13 Aug 2012, 1:30 am
14 Aug 2012, 5:31 am
14 Aug 2012, 3:34 pm
25 Sep 2012, 6:26 am
hyperlexian wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
that's incorrect, so it makes me suspect the site. one of the sources he quoted for that assertion was not legitimate, and the other one didn't support his point.
As you may or may not have noticed, one source was an excerpt from the other. The estimated number of women forcibly penetrated during a 12-month period was said to be 1,270,000. The estimated number of men said to have been forced to penetrate was 1,267,000. That seems to make enough sense, although it did not measure correctly to support that claim. As there were no known figures on men being penetrated - which, admittedly, would not constitute reliable or proper figures as men are not subject to that in general terms - they used the definition for 'being forced to penetrate'. That could be considered rape.
that (bolded) does not equal nearly identical rates of rape or sexual assault for men and women, period. that is what the first article misrepresented and subsequent articles requoted. also, that study was only concerned with various types of assault and abuse between long term partners, not for men and women overall. the MRA article did not make any distinction whatsoever about that.
here are some actual facts from the original study. the penetration numbers you quoted do not exist on in these summaries, so i don't know where you got that from.
it's worthy of noting that women are over 10 times more likely to be raped by a partner in their lifetime than a man is, which is so very different from what the article is claiming. the original article's misrepresentation is pretty blatant and makes me distrustful of the site, because they are trying to changing public policy by manufacturing facts.
one article is even tagged "lying feminist scumbags" yet this article is also lying. that isn't just bad journalism, it's a rallying cry based on a deliberate misrepresentation.
what is interesting is that the same misrepresentstion is quoted over and over again in blogs and in comments on feminist articles and youtube videos, yet not one of those people bothered to do any fact-checking. you would think that ONE of them would have flagged that original article's misleading information. but apparently not.
i agree that there are some areas that need an improvement in equality between men and women (though we may disagree about which specific areas), but the MRA movement isn't helping that cause.
Sorry to dig up a month old thread but Hyperlexian, notice that the numbers you highlighted in bold to say is inaccurate, is exactly what is quoted in that study you posted the image of as proof that it was inaccurate. You just didn't read the fine print, look at it again. Instead of just looking under the category "rape", look under the heading "other sexual assault" and then look at the category "made to penetrate", there you will find the exact figure of 1,267,000 males being "forced to penetrate" that HisDivineMajesty was talking about. It is this figure that should be compared to 1,270,000 women under "rape" because the definition of "rape" in the report only defines it as "penetration by force", not including "forced to penetrate", which is included as sexual assault even though it should of also been included as "rape". Therefore, merely citing what the report cites as "rape" is actually misleading and HisDivineMajesty was correct. The figures are right there in your gif.
By the way, this thread should probably be in the PPR forum.
25 Sep 2012, 8:56 am
25 Sep 2012, 9:54 am
25 Sep 2012, 10:37 am
25 Sep 2012, 12:05 pm
25 Sep 2012, 12:51 pm
nick007
Veteran
Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,765
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA
25 Sep 2012, 1:12 pm
25 Sep 2012, 1:29 pm
25 Sep 2012, 1:40 pm
25 Sep 2012, 3:09 pm
25 Sep 2012, 8:37 pm
25 Sep 2012, 8:43 pm
Jono wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
that's incorrect, so it makes me suspect the site. one of the sources he quoted for that assertion was not legitimate, and the other one didn't support his point.
As you may or may not have noticed, one source was an excerpt from the other. The estimated number of women forcibly penetrated during a 12-month period was said to be 1,270,000. The estimated number of men said to have been forced to penetrate was 1,267,000. That seems to make enough sense, although it did not measure correctly to support that claim. As there were no known figures on men being penetrated - which, admittedly, would not constitute reliable or proper figures as men are not subject to that in general terms - they used the definition for 'being forced to penetrate'. That could be considered rape.
that (bolded) does not equal nearly identical rates of rape or sexual assault for men and women, period. that is what the first article misrepresented and subsequent articles requoted. also, that study was only concerned with various types of assault and abuse between long term partners, not for men and women overall. the MRA article did not make any distinction whatsoever about that.
here are some actual facts from the original study. the penetration numbers you quoted do not exist on in these summaries, so i don't know where you got that from.
it's worthy of noting that women are over 10 times more likely to be raped by a partner in their lifetime than a man is, which is so very different from what the article is claiming. the original article's misrepresentation is pretty blatant and makes me distrustful of the site, because they are trying to changing public policy by manufacturing facts.
one article is even tagged "lying feminist scumbags" yet this article is also lying. that isn't just bad journalism, it's a rallying cry based on a deliberate misrepresentation.
what is interesting is that the same misrepresentstion is quoted over and over again in blogs and in comments on feminist articles and youtube videos, yet not one of those people bothered to do any fact-checking. you would think that ONE of them would have flagged that original article's misleading information. but apparently not.
i agree that there are some areas that need an improvement in equality between men and women (though we may disagree about which specific areas), but the MRA movement isn't helping that cause.
Sorry to dig up a month old thread but Hyperlexian, notice that the numbers you highlighted in bold to say is inaccurate, is exactly what is quoted in that study you posted the image of as proof that it was inaccurate. You just didn't read the fine print, look at it again. Instead of just looking under the category "rape", look under the heading "other sexual assault" and then look at the category "made to penetrate", there you will find the exact figure of 1,267,000 males being "forced to penetrate" that HisDivineMajesty was talking about. It is this figure that should be compared to 1,270,000 women under "rape" because the definition of "rape" in the report only defines it as "penetration by force", not including "forced to penetrate", which is included as sexual assault even though it should of also been included as "rape". Therefore, merely citing what the report cites as "rape" is actually misleading and HisDivineMajesty was correct. The figures are right there in your gif.
By the way, this thread should probably be in the PPR forum.
that is a statistic that is included in the overall percentage. you can't take one aspect of rape and state that men are just as likely to be assaulted based on that one category. that fact is that over a lifetime, women are 10 times more likely to be sexually victimised by their intimate partners than men. one subcategory doesn't make the MRA blanket statement true.
25 Sep 2012, 9:36 pm
