Another home run video:
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
Looks like we may have a new institutional ally
How the War on Women Is Getting More Sophisticated
BY KAT STOEFFEL
What did this week’s top two most-feminist-baiting opinion columns have in common? The ones about the so-called privileges of campus sexual assault and how women can avoid rape and abuse by getting married? For one thing, both found a home in the Washington Post. They also shared an infuriatingly sexist, belittling vocabulary: One put “sexual assault” and “survivors” in scare quotes; the other urged women to “stop taking lovers” and marry their “baby daddies.” But the most important similarity, as we look ahead to the future of misogyny in politics, is that both columns lean heavily on data furnished by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a conservative think tank that’s enjoying a moment in the spotlight.
According to an April Newsweek profile, much of AEI’s recent influence has to do with Arthur C. Brooks, pictured, who has been its president since 2009. (A $20 million donation from a Roman Catholic founder of the Carlyle Group probably didn’t hurt, either.) “He's the message man,” Pema Levy wrote of Brooks. “He may not be a pollster, but Republicans say he possesses a gift for making conservative policies sound appealing.” Newsweek focused on the ways Brooks is nudging conservatives toward less flagrantly uncompassionate policies on poverty. But, judging from these op-eds, the AEI is also employing the most sophisticated techniques to date in the much-discussed Republican “war on women.”
For starters, they’ve put a female face on it. AEI scholar and The War Against Boys author Christina Hoff Sommers has a new “vlog” series, "The Factual Feminist" (as opposed to us fantasy feminists), in which she seeks to invalidate feminist discourse. Like debunking this popular #yesallwomen tweet.
"UNFAIR! NOT ALL MEN!" Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poison. #YesAllWomen
— Martin Wagner (@wagnerfilm) May 26, 2014
“First of all, what does that 10 percent figure represent?”
It’s a thought experiment, Christina.
“Are they saying 10 percent of men are rapists or murderers? What’s the evidence for that?”
This may not be the most incisive example of argument-by-fact-check — but in our age of mansplainers and data journalists, there is something especially insidious about a woman and self-described feminist like Sommers providing anti-feminist talking points. Her claim that “feminist activists have convinced many young women that a foolish, drunken hookup was actually rape” sounds a lot more credible than, say, Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” distinction, despite meaning essentially the same thing: What women call rape isn’t really that big a deal.
That’s an idea the AEI seems committed to proving. George Will’s evidence that the “coveted status” conferred on campus rape victims has caused a “proliferation” of false accusations comes from the AEI’s Mark Perry. In a blog post, Perry set out to debunk the Department of Justice statistic that one in five women will be sexually assaulted during college by reverse-engineering it. He took the number of rapes reported at Ohio State University and used the rate at which women report their rape — 12 percent, another DOJ figure — to determine the “real” number of women who were sexually assaulted. He found that 1 in 34 women in the class of 2012 had been sexually assaulted during their time at Ohio State University — “too high, but not even close to the White House claim that one in five (and 20% of) female students are sexually assaulted while in college.”
It’s true that the Justice Department study sourced for the one-in-five statistic is probably too limited to be extrapolated to all college campuses. But Perry’s math also contains missteps. Looking more closely at the study, one sees that 12 percent refers to the rate at which women report forced sexual assault, what the authors define as assaults occurring “as a result of physical force or threats of physical force.” That does not include the much more common occurrence of incapacitated sexual assault, defined as “any unwanted sexual contact occurring when a victim is unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because she is passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep.” In the DOJ study, only 2 percent of incapacitated sexual assaults were reported. Their numbers might account for Perry’s missing victims.
Tuesday’s Washington Post feminist bait, this time from the AEI’s W. Bradford Wilcox, relied on a similarly dodgy use of data. The piece’s misguided original headline is memorialized in its URL — “the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married” — and while that headline was soon swapped out, the argument remained the same: “Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father,” according to co-author Wilcox, whose byline identified him as “[directing] the Home Economics Project at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies.”
FiveThirtyEight’s Mona Chalabi did the heavy lifting on debunking the claim that, statistically speaking, #yesallwomen could avoid being violently victimized by getting married. As Chalabi points out, married women tend to be whiter, more educated, wealthier, and older. The author of the Department of Justice study Wilcox cites told her that Wilcox should have controlled for these other variables, known to impact victimization rates — age, income, and education level, as well as the disparities between partners — before using the data to make prescriptions about marriage.
If this week is any indication, future anti-woman policies will be much more carefully dressed-up than the moronic revelations made by pro-life congressional hopefuls in 2012. Their advocates will make sensible appeals to our morals, in respectable publications, backed up with genderless “data.” It’s cathartic to watch outrage flare up on Twitter after these columns are published (at least for now), but — when it comes to these savvy, data-driven cases for sexist policy — it’s not nearly enough. FiveThirtyEight’s AEI takedown, however, makes the case for a new, feminist, non-burrito-related mission for the rising class of male-helmed explainer-journalism outfits.
BY KAT STOEFFEL
What did this week’s top two most-feminist-baiting opinion columns have in common? The ones about the so-called privileges of campus sexual assault and how women can avoid rape and abuse by getting married? For one thing, both found a home in the Washington Post. They also shared an infuriatingly sexist, belittling vocabulary: One put “sexual assault” and “survivors” in scare quotes; the other urged women to “stop taking lovers” and marry their “baby daddies.” But the most important similarity, as we look ahead to the future of misogyny in politics, is that both columns lean heavily on data furnished by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a conservative think tank that’s enjoying a moment in the spotlight.
According to an April Newsweek profile, much of AEI’s recent influence has to do with Arthur C. Brooks, pictured, who has been its president since 2009. (A $20 million donation from a Roman Catholic founder of the Carlyle Group probably didn’t hurt, either.) “He's the message man,” Pema Levy wrote of Brooks. “He may not be a pollster, but Republicans say he possesses a gift for making conservative policies sound appealing.” Newsweek focused on the ways Brooks is nudging conservatives toward less flagrantly uncompassionate policies on poverty. But, judging from these op-eds, the AEI is also employing the most sophisticated techniques to date in the much-discussed Republican “war on women.”
For starters, they’ve put a female face on it. AEI scholar and The War Against Boys author Christina Hoff Sommers has a new “vlog” series, "The Factual Feminist" (as opposed to us fantasy feminists), in which she seeks to invalidate feminist discourse. Like debunking this popular #yesallwomen tweet.
"UNFAIR! NOT ALL MEN!" Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poison. #YesAllWomen
— Martin Wagner (@wagnerfilm) May 26, 2014
“First of all, what does that 10 percent figure represent?”
It’s a thought experiment, Christina.
“Are they saying 10 percent of men are rapists or murderers? What’s the evidence for that?”
This may not be the most incisive example of argument-by-fact-check — but in our age of mansplainers and data journalists, there is something especially insidious about a woman and self-described feminist like Sommers providing anti-feminist talking points. Her claim that “feminist activists have convinced many young women that a foolish, drunken hookup was actually rape” sounds a lot more credible than, say, Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” distinction, despite meaning essentially the same thing: What women call rape isn’t really that big a deal.
That’s an idea the AEI seems committed to proving. George Will’s evidence that the “coveted status” conferred on campus rape victims has caused a “proliferation” of false accusations comes from the AEI’s Mark Perry. In a blog post, Perry set out to debunk the Department of Justice statistic that one in five women will be sexually assaulted during college by reverse-engineering it. He took the number of rapes reported at Ohio State University and used the rate at which women report their rape — 12 percent, another DOJ figure — to determine the “real” number of women who were sexually assaulted. He found that 1 in 34 women in the class of 2012 had been sexually assaulted during their time at Ohio State University — “too high, but not even close to the White House claim that one in five (and 20% of) female students are sexually assaulted while in college.”
It’s true that the Justice Department study sourced for the one-in-five statistic is probably too limited to be extrapolated to all college campuses. But Perry’s math also contains missteps. Looking more closely at the study, one sees that 12 percent refers to the rate at which women report forced sexual assault, what the authors define as assaults occurring “as a result of physical force or threats of physical force.” That does not include the much more common occurrence of incapacitated sexual assault, defined as “any unwanted sexual contact occurring when a victim is unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because she is passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep.” In the DOJ study, only 2 percent of incapacitated sexual assaults were reported. Their numbers might account for Perry’s missing victims.
Tuesday’s Washington Post feminist bait, this time from the AEI’s W. Bradford Wilcox, relied on a similarly dodgy use of data. The piece’s misguided original headline is memorialized in its URL — “the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married” — and while that headline was soon swapped out, the argument remained the same: “Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father,” according to co-author Wilcox, whose byline identified him as “[directing] the Home Economics Project at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies.”
FiveThirtyEight’s Mona Chalabi did the heavy lifting on debunking the claim that, statistically speaking, #yesallwomen could avoid being violently victimized by getting married. As Chalabi points out, married women tend to be whiter, more educated, wealthier, and older. The author of the Department of Justice study Wilcox cites told her that Wilcox should have controlled for these other variables, known to impact victimization rates — age, income, and education level, as well as the disparities between partners — before using the data to make prescriptions about marriage.
If this week is any indication, future anti-woman policies will be much more carefully dressed-up than the moronic revelations made by pro-life congressional hopefuls in 2012. Their advocates will make sensible appeals to our morals, in respectable publications, backed up with genderless “data.” It’s cathartic to watch outrage flare up on Twitter after these columns are published (at least for now), but — when it comes to these savvy, data-driven cases for sexist policy — it’s not nearly enough. FiveThirtyEight’s AEI takedown, however, makes the case for a new, feminist, non-burrito-related mission for the rising class of male-helmed explainer-journalism outfits.
Take care of those titties for me.
The only problem with Christina Hoff Sommers is she believe women and men to be equal. We have a clear divide that they are different.
Quote: (09-01-2015 05:30 PM)PolymathGuru Wrote:
The only problem with Christina Hoff Sommers is she believe women and men to be equal. We have a clear divide that they are different.
I agree. A tiger doesn't change his stripes. I've watched many of her videos and yes she battles against all of those false rape statistics and whatnot, but deep down she is still at odds with people like us.
If you're waiting for a prominent female scholar ally to concede that males are biologically superior, I hope you're patient. Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to wait as I don't expect anyone to believe that they are inherently inferior to anyone.
Viewing men and women as totally equal (obvious muscular differences excluded) is something I am willing to accept if it means some voices of reason are allowed prominent places from which to speak. As right as Roosh may be in his views, I doubt CNN or even Fox News would give him a national broadcast, and they certainly wouldn't give him a fair shake. Look at what they did with fish oil peddler oz. Roosh had every piece of objective scientific evidence to support his views and he was still ambushed in an amateurish hatchet job.
Someone like Summers is invaluable because she is afforded a national platform and her views are at least treated with a modicum of respectful disagreement from opponents. And to be totally pragmatic about it, I can even overlook a woman believing it's possible for females to legitimately pass Ranger School if she also advocates against rape hysteria, the gelding boys in public schools, and the abuse to men in court and society. One is impossible so I don't see belief in it as terribly important, the others are very real and harmful.
Viewing men and women as totally equal (obvious muscular differences excluded) is something I am willing to accept if it means some voices of reason are allowed prominent places from which to speak. As right as Roosh may be in his views, I doubt CNN or even Fox News would give him a national broadcast, and they certainly wouldn't give him a fair shake. Look at what they did with fish oil peddler oz. Roosh had every piece of objective scientific evidence to support his views and he was still ambushed in an amateurish hatchet job.
Someone like Summers is invaluable because she is afforded a national platform and her views are at least treated with a modicum of respectful disagreement from opponents. And to be totally pragmatic about it, I can even overlook a woman believing it's possible for females to legitimately pass Ranger School if she also advocates against rape hysteria, the gelding boys in public schools, and the abuse to men in court and society. One is impossible so I don't see belief in it as terribly important, the others are very real and harmful.
Quote: (06-13-2014 11:00 AM)Dusty Wrote:Dusty can you summarize that?
(a long ass post by some feminist)
Quote: (05-31-2014 09:15 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
Maybe the forum needs to put in a grant or endowment application to these guys....
Careful here. Remember what grants and endowments do in academia. And remember anti-fragility.
If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is.
Disable "Click here to Continue"
My Testosterone Adventure: Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V
Quote:Quote:
if it happened to you it’s your fault, I got no sympathy and I don’t believe your version of events.
You don't have to agree with someone 100% to be an ally. Attacking someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is absolutely pointless.
Fortunately for us the SJWs believe believe in attacking anyone that doesnt agree with 99.99% of every new update to the manifesto. They attack even their closest ally, this is the way they digg their grave faster.
Fortunately for us the SJWs believe believe in attacking anyone that doesnt agree with 99.99% of every new update to the manifesto. They attack even their closest ally, this is the way they digg their grave faster.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)