Another college is repeating the male-is-guilty garbage

[JonA]

What do you mean by "not uncommon"?

"Not uncommon" by way of contrast with "uncommon." Meaning it is an occurrence that is known to happen, on occasion, when the right conditions are present. Namely:

1) the presence of a drunk/incapacitated victim
2) the presence of a rapist
3) uninterrupted access by the rapist to the victim in a private place

Which is to say that in the case of #1 and #2, the victim is usually female and the rapist is usually male. The reverse case is uncommon.


I'm not sure why I even bothered explaining this.

Well. It's a good thing you did. Because I would've taken "not uncommon" to mean not at all rare instead of "on occasion, when the right conditions are present".

 

[ronburgundy]

Yeah, that pseudo-science has already been shredded many times on this board. It allows any sex act during any level of drug use to be categorized as "rape", so you cannot then use it as evidence of the frequency of rape during drug use.
Your "data" does not utilize any scientifically measured mental states or any objective measures to determine whether a person's decision making capacity was hindered at all, let alone hindered beyond what it frequently is by the high emotional states that surround sex and sexual relationships. In fact, the data doesn't even use a definition of "rape" that the so-called victims subjectively agree to. They are not asked about being raped, but asked about events that based on no valid measures, the researchers later categorize as "rape".

Even if it did, and even if we took the extremely inflated 11% as a valid estimate of persons who have experience a "rape" qualifying event, that would do nothing to contradict what I said. Nearly all these 11% of women, plus most the other 89% have consumed a drug before or during sex where no reasonable categorization of "rape" applies. Only if drug-induced rape occurs more frequently that non-rape sex where some level of drugs are consumed would my claim be invalid.

Wow.

An extensive DOJ study is "pseudo science" but a bunch of people on the internet with zero credentials can 'shred' it with no data except notions they pull out of their asses?

Wow.

Wow. Such unscientific blind deference to authority. All that matters is the scientific methodology and whether it supports the conclusions. Their methods are extremely weak and soft and fail to support their conclusions for numerous specific reasons pointed out to you when you offered it in the past.

 

[Jayjay]

If black men do indeed commit proportionately more thefts in some area than whites, then that is perfectly pragmatic. The only difference is that the theft analogy varies a lot by local demographics and socioeconomic factors, whereas men and women are roughly 50/50 everywhere, and while sexual assaults and harrassment are more commonplace in some places than others, men are both biologically and culturally predisposed to committing more of them than women.

It's still placing the blame on somebody based on their membership in a group as opposed to their actions as an individual. That's the definition of bigotry.

If a store has a policy of having a security guard follow black males around whenever they're in the store and when they complain about that they are told "Sorry sir, it's a store policy because black males commit the most thefts in this neighbourhood", that store is in the wrong no matter how "pragmatic" they may be by doing it. They are telling every black male who comes in there that they are being considered potential criminals simply because of the fact that they are black males.

It's the same with blaming men for sexual assault. Blame for sexual assault should be placed on the individuals who commit sexual assault, not on non-rapists who happen to be in that group. The fact that some may find it "pragmatic" to blame the innocent doesn't mean that they're being less bigotted when they do so.

It's only bigotry if it isn't based on facts. To use the store theft example, even in absence of any kind of profiling, stores' security guards exist for the purpose of stopping thefts and while the stores of course try to make them as inconspicuous as possible, they do keep an eye on all the customers and cause them some level of discomfort. Yet, most customers aren't thieves, so the same thing applies: innocents get followed around even if they aren't thieves. If by way of profiling (racial or otherwise) customers and watching only the most likely thieves, that can only improve the situation. As long as the profiling is based on facts rather than mere prejudice, how is the store wrong? If they can stop 95% of potential thefts by following only 50% of the customers, and that's good enough for the store, why should the remaining 50% of the customers be followed as well just for the sake of fairness?

Same with rapes. Percentages are probably similar: 50% of people (i.e. males) commit vast majority of rapes. An educational video that targets those most likely culprits probably has better efficacy than one that tries to "teach both sides".

 

[JonA]

Fifty percent isn't a majority, especially when dealing with only two categories.

 

[Toni]

Wow.

An extensive DOJ study is "pseudo science" but a bunch of people on the internet with zero credentials can 'shred' it with no data except notions they pull out of their asses?

Wow.

Wow. Such unscientific blind deference to authority. All that matters is the scientific methodology and whether it supports the conclusions. Their methods are extremely weak and soft and fail to support their conclusions for numerous specific reasons pointed out to you when you offered it in the past.

Wow indeed. I shouldn't be but I am still occasionally taken aback by the marked lack of self awareness coupled with baseless arrogance sometimes exhibited by those who don't like conclusions which differ from what they believe to be true. Or at least in line with their own prejudices.