Response to Mr. Bad re: Farrell, Koss, and Archer

Started by ampersand, Jan 04, 2006, 07:07 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

ampersand

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper which used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?


Not off the top of my head, but I know that they exist.  For example, Johnath Archer (2002)  wrote peer-reviewed responses to his critics outlining cases such as the ones I describe and you challenge in his defense of his work "Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.  (Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351).  I suggest that you pick up a hard copy of the source journal; I did and the letters back and forth - all peer-reviewed - were fascinating and enlightening.


I skimmed Archer's article, and couldn't find any support for your claims in there. What in particular did he say, that you think supports the claim that peer-reviewed papers by feminists used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?


Like I said, in his response to letters and reviewers comments he addresses the excessive politicization of the domestic violence industry - particularly the workers - and he includes citations in his responses.  As I said, you have to get a hard copy of the journal, and you most certainly have to read it thoroughly and carefully and not "skim" it.  It appears to me that at least in this response you are not being sincere re. trying to truly understand the issues.


Are you positive you're citing the correct article? It sounds to me like you might actually be talking about Archer's article in Psychological Bulletin (September 2000, Vol. 126, No. 5, p 651-680), which included three response articles and then a counter-response by Archer. Although nothing Archer said there actually supports your claim, at least he sort of addresses the subject there, which he doesn't in the issue of Aggression and Violent Behavior you cite.

Also, I think it's a bit much for you to accuse me of lack of sincerity. Since when is it my job to do your research for you? You made a claim (that feminist researchers have used samples of battered women only to claim that "1 in 4" women are beaten by loved ones) that you've been entirely unable to back up, instead telling me to go do research, giving as a clue only an article that you gave incorrect page numbers for in a journal that did not, as far as I can tell, include the responses and counter-responses you're telling me to read.

In short, it's clear that either you made a bad mistake and sent me on a wild-goose chase (wrong page numbers and all), or you know you can't back up your claim and so you've cited stuff you know doesn't exist.

The bottom line is, you made a claim that you're unable to back up. That's not my fault.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
(By the way, letters in peer-reviewed journals do not typically go through the peer-review jury process.)


You clearly do not understand the process vis-a-vis publishing in peer-reviewed journals Amp.  I'm an academic and publish manuscripts regularly, and I'm here to tell you that an author's responses to criticisms by reviewers and/or readers most certainly are peer-reviewed and thus must be thoroughly documented, i.e., cited, and supported by fact.  

You're dead wrong on this one Amp.


In most peer-reviewed journals, there's a difference between letters to the editor - which are not peer-reviewed (see the letters column in JAMA, for example) - and formal responses and counter-responses, which are peer-reviewed. The articles in Psychological Bulliten, which is what I think you're referring to, are formal responses, not mere letters. (You can tell because they're listed as distinct articles in the table of contents, in contrast to letters which are just grouped together in a lettercolumn rather than being listed separately).

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
However, noteworthy is the fact that the Koss study has been reviewed and criticized by many other people, (e.g., Cathy Young, C.H. Sommers, Wendy McElroy, et al.) beside Farrell, so IMO the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was Koss who mischaracterized her data and results, not Farrell or other reviewers.


That's illogical, because the two choices you present - Koss mischaracterizing her data, and Farrell mischaracterizing her data - are not exclusive. Even if Koss misrepresented her study or results (and I don't think she did in any serious way), that would not prove that Farrell did not also mischaracterize Koss' study or results.

Furthermore, I'm confused about why you think that stuff is relevant, because my criticisms of Farrell were binary. Either Koss' study used that question to calculate rape prevalence, or it did not. Either Koss' study found that approximately 25% of women in her sample had experienced rape (as opposed to rape and attempted rape combined), or it did not. The truth or nontruth of these binary, yes-or-no questions is not changed one way or the other because a bunch of right-wing feminists have crticized Koss.


Ok, first of all it's invalid to criticize and dismiss analyses of what you perceive as "right-wing" feminists unless you want to open the door to similarly criticizing and dismissing analyses of  what we perceive as "left wing" feminists.  Otherwise, full stop.


If I said to you, "well, MacKinnon, Dworkin and Morgan have all agreed that X is untrue, therefore X is untrue," I doubt you'd find that a compelling argument, and I'd be foolish to expect you to find it compelling.

In the end, what you're talking about is argument from authority; but arguments from authority only work if both debators agree that the people cited are legitimate authorities. Given your views on feminism, it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to accept feminist theorists (or polemic writers) as authorities on disputed issues; it is similarly unreasonable of you to expect me to accept Hoff-Sommers, et al, as authorities on disputed issues.

Quote
Next, I can't be 100% certain, but based on what you've written I believe that I recall why the Koss 'study' has been so thoroughly criticized and debunked, the reason being the definition of "rape" that she used.  You said "Either Koss' study used that question to calculate rape prevalence, or it did not. Either Koss' study found that approximately 25% of women in her sample had experienced rape (as opposed to rape and attempted rape combined), or it did not."  So yes, perhaps the Koss 'study' did find that 25% of the respondents answered affirmatively to the question, however, from what I recall the question was 1) quite 'loaded' re. the wording, and 2) used a ridiculous and frankly ludicrous definition of "rape."  

Like I said, I'll have to review the Koss work, but I believe that it has been thoroughly - and rightfully - discredited for using absurd defninitions and loaded/leading survey techniques.


I disagree, but until you actually make an argument, I can't make a counter-argument.

However, I do want to point out that this is entirely non-responsive regarding Farrell. Even if everything you say is true - even if Koss used a bad definition of rape, for example - that still doesn't justify Farrell reporting falsehoods about Koss' study to discredit Koss. If Koss did bad work, then truthfully reporting on what she did wrong is justified; but lying (through malice or carelessness) about Koss' work is not.

I'm willing to discuss Koss's research in detail, if you want, but I don't want that to be an excuse for you to avoid the issue of Farrell getting his facts wrong. You challenged me to support my claim that Warren Farrell had dishonestly described Mary Koss' research. I did support that claim with facts you haven't even attempted to refute. In response, you've claimed that Koss' research was bad; but logically, whether Koss' research was good or bad does not effect whether or not Farrell's description of her research was accurate or inaccurate. So your argument is a non sequitor.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
That's the thing about the scientific method Amp:  If various independent researchers can repeat the experiment  - this case a review - and come up with consistent findings, then the evidence piles up.  And so in this case, the evidence against Koss and in favor of Farrell's interpretation is IMO strong.


Funny, I thought that most scientists consider peer-reviewed journals to be more compelling evidence than non-peer-reviewed polemics.


We do, which is why most all of what feminists write is considered pure, unadulterated bullshit by most of us.


Yet so far every source you've cited to criticize Koss' study has been non-peer-reviewed pop books, rather than peer-reviewed research or criticism.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
That aside, would you say the same thing if the evidence leaned in the other direction - that is, in support of Koss' findings regarding rape?


Maybe, but from what I recall Koss' work was most definitely in the realm of "polemics," to use your terminology above; certainly her discussion and conclusions sections were.


What do you mean, "maybe"? When three non-peer-reviewed anti-feminists agree that Koss' research is bad, you think that's strong evidence; but if other peer-reviewed research and reviews support Koss' conclusions, then that's not strong evidence? It seems to me that's a double-standard.

Sir Jessy of Anti

IIRC, one of the main reasons I consider Koss's study to be discredited is due to the fact that when the same questions on her survey that she used to categorize the victimization rate for women were applied to the men of her survey, similar victimization rates occured for men.  This fact was not highly publicized as it didn't have the desired political effect.  The study was funded by Ms. Magazine, so this is hardly surprising.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

ampersand

Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
IIRC, one of the main reasons I consider Koss's study to be discredited is due to the fact that when the same questions on her survey that she used to categorize the victimization rate for women were applied to the men of her survey, similar victimization rates occured for men.  This fact was not highly publicized as it didn't have the desired political effect.  The study was funded by Ms. Magazine, so this is hardly surprising.


Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.

I do know of one study which did a gender-neutral Koss survey, asking Koss' questions equally of male and female students. The study had a tiny sample size, so it's statistical power is pretty low (as the authors themselves admitted). What they found is that men and women were equally likely to "experience unwanted sexual contact" - but unwanted sexual contact, as the authors used the term, is a broader category than rape, and includes things like giving in to a partner's frequent arguments.

That was the finding the authors emphasized. However, they also found that women were seven and a half times as likely as men to report a partner having attempted or succeeded in using physical force to make them have sex. So I don't think your criticism is really accurate.

(Citation: "Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms," in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Feb, 1999  by Mary E. Larimer,  Amy R. Lydum,  Britt K. Anderson,  and Aaron P. Turner).

aknapp1112

Quote
Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.


so, in other words, she asked the right questions to specific persons to get the answers that were wanted?

isnt this pretty much what that one survey did, about men getting custody 70% of the time in contested custody fights? they asked specific people, specific questions to fit into what they wanted the "survey" to say? so, along these lines, couldnt i then come up with a survey showing that 85% of men of beaten by their wives (all i have to do is ask the right people)

whome112

The best of the best in sexuality studies is the book "Sex in America." It has the most science behind it and by a massive margin.

SiA puts the forced sex (by opposite sex) rate at:

1 in 20 for females and
1 in 50 for males

(Lifetime risk of one or more incidents. Females, in general, have a higher risk of repeat incidents. Male survivors also have a higher risk of repeat incidence.)

The one in four is too high.

whome
ay what you mean: Mean what you say.
http://jwwells.blogspot.com

aknapp1112

Quote
That was the finding the authors emphasized. However, they also found that women were seven and a half times as likely as men to report a partner having attempted or succeeded in using physical force to make them have sex. So I don't think your criticism is really accurate.

(Citation: "Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms," in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Feb, 1999 by Mary E. Larimer, Amy R. Lydum, Britt K. Anderson, and Aaron P. Turner).


so, is it force to have sex, or unwanted sexual contact? you say above it is sex, but your citation says unwanted sexual contact (which would include a kiss goodnight after a bad date?)

Galt

I went around in circles with Ampersand on the old MS boards, so I've pretty much got his answers regarding Koss memorized.

In response to the problem of how she phrased her questions, Ampersand will respond that there was only a slight problem with one of the alcohol-related questions, and she corrected that and found a minimal disparity.  Huh.  Others beg to differ, but I'm not going to waste my time again.

In response to the funding by MS Magazine, well it kind of wasn't DIRECTLY MS Magazine.  I mean, it was sort of someone else.  Kind of.

In response to Ms. Koss's apparent bias in other articles and studies, she is a gender researcher and only objectively writes what she finds.  But researcher bias IS a very definite issue, that's why they friggin' do double-blind studies when they are researching new drugs.

In response to other (*truly objective*) studies - such as the National Crime Victims's Survey by the Department of Justice - which asked people anonymously about what crime they truly experienced, but may not have reported - and found much, much lower numbers with regard to rape and attempted rape - well, I guess Ms. Koss is the only true and proper authority on these matters.

So now that we've got that straight ... It's clear to me that Ampersand is ONLY going to be an advocate for the feminists' side.  That's true equality, I guess.  What is problematic is his stance sometimes that he is trying to be objective.  I don't really claim that on my side, so no hypocrisy here.

Sir Jessy of Anti

Quote from: "ampersand"


Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.


That's right, I did mix the studies up.   I recall now that the questions asked of men on the Koss study were not concerned with male victimization, but rather male perpetration - which as I said makes it perfect for the political agitprop purposes it was used for.

A similar survey could start with the premise that blacks are responsible for black on white crime (for the same crimes that also happen to blacks), and proceed to survey the whites about their levels of victimization by blacks and the blacks about their levels of perpetration against whites.  Presto!  Bias confirmed by survey findings.

Both studies would have no claim to impartiality..
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

Galt

Ampersand has finely-honed responses regarding the Koss study.  He will also present his "evidence" regarding the inappropriate questions (i.e. the alcohol-related one that he is aware of), but only from one side.  He will play dumb about the other side until you specifically bring it up, specifically cite it and specifically rub it under his nose.  And then he will forget it again in the very next debate.

It's not worth it to debate him on that unless you have spent your life with the all-important Koss study.  LOL.

I suggest either bowing down to the Lord Koss, or bringing up other studies, like the NCVS thing from the US Department of Justice.

Galt

What's funny is that some of these feminist "studies" become a mantra among feminists until someone takes the time to pick them apart.  And then they still stay a mantra.

I saw that with a study by Lenore Walker (??).  If you remember, men have a higher standard of living after a divorce, and women have a lower standard of living.

Aside from the obvious point (at least obvious to me) that if women marry UP for the most part, they are going to have a higher standard of living after a marriage, and if they don't want the guy, then they shouldn't want his money if a marriage ends ... someone actually took her study apart.

They found things like confusing 27% and 72% (no, I'm not kidding).  They found an inclusion of whatever supported her initial theory, and an exclusion of whatever didn't support her theory.  They found the structure wanting (i.e. excluding areas where men may have to pay money to the ex-wife, but it doesn't show up on a tax return).  A lot of feminist "researchers" refuse to release their raw data - then it's simply "I say it's so, so it is".  And that's from a person with an agenda - how obvious can you get.

Almost sickening.  But who has the time to really take apart all of the feminist drivel that is thrust upon society.  Especially when most people KNOW that these "researchers" are driven by an agenda.  This isn't science or anything else, it's simply inflating numbers that you want to inflate, in order to manipulate men.  Men who are trying to be fair for the most part.

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper which used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?


Not off the top of my head, but I know that they exist.  For example, Johnath Archer (2002)  wrote peer-reviewed responses to his critics outlining cases such as the ones I describe and you challenge in his defense of his work "Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.  (Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351).  I suggest that you pick up a hard copy of the source journal; I did and the letters back and forth - all peer-reviewed - were fascinating and enlightening.


I skimmed Archer's article, and couldn't find any support for your claims in there. What in particular did he say, that you think supports the claim that peer-reviewed papers by feminists used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?


Like I said, in his response to letters and reviewers comments he addresses the excessive politicization of the domestic violence industry - particularly the workers - and he includes citations in his responses.  As I said, you have to get a hard copy of the journal, and you most certainly have to read it thoroughly and carefully and not "skim" it.  It appears to me that at least in this response you are not being sincere re. trying to truly understand the issues.


Are you positive you're citing the correct article? It sounds to me like you might actually be talking about Archer's article in Psychological Bulletin (September 2000, Vol. 126, No. 5, p 651-680), which included three response articles and then a counter-response by Archer. Although nothing Archer said there actually supports your claim, at least he sort of addresses the subject there, which he doesn't in the issue of Aggression and Violent Behavior you cite.


Yes, that's the issue of PB that the peer-reviewed responses to the letters are included in.  The 2002 paper mentions the problems associated with feminist 'research' due to the political conflicts of interest leading to investigator bias, conflict of interest re. funding (e.g., the Koss study), etc. The two are separate works that both address the problems associated with allowing highly politicized feminists to conduct such research.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Also, I think it's a bit much for you to accuse me of lack of sincerity. Since when is it my job to do your research for you? You made a claim (that feminist researchers have used samples of battered women only to claim that "1 in 4" women are beaten by loved ones) that you've been entirely unable to back up, instead telling me to go do research, giving as a clue only an article that you gave incorrect page numbers for in a journal that did not, as far as I can tell, include the responses and counter-responses you're telling me to read.


I never asked you to do my research for me.  I don't care about feminist 'research' because it isn't legitimate science so I don't read it.  The "1 in 4" myth is completely wrong, has been refuted by legitmate investigators numerous time, so I see no need to beat that dead horse.  If you wasted your time, then pal that's your problem, not mine.

Quote from: "ampersand"
In short, it's clear that either you made a bad mistake and sent me on a wild-goose chase (wrong page numbers and all), or you know you can't back up your claim and so you've cited stuff you know doesn't exist.

The bottom line is, you made a claim that you're unable to back up. That's not my fault.


What claim would that be?

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
(By the way, letters in peer-reviewed journals do not typically go through the peer-review jury process.)


You clearly do not understand the process vis-a-vis publishing in peer-reviewed journals Amp.  I'm an academic and publish manuscripts regularly, and I'm here to tell you that an author's responses to criticisms by reviewers and/or readers most certainly are peer-reviewed and thus must be thoroughly documented, i.e., cited, and supported by fact.  

You're dead wrong on this one Amp.


In most peer-reviewed journals, there's a difference between letters to the editor - which are not peer-reviewed (see the letters column in JAMA, for example) - and formal responses and counter-responses, which are peer-reviewed. The articles in Psychological Bulliten, which is what I think you're referring to, are formal responses, not mere letters. (You can tell because they're listed as distinct articles in the table of contents, in contrast to letters which are just grouped together in a lettercolumn rather than being listed separately).


You misread what I stated, i.e., that Archer's responses to the criticisms and letters were indeed peer-reviewed.  Again, it's not my problem if you continue to misread what we write, put words in our mouths, etc.  I can't worry about your inability to get things straight.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
However, noteworthy is the fact that the Koss study has been reviewed and criticized by many other people, (e.g., Cathy Young, C.H. Sommers, Wendy McElroy, et al.) beside Farrell, so IMO the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was Koss who mischaracterized her data and results, not Farrell or other reviewers.


That's illogical, because the two choices you present - Koss mischaracterizing her data, and Farrell mischaracterizing her data - are not exclusive. Even if Koss misrepresented her study or results (and I don't think she did in any serious way), that would not prove that Farrell did not also mischaracterize Koss' study or results.

Furthermore, I'm confused about why you think that stuff is relevant, because my criticisms of Farrell were binary. Either Koss' study used that question to calculate rape prevalence, or it did not. Either Koss' study found that approximately 25% of women in her sample had experienced rape (as opposed to rape and attempted rape combined), or it did not. The truth or nontruth of these binary, yes-or-no questions is not changed one way or the other because a bunch of right-wing feminists have crticized Koss.


Ok, first of all it's invalid to criticize and dismiss analyses of what you perceive as "right-wing" feminists unless you want to open the door to similarly criticizing and dismissing analyses of  what we perceive as "left wing" feminists.  Otherwise, full stop.


If I said to you, "well, MacKinnon, Dworkin and Morgan have all agreed that X is untrue, therefore X is untrue," I doubt you'd find that a compelling argument, and I'd be foolish to expect you to find it compelling.

In the end, what you're talking about is argument from authority; but arguments from authority only work if both debators agree that the people cited are legitimate authorities. Given your views on feminism, it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to accept feminist theorists (or polemic writers) as authorities on disputed issues; it is similarly unreasonable of you to expect me to accept Hoff-Sommers, et al, as authorities on disputed issues.


Perhaps, so I would call a stalemate on this.  

Quote from: "ampersand"
However, I do want to point out that this is entirely non-responsive regarding Farrell. Even if everything you say is true - even if Koss used a bad definition of rape, for example - that still doesn't justify Farrell reporting falsehoods about Koss' study to discredit Koss. If Koss did bad work, then truthfully reporting on what she did wrong is justified; but lying (through malice or carelessness) about Koss' work is not.


Like I said, I haven't seen where Farrell has made any false claims about Koss' work, so until you show me something I can't comment on this.

But frankly, as I said before, I don't care to waste my time on the Koss study because it's been shown by many scholars that I trust to be little more than propaganda, so I'm not interested in spending any more time looking at it.  I checked it out years ago - it seemed farfetched then and have no reason to believe that it would be any less so now.  Not to mention the info presented by others in this thread highlighting the many problems with the Koss study.

Quote from: "ampersand"
I'm willing to discuss Koss's research in detail, if you want, but I don't want that to be an excuse for you to avoid the issue of Farrell getting his facts wrong. You challenged me to support my claim that Warren Farrell had dishonestly described Mary Koss' research. I did support that claim with facts you haven't even attempted to refute.


Actually I've not seen anything from you that I would consider provides evidence that Farrell did as you claimed, so the basic premise you argue from above is IMO false.  


Quote from: "ampersand"
Yet so far every source you've cited to criticize Koss' study has been non-peer-reviewed pop books, rather than peer-reviewed research or criticism.


Others on this thread - as well as Sommers, Young, et al. - have cited valid, legitimate U.S. govt. stats, so I defer to them

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
That aside, would you say the same thing if the evidence leaned in the other direction - that is, in support of Koss' findings regarding rape?


Maybe, but from what I recall Koss' work was most definitely in the realm of "polemics," to use your terminology above; certainly her discussion and conclusions sections were.


What do you mean, "maybe"? When three non-peer-reviewed anti-feminists agree that Koss' research is bad, you think that's strong evidence; but if other peer-reviewed research and reviews support Koss' conclusions, then that's not strong evidence? It seems to me that's a double-standard.


What peer-reviewed works support Koss' conclusions?  

The researchers I cited in turn used and cited primary data from among others the U.S. govt., which I tend to trust more than feminist ideologues like Koss, et al.  So sue me.

However,  the irony of you complaining about "double-standards" should not escape anyone here or elsewhere.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

Quentin0352

Quote
I do know of one study which did a gender-neutral Koss survey, asking Koss' questions equally of male and female students. The study had a tiny sample size, so it's statistical power is pretty low (as the authors themselves admitted). What they found is that men and women were equally likely to "experience unwanted sexual contact" - but unwanted sexual contact, as the authors used the term, is a broader category than rape, and includes things like giving in to a partner's frequent arguments.


Interesting since when someone claimed "simple rape" was something MRSa wanted banned, those were the kinds of rape that were pointed out, not actual "simple rape" and you said you were going to ban me for arguing AGAINST that being "simple rape" which is a crime. So is it OK to rape men using alcohol and coercion but not women in your world since you are now arguing that it isn't really rape and the definition is too broad while on your own blog you argued it was actually rape?

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
IIRC, one of the main reasons I consider Koss's study to be discredited is due to the fact that when the same questions on her survey that she used to categorize the victimization rate for women were applied to the men of her survey, similar victimization rates occured for men.  This fact was not highly publicized as it didn't have the desired political effect.  The study was funded by Ms. Magazine, so this is hardly surprising.


Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.

I do know of one study which did a gender-neutral Koss survey, asking Koss' questions equally of male and female students. The study had a tiny sample size, so it's statistical power is pretty low (as the authors themselves admitted). What they found is that men and women were equally likely to "experience unwanted sexual contact" - but unwanted sexual contact, as the authors used the term, is a broader category than rape, and includes things like giving in to a partner's frequent arguments.


So when Koss' questions were used to survey both men and women equally, men and women reported approximately equal rates of "unwanted sexual contact."  Interesting.  This indeed directly supports what Sir Jessy stated above.

Quote from: "ampersand"
That was the finding the authors emphasized. However, they also found that women were seven and a half times as likely as men to report a partner having attempted or succeeded in using physical force to make them have sex. So I don't think your criticism is really accurate.

(Citation: "Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms," in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Feb, 1999  by Mary E. Larimer,  Amy R. Lydum,  Britt K. Anderson,  and Aaron P. Turner).


Actually, by your own admission, Sir Jessy's criticism is indeed accurate.  Further, given that men tend to underreport crime - especially sexual assault and violence - it seems to be in line with the other criticisms I've read of Koss' and other feminist's 'research.'  One has to wonder whether the authors adjusted for underreporting by men, and if so, did the differences in reporting "physical force" disappear?  Seems to me that regression models of  reporting "physical force" that adjusted for sex would be pretty easy to run (simpy use sex as an independent variable model parameter), so I have to wonder why the 'researchers' didn't do this and/or report their results.  Adjusting for sex like this is standard practice in research comparing men and women.  

Naww, I don't really have to wonder why they failed to do use simple techniques and/or report the results.  Seems pretty obvious to me.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

ampersand

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
The bottom line is, you made a claim that you're unable to back up. That's not my fault.


What claim would that be?


The claim that there are peer-reviewed papers by feminist which use results from shelter samples to claim that "one in for women are beaten by their loved ones."

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper which used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?


Not off the top of my head, but I know that they exist.  For example, Johnath Archer (2002)  wrote peer-reviewed responses to his critics outlining cases such as the ones I describe and you challenge...


I've now reviewed three different papers by Archer - the one you cited, his 2000 paper and his 2000 response to critics - and none of them support your claim.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Like I said, I haven't seen where Farrell has made any false claims about Koss' work, so until you show me something I can't comment on this.


I showed you two clear examples, neither of which you've rebutted in the slightest. I'll repeat what I wrote before:

In Myth of Male Power, Farrell wrote:

Quote from: "Warren Farrell"
A Ms-sponsored study which the mass media widely quoted as saying that 25 percent of all women were raped by the time they were in college used this question to reach the 25 percent figure:

Quote
"Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because you were overwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure?"


Two problems with this passage. First of all, the study in question found that 25% of college women have experienced rape or attempted rape at some time in their life; the number for completed rape is closer to 12%. One could argue that Farrell was just repeating how the study was reported in the mass media, but it's irresponsible to do so without also reporting the correct figure. Besides, Farrell clearly attributes the 25 percent figure to the study itself - it is the study, not the media, which (according to Farrell) "used this question to reach the 25 percent figure." But the study never claimed that 25 percent of women have been raped.

Second, and more important, problem: The study never used that question for calculating rape prevalence. (The study did contain that question, but used it only to report instances of "pressuring" - not rape.) Anyone could verify this by reading the study itself (The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology v 55 (2) p. 162-170).

So Farrell, in "criticizing" the study, misrepresents both the study's results and its methodology. Although to be fair, this might be the result of extreme carelessness, rather than actual dishonesty.

Now, you say that you're not interested in Koss because you find her unreliable. But you also said that you found Farrell reliable; therefore, the fact that he badly misrepresented Koss' study should be of interest to you, since it shows that Farrell actually misrepresents what he talks about quite badly.

Quote
Quote
What do you mean, "maybe"? When three non-peer-reviewed anti-feminists agree that Koss' research is bad, you think that's strong evidence; but if other peer-reviewed research and reviews support Koss' conclusions, then that's not strong evidence? It seems to me that's a double-standard.


What peer-reviewed works support Koss' conclusions?


The main findings Dr. Koss made about rape (as opposed to about sexual coercion in general) are: One, that rape was much more common than the official data sources at the time indicated. Two, that a very large proportion of rapes are never reported to police. Third, that rape is usually committed by someone known to the victim, not by a stranger.

All three of these findings were widely suspected when Koss began her study, but had not been verified with social science research until Koss.

These three findings have since been upheld by every nationwide survey designed to measure violence against women. That, in social science research, is usually the gold standard - if a finding can be repeated, then it should be taken seriously.

So which are these other studies?

   * The NIJ/CDC "National Violence Against Women Study" found that 14.8% of American women experience a completed rape at some time in their lifetime. A typical rape-defining question was worded like this: "Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina."

   * The Department of Justice's Sexual Victimization of College Women study included a sub-study in which college women were asked about lifetime incidence of rape (most of the study asked about rape since the beginning of the school year, which isn't directly comparable to Koss). 10% of the women interviewed reported having been raped at some point in their lifetime. Rape was defined as "unwanted completed penetration by force or the threat of force."

   * There's also The National Women's Study (NWS), a large-scale national study which found that 13% of American women have been raped in their lifetime. Unfortunately, this study doesn't seem to be available online, but this webpage (written by one of the study authors) includes a lot of info from the survey - scroll about halfway down the page, or search for the phrase "National Research on Rape." The NWS results were published in a number of peer-reviewed publications.

A bunch of other peer-reviewed studies have confirmed Koss' results using non-national samples, but those three are the biggest ones.

Quote
The researchers I cited in turn used and cited primary data from among others the U.S. govt., which I tend to trust more than feminist ideologues like Koss, et al.  So sue me.


"Femnist idealogue" is an ad hom argument. If you had a decent case, you wouldn't rely on ad homs.

At the time Koss did her study, there were two government sources on rape prevalence (now there are more, which I cited above). One, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, counted only cases reported to police, which makes it useless for detecting the prevalence of an underreported crime like rape.

The other, the NCVS, at the time got their numbers on rape by asking "were you attacked in some other way?" at the end of a long survey about crime - a method guaranteed to produce underreporting. (As well as the obvious problem of not actually asking about forced sex, many scholars - including Archer, whom you cited - are convinced that asking about intimate violence in the context of a crime survey leads to significant underreporting).

There was no other source of primary nantional data at the time of Koss' study, apart from the data gathered by Koss. And although Koss' work wasn't perfect, it was much better designed for measuring rape prevalence than either the NCVS or the UCR.

ampersand

Quote from: "poiuyt"
Quote
Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.


...Ahh. Then if so, what would any fair minded person conclude about the studies' premises, assumptions, results and interpretations ?


That it was a study of rape of women, not a study of rape of the general population. (Are you saying that it's never legitimate to do a study of men in particular, or of women in particular?)

If Koss claimed that her research could be used to compare rape prevalence between male and female vicitms, then you'd have a legitimate criticism. However, I've read the study, and I know that Koss makes no such claim.

Go Up