Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Inspired partially by the unanimity in the The Rape of Men thread, and people's expressed disappointment that it didn't turn in to a gigantic, multi-page slap fight like most other threads with rape in the title, I thought I'd put down a few thoughts that have been rattling around in my head as a result of a spate of friends and friends-of-friends posting rape-related things on Facebook.
The fundamental rationalist question is "What do you know, and how do you think you know it?". There are a number of things that people espousing feminist positions on the internet seem to know, and I'm curious as to how they think they know them.
1. "Rape is a crime of power/violence, not of sex".
It's not completely clear to me exactly what falsifiable claim is being made here, nor what evidence it is based on. When I've queried this in the past I've usually got responses along the lines of "all feminists agree that this is a true statement, hence it is a true statement, and there's so much evidence for it that you must just be ignorant if you think otherwise".
Well, I'm going to admit ignorance. I have no idea what observations about the universe informed this hypothesis, nor what observations it predicts, nor what observations would falsify it to the satisfaction of the people making the claim.
My tentative hypothesis is that this is an article of dogma that started out as a way of trying to undercut all variations on "she was sexy and that's why she got raped", which incorporates an element of factual truth in that rape is not merely normal sexual attraction gone out of control, and an element of total rubbish in that rape is linked to some extent in at least some cases to satisfying the sexual desires of the rapist.
2. "This specific aspect of 'rape culture' needs to be fought".
This looks like a falsifiable hypothesis to me, which is good. All you have to do is show a causal link between the specific aspect of rape culture you are interested in and instances of sexual assault. So for example if you could show that people who watched movies that trivialised rape or had gratuitous rape scenes were more likely than a matched set of controls who did not watch such movies to commit sexual assaults, then you'd have evidence that such movies should be censored.
The same goes for books, video games, jokes, kids using "raped" as a synonym for "owned", internet memes, facebook groups and whatever.
Is there any such evidence, that controls for confounding factors and studies actual sexual assaults as its measuring instrument, as opposed to answers on questionnaires or similar suspect, second-hand markers?
It seems intuitive to me that the idea that rape is okay is a very plausible candidate for a causal role in rape. That's a hypothesis which I would not be surprised to see confirmed, and would be surprised to see falsified.
However it seems that a lot of things besides the idea that rape is okay get attacked as encouraging rape, like jokes in bad taste about rape, or movies or TV shows that portray rape without having the rapist immediately torn apart by wild dogs while the victim soliloquises about the terrible effects of rape. I'm very curious as to whether there is any criminological evidence at all that any of these things play any causal role in rape.
I suspect that there isn't, and that attacks on these targets have a lot more to do with what makes a convenient mobbing target than with what can actually make a difference to sexual assault rates.
3. "Feminist ideas are the solution to rape".
This isn't stated explicitly, but a recurring motif is people calling for more education in feminist ideas in response to the perceived frequency of harmful "rape culture" elements in our society.
Is there any criminological evidence that education in feminist ideas causes a decrease in sexual assault rates? Or is this like Christians arguing that the solution to crime is more Christianity, even though there is absolutely no good evidence I am aware of that increased religiousity cashes out in lower crime rates?
(It should go without saying, but based on past experience does not, that my own view is that our outrage about any particular cultural element should be in strict proportion to the hard evidence that the specific cultural element causes harm, that sexual assault is a very bad thing, that evidence-based programmes to decrease sexual assault rates are an excellent thing, and that non-evidence-based discourse about solving social problems is a counterproductive endeavour).
My million dollar challenge prediction: Attempts to shift the burden of proof in the first ten posts. Go!
The fundamental rationalist question is "What do you know, and how do you think you know it?". There are a number of things that people espousing feminist positions on the internet seem to know, and I'm curious as to how they think they know them.
1. "Rape is a crime of power/violence, not of sex".
It's not completely clear to me exactly what falsifiable claim is being made here, nor what evidence it is based on. When I've queried this in the past I've usually got responses along the lines of "all feminists agree that this is a true statement, hence it is a true statement, and there's so much evidence for it that you must just be ignorant if you think otherwise".
Well, I'm going to admit ignorance. I have no idea what observations about the universe informed this hypothesis, nor what observations it predicts, nor what observations would falsify it to the satisfaction of the people making the claim.
My tentative hypothesis is that this is an article of dogma that started out as a way of trying to undercut all variations on "she was sexy and that's why she got raped", which incorporates an element of factual truth in that rape is not merely normal sexual attraction gone out of control, and an element of total rubbish in that rape is linked to some extent in at least some cases to satisfying the sexual desires of the rapist.
2. "This specific aspect of 'rape culture' needs to be fought".
This looks like a falsifiable hypothesis to me, which is good. All you have to do is show a causal link between the specific aspect of rape culture you are interested in and instances of sexual assault. So for example if you could show that people who watched movies that trivialised rape or had gratuitous rape scenes were more likely than a matched set of controls who did not watch such movies to commit sexual assaults, then you'd have evidence that such movies should be censored.
The same goes for books, video games, jokes, kids using "raped" as a synonym for "owned", internet memes, facebook groups and whatever.
Is there any such evidence, that controls for confounding factors and studies actual sexual assaults as its measuring instrument, as opposed to answers on questionnaires or similar suspect, second-hand markers?
It seems intuitive to me that the idea that rape is okay is a very plausible candidate for a causal role in rape. That's a hypothesis which I would not be surprised to see confirmed, and would be surprised to see falsified.
However it seems that a lot of things besides the idea that rape is okay get attacked as encouraging rape, like jokes in bad taste about rape, or movies or TV shows that portray rape without having the rapist immediately torn apart by wild dogs while the victim soliloquises about the terrible effects of rape. I'm very curious as to whether there is any criminological evidence at all that any of these things play any causal role in rape.
I suspect that there isn't, and that attacks on these targets have a lot more to do with what makes a convenient mobbing target than with what can actually make a difference to sexual assault rates.
3. "Feminist ideas are the solution to rape".
This isn't stated explicitly, but a recurring motif is people calling for more education in feminist ideas in response to the perceived frequency of harmful "rape culture" elements in our society.
Is there any criminological evidence that education in feminist ideas causes a decrease in sexual assault rates? Or is this like Christians arguing that the solution to crime is more Christianity, even though there is absolutely no good evidence I am aware of that increased religiousity cashes out in lower crime rates?
(It should go without saying, but based on past experience does not, that my own view is that our outrage about any particular cultural element should be in strict proportion to the hard evidence that the specific cultural element causes harm, that sexual assault is a very bad thing, that evidence-based programmes to decrease sexual assault rates are an excellent thing, and that non-evidence-based discourse about solving social problems is a counterproductive endeavour).
My million dollar challenge prediction: Attempts to shift the burden of proof in the first ten posts. Go!
Last edited:
