Women Being Threatened By Feminine Men?

Kzickas Since: Apr, 2009

#126: Jun 11th 2012 at 2:01:12 AM

That SPLC article is so full of fail. It says that the CDC report's numbers for the rape of men being much than those for the rape of women proves that men rape women much more than women rape men, but the CDC report didn't count men forced to have sex by women as having been raped (their definition required penetration to count as rape). The CDC report does however include the number of men forced to have sex where they were penetrating their attacker under it's section for other types of sexual assault and the numbers for 2010 are actually exactly the same as the number of raped women (1.1%). Here's the CDC study http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf . The statistic for women is on page 18, the one for men is on page 19.

Edit: The SPLC article also uses lifetime numbers, which show much more female than male victims (presumably the near parity is a recent thing) however the claims it claims to debunk have always been about current rates which are shown by the study's 12 month statistic

edited 11th Jun '12 2:06:22 AM by Kzickas

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009

#127: Jun 11th 2012 at 7:30:44 AM

IIRC I was not the one bringing up "where feminine guys get harassed from" in the first place, you mentioned it without clearly stating what you were claiming the connection was, and then I later on mentioned why such a point does not rely on denying that part anyway.

You were saying something about "positive attitudes 'feeding back' into discrimination of effeminate men". For a while, I thought I understood what you were saying, but now I'm lost again. What is this about?

And as I pointed out to Karalora, that could happen with either perspective.

And that's why you need hard facts to cross-check with as many people as possible. Gut feelings and stuff that "makes sense" without context are good for statistical data points, but that's it. In the end, it's still going to come down to falsifiable facts.

More to the point, a flaw it could potentailly have is not a reason to dismiss it entirely, just as the possibility that statisticians could be biasing their findings does not mean it should be dismissed entirely.

See above. When you're talking about observable patterns (such as forms of sexism), what matters are the things that stand up to scrutiny and falsifiability. No, that doesn't guarantee they're right, but that's the best you can work with.

Stuff that "makes sense" is not falsifiable, because anyone can give any reason for something to "make sense" in their heads.

It's like discussion of milk's nutrition; yes, human consumption of cow milk is generally recommended by nutritionists, but we don't know how much of this is due to its merits and how much is due to biases in what nutritionists were taught. So we look at various forms of reasoning applied to the subject (ie. "most species don't drink another species' milk") to have at least an alternative idea to keep in mind.-

No, more accurately, we look at the positives we know milk has (increases calcium and other vitamins) versus the negatives (wrecks hell on digestive systems). We keep alternative ideas in mind, yes, but they still have to have effects we can observe.

Add Post

Back Top

Total posts: 127