From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:44:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.005847.19505@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert) writes:
)In article <1992Apr8.221523.13104@lmpsbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)>>i DO think of rape as terrorism.  as a MALE professor of mine has stated,
)>>"rapists are the vanguard of patriarchy."
)
)>I probably mentioned this before, but the only study I've seen on this
)>topic showed absolutely *no* correlation between 'patriarchy' (as
)>measured by women's wages, women on the police force, women judges)
)>and rape rates.  So, you can think of 'patriarchy' causing rape, but
)>there is no evidence to actually support this position (that I am
)>aware of) and at least some evidence to refute it.
)
)I doubt there has been any attempt to develop a scientifically sound numerical
)measure of `patriarchy', much less applying that measure to a study comparing
)it with rape frequencies.

If 'patriarchy' is in principle unmeasurable, the belief in it becomes
a 'religion' rather than a social issue, IMO.

I'm not really as 'up' on the research into this particular issue as I'd
like, but the little bit I've seen (here on the net) supports my own bias and
observations that the belief that 'patriarchy' supports rape is a myth.  I'd
say quite the opposite.  Cynics would no doubt argue that 'The patriarchy
opposes rape only because it violates their (men's)  property rights.' :-(. 
[A good example of how the 'patriarchy' theories can be independent of any
particular result, BTW.] 
 
)I do know of a study (Neil Malamuth, UCLA) which found high positive
)correlations between per capita levels of sales of pornography and 
)rape frequencies.

Interesting.  Another poster has pointed out the problems inherent in
this sort of analysis, (basically the idea is that some other variable, such
as high population density might well  the cause of both high sales of
'pornography' and rape) but I'll have to do some more reading on this topic.

)If, instead of 'patriarchy causing rape', one thinks about 
)'patricarchy allowing rape', then considering how we blame
)rape victims instead of their rapists for rapes, let 1 in 605
)alleged rapists go acquitted, insist that the frequency of rape is
)orders of magnitude smaller than it really is, pretend that
)the rape issue is just a radical feminist plot and not a
)serious social problem in need of attention, cut funding
)for rape crisis/treatment centers, collectively fund very
)little research on rape as compared to other crimes of
)comparable magnitude, then yes, we continue to allow rape
)to continue. In this sense, the patriarchy allows rape.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that the frequency of rape is
'orders of magnitude' larger than, say, the NCS figures.  I could believe 2
or maybe even  4X - but 10X or more seems unlikely to me without redefining
the term such as Koss did (ref. our last debate).

)And this allowance of rape, the ultimate expression of
)the physical (and legal) power difference between men
)and women is like society implicitly saying to women, `Men can
)rape you and there is little you can do about it except
)hope that the rapist (if caught) receives one of the 1 conviction
)in every 605 rape trials, and hope that you recover in the 3 to 5
)years it takes 80% of all rape victims to recover from the resultant
)traumatic stress, and there's nothing we are going to do about it,
)so too bad!.'

My figures indicate in 1988  around 304,000 arrests (UCR) for aggravated
assault out of 1,741,000 aggravated assaults (NCS) (about 17%) vs.
28,000 arrests out of 113,000 rapes (25%).  [Relative conviction rate figures
would be interesting, but I'm not sure you can pin those on the 'patriarchy',
unless you can show that rapists are requesting judges and getting away
therby, rather than getting a trial by jury.  Which I doubt is the case.]

I think that in order to support the argument that very few rapists are
convicted compared to other crimes, you will have to argue that the rate of
rape is much larger than the NCS figures. Which is, of course, what you are
doing - and which I am arguing is not the case, at least to the extent that
you claim. (I personally think that the NCS underestimates both rape and
assaults, BTW - I hope they revise it to include direct questions about rape,
at which point the results will be more comparable for both cases than they
are now IMO, though it will still undoubtedly underestimate both rapes and
assaults, especially by relatives or intimates.)

I'd say the situation is that our criminal justice system in general is
not working very efficiently - it is not specific to rape.