JEBBY BUSH
2012-01-28 13:36:03 UTC
Sorta like cancer, rape and its cousins are sources of untapped MONEY!
"In fact, what a study by the CDC reveals is the devastating impact
that careless advocacy research can have on truth. The report proposes
an array of ambitious government-sponsored “prevention strategies” and
recommends “multi-disciplinary service centers” offering survivors
psychological and legal counseling as well as housing and economic
assistance. But survivors of sexual violence would be better served by
good research and sober estimates — not inflated statistics and
sensationalism."
"It depends on what 'rape' is." -- Bill Clinton
----------------------------
"How the CDC is overstating sexual violence in the U.S."
By Christina Hoff Sommers
January 27, 2012
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a
study suggesting that rates of sexual violence in the United States
are comparable to those in the war-stricken Congo. How is that
possible?
The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found
that, in the United States in 2010, approximately 1.3 million women
were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims
of sexual violence. It reported, “More than 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4
men have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an
intimate partner in their lifetime.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hailed the
report for giving “a clear picture of the devastating impact these
violent acts have on the lives of millions of Americans.”
In fact, what the study reveals is the devastating impact that
careless advocacy research can have on truth. The report proposes an
array of ambitious government-sponsored “prevention strategies” and
recommends “multi-disciplinary service centers” offering survivors
psychological and legal counseling as well as housing and economic
assistance. But survivors of sexual violence would be better served by
good research and sober estimates — not inflated statistics and
sensationalism.
The agency’s figures are wildly at odds with official crime
statistics. The FBI found that 84,767 rapes were reported to law
enforcement authorities in 2010. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’
National Crime Victimization Survey, the gold standard in crime
research, reports 188,380 rapes and sexual assaults on females and
males in 2010. Granted, not all assaults are reported to authorities.
But where did the CDC find 13.7 million victims of sexual crimes that
the professional criminologists had overlooked?
It found them by defining sexual violence in impossibly elastic ways
and then letting the surveyors, rather than subjects, determine what
counted as an assault. Consider: In a telephone survey with a 30
percent response rate, interviewers did not ask participants whether
they had been raped. Instead of such straightforward questions, the
CDC researchers described a series of sexual encounters and then they
determined whether the responses indicated sexual violation. A sample
of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high,
drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had
vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5
percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this
sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”
What does that mean? If a woman was unconscious or severely
incapacitated, everyone would call it rape. But what about sex while
inebriated? Few people would say that intoxicated sex alone
constitutes rape — indeed, a nontrivial percentage of all customary
sexual intercourse, including marital intercourse, probably falls
under that definition (and is therefore criminal according to the
CDC).
Other survey questions were equally ambiguous. Participants were asked
if they had ever had sex because someone pressured them by “telling
you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?” All
affirmative answers were counted as “sexual violence.” Anyone who
consented to sex because a suitor wore her or him down by “repeatedly
asking” or “showing they were unhappy” was similarly classified as a
victim of violence. The CDC effectively set a stage where each step of
physical intimacy required a notarized testament of sober consent.
The report also called for more research on “sexism” and urged
“collective action” against media messages that “objectify and degrade
women.” In the familiar jargon of feminist theory, the CDC said: “It
is important to continue addressing the beliefs, attitudes and
messages that are deeply imbedded in our social structures.”
Why is the CDC using methods of advocacy research that are anathema to
genuine social science? The answer is suggested by a posting on the
White House Web site this month by Lynn Rosenthal, a presidential
adviser on violence against women:
“Early in the Administration, the Vice President convened federal
agencies to assess trends and identify gaps in our response to
violence and abuse. We identified data collection as one of the
biggest challenges we face in understanding and combatting these
crime. Thanks to the hard work of [Attorney General Eric] Holder, the
FBI, law enforcement leaders, and the women’s organizations who have
long advocated for this change, we are one step further towards
meeting that challenge.”
While that passage referred to the FBI’s recently revised definition
of rape — and not the CDC survey — it shows how the study fits into
the administration’s effort to apply the advocacy agenda of the
women’s lobby to rape research. That would explain how feminist theory
found its way into the report. But why would CDC officials, who are
experienced in resisting political pressure, cooperate?
Perhaps they felt the study would draw needed attention to the genuine
problem of sexual violence. That is an understandable but recklessly
misguided conclusion. Faulty studies send scarce resources in the
wrong directions; more programs on sexism, stereotypes and social
structures, for example, are unlikely to help victims of violence.
Defining sexual violence down obscures the gradations in culpability
that are essential to effective criminal law, and it holds up a false
mirror on our society. The CDC should recall this study.
[Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. Her books include “Who Stole Feminism?” and “The
War Against Boys.”]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
"In fact, what a study by the CDC reveals is the devastating impact
that careless advocacy research can have on truth. The report proposes
an array of ambitious government-sponsored “prevention strategies” and
recommends “multi-disciplinary service centers” offering survivors
psychological and legal counseling as well as housing and economic
assistance. But survivors of sexual violence would be better served by
good research and sober estimates — not inflated statistics and
sensationalism."
"It depends on what 'rape' is." -- Bill Clinton
----------------------------
"How the CDC is overstating sexual violence in the U.S."
By Christina Hoff Sommers
January 27, 2012
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a
study suggesting that rates of sexual violence in the United States
are comparable to those in the war-stricken Congo. How is that
possible?
The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found
that, in the United States in 2010, approximately 1.3 million women
were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims
of sexual violence. It reported, “More than 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4
men have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an
intimate partner in their lifetime.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hailed the
report for giving “a clear picture of the devastating impact these
violent acts have on the lives of millions of Americans.”
In fact, what the study reveals is the devastating impact that
careless advocacy research can have on truth. The report proposes an
array of ambitious government-sponsored “prevention strategies” and
recommends “multi-disciplinary service centers” offering survivors
psychological and legal counseling as well as housing and economic
assistance. But survivors of sexual violence would be better served by
good research and sober estimates — not inflated statistics and
sensationalism.
The agency’s figures are wildly at odds with official crime
statistics. The FBI found that 84,767 rapes were reported to law
enforcement authorities in 2010. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’
National Crime Victimization Survey, the gold standard in crime
research, reports 188,380 rapes and sexual assaults on females and
males in 2010. Granted, not all assaults are reported to authorities.
But where did the CDC find 13.7 million victims of sexual crimes that
the professional criminologists had overlooked?
It found them by defining sexual violence in impossibly elastic ways
and then letting the surveyors, rather than subjects, determine what
counted as an assault. Consider: In a telephone survey with a 30
percent response rate, interviewers did not ask participants whether
they had been raped. Instead of such straightforward questions, the
CDC researchers described a series of sexual encounters and then they
determined whether the responses indicated sexual violation. A sample
of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high,
drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had
vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5
percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this
sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”
What does that mean? If a woman was unconscious or severely
incapacitated, everyone would call it rape. But what about sex while
inebriated? Few people would say that intoxicated sex alone
constitutes rape — indeed, a nontrivial percentage of all customary
sexual intercourse, including marital intercourse, probably falls
under that definition (and is therefore criminal according to the
CDC).
Other survey questions were equally ambiguous. Participants were asked
if they had ever had sex because someone pressured them by “telling
you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?” All
affirmative answers were counted as “sexual violence.” Anyone who
consented to sex because a suitor wore her or him down by “repeatedly
asking” or “showing they were unhappy” was similarly classified as a
victim of violence. The CDC effectively set a stage where each step of
physical intimacy required a notarized testament of sober consent.
The report also called for more research on “sexism” and urged
“collective action” against media messages that “objectify and degrade
women.” In the familiar jargon of feminist theory, the CDC said: “It
is important to continue addressing the beliefs, attitudes and
messages that are deeply imbedded in our social structures.”
Why is the CDC using methods of advocacy research that are anathema to
genuine social science? The answer is suggested by a posting on the
White House Web site this month by Lynn Rosenthal, a presidential
adviser on violence against women:
“Early in the Administration, the Vice President convened federal
agencies to assess trends and identify gaps in our response to
violence and abuse. We identified data collection as one of the
biggest challenges we face in understanding and combatting these
crime. Thanks to the hard work of [Attorney General Eric] Holder, the
FBI, law enforcement leaders, and the women’s organizations who have
long advocated for this change, we are one step further towards
meeting that challenge.”
While that passage referred to the FBI’s recently revised definition
of rape — and not the CDC survey — it shows how the study fits into
the administration’s effort to apply the advocacy agenda of the
women’s lobby to rape research. That would explain how feminist theory
found its way into the report. But why would CDC officials, who are
experienced in resisting political pressure, cooperate?
Perhaps they felt the study would draw needed attention to the genuine
problem of sexual violence. That is an understandable but recklessly
misguided conclusion. Faulty studies send scarce resources in the
wrong directions; more programs on sexism, stereotypes and social
structures, for example, are unlikely to help victims of violence.
Defining sexual violence down obscures the gradations in culpability
that are essential to effective criminal law, and it holds up a false
mirror on our society. The CDC should recall this study.
[Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. Her books include “Who Stole Feminism?” and “The
War Against Boys.”]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html