greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) (06/01/91)
The article, by a Cal Berkeley social welfare professor, which challenges the findings of a campus date-rape study has caused a tremendous media uproar. I've been very disappointed with the type of uproar that it has caused, however. Whereas the article is purported to challenge the quality of the "science" used in the original study, virtually none of those who are objecting to it seem, at least so far, to be willing to step up to the author's premise: that the original study is flawed, was designed with a particular agenda in mind, and is therefore not "good science." The author, with many others, has difficulty believing the numbers, but unlike others has given some possibly sound arguments for why they may be invalid. One "expert" who was interviewed stressed her disappointment that this had come from a professor specializing in "social welfare." The answer, of course, is that it is his job and his charter to evaluate research on its merits, regardless of whether that research supports a particular political or social agenda. Another one, an attorney specializing in rape victims, did little more than get into a "yes it is/no it isn't" discussion. What disappoints me most, though, is that instead (or even in addition to) discussing the scientific merits of the article, so many self-appointed "spokespersons" for women seem to be treating a challenge to the scientific quality of a study which supports their position as some sort of affront. It makes me wonder if these people want accurate information, or any information accurate or inaccurate which supports their position. This strikes me as a classic case of politics attempting to bully science. Greg
rivero@dev8b.mdcbbs.com (06/04/91)
In article <1991May31.195050.12567@netcom.COM>, greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes: > > The article, by a Cal Berkeley social welfare professor, which > challenges the findings of a campus date-rape study has caused > a tremendous media uproar. > [some deletions] > It makes me wonder if these people want accurate information, > or any information accurate or inaccurate which supports their > position. > > This strikes me as a classic case of politics attempting to bully > science. > > > Greg > -- Like, this is a surprise? There is historical evidence to support the contention that the men who condemned Galileo for violating church doctrine privately agreed with his findings, but condemned him anyway as a matter of protecting the church's perfect image. Likewise, records have been discovered which show that many judges in the witch trials (the middle ages, not today) did not, themselves' believe in witchcraft, but were motivated by political necessity, or plain greed. Galileo's conviction did not change the reality that the Earth moves around the Sun. Likewise, all the political rhetoric will not change the reality that the majority of men are NOT lust crazed date-rapists, but average decent men who want a good family life. Michael ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "I favor population | \ (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- control, as | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------|Anyone who does | long as it's | == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv|not get 8 hugs a | with someone | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!|day is in trouble| else's kids!"| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
gwyn@pangea.stanford.edu (Gwyneth Williams) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun4.095137.1@dev8b.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8b.mdcbbs.com writes: >In article <1991May31.195050.12567@netcom.COM>, greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes: >> >> The article, by a Cal Berkeley social welfare professor, which >> challenges the findings of a campus date-rape study has caused >> a tremendous media uproar. >> [some deletions] >> It makes me wonder if these people want accurate information, >> or any information accurate or inaccurate which supports their >> position. >> >> This strikes me as a classic case of politics attempting to bully >> science. >> > > Like, this is a surprise? There is historical evidence to support >the contention that the men who condemned Galileo for violating >church doctrine privately agreed with his findings, but condemned him >anyway as a matter of protecting the church's perfect image. Likewise, >records have been discovered which show that many judges in the witch >trials (the middle ages, not today) did not, themselves' believe >in witchcraft, but were motivated by political necessity, or >plain greed. > > Galileo's conviction did not change the reality that the Earth moves >around the Sun. Likewise, all the political rhetoric will not >change the reality that the majority of men are NOT lust crazed >date-rapists, but average decent men who want a good family life. I think I must agree with your last statement, but have to suppress a knee-jerk reaction to disagree. Perhaps this is because when I hear "the majority of men want a good family life", partly I wonder what martians I have found in my personal life. IMHO this statement trivializes date rape and the variety of oppressions which women must undergo. Saying "those type of men are only a minority" suggests to me "they are erratic cases, exceptions, and therefore negligible and don't count". Of course, this is stretching the point, but it seems the underlying attitude is there. After all, a dictator may only be 0.000001% of the population, but that doesn't mean he's negligible. :^)
rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun6.055523.12257@morrow.stanford.edu>, gwyn@pangea.stanford.edu (Gwyneth Williams) writes: > In article <1991Jun4.095137.1@dev8b.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8b.mdcbbs.com writes: >> [deletions in desperate attempt to save bandwidth] >> Galileo's conviction did not change the reality that the Earth moves >>around the Sun. Likewise, all the political rhetoric will not >>change the reality that the majority of men are NOT lust crazed >>date-rapists, but average decent men who want a good family life. > > I think I must agree with your last statement, but have to suppress > a knee-jerk reaction to disagree. > Perhaps this is because when I hear "the majority of men want a good family > life", partly I wonder what martians I have found in my personal life. They are probably relatives of my ex. :-) > IMHO this statement trivializes date rape and the variety of > oppressions which women must undergo. Saying "those type of men are only > a minority" suggests to me "they are erratic cases, exceptions, and > therefore negligible and don't count". Of course, this is stretching the > point, but it seems the underlying attitude is there. Okay, let's ghet real clear here. I do not think ANYONE wishes to trivialize the issues of rape. I certainly do not. I think it is a serious offense which not only traumatizes the victim, but (as can be seen here) induces fear in non-raped women (thereby limiting their mobility and freedom) and creates a hostile environment for "average decent men who want a good family life". EVERYBODY LOSES. Every rape counts. BUT, so does every date that ends with a simple goodnight. If we lose our ability to enjoy each others company, then the rapists have become terrorists, able to make us all fear living a normal life. Michael
robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) (06/11/91)
gwyn@pangea.stanford.edu (Gwyneth Williams) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.095137.1@dev8b.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8b.mdcbbs.com writes: -> Galileo's conviction did not change the reality that the Earth moves ->around the Sun. Likewise, all the political rhetoric will not ->change the reality that the majority of men are NOT lust crazed ->date-rapists, but average decent men who want a good family life. -I think I must agree with your last statement, but have to suppress -a knee-jerk reaction to disagree. -Perhaps this is because when I hear "the majority of men want a good family -life", partly I wonder what martians I have found in my personal life. -IMHO this statement trivializes date rape and the variety of -oppressions which women must undergo. Saying "those type of men are only -a minority" suggests to me "they are erratic cases, exceptions, and -therefore negligible and don't count". Of course, this is stretching the -point, but it seems the underlying attitude is there. -After all, a dictator may only be 0.000001% of the population, but that -doesn't mean he's negligible. :^) Absolutely. However, when attempting to blame someone, one wouldn't accuse, say, everyone who had a tic of being a dictator because this dictator had a tic. He only represents .000001% of the population, not everyone who shares some physical characteristic. There is a strong tendency to say "men do X" when the majority of men don't. It's an attempt to expand the behavior of a minority to encompass a majority, and it is often subsequently used to justify actions against the majority that should only be taken against the minority. That's why I object to such statements. I don't believe those exceptions "don't count". I believe they need to be dealt with harshly, in accordance with the damage they do. I just don't believe in treating all men harshly because a minority of them are bad. Here's a way to prove to yourself that what is being objected to is the generalization. Avoid making the generalization. Then, see how many people defend, say, date rapists. I think you'll find that the objections are to the unwarranted generalizations. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (06/25/91)
> virtually none of those who are objecting to it seem, at least > so far, to be willing to step up to the author's premise: that > the original study is flawed, was designed with a particular > agenda in mind, and is therefore not "good science." If you're talking about the Gilbert article, I find your complaint hard to accept. Gilbert provides no research of his own, nothing to actually challenge the other studies. He just suggests they're wrong and speculates why they are. I don't particularly see this as something to "step up" to. If Gilbert had provided a shred of data, it might be different. As it stands, the article is no better than any political diatribe. <_Jym_>