I have been accused of engaging in deceptive “machinations” with the intention of making it seem like less rape, attempted rape and sexual assault occur than really do. However, the basis for this accusation is totally absurd and reveals a profound lack of logical thinking and basic fairness on the part of the accuser.
Just Trying to get at the Truth
As I stated in my post, http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/, my intention was to get at the truth of things so that men wouldn’t be excessively seen by themselves or women as rapists and that women wouldn’t be unnecessarily scared off from the majority of men that are not rapists and assaulters:
Once again, I’ll state that any real rape is too much and said rapists should be locked away but by propagating the highly exaggerated 1 in 4 myth, feminists, scared females and white knight males continue to unfairly scare women, demonize men and aid in diverting more power and legal rights to women while taking them from men.
Susan Accuses me of Deceptive Machinations
Susan Walsh recently wrote a post at HUS called, “The No-Spin Facts on Campus Sexual Assault.” In the first paragraph she makes this statement,
It is very difficult to acquire good statistics re the prevalence of sexual assault, especially on college campuses. The high incidence of binge drinking muddies the waters considerably. In addition, radical feminists trump deceptively high numbers arrived at by using convoluted definitions of assault and rape. Pickup artists and men’s rights activists engage in similar machinations by focusing on rape rather than all sexual assaults, and by downplaying attempted rapes.
It starts out fine. Yes, no doubt, good stats are hard to come by. And binge drinking is a big problem and can certainly muddy the waters. The next sentence, about radical feminists juicing the numbers by using excessively-inclusive definitions of assault and rape, is one I completely agree with. And the link under the phrase, “radical feminists trump deceptively high numbers,” is an excellent article by Christina Hoff Sommers:
(Or if anyone has trouble loading this link, here’s a google cache version of it.)
In fact, I so loved this Hoff Sommers article that I wrote my post about why the 1 in 4 claim of being a lifetime victim of rape or attempted rape is greatly exaggerated and quote extensively from the Hoff Sommers article since she makes such a powerful argument about how feminists exaggerate the number:
Then Susan claims that “Pickup artists and men’s rights activists engage in similar machinations by focusing on rape rather than all sexual assaults, and by downplaying attempted rapes.” She’s accusing PUAs and MRAs of the same kind of deceptive machinations that radfems engage in, though in the opposite direction.
But guess what article she links to as evidence of her claim!
Why, none other than my very own post (http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/) that heavily uses the very same Hoff Sommers article that Susan cites as evidence to debunk the radfem’s exaggerated claims.
So I just don’t get it. Why attack me for writing an article using the very same article that she cites as debunking excessive radfem numbers? And why is she going after me? I thought the whole reboot thing was to get away from the sphere. Instead, she launches this and other unfounded attacks.
So, since my post uses the very same Hoff Sommers article that Susan is referencing, she could just as well have used my post to debunk the radfem’s inflated claims (though, of course going straight to the original Hoff Sommers source is better).
Now that we’ve established that my post is in agreement with the Hoff Sommers post (obviously, since I heavily quoted her and didn’t do much original work myself in the data analysis portion of my post), it is easy to point out that it makes no sense whatsoever to use my post as evidence of PUAs and MRAs engaging in deceptive machinations.
I Didn’t Downplay Attempted Rapes and I did Mention Assault Too
Furthermore, saying that my post is evidence of PUAs and MRAs “focusing on rape rather than all sexual assaults, and by downplaying attempted rapes” is completely false. I will quote from my post and you can all go there to see for yourselves that I write the following (my words here):
Also, looking at the broader question that asks about either rape or sexual assault, it’s about 1 in 14 women ever assaulted (rape or other sexual assault) during their lifetime.
So clearly, I am talking not only about rape or attempted rape but also about other sexual assault.
Now, to be fully clear, the thrust of the Christina Hoff Sommers article, and hence my post, was on completed and attempted rape, since that’s what the original exaggerated radfem 1-in-4 stat was claiming, that 1 in 4 women would be victims of rape or attempted rape during their lifetimes. (And Susan agrees with me that it’s exaggerated since she herself cited Hoff Sommers. Well, that is before she then tries to smear me.)
Here is what I quote from Hoff Sommers:
Koss and her colleagues concluded that 15.4 percent of respondents had been raped, and that 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape. Thus, a total of 27.5 percent of the respondents were determined to have been victims of rape or attempted rape because they gave answers that fit Koss’s criteria for rape
Clearly, I am not downplaying attempted rape since that is part of the data being examined so Susan is wrong in referencing my post as someone who downplays attempted rape.
And the Hoff Sommers article does quote a survey about sexual assault as well, describing a Harris and Associates survey, emphasis added by me,
Among the questions asked of its random sample population of 2,500 women was, “In the last five years, have you been a victim of a rape or sexual assault?” Two percent of the respondents said yes; 98 percent said no.
Notice the words, “sexual assault?”
So, the original 1-in-4 victim-of-rape-or-attempted-rape claim focused on those two categories (rape and attempted rape) and that’s what the Hoff Sommers article focused on and so that’s what I focused on. To say that I wasn’t focusing on sexual assault is a complete red herring because the original radfem claim of 1 in 4 was only focusing on rape and attempted rape. And though all kinds of sexual assault weren’t the focus of the Hoff Sommers article, used as evidence by Susan of how radfem claims are exaggerated, it does include the Harris survey that asks about both rape and sexual assault.
Susan has Been Debunked
So, there you have it. Susan has been debunked in using my post as an example of deceptive “machinations.”
If any reader can find examples of a mistake I’ve made in my 1-in-4 post or any other, please point it out and the reason why I’m wrong. I will welcome any such enlightenment.
But false accusations of dishonest machinations will be met with a clear and logical response, pointing out either the inability to use logic or the worse condition of simply not caring and trying to smear me. After all, how hard is it to see that the data part of my post was thoroughly based on the approved-by-Susan Hoff Sommers article?
It will be interesting to see if the link to my post will be removed at HUS. And if it is removed, will it simply vanish with no mention or will an edit acknowledging the error appear as well? As of publication time, the link was still there in all its “glory,” along with this promise by Susan
And I give my word that I will never distort the facts for my own ends.