Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sosiologi r

Main / Thanks!
Jul 07, 2005, 06:02 AM
Men's Right Activist,

thanks alot! You gave me excellent references. One curiosity in the article, though:

"Barbara Swartz, former Director of New York's Women's Prison Project, called it the "chivalry factor" and says, If there were more women judges, more women would go to jail."

That could actually be true as I have seen a study which showed that female judges (in my country) give shorter penalties in rape cases than male judges.
Main / Research
Jul 06, 2005, 07:53 PM

I am doing a research report on the topic. I need scientific sources and references - and not only to research done in my own country.

So far most of the men's resources found in the web are more prone to "activism" instead of "science".

Any hints?

Could somebody please help me find solid facts and references on this topic? So far all of my references are unscientific as the referred source is "Department of Justice" (with no additional spesifications) or "Two guys from University X doing their thesis".

That kind of references do not provide me means to check the facts myself.

I need to build is a list of references in which there is a name of the researcher, name of the publication or statistic and page number in which the fact was originally presented.

Main / References?
Jul 06, 2005, 07:03 PM
Do you have any link or reference that would prove the government helped in hiding the information?
Main / Bipolar gender system oppressing men
May 15, 2005, 12:55 AM

many ideas may be used for good or the bad. If the idea of "bipolar gender system oppressing men" may be twisted in a very radical feminist manner, it does not mean that the entire idea is bad.

We may have female and male masculinists, equalists and feminists (that is 6 different groups of people). All of them could (hopefully) agree that the bipolar gender system oppresses men too. Also, they could agree that this does not require only men to change their attitudes and beliefs but women as well. Parents should not teach their daughters to become helpless idiots who can not survive without a male provider around. Parents should not teach their daughters to assume their future boyfriends treat them as princesses and pay everything for them.

The biggest difference between a male masculinist and a female feminist is probably that the masculinists more easily spot oppression against men, whereas many female feminists are almost blind to it and believe that the best way to change the world would be to change the attitudes and beliefs of men.

Think of my examples, given in the opener: They are surely cases of the oppression of men, and the feminists should agree that this oppression needs to be removed (if they are true feminists following systematically their own theories and ideologies).

Are you personally against this kind of oppression of men? If so, does that make you a pathetic feminist?
Main / Bipolar gender system oppressing men
May 14, 2005, 09:24 PM
According to the feminist frame of reference the bipolar gender system does not oppress only women but also men. I am curious to hear from you, whether you consider this as a potential factor uniting feminists and the men's right activists. Below are some examples of this oppression. Men are expected

- to pay costs on dates, being a supporter of the woman

- to be ready for sex all the time as that is the stereotype of men

- not to feel pain, for example, when being hit to face by their female mate

- to provide a nice looking house to their family and therefore, to work very long weekly hours

Some concepts also are loaded with patriarchal ideology and gender stereotypes. For example

- romanticism is "defined" as an action from men to women and as a consequence, it is only a dream of many men to be treated romantically by their women

These were just a couple of examples of the oppression of men by the bipolar gender system. Could the analysis of these problems and pressures be a uniting field for feminists and men's right activists?

PS. You might respond that "There is no need to unite feminists and men's right activists". However, you could see this as an opportunity to "beat the feminists using their own weapons" - e.g. using the theory of patriarchal ideology and bipolar gender system.
Bisquit Queen,

I must say that I object "common sense" as it simplifies things. It tries to view world as simple and concepts as unproblematic. It tries to prove that things are simple and understood - and that everybody else than the one using his/her common sense is wrong.

As everybody has seen, the concept "rape" has very many different definitions in different legal systems: In US and Canada it could be defined as  intercourse without consent, in Norway also oral sex (without consent) would be counted as rape - and in England the definition makes women incapable of rape (even the inserting of a dildo in someones body would not be counted as rape?).

Then we have relative concepts such as "sexual abuse" and "sexual harrasment".

My point in this chain is, that rape/abuse/harrasment come in different degrees of severity. To get a clear picture of the rape/abuse/harrasment problem we need to use statistics and surveys that are capable of distinguishing between the different degrees (or different types of acts, if you do not like the idea that an illegal act may come in different degrees of severity).

I would be interested in finding out a statistic for the distribution of victims to men and women. My guess is that the statistic in North American and North European countries would look a lot like the one below:

- - - - - - - - - VICTIM'S SEX
- - - - - - - - - Female -- Male
Harrasment - -  60%- - - 40%      
Abuse - - - - - - 70%- - - 30%
Rape  - - - - - - 97% - - -  3%

However, before advancing to statistics we should have clear, gender neutral definitions of the acts we are referring to.

PS. Do you think that my example of a person saying no 3 times but resisting only passively, could be counted as abuse although it is not rape according to your definition?

the word "rape" does not have one single, clear definition. There is one definition in the law, another in the feminist litterature and a third one in governmental policies.

The different definitions of rape cause the same problem as with domestic violence:

1. When somebody wants to emphasize the great problem of men raping women, they often define rape in as broad manner as possible. As a consequence they get such statistics that "40% of women have been raped".

2. When somebody wants to emphasise that the problem is only related to female victims, they change the definition to a much narrower one, so that they get the figure "1 raped man for each 1000 raped women".

I do not like this kind of bending of definitions. Personally, I would be satisfied with either a broad or narrow definition of rape, as long as it is used systematically.

PS. According to newspaper headlines a Norwegian man was paid 40000 euros as compensation for being raped by a woman (the man woke up while the woman was performing oral sex on him).
Quote from: "mens_issues"
Feminists use the word "rape" so much, I'm starting to wonder if it's a soft drink that they're selling (like Coke).  At the rate they're going, it will have about as much meaning as purchasing a soft drink.

It's a shame, because diminishing the meaning of sexual assault makes real victims less believeable.

The feminists will change their definition of rape if researchers show that 40% of men have been raped according to the broad definition of rape. This is a highly similar case as domestic violence, which may be defined in a very broad or narrow way.
Quote from: "Biscuit Queen"

Rape is sex against someones will. If you do not say NO! it is not rape.

Except if you have passed out and someone is taking sexually advantage of you. Then it is also rape.


*NO! means you said no loud and forcefully and meant it.  NOT no, no, oh, well, no, well, yes, yes............*

What if you are naked in bed with someone and say "No, I am not in the mood". Then your partner grabs your hand and puts it to his/her crotch, demanding for sexual stimulus. You please him/her for a while and draw your hand away. He/she puts it back there and you say again "Really, I am not in the mood." After that he/she gently turns you lying on your back and comes on top of you. You notice that you are physically ready for sex although not mentally. You say for the third time with a somewhat angry voice: "Don't you understand, I do not want to have sex now!". Then he/she starts to make love to you and you act passive, yet feel abused.

This can happen to a woman - or to a man. It is sexual abuse in a very mild form. Still, it could also been viewed as rape - at least, if the woman is suing the man afterwards. (If the man sues the woman on this kind of an instance, there is 0% likelihood that the woman will be convicted).

I am speaking of equality between men and women. I am speaking of equalistic, gender free definitions of rape and courts who do not handle men and women according to different standards.

If you let someone talk you into it, you did not say NO!.

As my example shows, this is not so clear.

Are you trying to marginalize rape to the point where it is meaningless?


There is no such thing as a gentle rape.  Either it is rape, or it is not. If you did not make yourself 110% clear that you did not want sex, then it is not rape. If you said NO! and it happened anyways, then it is rape.

I do not agree. If I were to define rape I would suggest that there is no rape unless the victim has been forced (with physical force) to sex or if the intercourse has happened in such a condition where the victim did not have a chance to resist.

In my example I see no actual rape although it contains sexual abuse.


I do NOT think that 40% to 90% of people have been raped.

Well, do you think that 40-90% of the people have been sexually abused under conditions similar to my example above?

I assume that "gentle rape" is also incuded in the definition of rape in some legal systems. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many percent of the rape incidents are actually "gentle rape" instead of "real rape".

This is a very similar phenomenon as "domestic violence". It is also defined in a very broad sense in governmental policies. As a result, 40-95% men and women have suffered from "domestic violence" (at least if the verbal violence is taken into account, as some government policies suggest).

If we apply this same to rape, we might end up finding that 90% of men and 90% of women have been at least once been raped.

Sosiologi r
Main / Domestic violence once again
May 02, 2005, 02:51 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
Only a minor portion of those studies used CTS.  In fact what the bibliography shows in a lot of different investigators from different institutions using different methodologies, and coming to similar conclusions.


Your primary objection here seems to be with the measuring of actions here.  You prefer outcomes, because you seem to believe that points to who is the "victim", with the most injured being the winner of the "victim" title.  You don't seem to care much about intent - which is harder to measure except in terms of  who strikes first.

I believe that the consequences are most important to measure. The intent and action may be taken into account as supporting variables.

NOTE: There are studies, mentioned in Sethay's reference list, that find women unable to see that their violence could actually cause injuries. This may be due to the fact that so many women stereotypisize men as tough and painresistant Men, who do not get injured - or who do not care for minor injuries.

Personally I would like to see a study done on different gradations of injury... I would like to see it done by medical classifications, decided by medical professionals.  I would also like to see it include somehow those injuries incurred by the defensive measures of the other party.  Injuries done is self defence should either be excluded from the study, or tabulated separately.

I would also be very interested.

It would be an interesting study, but probably not really possible due to the complexity, and confounding factors inherent to this kind of study.

No, it is not impossible. It is very easy to make such a survey, but the interpretation of the results in a manner that would leave no space for counterarguments would be difficult.
Let us assume "gentle rape" as an action in which a person who lives together with his/her partner (or is staying over night with a new aquaintance in the same bed)  is seduced or pressured to sex when he/she is not mentally willing - but is physically ready enough so that the intercourse is possible and not painful.

I believe that according to this definition a lot of men have been "gently raped" by women. I would be curious to hear how common this kind of rape is.
Main / Domestic violence once again
May 02, 2005, 02:26 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
I don't know anyone other than trained feminists who speak in terms like this.

Well, if the study was made among college women, a high proportion of them could be considered as trained feminists. Yet, the study does not seem biased by the motives of the researchers as they found out that among the top two reasons of male violence is that "She hit me first".


It could mean that, or it could mean that men and women tend to have different ideas on what they consider to be a "mild" injury.

I agree completely... actually, I already wrote down this idea in my message that you quoted.
Main / Domestic violence once again
May 02, 2005, 01:44 PM
(Archer)... relates the history of the different viewpoints and the different sources of data and how they impact the results.  It is a good read and very informative.  Feminists hate it.  He must be telling the truth.

Ok, the Archer meta analysis seems like an important scientific source.

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
The Archer meta-analysis specifies injuries as being "visible injuries" or "injuries requiring medical treatment."  I think with those criteria we could say that covered the moderate to severe range not just the insignificant injuries.

I believe that some visible injuries could be categorized as "below moderate" in their severity. For example a 0,5 inch x 0,5 inch bruise in the arm is insignificant but yet visible. The same applies to a 0,5 inch long scratch. The scaling of injuries should be checked from the Archer study and from the Makepeace study.

Also, the form in which questions have been posed has an effect. Especially as we know that men are encouraged to consider a 2 inch bruise as insignificant while females are probably brought up to consider it as a severe injury.