This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Imagination, truth is your creation
This past weekend, my girlfriend and I went to see the new Barbie movie. I had heard the movie was a new battle in the culture war, so I was going into the theater with trepidation. My girlfriend is woke-adjacent, so navigating these culture war topics with her can feel like the glass bridge in Squid Game. I will spare you commentary on the movie, since I’m sure most people here are already familiar with the details.
Fast forward to our discussion of the movie afterward. My overall opinion was the movie was an extremely inaccurate portrayal of reality, exaggerated to such a degree as to make the modern world unrecognizable. My girlfriend thought it was brilliant, and a searing indictment of patriarchy. I was navigating the glass bridge as well as I could, until I said I thought the scene was unrealistic where Barbie was sexually assaulted in broad daylight next to her boyfriend 5 minutes into their entry into the real world. Cue glass shattering and me plunging onto the concrete. This led to a fight about the state of women in the US in 2023, with the frequency of sexual assault coming up. My girlfriend stated 1 in 4 women experienced sexual assault in their lifetime and I needed to “educate myself”. We did talk things through and ended with a better understanding of each other’s views.
Not having too much familiarity with sexual assault stats, I couldn’t comment on it at the time, except for having a slight bias to thinking that was exaggerated. Either in terms of including a whole bucket of actions we wouldn’t consider sexual assault, or activist data cleaning and feature engineering.
Today I started investigating and found one of the luminaries on the subject, RAINN. RAINN has detailed statistics with citations. According to their victims of sexual violence statistics page, 1 in 6 women are victims of rape or completed rape. We aren’t talking catcalling on the street here, or clumsy come-ons in the workplace.
Fortunately, they posted their citations in detail. Chief among them is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). From the “Understanding RAINN’s Statistics” section:
Fantastic, let’s take a look at what the NCVS says. Zooming in on the sexual assault statistics in particular reveals some incredible details.
Table 1: Number and rate of violent victimizations by type of crime, 2015-2019 (only including Rape/sexual assault for brevity)
Year | Number | Rate per 1,000
2015 | 431,840 | 1.6
2016 | 298,410 | 1.1
2017 | 393,980 | 1.4
2018 | 734,630 | 2.7
2019 | 459,310 | 1.7
Note: this table includes completed, attempted, and threatened occurrences of those crimes.
First impression is 2018 as a massive statistical outlier. My instinct is this was caused my me-too rather than reflecting an underlying increase in violence. It could be either it’s become more normalized to speak up against sexual violence, people more likely to identity threats of sexual assault, and/or participate in a social movement.
In terms of the rates themselves, about 90% of sexual assault victims are women, so let’s adjust these rates. Just some back of the envelope math, but (rate per 1,000) * (proportion of women SA victims) * (adjusting rate to only include women) = 1.6 * .9 * 2 = 2.88. So about 2.88 women per 1,000 are victims of sexual assault.
So how do we get to the lifetime figure? Well, just multiply the figure by average life expectancy! 2.88 * 80 = 230.4 and there you go! 1 in 4 women experience sexual assault in their lifetime.
Of course we need to factor in revictimization and then disinter threatened from committed/attempted. Let’s look at the second first.
Table 21: Number and percent of persons who were victims of serious crime, 2015-2019 (only including Rape/sexual assault excluding threats and no-force contact for brevity)
Year | Number | Percent of persons
2015 | 164,880 | .06%
2016 | 131,760 | .05%
2017 | 144,280 | .05%
2018 | 254,320 | .09%
2019 | 168,860 | .06%
Note: Excludes threatened rape or sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact (not rape) without force.
Adjusted percent would be 0.108%. Multiply by average life expectancy, and you get 8.6%. So if we completely ignore revictimization, then you are looking at an absolute upper bound of 8%.
This is the most favorable possible analysis I could give, and I can’t get anywhere near that 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 level. You would need to have some inflation factor based on lying on survey responses. Maybe 90s crime boom would factor in as well to get you there.
Given what we know about crime clustering, I wouldn’t be surprised if revictimization rates dropped the figure closer to 1%.
What are your thoughts?
There are a lot of writeups on the "1 in 4" claim. Here is a particularly critical one which concludes:
Most of the time when I have pointed this out to someone touting "1 in 4," they've been pretty quick to retreat to the rhetoric of "even one is one too many." Women have a lot more to fear from men, than vice versa, and very nearly all women have a story they can tell you about sexual mistreatment (that may or may not rise to the level of "assault"). So it is perhaps understandable why people might be susceptible to exaggerated claims on the matter--but also, the pattern is common across a variety of objectionable activity; police brutality is also far less common than people tend to believe, for example.
This is absolutely one hundred percent true when you look at physical encounters in isolation, but I think that the ratio actually shifts a bit when you zoom out and look at things in a broader context. I don't think Johnny Depp could have done anything nearly as ruinous to Amber Heard as she did to him, for example.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a big problem for the study is that it assumes that college is representative of the Real World. It’s really probably less connected to the real world than most other communities. There’s the fact of the similar ages (18-25), the marriage status (almost all single), duration (living in the community 24-7 for 4 years). If I was going to create the bast possible environment for sexual assault (by any definition), it Would probably be exactly the structure of the college campus. Newly liberated young adults living in an environment full of other young adults with minimal responsibility, and no connection to either families or significant others. It’s young unattached adults who look for sex and love and are willing to bend or break rules to get it, especially with alcohol involved.
The setup is nothing like most of the rest of your life. In most of your working life, you might spend 40-50 hours at work, but you don’t live with your workmates. Your workmates are not all the same age. They’re also unlikely to be single, and if they are,they’re not your age. I think that using college students to study wider human society makes less sense than studying people on navy ships or astronauts or movie actors and using that to figure out what is going on in the rest of the country. College isn’t real life. And it’s not even close to how most women live.
To my knowledge every study has concluded that women in the same age group are more likely to be sexually assaulted if they aren't in college.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is pretty much where I am regarding these figures. Just about all women have stories of being cat called, groped, had guys act menacing when turned down, or the like. I'm also at the point of believing women when they point out that some unassuming dude in our social network has a rep for being creepy with their DM's or behaviour towards women when no other guys are around (in a real sense like leering at, touching, or hitting on another guy's girlfriend for instance). I remember a socially awkward friend of mine that I had to tell off for leering when my girlfriend at the time complained. To his credit he pulled his head in and changed his behaviour.
But that's about it. I consider most of Feminism's claims to be deliberately misinterpreted statistics like the above for the purpose of reaching their political goals.
I've been in situations at a club or a party where a guy has tried to lift my shirt or grab my ass when I've made it clear that I'm straight. It's not fun and made me genuinely upset when it's happened, but its not rape and didn't warrant filing a police report of all things.
I think there needs to be a distinction between boorish behavior and sexual assault. We should condemn the boorish behavior but it is different in kind; not just degree from sexual assault. Feminism has sought to blur the distinction.
Agreed. There's political value in equivocating statistics like that. Same deal with gun death statistics being used by gun control advocates, but avoiding mention that some may be suicides. Or defining both slapping with an open hand and beating someone with a baseball bat as 'assault'.
Boorish behaviour and groping isn't rape. It's bad and should be stamped out, but its not on the same level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Does this mean you’re approving the OP?
Anyway, the alternate headline goes pretty far the other way. It looks awfully like the author really did want to minimize the claims, despite all he says about “one is too many.” I’m reading the executive summary because I still can’t figure out how 27 colleges were non-representative. Why not go with something like
That’s the actual Key Finding from the study. Add a qualifier for the low response rate since that’s next in the summary. Presto, you’ve got a headline which is far more accurate than the Times and far less plodding than the proposed alternative.
The low response rate means you have garbage data which means you shouldn’t rely on anything.
Fair enough, but the way to indicate that is to talk about response rate.
I bolded the parts that are actually load-bearing. The rest is Earp trying to make it look as stupid and clumsy as possible.
For example, the Times' decision to gloss "nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force, threats of physical force, or incapacitation" as "sexual assault" is basically journalistic malpractice. What's the minimum change necessary to report this fairly? Using the actual wording from the actual survey. This isn't good enough for Earp, whose "more accurate" version is positively contorted.
Insofar as I believe in "not paraphrasing unflatteringly," I think this is a bad thing.
It still seems like the definition of sexual assault is quite broad. But really I think you can just say “we don’t know” when you have a non representative sample just due to response rate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The parent comment only shows as Filtered. I'm assuming you were able to see it as an admin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link