As far as Cathy Young herself, I’d never heard of her before, but according to her Wikipedia page it seems like we might agree on quite a bit. The Wiki article is short, however, so I may not have the entire story. Is there some reason I should dislike her?
I don’t know much about her, but I do know that she’s kind of consistently had shit takes about like, gamergate, and I think SA more generally, but sue me if I’m wrong, I don’t really know too much. It’s mostly like, old news shit takes that I can’t remember the specific basis for. I associate her with bringing bad vibes to the function, and MGTOW shit. In any case, I think it would probably be better practice to just, cite the study that she’s citing directly, if that’s the actual like, statistical set that you want to have a citation of, right, that’s probably better practice. Especially if you’re using the same source she is for your analysis, that kind of makes her analysis a little bit, both redundant, and not really like, on topic. But I’m not your grandma, you can do whatever you want.
For the article itself, I think if I’m reading it correctly, and maybe also the study, then I kind of, disagree with her extrapolations about drunk sexual acts. Mostly in this-
" It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were “made to penetrate” someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason." -type of shit. It’s a study that inherently relies on self-reporting, right, but the basis of the study’s questions are to kind of get away from this blanket “Hey, were you raped?”
-type of shit. There are definitely cases in which people have been SA’d, and would accurately describe a SA experience if you were to question them, but wouldn’t define the act as SA. I think this is probably the case for a lot of male SA, and I think this is legitimately the case for prison SA, in many instances, if I’m remembering correctly. So I don’t really think that the person’s testimony should be considered reliable, and more than that, I think the “appealing to the theoretical person’s definition of a thing as being accurate to the thing” tactic is a little, weird. Gives me bad vibes.
For the study, right, I know I just said, sometimes people don’t accurately self-report, right, but I think I’d also probably think that it’s a mistake to kind of, prioritize the “last 12 months” stats, because they’re “more accurate”. They’re not really more or less accurate, they’re just kind of, more accurate to what they are specifically about. Which is questioning if SA happened in the last 12 months, among the polled peoples. We don’t really know if there’s kind of just a specific subset of the population of women, through some other factor or age range, that’s experiencing SA at higher rates, which I would think is probably somewhat likely. But that’s also, my dumb ass, so who knows. In any case, given that, I kinda find her-
“In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.”
-to be a kind of cherry picked and sensationalist, while also kind of treading a maybe more socially acceptable “centrist” libnuts kind of position. It’s technically accurate, which oh yes, pog futurama reference that nobody gets the context to, but you can kind of see why it’s like, stupid, right?
Probably, this kinda stuff is why I remember not liking her that much. Take this all with like, a mountain of salt, though, I am somewhat known to be a pretty good vector for misinfo, lies, and deceit. If I say that, then I’m free from the burden of proof, or like, holding reasonable positions, right? I can just say whatever I want? That sounds right, let’s go with that.
I don’t know much about her, but I do know that she’s kind of consistently had shit takes about like, gamergate, and I think SA more generally, but sue me if I’m wrong, I don’t really know too much. It’s mostly like, old news shit takes that I can’t remember the specific basis for. I associate her with bringing bad vibes to the function, and MGTOW shit. In any case, I think it would probably be better practice to just, cite the study that she’s citing directly, if that’s the actual like, statistical set that you want to have a citation of, right, that’s probably better practice. Especially if you’re using the same source she is for your analysis, that kind of makes her analysis a little bit, both redundant, and not really like, on topic. But I’m not your grandma, you can do whatever you want.
For the article itself, I think if I’m reading it correctly, and maybe also the study, then I kind of, disagree with her extrapolations about drunk sexual acts. Mostly in this-
" It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were “made to penetrate” someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason." -type of shit. It’s a study that inherently relies on self-reporting, right, but the basis of the study’s questions are to kind of get away from this blanket “Hey, were you raped?”
-type of shit. There are definitely cases in which people have been SA’d, and would accurately describe a SA experience if you were to question them, but wouldn’t define the act as SA. I think this is probably the case for a lot of male SA, and I think this is legitimately the case for prison SA, in many instances, if I’m remembering correctly. So I don’t really think that the person’s testimony should be considered reliable, and more than that, I think the “appealing to the theoretical person’s definition of a thing as being accurate to the thing” tactic is a little, weird. Gives me bad vibes.
For the study, right, I know I just said, sometimes people don’t accurately self-report, right, but I think I’d also probably think that it’s a mistake to kind of, prioritize the “last 12 months” stats, because they’re “more accurate”. They’re not really more or less accurate, they’re just kind of, more accurate to what they are specifically about. Which is questioning if SA happened in the last 12 months, among the polled peoples. We don’t really know if there’s kind of just a specific subset of the population of women, through some other factor or age range, that’s experiencing SA at higher rates, which I would think is probably somewhat likely. But that’s also, my dumb ass, so who knows. In any case, given that, I kinda find her-
“In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.”
-to be a kind of cherry picked and sensationalist, while also kind of treading a maybe more socially acceptable “centrist” libnuts kind of position. It’s technically accurate, which oh yes, pog futurama reference that nobody gets the context to, but you can kind of see why it’s like, stupid, right?
Probably, this kinda stuff is why I remember not liking her that much. Take this all with like, a mountain of salt, though, I am somewhat known to be a pretty good vector for misinfo, lies, and deceit. If I say that, then I’m free from the burden of proof, or like, holding reasonable positions, right? I can just say whatever I want? That sounds right, let’s go with that.