I bet they're being accused of all sorts of horrible things right now.

someone implied that I had evil reasons for doing so.

Others simply dismissed the research.

whenever I point out that men are more often the victims of rape and domestic violence then is commonly portrayed I'm accused of defending rape and domestic violence against women.

Or pointing out that the wage gap is largely a myth means I think women should be paid less for the same job.

Apparently, to some, challenging their established mantras with facts is a direct attack on everything they stand for.

It's kind of a "you don't celebrate Christmas, why are you attacking Jesus" mentality.

No! What? Why, I never and ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WHARRRRGLLLLLLBBBLLLLLL!!!!!!!LL!L!!1111



But, it's true.

One thing people from all sides of the aisle can usually agree on, they hate. a. fucking. optimist. like nobody's business.

http://hnn.us/articles/10-3-11/the-world-is-actually-safer.html

Want to piss some people off? Post some good news.

Violence is dropping, yet a lot of stereotypes depend on the perception that it isn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1503167



Did you know that from 2000 to 2010, the number of men arrested for violent crimes dropped by 11.8%, but the number of women arrested for violent crimes went up 0.7%

Also, the number of men arrested for property crimes dropped 7.2% while the number of women arrested increased 27.1% in the same time period?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/overviews/tab33overview.pdf

that no one has tried to argue that society is turning against women using those changes in incarceration rates between genders.

That's typically the way it goes.

Just like people lamented that most new jobs in the recovery went to men, proving that women were being discriminated against. Except of course that most of the jobs lost belonged to men . . .

Both news reporting and crime shows make people think there's more crime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125511831

New York—No, wartime rape is not decreasing, and no, it is not suddenly a figment of our imagination.

Aha! The initial study must be wrong. Let's see what errors in the report they point out.

WMC’s Women Under Siege project is clearing up common misconceptions about rape in war and getting to the heart of what this report is—and isn’t—saying. In “Rape in war: Are we getting it wrong?” Director Lauren Wolfe argues that the media must tread very carefully when covering these findings.

Yeah, shit is about to get real! Tear that misogynistic study a new one!

“By refuting claims that rape in war is increasing and stating that the media is focusing too much on extreme cases, the authors run the risk of appearing to downplay the problem,” Wolfe says. “With up to 500,000 women raped in Rwanda’s conflict alone, we’re not in a position to undercut what happens to women in war. This is a call to arms for us to recognize that we must look closely at what is happening to women on the ground so we can better understand it.”

Ha take that . . . . er wait.

“I worry that victims in future conflicts will not attract the resources they need if there is an expectation that nearly every woman in a country must be raped before policymakers will focus their attention there,” Cohen says.

Huh.

So it's true. But it's still wrong because they don't like the conclusions.

Well there you go. Anything that doesn't support the mantra is a lie, even if it's true.

Just like pointing out that men also get raped or suffer DV is a lie because that means that women aren't the only victims. Even if you can cite thousands of studies to back up those claims.

/some people have a lot tied up in being not just being the victims, but being the *only* recognized victims.
//it's excusable when children believe closing their eyes and covering their ears can make things they don't like disappear. Less so when adults do it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125511831#post2

Because, that particular poster has occasionally exhibited a capacity for rational thought and intelligent discourse. Sad to see her fall back into the usual vacuous, vapid fringe talking points that usually pass for "intellectual conversation" over there.

I've had some good conversations with her before. We even came to agreements on some things (even though I don't expect we'll agree on many issues).

I'm a little disappointed to read that.

is free from bias.

Every study that says what I don't want to hear was written by my enemies.

Sad. She seemed one of the more reasonable ones, less inclined to group-think.

quarters.

Know WHY it's considered "derailing"? Because, just like confronting creationists with fossil evidence, the truth is inconvenient to the preferred narrative.

The preferred narrative, in this case, of course has to do with porn and hyper-rampant-ohnoes-sexualization of society, and the fact that people can go online and look at a picture of naked breasts. This is tied to the breathless hyperbole about the ever worsening 'rape culture' (translation, people like to look at porn) ...and the horrible sex-sex-sex-everywhere in the media because god help me if I have to change the channel myself... and the endless assurances we've heard for the past 3 decades that consenting adults looking at pictures of other consenting adults fucking MUST lead, somehow, to violence and rape.

Except, the statistics don't bear it out. Rape is down. That is an indisputable fact. So either the worsening "rape culture" isn't actually worsening, or there actually isn't a lot of porn on cable tv or the intertubes (when obviously there is) OR, and this is the kicker- porn has less than jack diddly shit to do with rape, correlation-wise, causal-wise, any of it.

Porn is up, rape is down.

Facts matter.

Like I said, terribly inconvenient to the narrative.

pointing out that rape is down is highly offensive (indeed all crimes are down compared to previous decades).

Apparently it's impossible to consider rape a real problem while at the same time acknowledging that total rates are on the decline.

So if you say "it's down this year" that means "rape is ok!".

Or so I've been told.

Which means there exist a group of people for which good news is extremely offensive.

Weird.

/then they switch the discussion to rape culture which is always on the increase even if they can't really define what it is. I guess it's easier to argue based on criteria you just make up on the spot rather than those that are a bit more concrete.

Refusing to admit rape is down over the same period that porn has proliferated means they don't have to explain why Dworkin was completely full of shit when she testified before congress (on behalf of Ed Meese) that internet porn would create a culture of rapists. It would also mean that the male mind really is sophisticated enough to be able to look at images of nude women and/or people fucking and then not go on a rabid rape binge as Dworkin predicted and at least some rad-fems still swear by(rape culture). So it's just easier to poke holes in the data collection and after all, Reisman says it's so, so it must be so. Nevermind that Reisman also said homosexuality caused Nazism. The batshit crazy folks some people believe in is mind boggling. It's pretty sad when you have to cheer on rapists in order to keep from admitting your ideology is shit.

that rape statistics (which you have been using all along) are deeply flawed.

The methodology hasn't changed, nor have the standards and they are supported by a variety of other sources none of which have any reason to downgrade them. But they're down. Which is proof that they are no longer reliable.

And since those stats are unreliable that proves that rapes are more common. Because of porn.

The central beliefs are always right. Sometimes the facts are also correct, when they support those beliefs. Sometimes (most times) the facts are wrong and need to be fixed.

Reading the actual report gives a very different connotation to what is being discussed. Looks to me that someone abbreviated the HSR Press Release (7 pages here) http://hsrgroup.org/docs/PressKits/2012/HSR2012_PressRelease.pdf and in doing so changed the context of what the study actually says.

So it's only a widespread weapon of war in 9% of countries in conflict. And while at war one is far more likely to be raped by somone you know than some random combatant.

rape is a common weapon used in war.

Look a this logical rebuttal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125511831

“By refuting claims that rape in war is increasing and stating that the media is focusing too much on extreme cases, the authors run the risk of appearing to downplay the problem,” Wolfe says. “With up to 500,000 women raped in Rwanda’s conflict alone, we’re not in a positionto undercutwhat happens to women in war. This is a call to arms for us to recognize that we must look closely at what is happening to women on the ground so we can better understand it.”

You see? The initial study is correct however people might get the wrong idea (which is actually the right idea but some don't like it).

And if you take an extreme example and pretend it's the norm you can make it appear as if the problem is far worse than it really is.

From Part 1 Chapter 1 page 7 http://hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2012/2012HumanSecurityReport-Part1-SexualViolenceEducationandWar.pdf

The Press Release issued by Author unknown but linked in the OP and linked from the Universities press release page, but not linked by the HSR Group. Does paint a picture that is potentially inflammatory and is not supported by the actual full report, nor it's summary conclusion. IMO the seven page brief summary issued by a New York press firm was edited to 1 page (subsequently 2 para.) and in doing so the context of the brief was dramatically changed.

You will note I also posted my criticism of the WMC's mis-characterization of the actual report as well. However given the provocation of the 10/10/12 2 para press release. That is relatively minor compared to the mis-statements created by the editing of the 7pg New York press release. http://hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2012/2012HumanSecurityReport-Part1-SexualViolenceEducationandWar.pdf

based on these data.

Rape is not a common weapon of war.

It is common in a few war torn areas, but not all war torn areas. Those would be outliers. And while horrific they are not a fair representation of every warzone.

Only as a weapon is it not common beyond 10% of war torn countries. The report makes clear that in the balance of war zones rape is not uncommon however the perpetrator is typically known by the victim e.g. Relative, Acquaintance etc.

since they controlled by the "normal" rapes that would have happened regardless of a war.

It's like counting every American who died since we invaded Iraq and consider those casualties of the war. True they are Americans who died while we were invading that country. But not *because* we were invading them. They would have died regardless. So we should exclude those from our official war casualty stats and only count those who would not likely have been killed had we stayed out of it. So instead of many millions of Americans dying because of Iraq (mostly due to cancer and heart disease) the real number is in the thousands (and more related to kinetic energy incidents).

Likewise if you're trying to tie rape to war you need to exclude those rapes that would have happened even in peace. That doesn't mean they aren't still a tragedy. But it doesn't mean they are not occurring *because* of the war.

that our friends from the echo chamber must have slept through their college critical thinking and reading comprehension classes. Assuming, of course, any of them actually have been anywhere near a higher education campus.

"The study says rape is not common as a weapon of war."

"No it doesn`t! Rape is common in war-torn areas!!"

"OK... That`s not the issue at hand, though. Rape is common in war areas, and in peaceful nations. but not as a weapon of war."

"Well, rape isn`t common as a weapon of war, but it is common, so you`re wrong!!!!"

there's no way this could be unintentional after being explained to them over and over and over again.

If you dare inject reality into the conversation, you just "don't get it". If you happen to have a penis instead of a vagina, then your obvious motivation is trying to minimize rape, which affords you more opportunities to put said penis into a vagina.

As seen on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=11944

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11144554