CNN Reports on the "Promising Future" of the Steubenville Rapists

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, self-defense as in situational awareness and quick thinking are the points of most self-defense programs of that design.  Such programs teach women about the goals of a rapist and to resist them effectively.  Simply looking a rapist in the eyes can stop many rapes from occurring because direct eye contact is a challenge.  Using things like your keys as weapons can fend off an attacker as well because a rapist is not looking for a fight.  Self-defense programs also teach women about watching their drinks at a bar, about going directly home from a date (since most rapes actually occur in the victim’s home), what to watch for and the ways to avoid conflict.  The number one goal of self-defense courses is to help their student avoid conflict.

[Healergirl]

Pumpkin Seeds,

I had a sinking feeling you were going to say that.  The scarcity of hard data on the point of how effective such things are is something of a shock to me.  The study which Ephiral refers to is the only one I can find.  Ephiral thinks the study is flawed, I think it is deeply flawed, but that does seem to be all we have.

Shit.

I wonder how comprehensive the program was.  I've seen more than my share of fights, fights between women usually are comprised of  slapping and hair-pulling.  Symbolic violence, very real but symbolic.  Fights between men, well, men are more likely to seriously try to mess each other up, and more importantly, they are more likely to know how to do it.  Women can be trained to seriously fight of course. I was, but training them out of symbolic violence into truly physically injurious violence takes time and effort.  To a surprising degree for most women, we are just not culturally conditioned to react that way.  I remembered how pleased my instructor was when the switch in my head finally flipped from "Stun" to "Kill" and I really started hammering at him.

But.

If the results are widespread and turn out to be accurate... this bodes ill for any reeducation programs.  If wanna-be rapists really are that insensitive to external inputs like the defensive  behavior of their intended targets, how responsive will they be to the external influence of a reeducation program?  Because to be truly effective, completing such a program has to offer a benefit to the subject, and where is the perceived benefit to the wanna-be rapists?  Sure, a convicted rapist might habe to pass to meet one of the conditions for release, but what about future or uncaught rapists, why should they do more than go through the motions, what do they gain?

[Caela]

Caehlim, your cops must be different than ours if they are there to protect you, and you must have vastly more of them for them to be effective at it. Here a cop's job isn't to protect you, in fact they can't do anything at all until a crime is committed. Their job is to investigate crimes, arrest offenders, and turn evidence over to the DA so criminals can be prosecuted. The only protection they off is getting criminals off the streets but they can only do that AFTER a crime has been committed.

Protecting yourself, from any crime not just rape, always falls back on you. The cops can help clean up the mess but they can't help prevent it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well the seeming inability of women to fight is indeed a cultural phenomenon.  There are certainly women that engage in the martial arts and in combat to a level equal to men.  Watch a pair of men fighting that have no clue what they are doing, it’s a wild event with flailing punches and grabbing.  Men are naturally larger than women though so their flailing punches hurt more.  Also being enrolled in martial arts, boxing clubs and weight lifting classes is still far more acceptable and expected of men as children.  Even the sports men play as children are geared toward strength training such as football.  So what little skill men do have is offset by our culture encouraging their strength and aggressiveness.

Now I think hair pulling and scratching serves a tactical purpose as well.  Women have nails for one which does hurt.  Also I would argue that the goal of women in a fight is to deface, literally in some sense, the other woman.  Vaseline to the face to prevent scratching and wearing heavy rings is not the mark of a group that is not interested in fighting and defending themselves.  Such tactics on a man are less effective because men actually show off their scars, so the social damage of being scratched or missing hair is less effective. Both groups fight in a play of dominance, but each has different ways to achieve the goal.  Women have to change their goals though when resisting men physically which I think is the hard part because we are not taught that.  Instead women are taught that boys shouldn’t hit girls cause girls are weaker, boys are stronger.  Boys are bigger, faster, stronger and rougher.  Girls are fragile.  So against another woman, mentally we are good.  Against a man, mentally we are groomed to believe ourselves at a disadvantage.

So when faced with something a person believes to be inevitable, people tend to just retreat mentally.  The woman lets happen what she feels is going to happen.  Brain shuts down and the act is done.

Once more this is a cultural shift and a lack of education. The study I had linked previously focused on the most common forms of rape prevention which are self-defense and anti-rape courses offered at the college level.  The researcher, as I pointed out, expressed in the results section that college is too late for such programs to be readily effective.  I do agree that these conversations, courses and attitudes need to be had at a much younger age for boys and girls.  I think too late do we approach these subjects with our sons and daughters.

Rapists are very receptive to the defensive stance of their intended target.  Once more the act of resistance can play a huge part in preventing a rape if the defensive acts are effective.  This is an alteration of goals that have been passed onto women.  Also remember that until recently women were encouraged to just let the rape happen, that resistance would get them killed.  That cultural knowledge is still being handed out by the older generation to the younger.  As for the reeducation of sexual offenders, thus far the studies are not promising.  Sexual offenders are the hardest to rehabilitate and re-educate.

[Healergirl]

Caehlim,

If there is a cop around when yu need one, the criminal accosting you is foolish indeed.

Pumpkin Seeds,

Oh, I would never say that hair pulling and scratcihng do no damage!  But although it is painful, defacing as you say. nis is not greatly damaging to one's health - although losing an eye to a woman's nails is a very real danger.

I disagree that college is too late, but the later in life you wait, the longer and more intense is the training needed to overcome the cultural conditioning.  But in my case - and this is not really a joke - my brothers made sure I knew some basics of dirty fighting from an early age.  I don't think the typical college course is serious enough to get the job done.  My serious training came from bouncers who were determined to put the other guy down as hard as was needed to avoid injury to themselves.  Very visceral gut level training.  As they are presently constructed, I don't think College self defense courses have the needed intensity or duration.

As to the receptiveness of rapists...  many like a woman who struggles, a woman who can actually fight is another matter. Stereotypes can, not will, but can work both ways, sheer surprise at meeting effective resistance can, not will, but can gain the edge needed to escape.

[Oniya]

There's also the fact that learning self-defense - even if you never have to use it - increases a person's self-confidence.  You walk differently.  You look at people differently.  Knowing the 'dirty fight' techniques (make noise, rake down the face to blind, elbow to the solar plexus, heel to the instep, how to pivot if you are grabbed) can give even a child an advantage against an abductor.  Someone looking for an easy target (that is, a target that they can exert their power over, and force into whatever) is going to think twice. 

This does not eliminate the rapist/mugger/assaulter, but it is one prong of the elimination of the crime.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, rapists don’t like when a woman resists.  Otherwise there would be more stranger rape and less slipping drugs into drinks or rape during episodes of drunkenness.  Some rapists, a small minority, who are considered angry rapists are not deterred by the struggle.  So certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but focusing on the exception just confuses the more effective and common message. 

What you are referring to is a comprehensive martial arts program in truth, which those do exist on college campuses.  Most women do not have the time or interest to dedicate to those programs.  Once more women are actively discouraged from “acting like the lads.”  Like you I had a male role model in my life that was very upfront and forward with me about fighting.  My father and my uncles were not shy about teaching their daughters to fight.  A punching bag was always a standard thing where we lived and I was never discouraged from practicing on the bag.  As I got older my interest waned, but I never forgot the lessons.

Also overcoming the cultural conditioning is not so much the point as getting to the woman before they are a rape victim.  The chance of being raped increases after the first rape occurs.  As has been seen, even on Elliquiy in previous discussion, men are quickly willing to attribute the ability to make clear decisions to teenage girls about having sex.  As women, we know that our thinking ability at 16 was not well honed or thought out.  A teenage girl is at her most vulnerable as she struggles with new attention, new pressure, new body and a host of other issues.  There is not much chance for resistance at this age group from say an older man.  This is a dangerous combination with women being more prone to enter relationships and situations where rape may occur in the future. 

Better to stop at the beginning than after the damage is done.

[Oniya]

They offer those programs on the younger level, too.  We've considered it for the little Oni, as she is a small child, and somewhat reserved when she's out of her comfort zone, which does make her a prime target for bullies.  And as you say, the lessons stick with you even after you stop 'training'.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not to stir up another controversy (or scare you) but I would say victim selection by bullies mirrors the victim selection by rapists.  Easy targets that reassure the attacker of their dominance.  I would think that looking at anti-bully programs would serve as good inspiration for anti-rape programs with a younger crowd.

[Oniya]

That's actually what I was working off of.  Both acts are - more often than not - power trips.  'I'm doing this because I can, and you can't stop me.'  Start with the anti-bullying education (for all kids, not just the 'potential victims'), and then expand that to include the sexual aspect as they reach the maturity level where it's needed.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would think that best, tying the two together into a continuous education program.

[Healergirl]

Pumpkin Seeds,

I agree with every word you wrote in post 306.

Oniya is dead on right abut the boost to self-possession.

And the similarity in kind if not in degree between bullies and rapists... oh total agreement, total agreement on my part with both Pumpkin Seeds and Oniya!

[Ephiral]

Okay. Here's something that bothers me. I've been seeing people repeatedly claiming that these self-defense tactics work and are a viable option for reducing rape. Apparently so effective that they're worth spending 90+% of our attention and effort on. When I go looking for data on how this actually works in the real world, ie whether or not this statement is actually true, I'm told that it's impossible to gather data. By the same people.

How can you simultaneously believe something is effective and that it's impossible to determine how effective it is?

[Kythia]

Okay. Here's something that bothers me. I've been seeing people repeatedly claiming that these self-defense tactics work and are a viable option for reducing rape. Apparently so effective that they're worth spending 90+% of our attention and effort on. When I go looking for data on how this actually works in the real world, ie whether or not this statement is actually true, I'm told that it's impossible to gather data. By the same people.

How can you simultaneously believe something is effective and that it's impossible to determine how effective it is?

Hmm.  Typed and retyped this a couple of times but cant get it to not sound aggresive.  So be aware, this is a genuine question not a passive-aggressive attack, even if it doesn't sound like one.

Whats the flipside?  There haven't been any stats given or articles cited about any other - non self-defense - method in this thread.  What's their effectiveness?

[Healergirl]

Kythia,

Don't worry about your tone, it's a fair question.

There is damned little hard data on this point, the very flawed study that has been referred to seems to be all there is.

First off though,  Who is saying we should spend 90 percent of our effort on self defense?  Seriously, who?  Nobody in this thread, I'm pretty certain of that.  Situational Awareness does not take anywhere near that much effort.   In fact, a comprehensive attitude-changing martial arts program wouldn't take that much. That is much of the point GaggedLouise and I have been making, SA takes very little time and effort, and it is just so damned useful for so many things other than narrowly focused rape prevention we don't think it makes sense not to behave that way.

I have stated flatly that in the long run, reeducation programs to reduce rape are the best bet. SA is just how we deal with the rapists of here and now - among other things, I cannot repeat often enough how useful SA is in daily life.

Now, as to statistics...  the basic problem, perhaps an unsolvable problem: SA kicks in as a defensive measure most effectively  very early in the process.  There are two phases of predator behavior here:

  Phase One:  Selecting the target.

  Phase two:  Stalking the target.

SA is a defense that kicks in most effectively during Phase one.  How in God's name do you collect any statistics for that for rape?  Well, you don't.  But rapists are predators, and examination of predator behavior in general does show that a prey option  which are not paying as much attention to what is going on around it  is more likely to be selected - a big reason predators love watering holes, the prey has other things than lurking predators on their minds.

[Kythia]

the very flawed study

I still can't find a free copy of it.  Emailed a friend who might be able to get her hands on it but until she gets back to me I can't access it.  What precisely is so flawed about it?

[Ephiral]

Hmm.  Typed and retyped this a couple of times but cant get it to not sound aggresive.  So be aware, this is a genuine question not a passive-aggressive attack, even if it doesn't sound like one.

Whats the flipside?  There haven't been any stats given or articles cited about any other - non self-defense - method in this thread.  What's their effectiveness?

It's a fair question. Honest answer: Unknown, but I'd say victim-blaming is pretty certainly far more problematic than potential victims not doing enough, and is certainly more easily solveable.

First off though,  Who is saying we should spend 90 percent of our effort on self defense?  Seriously, who?  Nobody in this thread, I'm pretty certain of that.  Situational Awareness does not take anywhere near that much effort.   In fact, a comprehensive attitude-changing martial arts program wouldn't take that much. That is much of the point GaggedLouise and I have been making, SA takes very little time and effort, and it is just so damned useful for so many things other than narrowly focused rape prevention we don't think it makes sense not to behave that way.

I didn't say "effort", I said "attention". And... well, damned near everyone in this thread. Count the number of posts (and posters) talking primarily and heavily about self-defense. Count the number talking primarily and heavily about other methods. This is my issue. Self-defense is, at best, one small part of a much larger picture, but when people talk about stopping rape, it gets all the attention.

I have stated flatly that in the long run, reeducation programs to reduce rape are the best bet. SA is just how we deal with the rapists of here and now - among other things, I cannot repeat often enough how useful SA is in daily life.

You keep saying this, and then in the next breath...

Now, as to statistics...  the basic problem, perhaps an unsolvable problem: SA kicks in as a defensive measure most effectively  very early in the process.  There are two phases of predator behavior here:

  Phase One:  Selecting the target.

  Phase two:  Stalking the target.

SA is a defense that kicks in most effectively during Phase one.  How in God's name do you collect any statistics for that for rape?  Well, you don't.  But rapists are predators, and examination of predator behavior in general does show that a prey option  which are not paying as much attention to what is going on around it  is more likely to be selected - a big reason predators love watering holes, the prey has other things than lurking predators on their minds.

I didn't ask why you say data is impossible to get. I ask why you make a claim about real-world effectiveness while holding that this claim is unsupportable.

I still can't find a free copy of it.  Emailed a friend who might be able to get her hands on it but until she gets back to me I can't access it.  What precisely is so flawed about it?

The biggest thing is a p-value of 0.9, which is why I assign its results very little weight in my analysis.

EDIT: Oniya raises a good point. The p-value is basically the probability that the results seen, or larger ones, could have arisen completely by chance. In this case, they're saying that the 4.2% difference they noticed is only 10% likely to be a result of the provided self-defense training - which is how I arrive at a marginal utility of 0.42%.

[Oniya]

(Psst - you might want to explain 'p-values' to the non-math people.  My stats book is still packed upstairs.)

[Kythia]

It's a fair question. Honest answer: Unknown, but I'd say victim-blaming is pretty certainly far more problematic than potential victims not doing enough, and is certainly more easily solveable.

Hmmmm.  I actually feel that harms your argument then, Ephiral.  You complain - understandably - about a view that assigns weight to a particular method of rape reduction with limited stats while, it appears, espousing as far more effective one with no stats at all.

The biggest thing is a p-value of 0.9, which is why I assign its results very little weight in my analysis.

Well, no.  That doesn't make it a flawed study.  My study of "Word's in Ephiral's last post vs Number of spiders currently in my bathroom" showed a very high correlation.  With a p value of 1.  That doesn't make my study flawed, it makes it equally likely to be a coincidence.

[Ephiral]

Hmmmm.  I actually feel that harms your argument then, Ephiral.  You complain - understandably - about a view that assigns weight to a particular method of rape reduction with limited stats while, it appears, espousing as far more effective one with no stats at all.

In the absence of hard numbers, we can still do some useful analysis. I stress addressing victim-blaming as the strategy likely to have the greatest effect because victim-blaming is a known cause of several well-documented parts of the problem - underreporting, police dismissal, victim-shaming at trial, the list goes on. How large a contributor it is to all of these problems is unknown, but I'll gladly lay odds with a single avenue of approach that touches on a wide variety of problems than one which touches on only a single moment in the chain of events.

Well, no.  That doesn't make it a flawed study.  My study of "Word's in Ephiral's last post vs Number of spiders currently in my bathroom" showed a very high correlation.  With a p value of 1.  That doesn't make my study flawed, it makes it equally likely to be a coincidence.

Yes, yes it does. A p-value of 1 makes your study completely worthless - it literally says nothing at all on the subject.

[Kythia]

Yes, but you're "laying odds".  You're criticising one method of approach that has some value in favour of another with unknown value.  I'll lay odds that you're wrong and now we're at an utter deadlock.  We're both just arguing what we think or believe.

And I disagree.  My study is well designed and has controlled for all variables.  It simply shows that there is no meaningful relationship between number of words in your last post and spiders in my bathroom.  A negative result is still a result.  Sure, I could have done a flawed study on that subject but just because a p value of one is returned doesn't make the study worthless. it just means that there is no relationship between what is being examined.

[Healergirl]

Ah, the statement was attention and effort in your 10:13:56 AM post.  I'm calling shenanigans on you, Ephiral. 

What is flawed about it  the small sample size for one, and the fact that it seems to be unique - the first of it's kind pretty much guarantees that Mistake Will be made.

SA is being defended because certain people are arguing that it is useless.  It won't stop every rape, so why bother?  Well, neither will reeducation - but I support that, with its limited effectiveness and all.

And come on, I can't support both?  Really?  That is Binary  thinking.  There are some on this thread who see One True Solution, but I'm not one of them.

And, Ah, as to why I make the claim, read what you highlighted again, my comparison to predator/prey behavior around watering holes is one reason I m making the claim.  I am directly comparing rapists to other predators.  And the claim is supportable - not strongly supportable, but it is supportable by observing the behavior of other predators in the early stages of the hunt.

[Ephiral]

Yes, but you're "laying odds".  You're criticising one method of approach that has some value in favour of another with unknown value.  I'll lay odds that you're wrong and now we're at an utter deadlock.  We're both just arguing what we think or believe.

...and what is your bet based on? I've explained my analysis, at least superficially.

And I disagree.  My study is well designed and has controlled for all variables.  It simply shows that there is no meaningful relationship between number of words in your last post and spiders in my bathroom.  A negative result is still a result.  Sure, I could have done a flawed study on that subject but just because a p value of one is returned doesn't make the study worthless. it just means that there is no relationship between what is being examined.

A p-value of 1 is not a negative result. A "no correlation found" with a p-value of 0.05 is a negative result. A p-value of 1 is saying "Do not trust this data, and assign it zero weight in any analysis of the phenomenon." P-values are not even part of the result itself - they're a measure of confidence in it.

Ah, the statement was attention and effort in your 10:13:56 AM post.  I'm calling shenanigans on you, Ephiral.

Then I misspoke; my apologies.

SA is being defended because certain people are arguing that it is useless.  It won't stop every rape, so why bother?  Well, neither will reeducation - but I support that, with its limited effectiveness and all.

Really? I'm seeing no claims that it's useless, but a lot that its utility is highly questionable and nowhere near as strong as asserted. And if you look at the wider dialogue, it's rare to see "SA is ineffective!" claims at all. Yet the focus is still overwhelmingly on victim behaviour. Your claim here seems suspect.

And come on, I can't support both?  Really?  That is Binary  thinking.  There are some on this thread who see One True Solution, but I'm not one of them.

EDIT: My original statement here was overly harsh and not really in line with my position. I'm not saying that you can't support both. I'm saying that attention and awareness should be weighted proportionally to likely effectiveness, and this is currently very much not the case.

And, Ah, as to why I make the claim, read what you highlighted again, my comparison to predator/prey behavior around watering holes is one reason I m making the claim.  I am directly comparing rapists to other predators.  And the claim is supportable - not strongly supportable, but it is supportable by observing the behavior of other predators in the early stages of the hunt.

Mmm... I'll accept this, given that my case is based on evidence about as strong, with the caveat that I think we've both been making statements that are way too strong for the data available. I'd say it appears that victim-blaming is the more effective angle to approach, given my analysis - not that it is.

[Kythia]

...and what is your bet based on? I've explained my analysis, at least superficially.

You're arguing semantics now.

Okay. Here's something that bothers me. I've been seeing people repeatedly claiming that these self-defense tactics work and are a viable option for reducing rape. Apparently so effective that they're worth spending 90+% of our attention and effort on. When I go looking for data on how this actually works in the real world, ie whether or not this statement is actually true, I'm told that it's impossible to gather data. By the same people.

How can you simultaneously believe something is effective and that it's impossible to determine how effective it is?

That was the point you made.  But now, so far as I can see, you are doing exactly the same.  You believe it is effective but that it is (currently at least) impossible to determine how effective.  Maybe you have some justification for that belief maybe not, it actually doesn't matter.  The point is that throughout you have been arguing that re-education is a way more effective measure and focusing on SA is incorrect. 

But that's based on nothing more than a hunch.

A p-value of 1 is not a negative result. A "no correlation found" with a p-value of 0.05 is a negative result. A p-value of 1 is saying "Do not trust this data, and assign it zero weight in any analysis of the phenomenon." P-values are not even part of the result itself - they're a measure of confidence in it.

This, errr, this isn't correct.  p of 0.05 is an arbitraily chosen point for confidence.  There is nothing magical about 0.05, and not all studies use it as the confidence point.  A p value of one is saying that the effect observed is as likely to be chance as it is other factors.  My study says that any correlation of words vs. spiders can be ignored.  That doesn't make my study flawed. 

[Healergirl]

Xiaomei is quite insistent that it is useless, has said so forcefully.

I don't bother defending reeducation because others on this thread make such a very good case for it that I feel I would be rpeaching to the choir.

I defend SA because it is something we as individuals can do.  Reeducation is a response on a broader social and organizational level, SA is a response on the grassroots individual level.

I defend SA because the study saying it does not work flies in the face of directly observed predator/prey early stage interaction.

I defend SA because it is so damn useful for so many things other than the narrow focus of rape prevention.

And doing away with Victim blaming... I couldn't agree more. Rape is unique. It is the only crime that attaches the burden of sin to the victim - literally in the case of current Sharia law, and not that long ago in the West -  and makes excuses for the rapist.   But reeducation is a long term process, it will take years, perhaps decades to have the impact we want it to have.  How do we deal with the rapists of today?  By being aware of our surroundings.  By not getting drunk in public, stoned in public - my God, Xiaomei's insistence that Alcohol consumption has no influence on rape is mind boggling!