From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: FOR LOS ANGELES AREA WOMEN ONLY
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:32:07 GMT

In article <C1H3n1.B54@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>Many people seem threatened by the study that requested subjects, so much 
>as to post responses claiming the sample would be biased, or that the
>study was intended to garner propaganda, or other claims.
>
>All of you seem so eager to comment about something you don't know anything
>about. 
>


  Actually, we DO know what we are talking about. As Berkeley Professor
Neil Gilbert has demonstrated in his numerous articles, the feminist
movement is replete with studies which bias their methodology for no
other reason than to generate numbers to "prove" a political position.
The Ms. Magazine study, which was made part of Senator Joseph Biden's
"Violenc Against Women Act" did not try to find the prevelence of
rape so much as redefine the term. They did so to the point where a
followup study showed that over 70% of the women listed as "rape victims"
did not think they were, and of those women, 40% had continued their relationships
with the man determined to be their "rapist". In one good example, a date
was liusted as a rape if the woman said no to sex, then changed her
mind when the man persisted in asking (even if he said please and all the
other nice polite touches, it was still called rape because the man did
not "respect" her first choice and quit asking).

  The Diana Russell study, conducted in the most crime ridden section of
San Fransisco, informed all potential interviewees of the subject, and
then interviewed those who felt they had something to talk about. That
subset, roughly half of all the original subjects, was listed as the
total sample population from which the prevelence of rape for the general
population was extracted. The results from the high crime area were then
applied to the entire nation, ignoring the long proven sociology axiom that
per-capita crime rates are directly proportional to urbanization. A
rape study done in the middle of San Fransisco is not likely to produce
accurate information about rape in Loudon, New Hampshire.  The Russell
study, even though quoted by feminists everywhere, was rejected for
publication from every jury revued science and sociology journal it
was submitted to. It was finally published in "Signs", a journal devoted
to pro-feminist literature (which in hindsight, befits it's somewhat
fictional content).

  In Los Angeles, and (until recently) in San Diego, the child protective
services of those cities had a requirement that any parent (usually male)
accused of a molestation had to admit the crime before he would be allowed
contact with his children. It's a catch-22. Stand up for your innocence
and you don't get to see your kids ever again. Many men, valuing their
children over thei personal dignity, pled a nolo contendre to the accusations.
The studies on child molestation listed these "no contest" pleas as
"proven" instances of molestation, a practice that helped bring the wrath
of the Grand Jury down on the heads of the social workers and send
their perjuring little asses to jail.

  Riddle: What's the difference between a Pit Bull and a Child Services
Worker?

  Answer: You can get your kid BACK from the Pit Bull!

  So, in response to your statement that we don't know what we are talking about,
the fact is, we do. We've actually looked into the series of studies which have
gone on before and discovered, not science, but feminist propaganda 
masquerading as research (and no different from the IQ tests used to
"prove" the "natural inferiority" of various ethnic groups).

  For myself, I am determined to let the authors of such studies know that
I will not accept their conclusions without a supporting methodology,
and that their methodology will be subjected to a grueling scrutiny.



-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.rape