People who prey on others are not confused about what they're doing.

Popular rhetoric these days is that people - well, typically "men" or even explicitly "all men" (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - need to be "educated" about consent so they can comprehend what is and is not acceptable. Setting aside legitimate, honest miscommunication and philosophical disagreement for the moment, this is either wishful thinking or derogatory generalization or both.

The people who perpetrate deception, harassment, force, etc. know that they are perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. and are well aware that people consider it unacceptable. I've dealt with many of these people myself, both men and women (and even a transgender individual or two as well). Those same people will often complain about the same or similar things happening to them or somebody they care about, even to their victims, before, during, and/or after they do it themselves. The issue is not that they think their behavior is acceptable, or insignificant, but that they think it is acceptable or insignificant only when they do it. This is not a lack of comprehension or innocent misunderstanding of the subject, but a case of blatant self-entitlement. To give them the benefit of the doubt with rhetoric about how they "don't understand" is to basically just give them a bullshit excuse for their intentional transgression(s). To suggest they should be lumped in with other people who don't carry the same attitude is insulting to those other people.

It's not a nice simple quixotic theory like "teach men not to rape" or "men don't understand consent" or any of the other nonsensical rhetoric being thrown around, but the world we live in is not nice and simple just because we want it to be. "Men" are not "almost exclusively" or even "primarily" responsible for possessing or displaying this attitude and people who possess and display this attitude are not simply in need of "education" to be able to understand that what they are doing is unacceptable. What actually needs to be addressed in this case is that some people from any gender believe that they're above having to respect things like consent just because they don't want to, even though they know damn well what they're doing is unacceptable.

If you want to have educational and philosophical discussions to address some of the legitimate miscommunications and disagreements about consent as well, that's fine. Just don't suggest they're "gendered issues" or lump it in with people perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. or suggest people who perpetrate those things are "uninformed" about consent. By excusing, "gendering" or conflating those issues you're not doing any favors for anybody except the people who absolutely don't deserve it.

Fighting the imaginary wage gap, one armpit at a time

Are We Equal?

While the message of "we should stop this" is good, the "are we equal" question is actually a wasteful and even offensively dismissive distraction.

Every culture where female genital mutilation is practiced, male genital mutilation is also practiced, so the answer there would be "yes, you are equal." In terms of number of victims worldwide, male genital mutilation has many more, though, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are less commonly mutilated."

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

Where female genital mutilation is outlawed, male genital mutilation is still legal, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are more protected." In those cases, would they want to be equal?

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

In addition, they use the same old "female genital mutilation is much worse than male circumcision" argument, which serves no purpose besides suggesting one should get attention and the other shouldn't.

Again, "are we equal?" is a pointless question, because not only does it not provide any argument against female genital mutilation, but they obviously don't want to be equal, or they wouldn't portray the issue as "horrible genital mutilation" for one sex and "just circumcision" for the other.

I am of course all for ending genital mutilation, but people need to think through things before they go making videos which don't provide intelligent arguments and attempt to trivialize the issue regarding anybody not within their pet demographic.

"That other place has cheaper gas..."

I'm really sick of hearing this pointless monologue.  If you are too, here's some simple figures you can toss out the next time somebody goes off on a rant about "which place has cheaper gas."

Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.

Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.

And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price.  For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.



Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.

If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢.  For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)

In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.

If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.

So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.



When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place.  In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory.  Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias.  Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so.  Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to.  Women are superior to men.



If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true.  If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from)  So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime."  In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011

Is it a coincidence?

On April 14, 2014 Laci Green tweeted:

is it a coincidence that the peace sign looks like a "V" and vagina starts with a "V"? i think not

I've seen/heard countless times, claims like "women are more cooperative than men" and "women are less violent than men" and "there would be no war if women ruled the world."

I have one thing to say in response to that:
About 5,800,000 results.

So, is it a coincidence that "violence" starts with a "V" and "vagina" starts with a "V"?

I happen to think it is, but if Laci Green thinks there's no coincidence between the first letter of "vagina" and the visual appearance of a peace sign, maybe I'm wrong and it's no coincidence those specific two words have the same first letter, either.

So you think you "experienced rapeculture" on the bus?

Some guy bothered you trying to get your attention and the fact that the crowd of people didn't rescue you from arguing with him means "rapeculture"?

I've seen a few rants to that effect lately and it's total bullshit.

Point #1:

People don't like to set themselves apart from the group, especially when it involves conflict or inconvenience.

How often do people go out of their way to get involved in any argument between two strangers?  How often do you?  When two people are screaming at each other about one of them taking the spot the other wanted in a parking lot, how likely is it that people are going to head away so they don't have to deal with it, rather than heading toward the noise to see if they can help?  How often do you see youtube videos where instead of stopping to help somebody getting their ass kicked, people stop to record it instead?  How often do you see people stranded on the side of the road for long periods of time while hundreds of cars pass by, simply because nobody stops to help?  Have you not heard of cases where somebody preventably died from an injury, hear attack, etc. while people were crowded around them, simply because nobody bothered to call 911?

Are people just not aware of the concept of "mob mentality" anymore?  People generally don't want to be the first person to assert themself and get involved in any case where there's a group doing nothing.  That's just the way it is with everything.  When you're yelling at somebody on a crowded bus, don't be surprised when nobody wants to stick their neck out by both asserting themself from the crowd and white-knighting for you.  It's not "rapeculture" that keeps them from doing it.  It's general human social nature.

It is the ultimate narcisism to see people not treating your issue any differently from every other issue simply because it is important to you and you interpret that as "a unique systemic form of oppression."

That's not "rapeculture." That's rape hysteria.

Point #2:

There is no guarantee that sticking your neck out for somebody else will be appreciated.

I've more than once had to put myself in danger to protect somebody and I can tell you, it's a crap shoot whether the person you're trying to help will end up being friend or foe based on your involvement.  Try to break up a fight between two people and they could both just end up fighting you, instead of each other.  There was a particular incident that stands out for me where a single guy, too drunk to stand reliably was about to get jumped by 6 larger, more coordinated guys who thought he was slinging ethnic slurs at them.  I physically had to place myself in front of him and fend off/absorb the brunt of their aggression so they didn't literally beat him to death.  After I'd called the police and they flat out refused to show up or even file a report on the incident (is that "hatecrimeculture"?) the guy who was only still breathing due to my interference on his behalf used that very breath to call me "asshole."

Put yourself first, get called "rape supporter" for not doing anything.  Put the "victim" first, maybe get called a rapist for your trouble.

That's not "rapeculture."  That's rape hysteria.

Point #3:

You were not being raped.

I know, it's super-duper scary with all the hysteria about rape these days, to have a man try to actually get your attention and -gasp- interact with you in some way.  Still, some dude bothering you on a crowded bus is not the same thing as him raping you.  Those people you think were participating in "rapeculture" probably could just see you were not in serious danger by the fact that:

a. you were sitting there arguing with him, instead of trying to get away from him
b. he was not physically attacking you
c. you were in a public setting with other people available to help if things went really bad
d. you were not asking for help from anybody else

If you want to require people to automatically rush to the aid of the damsel in (minor) distress every time some man says something she finds unpleasant, then I suggest you start a social movement to turn the clock back to before "equality" was a goal, because that's the "oppressive" way things used to be.  Men used to duel over stupid shit like "offending a lady."  If, however, you want to be taken seriously as a capable adult human, equal to men, you're going to have to "man up" and fight your own "battles" (to use the term loosely) on occasion.

Throwing a tantrum, because nobody stepped in to keep you from being talked to in a public setting isn't "equality."  That's "sense of entitlement."

And people not going out of their way to rescue you from arguing with somebody isn't "rapeculture."  The fact that you are calling it "rapeculture" is just rape hysteria.

Alison Tieman misrepresents NISVS definitions

In the debut Honey Badger Hangout, Alison Tieman (a.k.a. Typhon Blue) said this:

"Made to Penetrate is actually...apparently more tightly onto what we would consider rape than Rape is.  In other words, it really didn't include situations where men were drunk, because the wording was so ambiguous that it most likely excluded those situations with Made to Penetrate.  The wording about trying to capture sex while drunk was ambiguous and it did not appear to include men who were forced to penetrate while drunk."

"So in other words, the Made To Penetrate stat, if anything, is actually closer to our idea of forced sex than the Rape stat is."

Linkage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cf6SKsxUkQg#t=5355

Now, if you've read my post about Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered? you will notice a link to the NISVS study there as well as a truncated version of the definitions for "rape" and for "made to penetrate."  I'll include the full primary descriptions here, so you may see how "different" they really are.

• Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim's consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it correctly, but those seem to be basically the same description other than describing either being penetrated, or being made to penetrate.

Assuming I am seeing it correctly, the main difference if both were considered equal violations is actually going to be in the area of oral sex.  The description for Rape does include being forced to perform fellatio, but does not necessarily include being forced to perform or receive cunnilingus.  Made to Penetrate would intuitively include (although not explicitly defined) being forced to receive fellatio, but does not necessarily include being forced to perform or receive cunnilingus.  Either could include forced performing or receiving cunnilingus, but unlike fellatio, cunnilingus including penetration is not generally a given.

The real question is, is that minor gender-unequal consideration potentially responsible for the 3,000 victim difference between the two in the general 12 Month statistics?

When we're talking total numbers in excess of 1 million and considering that somebody committing sexual assault is going to be inherently more concerned about their own pleasure than the other person's, I'd personally tend to think it's likely enough to call it about even if you added forced cunnilingus to those numbers.




The other thing that's been bothering me, is considering all the attention being given to these particular statistics, no MRAs seem to have yet noticed and pointed out that especially when it comes to Intimate Partner Violence and the more general sexual assault classifications, like "Unwanted Sexual Contact" (especially Unwanted Sexual Contact within relationships) the percentages for male victims are actually higher than the percentages for female victims.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Table 2.1 (Page 18)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Women:
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.2%        2,600,000 victims

Table 2.2 (Page 19)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Men: 
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.3%        2,565,000 victims

Table 4.1 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Women: 
Physical Violence:                     4.0%        4,741,000 victims

Table 4.2 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Men: 
Physical Violence:                     4.7%        5,365,000 victims

Table 4.5 (page 42)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Women
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.5%        645,000 victims

Table 4.6 (page 43)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Men
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.9%        1,031,000 victims

If you wanted to poke holes in the idea that "sexual assault and domestic violence are crimes primarily against women" there's not a much better way than to point out the fact that the study claims a higher percentage of male victims per year for both types of crime, is there?  Seems to me that should be step #1.

Agency: The word doesn't mean what you think it means.

In response to it being pointed out that the "rape culture" rhetoric is seeking to negate the agency of women, now the rhetoric is being tweaked to include claims of "society taking away my agency!" in an attempt to appropriate the thing being used to discredit the victim politics, for use in the victim politics.

News Flash
Agency is not something that can be taken away.

Using your agency can be discouraged.
Effectiveness of your agency can be obstructed.
And sure as hell, the "rape culture" rhetoric tries to obscure the agency of women.

Women still have every single bit of agency that men do.

The reason is, agency is the ability to speak and act on your own behalf. It is an inherent part of being any capable human. Like integrity, self esteem, etc. nobody has the capability to take away your agency. It is up to you to recognize it and decide whether you want to actually use it, regardless of how hard dimwitted popculture rhetoric tries to convince you that you have none.

And therefore when you claim that women, when exposed to the same influences, pressures and challenges men are, have had their agency taken away, while men haven't, you are suggesting that women are fundamentally inferior to men - that they never had any real agency to begin with. You are seeking to discourage, obstruct and obscure the agency of women. You are refusing to acknowledge the inherent power women have, being the same inherent power men have, to speak and act on their own behalf, a.k.a. "agency."

Trying to twist things around so you get to use a word in your rhetoric instead of other people using it to point out what's wrong with your rhetoric, doesn't make your rhetoric any more credible, or any less ridiculous.

Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered?

You hear it repeated on the news, in public service announcements, in "social justice" slogans and literature, even from random friends and aquaintances in your daily life.

"Sexual assault and domestic violence are male crimes against women."

Some people will admit when pressed that there are "a few cases" where the reverse is true, "but those are rare" right?




http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Table 2.1 (Page 18)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Women:
Rape:                                       1.1%        1,270,000 victims
Made to penetrate:                   not listed
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.2%        2,600,000 victims

Table 2.2 (Page 19)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Men: 
Rape:                                       not listed
Made to penetrate:                   1.1%        1,267,000 victims
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.3%        2,565,000 victims

Table 4.1 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Women: 
Physical Violence:                     4.0%        4,741,000 victims

Table 4.2 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Men: 
Physical Violence:                     4.7%        5,365,000 victims

Table 4.5 (page 42)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Women
Rape:                                       0.6%        686,000 victims
Made to penetrate:                   not listed
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.5%        645,000 victims

Table 4.6 (page 43)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Men
Rape:                                       not listed
Made to penetrate:                   0.5%        586,000 victims
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.9%        1,031,000 victims

Summary (Page 39)
More than 1 in 4 men in the United States (28.5%) has experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022456626538
In Study 1, 25.1% of respondents reported at least one incident of nonconsensual sex with a woman and 23.9% reported attempts by women to make them engage in nonconsensual sexual activity. In Study 2, the overall prevalence rate for completed nonconsensual sexual interactions was 30.1%, and 23.5% of the men reported attempts at making them engage in nonconsensual sex.


Anderson (1998)
36.5% of respondents reported having gotten a man intoxicated to make him engage in sexual acts. Threat of force was reported by 27.8%, use of force by 20%, and threatening a man with a weapon by 8.9% of the female participants.
(sorry, I can't seem to find a convenient link for that one at the moment...anybody care to help out?)


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf
Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009
Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
10.8% of males and 4.7% of females reported sexual activity with facility staff.


http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/
Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.


http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf 
Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For  FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf 
Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.


https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/
Researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have experienced abusive sexual experiences before age 18. And this is probably a low estimate, since it doesn’t include noncontact experiences, which can also have lasting negative effects.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm
A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.


http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm 
SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. 


http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm 
The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, and engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men. 


http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/emma-roberts-evan-peters-abuse 
According to a study done in 2000, the statistics of domestic abuse in America were 1.3 million women versus 835,000 men. A more recent study from 2011 ups the percentage: One in four men have experienced "rape, physical violence and/or stalking" by a partner, and one in seven have experienced "severe physical violence," like beaten with a fist or a blunt object. And a 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire claims that girlfriends initiate violence equally often as boyfriends do in relationships.


http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.


http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137
Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.


http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/07/women-more-likely-to-be-perpetrators-of-abuse-as-well-as-victims.html
In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men.

In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.

The study also was among the first to look at psychological abuse. Examples included preventing partners from seeing family or friends, shouting at them and using threats to have sex. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported being psychologically abusive, and 52 percent said they were victims of this type of behavior. Women were more likely to be psychologically abusive, with 57 percent saying they were perpetrators versus 50 percent of males.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm
...it showed that nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year including kicking, biting or punching their partner, threatening to hit or throw something at their partner, and pushing, grabbing or shoving their partner.


http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2078&context=news
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence

...most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman...
The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

These results call into question the widely held belief that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is self defense.

...overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb01207.x/pdf 
Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year.

...choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%).

Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon. Seven perent of victims described being forced to have sex.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10896-006-9052-0








http://time.com/37337/nearly-half-of-young-men-say-theyve-had-unwanted-sex/

Nearly Half of Young Men Say They’ve Had ‘Unwanted’ Sex

18% of surveyed guys say women used physical force to make them have sex against their will

43% of high school and college-aged men say they’ve had “unwanted sexual contact,” and 95% of those say a female acquaintance was the aggressor 

"This is not to deny the gendered impact of sexual violence..."



Are we starting to see a pattern here? 

See, the real reason you don't hear about men being raped or beaten, is not because these crimes are gendered, but because the interest in these crimes is gendered.  When it's a woman being victimized by a man, people care.  When it's the reverse, they don't.













http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs 
For UCR reporting purposes, can a male be raped?
No. The UCR Program defines forcible rape as “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” (p. 19). In addition, “By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape category and must be classified as assaults or other sex offenses depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of injury” (p. 20).
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "assaults or other sex offenses")

That definition was updated in 2012:
http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1801
The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "assaults or other sex offenses")


https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%2…
P. 206-207: Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape")


And going back to that CDC survey:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
How NISVS Measured Sexual Violence
Five types of sexual violence were measured in NISVS. These include acts of rape (forced penetration), and types of sexual violence other than rape.

• Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force...or threats to physically harm...

• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetratesomeone without the victim's consent because the victim was physically forced...or threatened with physical harm...

(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "other sexual violence")


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(13)70069-X/fulltext 
Introduction 
Rape, which is defined as physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration of the vulva or anus,1 violates victims' human rights and causes enduring health problems.1 Victims are often wives or girlfriends, but can also be men
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape" - of course, they didn't even bother to ask about female perpetration in that study, so maybe it's not as relevant?)


http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
Until now, the law has only defined rape as an act perpetrated against a woman. Although another paragraph of the Article on sex offenses appears to indicate that the offenses could be applied to women as well as men, it has not been used against women.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape")


http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-Predominant_Aggressor.pdf
Back-Door Approach to Gender Profiling
Over 250 scholarly studies reveal that men and women are equally likely to initiate severe partner aggression.  In other words, about 50% of domestic violence perpetrators are female.  In contrast, over three-quarters--77%--of domestic violence arrestees are male.  The discrepancy between 50% and 77% is suggestive of bias in the enforcement of our nation's laws.


http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have 
With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who's gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever fuck with us.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html 
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.


http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf


http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2009/07/06/researcher-what-happens-when-abused-men-call-domestic-violence-hotlines-and-shelters/ 
Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

 

End violence against...women?  A battered child is...the perpetrator?




So, is "gendered" crime really gendered?

Nope.

The response to it sure is, though.

If you stretched out your intestines, they would reach all the way around the world.

Ever hear that line as a kid? That's what we were taught in elementary school.

We were also taught, "food takes 24 hours to pass through your digestive tract."

Let's assume both of those are true.

Since the circumference of the earth is estimated at 24,901 miles, that means food travels through your intestines at a minimum of 1,037.5 miles per hour. (and that isn't even setting aside any time for it sitting in your stomach digesting)

No wonder our educational system is producing such unintelligent people. They're teaching kids that food zooms around through their body faster than the speed of sound?

Read/Listen To Things Before You Judge Them.

There's been a lot of kerfuffle lately about a lot of things having to do with "social justice" causes.

The protests of "boy's and men's issues" lectures at the University of Toronto, being a good example.  There were plenty of people holding signs and screaming chants, but how many of the protesters have actually read anything written by the people speaking before branding them "misogynists"?  How many of the protesters actually bothered to investigate the topics being presented or listen to what was being said before labelling it "hate speech"?

Or did they just hear somebody in their "women's studies" group say "misogynist" and "hate speech" and line up to oppose it?

When somebody tells you something, it doesn't mean they actually have a clue what they're talking about, or if they do, that they're being honest about it.  You need to do your own research and form your own opinion about it, based on your own investigation and rumination on the subject.

Another good example:

URGENT: Take a stand against discrimination

We expect the House to soon take up a bill that would allow any healthcare-related institutions in the state to exempt themselves from discrimination laws that currently protect gay and transgender people.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW & TELL THEM TO OPPOSE SB 975!

Now, please feel free to inform me where this "danger to gay and transgender people" is outlined in the actual bill as passed by the senate, because all I see is a pretty reasonable-looking outline of legal protection for doctors and nurses who have a moral or religious objection to performing specific procedures, as long as it is not a significant part of the employer's business and under non-emergency conditions only.  There's nothing about allowing anybody to discriminate against providing healthcare services to any people in there.

I'll say it again.

Read/Listen To Things Before You Judge Them.

"Common Knowledge"

Or, "I can't verify my information."

"I don't need to prove that, because it's common knowledge."
"That's not worth questioning, because it's common knowledge."
"I don't need to verify that statistic, because it's common knowledge."

I've run across this concept in debates a few times recently - the idea that claiming "common knowledge" is as reliable for informational purposes as citing a specific study or reputable source of information.

No.  It really isn't.  Here's why:

"Common knowledge" is that you eat 8 spiders in your sleep each year, right?

"Common knowledge" is that the British have horrible teeth, right?

Need a bit more?

"Common knowledge" is that domestic violence and sexual assault are "gendered" crimes.

"Common knowledge" used to be that black people were "less human" than white people and therefore slavery wasn't really a human rights violation.

"Common knowledge" used to be that women couldn't do math, fix a car, or shoot a gun.



Shouldn't we challenge the veracity of "common knowledge" when cited as if it's a reliable source?