Feminists outraged by Batgirl Cover....DC bows down...

Originally posted by Existere
lol, but Miss USA never claimed that she wanted to teach anybody to defend themselves- she said that "More awareness [of sexual assault on college campuses] is important so that women can learn to protect themselves"

I think saying "I want to teach women self-defense" is very different than saying "We should spread awareness of rape at university so that women learn taekwondo".

Women shouldn't learn self defense in order to be safe at university. Rapists should stop raping so that women can be safe at university.

Not to mention, it's pretty silly advice anyways. Most of the cases of campus sexual assault involve assault from a peer/close friend, in a social situation. Not getting jumped on the street.

Awareness is important.

Obviously women should be able to crawl **** front into dark alleys in compton without getting raped, but that's not the case. Ergo it's important to be aware of said alleys...

Originally posted by cdtm
She had 20 seconds to answer an on the spot question. How many people could properly address a complex issue, that they likely never gave serious thought to before (Not like someone who's specifically studied the issue.)

The quality of what she's saying still has to be critiqued though. She's broadcasted for those 20 seconds, and she is pretty influential (which is its own problem). In this case, what she's saying is unsupported by facts re: campus rape, and contributes to problematic beliefs about where the responsibility lies when sexual assault happens at university.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Meh, one feather became five hens.

Awareness is important.

Obviously women should be able to crawl **** front into dark alleys in compton without getting raped, but that's not the case. Ergo it's important to be aware of said alleys...

Originally posted by Existere
Yeah, awareness is definitely important. That awareness shouldn't conclude with a responsibility for female frosh to enrol in martial arts classes.

I agree.

But it's still a very effective way of reducing the chances of being raped, without carrying a gun or something that could also put you at risk.

Though I suppose the far more obvious solution would be for Universities to not be allowed to handle these things internally. So that rapists would actually get prosecuted as opposed to their parents paying a small fine and the woman being shamed into silence.

Originally posted by krisblaze
If you agree with this, then there's no reason to criticize or attack those who want to teach women how to defend themselves.

Originally posted by cdtm
She had 20 seconds to answer an on the spot question. How many people could properly address a complex issue, that they likely never gave serious thought to before (Not like someone who's specifically studied the issue.)

Being disappointed in her answer is one thing, but being outraged and claiming her statement is (according to one tweet) a "win for rape culture" is ridiculous in my opinion.

Here's her actual statement:

“I believe that some colleges may potentially be afraid of having a bad reputation and that would be a reason it could be swept under the rug, because they don’t want that to come out into the public,”Nia Sanchez said. “But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.”

This is probably the most generic and benign statement I've ever heard.

No where does she blame the victim, nor does she say self-defense is the sole solution to rape.

Now someone answer me this:

Which would reduce critical incidents of violent rape more?
a) Teaching rape is bad
b) Teaching rape is bad + teaching self-defense to potential victims just in case

Although that really overlooks the fact that the vast majority of rape cases aren't of the 'stranger violently jumps you in a dark alley' type, but instead date rape using alcohol and drugs, and often at home by people you know and trust. Martial arts won't really help in that kind of situation.

Originally posted by One-Punch

This is probably the most generic and benign statement I've ever heard.

It's also not benign, because it reinforces the idea that if women make a critical change in their behaviour (in this case, learn self defense), it will somehow prevent sexual assault.

That same line of thinking feeds into larger, systemic problems: universities instating systems that place the responsibility of avoiding sexual assault in the hands of the potential victim, while failing to effectively engage the campus culture that allows for repeat assaults.

No where does she blame the victim, nor does she say self-defense is the sole solution to rape.

Which would reduce critical incidents of violent rape more?
a) Teaching rape is bad
b) Teaching rape is bad + teaching self-defense to potential victims just in case

c) Teaching rape is bad, while targeting that teaching towards university cultures and staff with existing problematic approaches towards sexual assault cases.

Originally posted by Existere
The statement draws the conclusion that all females should learn martial arts in order to safely attend university. Which is totally absurd.

It's also not benign, because it reinforces the idea that if women make a critical change in their behaviour (in this case, learn self defense), it will somehow prevent sexual assault.

That same line of thinking feeds into larger, systemic problems: universities instating systems that place the responsibility of avoiding sexual assault in the hands of the potential victim, while failing to effectively engage the campus culture that allows for repeat assaults.

Except she spoke out against campuses sweeping sexual assault under the rug, and advocated for increased awareness, along with the self-defense.

The suggestion of self-defense at the end was merely a harmless precaution, she didn't present it as the end-all be-all solution to rape. Hence why I thought it was benign.

I don't see the absurdity and I certainly don't see how her statements support rape culture like some people think.

[b] It's just a red herring fallacy. We've learned that in the majority of cases, self-defense training is totally irrelevant to campus sexual assault.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , the majority (57% for students and 67% for non-students) of college-aged victims of sexual assault reported injuries from their encounters.

More broadly speaking, 80% of rape victims reported the use of force, and the rest report the use of weapons. Even half (50%) of victims of spousal rape report injuries from their incident.

I think it's clear that regardless of the relationship between the victim and rapist, force is almost always used, and injury as a result is highly likely.

Given these stats, do you really think self-defense won't help victims even a little? Oh wait minute, it has...not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00425.x/full
http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/10/1/73.short
http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/10/3/205.short

c) Teaching rape is bad, while targeting that teaching towards university cultures and staff with existing problematic approaches towards sexual assault cases.

In other words, you chose answer (a)...

Funny, because research shows that attitude changing programs alone don't really work to reduce sexual assault on campus. Wanna know why? Because rapists already know what they're doing is wrong. They do it anyways because:
(a) they're evil, not naive
(b) tend to be serial criminals, according to the BJS.

Good luck teaching criminals something they already know, and don't care about.

Actually there was a study when people were asked if they would have sex with someone in situations without their consent, and one version of the question used the word rape while another version didn't. A lot more people answered yes for the version without the word than with it.

Originally posted by Existere
c) Teaching rape is bad, while targeting that teaching towards university cultures and staff with existing problematic approaches towards sexual assault cases.

A lot of universities already have a long history of sweeping this shit under the rug.

A lot of rapists know that they can get away with it.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Although that really overlooks the fact that the vast majority of rape cases aren't of the 'stranger violently jumps you in a dark alley' type, but instead date rape using alcohol and drugs, and often at home by people you know and trust. Martial arts won't really help in that kind of situation.

Still think self-defense is irrelevant?

Originally posted by One-Punch
Being disappointed in her answer is one thing, but being outraged and claiming her statement is (according to one tweet) a "win for rape culture" is ridiculous in my opinion.

Here's her actual statement:

This is probably the most generic and benign statement I've ever heard.

No where does she blame the victim, nor does she say self-defense is the sole solution to rape.

I disagree too, as I don't think anyone took Miss America's message like that though.

Originally posted by One-Punch
Now someone answer me this:

Which would reduce critical incidents of violent rape more?
a) Teaching rape is bad
b) Teaching rape is bad + teaching self-defense to potential victims just in case

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Actually there was a study when people were asked if they would have sex with someone in situations without their consent, and one version of the question used the word rape while another version didn't. A lot more people answered yes for the version without the word than with it.

What's the study?

Assuming the same people check "yes" to non consential sex, and "no" to rape, what does it prove? Ignorance? Wouldn't anybody at the college level know what "consent" means, and how it applies to the word "rape"?

Originally posted by One-Punch

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , the majority (57% for students and 67% for non-students) of college-aged victims of sexual assault reported injuries from their encounters.

More broadly speaking, 80% of rape victims reported the use of force, and the rest report the use of weapons. Even half (50%) of victims of spousal rape report injuries from their incident.

Originally posted by cdtm
What's the study?

Assuming the same people check "yes" to non consential sex, and "no" to rape, what does it prove? Ignorance? Wouldn't anybody at the college level know what "consent" means, and how it applies to the word "rape"?

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.0022

It is suggested at the end that education could help lower these stats, as many of the men don't associate their actions with rape/assault.

^I think for a lot of people the truth "rape is bad" is a given, it shouldn't be something one has to teach people.

Certain people mistake that train of thought for victim-blaming, simply because they don't begin their discourse by affirming 20 times over that "the victim is not to blame".

Originally posted by StyleTime
What are the page numbers for these? I found the spousal rape statistic but I think I overlooked the others.

This may be a different study from what he was talking about, but here one is.

Source:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

Page 7:
"The majority of student (57%) and nonstudent (63%) victims suffered an injury (e.g, cuts, bruises, internal injuries, broken bones, gunshot wounds, or rape-related injuries) during the victimization"

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

Page 12:
"About 12% of rapes involved the use of a gun (5%) or knife (7%), and 80% involved the use of physical force only."

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.0022

It is suggested at the end that education could help lower these stats, as many of the men don't associate their actions with rape/assault.

A review of the research shows that education programs or attitude change programs aren't effective:

Source

Edit: A direct link didn't work, but it's the 3rd PDF link you'll see, titled "Sexual Assault of Women: Prevention Efforts and Risk Factors"

"Most North American universities offer sexual assault prevention programs focusing on attitude change. However, the few program outcome evaluations suggest that these programs may not be effective. This review summarizes the research on sexual assault program evaluation. It is apparent that the most promising avenue for sexual assault prevention may be self-defense training, which is presently not an integral component of typical prevention programs."

Originally posted by krisblaze
^I think for a lot of people the truth "rape is bad" is a given, it shouldn't be something one has to teach people.

Yea, the thing is, it seems like it should be a given to most people, but too often isn't, and some people have personal definitions that say it's ok to do stuff that really is rare, and in order to hit the people who need to know, you kinda need to aim wide since if we could better target things'd be way easier.

An awareness campaign in Edmonton lowered sexual assault reports by 10% by putting up posters that, basically, said 'don't have sex with wasted people/if the person changes their mind and says no.'

I mean, they're just posters stating the obvious, and a 10% drop!

So, while a lot of people don't like talking about it or, worse, take talking about it as a slur against them, there's actually really, really good reason to focus on simple awareness aspects.

cdtm

Assuming the same people check "yes" to non consential sex, and "no" to rape, what does it prove? Ignorance? Wouldn't anybody at the college level know what "consent" means, and how it applies to the word "rape"?

I've seen questions in ones like this, and they're like, "Would you have sex with a girl when (outlines a situation where consent isn't possible)?" vs "would you rape a girl when (same situation)"?

And you'd like to think anyone would know by that age, but here's the thing, consent really isn't taught standard. Not in sex ed in school, often not by parents. Most people pick it up basically by osmosis- but some people pick up the wrong messages the same way.

There was an interesting statistic that I read awhile back, wherein most non-rapist men assume rapists are less common than they are, often naming 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 or the like (I don't remember the exact numbers given, but low), while rapists reported thinking that about 50% of men were rapists on average. That what they did was perfectly normal.

Basically, tell a rape joke in a room full of randomly selected guys who laugh, and most of them are thinking 'oh, that's horrible, but I'm laughing anyway,' or 'I find that funny but known not to do that,' but some of them are thinking, 'Hah, it's funny because we all do it, but we aren't supposed to admit it, but see? We're all laughing at it.'

And then they see people getting off on rape and people blaming the victims for being raped, and that reinforces the perception, but it arises because people see it taken lightly everywhere and really have never had it laid out to them in serious, concrete 'this is consent, this isn't' terms.

Or to put it another way, you may have naturally picked it up without trying, and your friends, but it's an area where it isn't safe to generalize on your own experiences.

Originally posted by Q99
An awareness campaign in Edmonton lowered sexual assault reports by 10% by putting up posters that, basically, said 'don't have sex with wasted people/if the person changes their mind and says no.'

I mean, they're just posters stating the obvious, and a 10% drop!

So, while a lot of people don't like talking about it or, worse, take talking about it as a slur against them, there's actually really, really good reason to focus on simple awareness aspects.

Originally posted by Q99
Yea, the thing is, it seems like it should be a given to most people, but too often isn't, and some people have personal definitions that say it's ok to do stuff that really is rare, and in order to hit the people who need to know, you kinda need to aim wide since if we could better target things'd be way easier.

I was referring to the tactic of trying to demonize your opponent because they take it for granted. Which I see happen all too often in popular discourse.

Originally posted by krisblaze
That's incredible, and probably speaks to a failure in the education system, among other places.

Exactly. And that's no third world country or backwater town, that's a the city center of a major city in Canada.

Originally posted by Q99
Yea, the thing is, it seems like it should be a given to most people, but too often isn't, and some people have personal definitions that say it's ok to do stuff that really is rare, and in order to hit the people who need to know, you kinda need to aim wide since if we could better target things'd be way easier.

An awareness campaign in Edmonton lowered sexual assault reports by 10% by putting up posters that, basically, said 'don't have sex with wasted people/if the person changes their mind and says no.'

I mean, they're just posters stating the obvious, and a 10% drop!

So, while a lot of people don't like talking about it or, worse, take talking about it as a slur against them, there's actually really, really good reason to focus on simple awareness aspects.

Secondly, I take online articles like that with a grain of salt. If we do some fact-checking and look at the overall trend in sexual offences in Vancouver (Source):

There was a 9% decrease in sexual offences from 2010 to 2011, but a whopping 16% increase from 2012 to 2013, largest increase in the past decade. Clearly those posters only worked temporarily, and weren't effective in the long-run.

Here is the actual trend of sexual offences in Vancouver (same source):

If we put our critical thinking caps on, everyone knows the saying "correlation =/= causation." That decrease from 2010 to 2011 could easily have been by chance fluctuations. Without a proper program evaluation there's no way of knowing what caused the decrease.

The posters were introduced in 2010, the size of the decrease isn't much different from the past random fluctuations in the past (e.g., 2005 to 2006). In the long-run I think it's clear that it had no lasting impact given the slope of the line.

This is perfectly consistent with past research (3rd google link) that tells us education programs addressing sexual assault aren't effective. Specifically, they're only effective in the short term, but not in the long-term. Often the incidents of sexual assault creep back up in the long-term, which is exactly what we see in the graph above.

Not sure why people think the answer to all of life's problems is education. The problem of sexual assault is too complex for such a generic cookie-cutter solution, and the evidence supports this.