WMC’s Women Under Siege disputes new, controversial findings on rape in war

[redqueen]

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/press/entry/wmcs-women-under-siege-disputes-new-controversial-findings-on-rape-in-war

New York—No, wartime rape is not decreasing, and no, it is not suddenly a figment of our imagination.

On Wednesday, the Human Security Report Project, an independent research center affiliated with Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, published a report that says among other things that rape is not as widespread in war as popularly thought. The report itself is nuanced; the media reception it has received is not, however, with faulty headlines like “Wartime sexual violence declines.”

WMC’s Women Under Siege project is clearing up common misconceptions about rape in war and getting to the heart of what this report is—and isn’t—saying. In “Rape in war: Are we getting it wrong?” Director Lauren Wolfe argues that the media must tread very carefully when covering these findings.

“By refuting claims that rape in war is increasing and stating that the media is focusing too much on extreme cases, the authors run the risk of appearing to downplay the problem,” Wolfe says. “With up to 500,000 women raped in Rwanda’s conflict alone, we’re not in a positionto undercutwhat happens to women in war. This is a call to arms for us to recognize that we must look closely at what is happening to women on the ground so we can better understand it.”

...

[ismnotwasm]

1. I saw this in GD

First of all, what if the number was 100,000 instead of 500,000? Or 50,000? Does anybody feel better now?

Second of all, and I'm not going to link to all the cultures where rape is used as a demoralizing tool because it lessons a woman's 'value' where she may be shunned and blamed for the rape itself. I mean what the hell? Why is anybody even going here?

Tread carefully? Or what rape will get worse? Overlooked? And tread carefully by whom? 1st world news? Now that I get, developed nations get far to much vicarious thrills over rape and genocide without doing a damn thing about until its over. Then we have feel good documentary shows on how broken people pick up broken pieces of broken lives.

How about we show rape statistics as accurate as possible with every news report about war? No? That would spoil all rape jokes, yes? No. It would probably make more.

[seabeyond]

3. with every discussion of rape, there are the few men that come into the thread to let us all know

rape is down. so really, what is the griping and complaining.

i also know that across the nation police force are downgrading or ignoring or taking a greater charge to the rape cases adn even the ones that are being reported are not making it into the FBI number.

i am not gonna dance a gig where reality tells me otherwise.

[Major Nikon]

5. Is the NCVS not realistic either?

And assuming it isn't, does that mean women are categorically lying about not being raped? Or perhaps their definition of rape is flawed because they have been conditioned by the patriarchy to believe that all PIV isn't rape.

I'm just curious as to how you'd get there. You haven't even attempted to answer despite repeated requests, so I'm not really expecting one.

[redqueen]

6. "they have been conditioned by the patriarchy to believe that all PIV isn't rape"

This kind of statement, which I know some people are ever so fond of throwing out at every opportunity, shows a lack of seriousness and sincerity and demonstrates a fundamental hostility to feminists and feminism.

IMO anyone who throws out such nonsense should simply cease pretending that they have any desire to actually understand anything about feminism. It is highly doubtful that anyone believes you anyway, and that is the reason people stop responding. It'd be like trying to discuss global warming with someone who throws out similarly unserious comments about that issue.

[MadrasT]

9. "demonstrates a fundamental hostility to feminists and feminism"

'nuff said.

That's what a lot of this kind of "argument" and whataboutery boils down to.

[Major Nikon]

12. I'm not sure how you figure that

Rad-fems throw this around all the time:

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/tag/piv/

So now if I say the same thing as other feminists are saying, I'm being hostile to feminists? Furthermore quite a few feminists are quite hostile to the premise, which if you knew the history of feminism, you would know. So even if I were being hostile towards it, this wouldn't be out of line with feminism, unless you consider those who are not real feminists and certainly some feminists do think that way.

Your response sounds more like you are just hostile to those who may not happen to agree with your own personal idea of feminism.

If I can't even get a basic answer to a very straightforward and relevant question, am I out of line with proposing a response and asking if that is correct? Especially when that response happens to align pretty closely with the brand of feminism the person in question happens to promote?

Sorry to disagree here, but I'm not being hostile towards anyone. I'm simply asking a very relevant question of someone who is obviously being hostile towards those who may happen to have a different opinion. If one person is allowed to be hostile, and another can't ask basic straightforward questions in response to that hostility, then it's pretty clear that one side has little interest in good faith discussion.

Just sayin'

Cheers!

[boston bean]

22. You ever hear of the madonna/whore complex?

That is what is being discussed in that article. You know, if you abstain, you're a prude and if you engage and like sex you're a slut.

Plus the thought that some men think that once they are married the role of their wife is to please them sexually as often as the male likes. And if they don't for any multitude of reasons, they are a bad wife, because she owes it to him.

It's concerning when someone says they know so much about feminism when in reality they don't understand diddly squat, and their disdain for women is dripping from their posts.

And what is even more disgusting is to have someone who is arguing that rape isn't really that big of an issue, attacking womens perspectives to try and prop up their argument by introducing an article, and twisting it's meaning, that is irrelevant and then try to use it to diminish rape.

Now that's fucked up.

[Major Nikon]

24. I take great offense to your allegation

First of all, I have studied Freud extensively, and I know exactly where this is coming from. However, when you take a concept that is not even empirically testable as applicable to anyone and then try to claim this applies to all (or at least the vast majority) of men, as Dworkin and others have done, it's pretty hard not to consider that sexism and misandry aren't driving that warped worldview. So just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the concept. Furthermore there are plenty of feminists who don't agree with it either, so if you want to try to claim I'm a misogynist for rejecting it, you're going to have to include them in that boat as well. Good luck convincing any objective person of that. Once again SB and you are trying to parlay ideological disagreement into "disdain for women". You may not agree with me which I can certainly understand and respect, but disagreement on these points which many feminist do not accept either sure as hell doesn't qualify one as a misogynist. I find the allegation of such to be quite revealing about who you are and what you believe.

Next, neither you or SB knows who I am, what I know, what I believe, or what I have done in the interests of gender equality. Anyone who actually does know me would laugh in your face if you bothered to repeat this nonsense in front of them. If you can find a single one of my posts where I have ever claimed rape "isn't really that big of an issue", I will kiss your ass and give you till noon to draw a crowd. Claiming that rape is down over the past 40 years pretty much allies me with RAINN, every single criminologist I've ever read who has commented on the subject, mainstream thought on the subject, and I suspect many (if not most) feminists who have ever bothered to objectively look at the facts. How exactly does that qualify as "disdain for women", AKA misogyny exactly? Would you include RAINN in this ridiculous allegation? If SB or anyone else wants to claim the opposite, then really the only notable person I can see that this allies her with is Judith Reisman whose feminist credentials are dubious at best:

http://www.whale.to/a/reisman5.html

I have never once claimed that SB is so much as wrong, just that I don't agree which I have supported with factual information. Now maybe SB and Judith Reisman are 100% right, but I just don't agree and that's all I have ever claimed. I don't think SB can make these claims regarding me: I have never attacked her personally for this position. I have never made childish aspersions about her gender identity or ridiculous allegations of gender hatred which you appear to be doubling down on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=11847

The only thing I have ever done is disagree with her, which I have tried to do in a civil fashion here despite being faced with these childish false allegations in return. Meanwhile I post one example of writings by one feminist blogger (who as far as I can tell appears to subscribe to the same feminist school of thought as SB) and pose the question if this is the basis for her claim and I am met with allegations of hostility, while she has been far more hostile to me right here in this thread and never gets so much as questioned for it.

What I find particularly concerning is that a member of this group can engage in activity which clearly appears to me to violate rules 1, 3, 4, and 5 of this group's own SOP (not to mention arguably DU's TOS) while getting a free pass, while quite a few other people have gotten banned from this group for far less. That a host of this group can not only allow it, but encourage it and double down themselves appears to be even more concerning.

So yes, something does appear to be very fucked up, but I just don't think I'm the cause of it.

Cheers!

[boston bean]

25. More feminist bashing from you....

Most feminists understand there is a disparity in the way women are perceived this way.

Most feminists are not subscribers to Dworkins more radical views and can yet, understand the the disparity in views imposed upon them by society. That does not give you the right to try and brand women negatively, in an effort to win some sort of imagined argument you are trying to create. That in itself could be considered sexist.

You want to deny that fact, go ahead. You want to smear feminists, go ahead. You won't be doing it here, for long if you can't abide by the simple rules of this group. That is a warning, not a threat. I welcome healthy debate. We don't welcome any sort of disruption, and we are the arbiters of what is disruptive to this group.

Lots of words, but very little substance to your post.

I don't really care what you think about SB, ok. I do care if you are bringing in outside baggage to this group.

You have a very welcoming group where you can spew these ridiculous views. Please use it, and stop doing it here.

[Major Nikon]

28. Please

Now you're just continuing your line of false allegations. If I disagree ideologically with a certain feminist, that is not "bashing". If it is, then I can point to considerably better examples in this group where feminists have been bashed. Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.

Who the fuck is Naomi Wolf to tell me what I need just because we both have vaginas? Naomi Wolf can fuck off with her bullshit instructions on how to achieve "high orgasm".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=10605

Wow. I almost want to read it just for the lulz.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125510590

that kind of tripe is why I find her unworthy of attention. She is such a hack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=3305

I can provide other examples if you wish. Now if you want to call my comments "bashing" then it appears you have quite a bit more housekeeping to do. You may not be aware (I suspect you are), but feminists are genuinely bashed in this group, and I just don't see any similar "warnings" (and yes, I did take it as a threat) to those who do so. Kinda makes you go, hmmm. The only reason I expanded my explanation of what I posted is because you commented on it. If you don't want my opinion on a particular subject, then don't poke me with a stick and then act surprised when I elaborate. That kinda sounds just a bit too much like baiting.

The truth is I have zero interest in participating in this group despite the subject matter being of particular interest to me. I think I only had one post in this group prior to this thread, and I probably wouldn't even have made that one had I realized which group my reply was going into. There are quite a few feminists that I have a very high degree of respect for (and I have said so repeatedly), but this group appears to be only interested in those feminists who subscribe to a particular school of thought. Prior to this thread I think I had only one single reply in this group at all, and I probably wouldn't even have made that I realized the post in which I replied originated from this group. And no, I don't agree that "healthy debate" is encouraged here. When people are banned for ideological disagreement, yet others are allowed to violate your own rules (as the host cheers them on) which include calling out, bullying, and defamation, then it's pretty hard to make the case that "healthy debate" is encouraged. Pointing this out is not being disruptive. The disruptors are the ones who are violating your rules which are designed to prevent disruption. I knew this behavior would be ignored even after it's been identified. This is why I don't post here. However, when a DUer is going to call me out, bully me, make false allegations about me, attack my manhood, and otherwise spread thinly veiled catty rumors about me behind a protected group where rules aren't enforced, then so long as I have posting rights within that group, I'm going to respond and challenge it. I don't really think this is unreasonable.

And yes, I agree that you are one of the ultimate arbiters of what the rules are within this group, but I have to question the manner in which you do so when you claim my post lacks substance and completely ignore and fail to address what I consider to be flagrant violations of your own rules (and DU's). If you want to continue this via PM, I am more than happy to do so. If you want to do it here, I can do that too, but I'm just not going to be bullied into shutting up about it by threats of banning. For now, I'm making a good faith effort to address this at the lowest level possible rather than taking my grievances to meta or the admins as others routinely do. If you have enough integrity to police your group without bias, your interests will be the same.

[redqueen]

31. Who said your name? Why do you think people are talking about you?

Paranoid and stalkery much?

Geez, and to think of the amount of whining that the men's group members do in meta about people supposedly being obsessed with their group... you guys might want to look in a mirror.

[boston bean]

32. That must have taken a lot of time to compose.

It's not very impressive.

You don't get to tell this group what is acceptable and what is not.

And I suggest you stop hunting for links that you think proves some narrow point you are trying to make. It's pretty much a tactic that leaves nothing to be desired.

You have in fact tried to paint members of this group as a bunch of prudes with your insinuations that they are Andrea Dworkin. It is an extremely tiring and boring tactic.

You deny the issues of the disparity, that is a fact, by declaring women who do see a disparity don't have a valid opinion and try to paint them with the, god forbid, Dworkin brush. When you do that, and in turn prove your reason for being here is not for honest discussion, but to bash feminists who do believe a societal disparity exists in how women and their sexuality are perceived. A thought by the way which is held by a good many feminists.

If you don't believe that the disparity exists and can't point to anything but Andrea Dworkin believed it, so it must be bad and false, and then all those who believe it are Andrea Dworkin, this is not the place for you.

Because your intent here is to only bash a feminist perspective, I suggest this isn't the place for you.. If you can't stop yourself from posting here, as I suggested, I guess we will have to take the action.

Take Care and see you around!

PS... if you would like to take this up on PM, I'd be more than happy to. But I've got some errands, not sure how much time I'll be able to give to PM's today..

[boston bean]

33. .

this portion of the post, never mind the stalking and the paranoid delusion that people in this group were discussing him or the fact that he brought in outside BS to the group, this is also part of the reason the person in this thread was blocked:

First of all, I have studied Freud extensively, and I know exactly where this is coming from. However, when you take a concept that is not even empirically testable as applicable to anyone and then try to claim this applies to all (or at least the vast majority) of men, as Dworkin and others have done, it's pretty hard not to consider that sexism and misandry aren't driving that warped worldview.

Problem with that statement above, is not one god damned person was saying anything remotely like that.

It was a red herring, a falsity, a smear, a broad brush against feminists.

[MadrasT]

34. To characterize criticism of Naomi Wolf's sacred sex screed as an attack on a feminist

is a stretch.

There was nothing there that remotely resembled a feminist thought.

I am not on board with "Ooooo, a woman who calls herself a feminist wrote something so it's automatically feminism."

[ismnotwasm]

35. Also, rambling a bunch of words together

Doesn't necessarily make an actual point I've noticed. It seems to be a personal attack. Strange.

[ismnotwasm]

7. Actually the data is flawed.

Do your own research. I did

[Major Nikon]

14. I've read a fair bit on the subject

I've yet to read anything by any criminologist which suggests this, but certainly I haven't read all there is on the subject. If you know of a criminologist who supports your assertion, I'd be glad to read what you have on it.

[seabeyond]

8. ya. you would be one of the few men. having the facts on downgrading rape, you totally ignore it.

you totally ignore the fact that across the nation rape is being downgraded by our police forces.

totally. ignore.

what does that say about a man?

[Major Nikon]

11. That is rich

I've asked you the same question several times which you have totally ignored as in crickets for a response, and now you want to pretend I'm the one ignoring.

The NCVS has exactly squat to do with police reporting of anything.

Nada.

Zip.

Zero.

So I'll ask again.

How do you explain away the NCVS results?

If you are going to refuse to answer, then just say so and I'll stop asking. It would be a lot more honest than trying to pretend I'm ignoring something that was never asked of me.

[ismnotwasm]

13. Are you sure?

I got their site open right now. Give it your best shot.

Why are you here, by the way? Do you want to discuss rape in war statistics?

[Major Nikon]

15. I'm here because I'd like an answer to my question which is relevant to the subject

Which I have yet to see.

A subject which was raised by another poster, I might add, who didn't get their motives questioned when they brought it up.

Why do you want to know why I am here? Are those who are not frequent posters here not allowed to ask relevant questions of those who are? I didn't find that in the SOP, but I do see quite a bit of disrespect aimed at me and those who have differing opinions which does seem to be quite contrary to the SOP.

Just sayin'

[ismnotwasm]

16. You realize you don't make a whole lot of sense?

I read your question, and it sounds to me like you've followed a poster from another thread. I'm a bit lost in context, so I hope you'll forgive me for not quite getting your point.

What, specifically is your question? Certainly you're fine to ask questions, if sea wants to give you a specific response she either will or she won't, right? Perhaps she finds you difficult to communicate with. I'm always willing to give it a try.

So, what would you like answered?

[Major Nikon]

17. I didn't realize the question was that hard to understand

The poster made the assertion that the FBI data wasn't realistic. I asked if she thought the NCVS data, which essentially mirrors the same trend, was realistic. There's no need to read anything else into the question. It literally is just that simple.

I've asked essentially the same question multiple times, and the poster has yet to address it, or even talk about the NCVS data at all. Instead she keeps repeating examples of flaws in the FBI data and police reporting, which is completely irrelevant to the NCVS.

The only history you'd need to know is the poster has made the assertion that the incidence of rape is actually up over the past 40 years, even though this flies in the face of the FBI's data set, the NCVS, and every criminologist I have ever seen comment on the subject. The poster essentially repeats this claim in this thread if you get her sarcasm, which is the only thing I can tell that's even remotely cryptic. If someone wants to make a claim that certainly goes against mainstream thought on the subject, I don't think it's too much to ask for support of that assertion with something other than anecdotal evidence which only addresses one aspect.

[ismnotwasm]

18. Ok, so you're talking pure agency statistics, right?

Why do you say NCVS doesn't use police data? or did I read that wrong. I'm trying to build a framework here.

Two more things, are you talking about wartime rape, which is the topic of this thread, or general statistical rape? Are you referring to America only or world wide rape statistics.

I hope you see the source of my confusion, even with your answer. I don't know what the poster has said in other threads. This one is on the topic of wartime rape.

[Major Nikon]

19. I'm addressing the poster's comment

Which is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125511831#post3

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the inference I made from this comment is that the poster is accusing a "few men" of intellectual dishonesty who have done little more than pointing out mainstream thought on the subject, which yes is supported by agency statistics, the opinions of experts on the subject, and victims' advocacy organizations, all of which exclusively concern the US. Evidently the poster disagrees with this contention and apparently also believes this subject is beyond debate. Since I'm one of the posters who has challenged her on this assertion, I can reasonably infer that this allegation of intellectual dishonesty is directed at least in part towards myself.

You are correct in that this has little to do with the subject of the OP other than both concern the act of rape, but I'm not the one who brought it up. It does have a tie-in in that SB is essentially saying that since she believes one set of conclusions are wrong, then this one must be wrong as well.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Well the actual act of rape is one thing.

Prosecution and conviction are an entirely other one. My understanding is that ( without looking it up) statistical non wartime rape in the US is down. However, there are 400,000 backlogged 'rapekits' in the US alone. These are unprosecuted rapes, that are not in the 'count', but also go back years, some of them.
Then there is the issue of unreported rapes, which can only be an estimate.

If actual rapes are declining, it can only be encouraging news.

What I suspect is, taking a hard statistical line on topic as horrifying and emotional as rape leads to frequent misunderstanding during discussion.

But whatever, im sure we can agree that the number of rapes is still unacceptable. You may not like this particular site, but I've found it to be a good organization

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

It's interesting to note that violent crimes in most areas in the US are declining.

[Major Nikon]

21. I very much respect RAINN

I'm very supportive of their work and admire it completely. I've quoted that site a few times myself. RAINN appears to be quite convinced that the incident rate of sexual assault is down significantly:

Sexual assault has fallen by more than 60% in recent years.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault

The incidence of rape is still completely unacceptable. Rape is a consistently under-reported crime. Rape is a horrible crime that inflicts physical and emotional damage on its victims. The prosecution rate of rape is also completely unacceptable. I agree with all the things you are saying completely. I would even partially agree with SB in that some police departments have undoubtedly manipulated data. It would be surprising if they hadn't. Any time an organization is responsible for collecting data when they have a vested interest in the outcome, there is real potential for abuse. However using these anecdotal accounts to claim the whole data set is reversed is an incredible claim to make, especially when other completely unrelated data sets are showing the same thing.

SB's claim is that the incidence of rape is really up, instead of down. Now I'm pretty careful about saying someone else is just flat wrong, even in this case, but her claim just seems more than just a bit fantastic to be believable. I don't even know of any notable feminists who have made this claim lately (although there may be some). SB's claim appears to be her own. I have challenged this claim and she refuses to engage in anything resembling reasonable debate.

Her claim that I am totally ignoring that rape is being downgraded by the police is equally as unfounded. In a previous thread I offered to accept her claim that the FBI data was completely flawed and backwards if she could explain why the NCVS was also showing that rape was down. The response was crickets. Yet I'm the one ignoring reality (or at least her version of it).

So not only is SB refusing to support her fantastic assertion, she is using that assertion to launch personal attacks against me. If I disagree with her, I'm lying. If I disagree with her, I am somehow flawed as a man. Now perhaps I'm wrong, but is this not a clear violation of the SOP for this group?

1) No bringing personal fights/issues/problems from other groups or past grievances with a particular member or members to this group
...
3) No individual personal call outs of any DUer
4) Be respectful at all times, even if an opinion is at odds with that of another poster
5) No bullying

[boston bean]

23. seems to me you broke rule #1. no? nt

[Major Nikon]

29. Please explain

I didn't bring this fight to HoF. SB did. That was my whole point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=11837

If one member is allowed to bring this fight here and other can't defend themselves, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark, especially when the host ignores the rulebreaker while accusing the responder of breaking that same rule.

[JTFrog]

30. Why are you here?

Seriously?

You obviously didn't come in here for any serious discussion or debate. You came in here with a vendetta and it shows. SB didn't link any threads or call any member out here. Only you are doing that in this thread and everyone can see it.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Are you talking about another thread?

It seems to me her response was prior to yours, and you responded to her. I'm not really here to discuss another member of this group in a negative way.

I don't know where she inferred the incident of rape is up. And we are very off topic here

I'm very Glad you appreciate RAAIN, it's them and organizations like them that has made significant headway in reducing the number of rapes. Feminists and allies world wide are working very hard to keep awareness of rape in the public conscienceness, and how to combat it. It's worth noting that behind every statistic, is an individual story.

[BlueToTheBone]

26. What is "PIV" and what is "NCVS"

these acronyms are not part of my lexicon.

does that mean women are categorically lying about not being raped?

What are you asking?

[MadrasT]

2. Glad to see some pushback.

I downloaded the "study" and tried to read it to see how they were justifying their "findings" and it was insanely long.

It sounds like it was funded by MRAs.

Unbelievable.

[seabeyond]

4. one has got to wonder. there is an absolute pushback to feminism of the last 40 yrs, for sure. nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

10. Mischaracterized by WMC as well as Mainsteream Press?

mainstream narrative exaggerates the prevalence of combatant-perpetrated sexual violence, while largely ignoring the far more pervasive domestic sexual violence perpetrated in wartime by family members and acquaintances.

Figure 2.1 Women’s Views on a Wife’s Right
to Refuse Sex with Her Husband

Talking about Rape by Family members during wartime as opposed to some random stranger. The rights of a Wife to refuse advances from her spouse. Hardly sounds like Misogynistic drivel.
http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2012/2012HumanSecurityReport-Part1-SexualViolenceEducationandWar.pdf
Note 132 page PDF report.

It appears to make the case that the Shock Media headlines get all the focus and paint a distorted picture. That the numbers of acts committed are largely by soldiers. When in fact the numbers committed by those closest to their victims are much more prevalent. The average woman in a warzone being far more likely to be assaulted by a relative or acquaintance than some random soldier.