hate against the intersex and transgender community. One such person, who regularly appears on tigtog’s blog, is this person: http://feminazi.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/reason-1-men-are-evil-by-a-feminazi/

    I suspect she may fulfill the prophesy of the anti-Bird. And the herald the beginning of the matriarchy.

    /snark off

  215. John Greenfield says:

    Delightful? Hardly? She is by no means the worst of them, but still she is far too Janice Ian for mine.

  216. Hmmm, you complain about “ad homs”, Melaleuca, and then you write a post calling me a “toad”. I’d invite you to consider who’s actually displaying hypocrisy here. I don’t believe I’ve ever written about you in terms that are personally disparaging.

    As to your point, my point was that research produced by think tanks can be advocacy research. I pointed out that it need not be.

    The sorts of studies we’ve been discussing here are sometimes peer reviewed and sometimes aren’t.

    What’s relevant isn’t limited to that. Any good piece of quantitative research should make the survey questions if not the raw data available to other researchers, and should give enough information in the paper or report itself to enable others to judge its reliability and validity, etc, etc. If you want to impugn a particular piece of research, that’s what you have to address, in a transparent way, rather than tossing around epithets and sewing suspicion based on the topic of the research.

    I don’t know how much you know about the protocols of conducting and reporting quantitative research, but I’d suggest to you that it shouldn’t be too difficult to inform yourself of them.

  217. Melaleuca says:

    “I dont know how much you know about the protocols of conducting and reporting quantitative research, but Id suggest to you that it shouldnt be too difficult to inform yourself of them.”

    I’m well aware of this. But if you think an objective evaluation of the available studies on a particular subject complete with access to the questionnaires etc yields some kind of certainty then you are obviously unfamiliar with various well known problems, including but not limited to publication bias. I urge you to read the pertinent literature if you haven’t already done so. You might also want to acquaint yourself with the gate keeping concept.

    I’m absolutely amazed to discover that you apparently think there is such a thing as value-neutral, assumption free research. Any research program will yield biases irrespective of whether it is “advocacy” research or the final writeup is peer reviewed. It cannot possibly not do so.

    I think you know all this already and are merely feigning ignorance.

  218. Where did I say anything about “value-free, assumption free research”?

    Learn to read.

  219. Melaleuca says:

    Learn to present a coherent viewpoint.

    You describe as “rubbish” and “repulsive” my suggestion that a report emanating from an agenda driven and ideologically charged body like the OSW must be treated with skepticism, then say reports by certain think tanks are “questionable” for much the same reasons.

    #217 only holds up under naive assumptions about the nature of research, the efficacy of procedures like peer review, and our capacity to process all of the available research in a given field.

  220. Jack Robertson says:

    Nicholas, I’ve tried many times to say something useful on this thread and been defeated often. Never before have I been more glad to have put the blogosphere behind me. It’s not for me. You have of course been proved completely prescient and acute. As you said to me at dinner last week, certain subjects cannot be broached without a descent into ideological default certitudes, mutually reactionary polarities, ‘dumbed down’ side-taking, tactics. You seem to have been right.

    What a fine old kettle of fish we’re in, here on the cusp of the Info Age. All this technology, all this babble…so little hope of communication. More power to you for having a go on a subject like this anyway, Nick, despite your explicit observation to me that to do so would be to invite a multiplicity of attacks, including some from unexpected quarters. You could probably have been a bit less agricultural, I suppose. Then again, in this sanitised post-Blair/Rudd/Obama age bluntness and even rudeness is IMHO more than ever a moral and ethical imperative among intalekkshuls. I wish I had something coherent, interesting, even-handed and above all else balming to add. I don’t. I like this site and everyone who contributes here has something of worth to say, but for all that all this thread does make Christian Kerr look sane, acute and a paragon of maturity. I’ve walked away from too many Threads of Doob – sorry, I have a cold – having done nothing with a whole raft of earnest blah but make things worse not to know that such ‘worthwhile’ words don’t exist once things have regressed to this stage.

    What astounds and saddens me and I bet saddens plenty of others here is that there’s not a single contributor to this thread who any sane blogger who’s been paying attention for the last half decade would regard as anything other than manifestly intelligent, decent, reasonable and – above al else – open-minded. There’s no other kind of person who hangs out at these blogs. By definition, you’re all interested, interesting, decent people of letters, of ideas, of intellectual cut-and-thrust. Even those of you whose rhetoric and style tends towards the fiery and provocative aren’t fooling anyone. Not even you, Sam Ward. You’re all smart, grown-up, decent and enlightened. This thread is largely pantomime shit. It’s code. It’s rhetoric, earnestly crafted with tongues lolling and eyeballs bugging. And yet it’s pantomime that feels real enough to destroy, make less of everyone; an intellectual sum smaller (and filthier) than your constituent parts. It’s not, as (I think) we agreed, Nick, really any one’s fault. It’s the medium. The forum is shit. This bastard mix of spur-of-the-moment ‘conversation’, carefully-tailored ‘writerly craft’ (vomits), agonised over for hours, drafted and re-drafted to sound ‘spontaneous’, drenched in prophylactic irony (which is ivariably sarcasm, or fence-sitting)…it’s not communication, this weird rolling literary hybrid. It’s epistemological Humpty-Dumptism. And that – what-I-mean-is-whatever-I-say-I-mean-no-more-no-less-ad-infinitum, bite after bite after bite, will always tend to baseness…or it will waffle around in self-congratulatory motherhoodism and mutual weather-vaning…

    Ach. Whatevs, as any of you might say. Nicholas, I’m simply posting to say that…well, words fail me, Nick. Dunno what to think about anything I read online anymore. It’s all just blah. And I don’t much care about clouds of oscillating 1’s and 0’s anymore. Not at all.

    But I do know you, Nick, or have met you in the flesh; I know that dinner was great. I care what you think. We have a lot of differences, some pretty significant. But I really appreciated your generosity in chasing me up, and it was an invigorating conversation. A beauty. Thanks. Wherever they stand on whatever, I really admire people who can be as bracing in person as they are willing to be on the (cyber) page, and vice versa. As we agreed, and as this thread suggests, in order to tackle really intimidating subjects, challenge certitudes, up-end preconceptions, and generally exercise an Enlightened worldview, we humans need to be able to eyeball each other. That way, all the non-intellectual components of communication come into play: body language, tone cadence and volume, wit, empathy, real time give-and-take, laughter…booze…human vulnerability manifest…all that good stuff, which buffers, and so helps deliver – even just float – without causing fatal offense or misconstruance, unpalatable ideas. There’s not a person on this thread I wouldn’t trust to be a creature of the Enlightenment in that sense, and be as delighted to have a beer and dinner with.

    Me, I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the rules of the game and especially the playing field when so many good players end up playing like a fukn rabble.

    Best regards, N. Any time you’re in Balmain again, etc…

    Thanks as ever for the space Ken. I know I’m kinda, sorta banned – this is a kind of courtesy one-off Nick’s way, if that’s cool.

  221. Ken Parish says:

    “I know Im kinda, sorta banned”

    No you’re not. I just got peeved by what I saw as a gratuitous slag of Helen Dale, but we’ve thrashed that through and it’s in the past. You’re most welcome here.

    BTW I don’t agree with your negative assessment of blog discussion. It’s certainly true that there are some topics that summon forth kneejerk entrenched ideological positions, and this is one of them. But most threads at Troppo are entirely amiable and often enlightening IMO. People sometimes even change their minds, or at least develop a clearer understanding of and respect for opposing viewpoints. I don’t think you can expect any more than that given human nature, and I still think it’s quite a valuable function, otherwise I wouldn’t bother to keep Troppo going.

  222. Pavlov's Cat says:

    certain subjects cannot be broached without a descent into ideological default certitudes, mutually reactionary polarities, dumbed down side-taking, tactics.

    As long as you’re prepared to admit that this descent takes place universally, beginning with the person (whoever it is) who first broaches the subject (whatever it is), I could not agree with you more.

  223. John Greenfield says:

    Jack

    What an unnecessarily Beazleyesque apologia. The fact is these uptight white bourgeois Presbyterian 1970s gender feminazis dumb down every single blog they colonise and infest.

  224. FDB says:

    JG – that’s funny. I was going to comment to the effect that Jack was being unnecessarily generous here:

    “theres not a single contributor to this thread who any sane blogger whos been paying attention for the last half decade would regard as anything other than manifestly intelligent, decent, reasonable and – above al else – open-minded. Theres no other kind of person who hangs out at these blogs. By definition, youre all interested, interesting, decent people of letters, of ideas, of intellectual cut-and-thrust.”

    Then you went and proved my point in advance.

  225. Melaleuca says:

    “As long as youre prepared to admit that this descent takes place universally, beginning with the person (whoever it is) who first broaches the subject (whatever it is), I could not agree with you more.”

    A chap shouldn’t be lynched for interrogating a sacred cow that should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.

    In spite of the chorus of squeals, hisses, oinks, screeches and yips, not one of the offended hoydens has managed to lay a glove on Nick’s politely worded central premise, that being the vicious and elitist claim that “the popular imagination” reckons woman who are raped must have provoked it.

    May I respectfully suggest that those who purport to be offended by this episode of mythbusting put up or shut up.

  226. Melaleuca says:

    Another manipulative woman makes a false rape allegation.

    The upshot:

    -Man gets arrested at work, digitally raped during a forensic examination and locked up for 24 hours.

    -Woman gets fined 95 pounds.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1049854/X-Factor-girl-false-rape-claim-ex-fiance-walks-free-court.html

  227. Michael says:

    Mel,

    I would have thought that the stats from the report I linked to suggested otherwise. It’s clearly a matter of perspective. I look at the results and go – WTF! For instance 1 in 7 12-20 yr olds thinking that it’s OK to force a girl to have sex if she flirted with him or ‘led him on’.

    And I’m rather mystified by your focus on false rape allegations. There are false allegations of all sorts of crimes all the time. But the research shows that men are much more likely to beleive that rape allegations are fabricated. This study, for instance, found 50% of the male subjects believe that 50% of women reporting rape are lying.

  228. James Rice says:

    It’s an interesting article, although surely it’s worth mentioning who the male subjects are in this study. The males here are a very specific subgroup of the male population: male intercollegiate athletes (at 5 universities in the USA). As the article points out, male athletes make up less than 2 per cent of the male population on campus, so this is a very small subgroup. Male athletes are also 15 times more likely than the rest of the male population to be accused of sexual assault, so male athletes are a particularly unrepresentative subgroup for the particular issue at hand. The authors of the article also point out that their analyses are based on a non-randomised, convenience sample of this unrepresentative subgroup.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if men were more likely than women to think that women who report rape are lying (although how this particular gender difference is relevant here I’m not sure). I would be surprised, though, if the patterns that emerge from this particular subgroup were exactly the same as those present in the general population.

  229. James Rice says:

    Which is to say: if you’re worried about nearly 50 per cent of the male subjects in that study estimating that about 50 per cent of women who report rape are lying, bear in mind that these percentages may not accurately reflect those in the wider population.

  230. Melaleuca says:

    Michael, that study sampled American college jocks- it has no bearing on the Australian “popular imagination”. Moreover, if American college kids are like their Australian counterparts, there will bee an element of larrikinism involved in how they answer survey questions. Thirdly, no-one here AFAIK, including me, has questioned the validity of what are generally called rape myths. The issue at hand is the invention of new myths by cause-pushers.

  231. Yobbo says:

    The upshot:

    -Man gets arrested at work, digitally raped during a forensic examination and locked up for 24 hours.

    -Woman gets fined 95 pounds.

    The real issue here is that falsely and maliciously accusing someone of committing a crime that they are innocent of is not punishable by law.

    The woman who deliberately filed false rape claims to “get back” at her ex boyfriend was only charged with wasting police time.

    What the fuck is so important about police time? They get paid for it. The guy had his arse forcibly probed by a stranger and got locked up for 24 hours. What about the waste of his time, and his dignity?

  232. observa says:

    “I feel embarrassed on your behalf, Observa. I truly do.”
    Don’t waste your embarassment on me Melaleuca-
    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24266936-2862,00.html
    As my pappy said, some people just like it that way son and my conclusion is either it aint rape in marriage or it aint a marriage my dear.

  233. observa says:

    Perhaps the eloquent sisters here would like to explain that little piece of qualitative research for us all and I’ll pass your wise deliberations on to my layperson pappy for his consideration. I’m all ears.

  234. observa says:

    Actually ‘Why do some women like it like that?’ would be an excellent qualitative research topic for our plethora of Womens Sudies Depts. They could kick off with Bev Jones Diary (see link above), then Milligans Island here-
    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24272496-5001021,00.html
    and then really hone their research skills on Fritzl’s freak letters here-
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23809528-23109,00.html
    Put me down for a copy for the old man. At 88, alas he’s got a bit of oldtimers disease these days, along with some quaint ideas, but he’s still got enough marbles for a fascinating read.

  235. FDB says:

    Here’s a dreadful joke I just heard:

    Q) How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    A) Rape.

  236. John Greenfield says:

    There is no doubt the Wymyns Studies coven has been a pox on university humanities departments, but it is the “Gender Studies” moonies who put the final nail in the coffin.

  237. Melaleuca says:

    If anyone thinks the femtrolls are rational and reasonable may I suggest they read this gem from the tigtogler:

    “The same study by Taylor & Mouzos (2006) to which you link asked quite a few more questions than just that, because they recognise that there are many more negative attitudes that hold women responsible for sexual violence towards them than just that one phrase. For example, 44% of men and 32% of women agree that rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex. So, purely on the logical grounds so prized on that ToD, if the men cant control themselves, then the men are not responsible for committing a rape, are they? Thats what that attitude really means. As the only other person involved in the rape is a woman (edited to add: in the questions asked), and someone must be responsible for the rape happening, it follows that the woman must be the one responsible for provoking the rapist to lose control.”

    http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=2120#comment-46476

    Yeah right, I guess that’s why the eunuch community is up to its eyeballs in rape scandals. http://www.eunuch.org/

  238. FDB says:

    Mel:

    Yes, it does seem to me that a lot of people who agreed with the proposition given in that question might also agree with “murder results from people being unable to control their rage”. I doubt this would be interpreted as those people blaming the murder victim.

  239. JC says:

    Mel:

    The hive is certainly braying for your blood, it seems. I’d run if I were you.

  240. John Greenfield says:

    Hell hath no fury like a hivemind scorned. Attack the queen and the drones go nuts!

  241. John Greenfield says:

    Too funny, Well it seems the same hive of wymyn have finally taken note of my campaign. They are now backtracking BIG time on Sarah Palin. But sorry ladies, too little too late. Of course the two very worst offenders tigtog and Lefty Kim are patting themselves on the boiler suit. Lefty Kim has devoted an entire LP thread declaring Props to Femfisting or some such.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/11/props-to-feministing/

    Tigtog leads We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because thats how feminism works. Check out these Femfisting screeching harpies.What perverted understanding of the word liberal do these psycho hosepieces hold?

    http://www.feministing.com/archives/010954.html

    Are these wymyn REALLY so lacking in self-awareness, or has their delusion been going on for so long they are impervious to reality? Either way, the corruption and ethical vacuum that drives these people has been exposed once too often.

    Check out Camille Paglia. Fuck she is smart! Talk about bitchslapping those fetid white bourgeois left misandrist/misogynist/misanthropic wymyn into next week!

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html

  242. Jason Soon says:

    yawn

  243. Nabakov says:

    “Well it seems the same hive of wymyn have finally taken note of my campaign.”

    If you’re going to masturbate in front of a mirror all the time, can you at least do it in private?

  244. John Greenfield says:

    Nabs darl, I think you are mature enough and self-confident enough to just ask me straight up: “John I really dig you. I constantly imagine you in sexy, saucy, well naked basically, situations. That is why I never miss an opportunity to so post. But let’s move on. Will you please join me with dinner and dancing? I can’t take my mind off you!”

    Now, darl, I cannot guarantee any response, but you will feel much better within yourself, luvvie! ;)

  245. Fyodor says:

    The wanker’s delusional. Which explains the mirror.

  246. Nabakov says:

    “The wankers delusional. Which explains the mirror.”

    Or a narcissist not coping well with unrequited love. Or Gollum on crap eccies.

    Allow me M. Fyodor to bon ton the tone here.

    http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=QS1wd1RvJ9U

    One of them looks a lot like someone else…

  247. Fyodor says:

    ISWYDT – that’s pretty freaky, Bowie.

    I believe it was Tolstoy who once remarked that, “All really great YouTube videos are similar in having leggy brunettes cavorting in sunlit apartments.”

    Words to live by.

  248. JC says:

    Are they wearing skate’s, Liam? Not that clear. It looked like the driver was ” skating” along too towards the end. man!

  249. John Greenfield says:

    Any reason why you chuckleheads are going out of your way to bait and switch the thread away from the REAL issues surrounding dodgy Wymyn’s Studies “research” and Wymyn’s hypocrisy and misogyny revealed in Moosegate?

  250. Jason Soon says:

    Greenflo
    God put you on earth to make Nial Cook look like the epitome of erudition. Get over it.

  251. FDB says:

    Any reason why you bother saying anything ever Greenfield?

    Did someone somewhere once say “nice comment” and it’s just been echoing round in your vacuous skull ever since?

  252. Liam says:

    One thing you’ve got to give JG’s comments is that they’re reliable, FDB. Consistently mediocre, and always placed perfectly to show up inferiority. On that note, here’s some postie bikes going round Phillip Island at a ball-tearing 60km/h.

  253. Jason Soon says:

    A bit like McDonalds, Liam, at least you know what you’re getting.

    And he’s also a uniter not a divider.

  254. Melaleuca says:

    “Consistently mediocre, and always placed perfectly to show up inferiority.”

    Greenfield’s comments are definitely consistent with an inferiority complex. Usually an inferiority complex is a psychological problem but in Greenfield’s case I’d call it an astute self-assessment.

  255. John Greenfield says:

    Jason

    “Yawn”, “Get over it” and “McDonalds.” FMD, dude, you are like so smart and have really improved my understanding of the issues on this thread. But your “alliance” with FDB and Liam would be priceless if it were not so, well, er, sad.

    Liam

    “Mediocre” comments on a blog? NO! Hold the front page or perhaps link to your own portfolio of genius. heh.

  256. FDB says:

    “But your alliance with FDB and Liam would be priceless if it were not so, well, er, sad.”

    It’s of your own making John. I disagree with Jason plenty, though Liam not so much, on a wide range of things. The malevolent odium of your blog persona however is a patch of common ground on which all can merrily dance.

  257. Pingback: Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony » Blog Archive » White Ribbon Day

  258. FriedgeMig says:

    Such groups are especially important for postgraduate and postdoctoral students who need to build up their research experience and their scientific writing skills.Finally, you should never end the introduction section with a quick summary of your own results.

Leave a Reply to dr faustus Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.