Thanks for this post. It’s brave, thorough, fair, and well-researched—a breath of fresh air compared to 99% of internet discussion on this topic.
I have seen several responses saying things like this, but in reality, the research in this article goes only as far as collecting the standard feminist narrative on sexual assault, which is not original and can be found in many places if you are familiar with this subject. The only thing that’s new is attempting to marry this perspective to EA, despite the methodology being highly partisan and significantly different from EA methodology.
Among the problems:
uncritically taking feminist sexual assault prevalence research at face value, without addressing the many methodological criticisms
mixing and matching studies with very different populations and methods to maximize the perception of male perpetration and female victimhood
failing to address the debate on false accusations
failing to discover any of the complicating lines of research, such as the token resistance research, and the research on self-justification and unreliability of memory
discussing drastic and hasty interventions like stings and medicalization
accusing an entire community of males of containing hundreds of rapists based on poorly-executed studies on a totally different population
While the article is being criticized for being too long, in some ways, it’s actually too short to support the extraordinary claims it is making, which are perhaps not fully recognized as extraordinary due to feminist research not being held to the same standards as other fields, and all sorts of glaring errors being normalized.
Here is my detailed rebuttal which is only enough to cover some of those problems, and here is an additional comment on the lack of balance in the original post.
I have seen several responses saying things like this, but in reality, the research in this article goes only as far as collecting the standard feminist narrative on sexual assault, which is not original and can be found in many places if you are familiar with this subject. The only thing that’s new is attempting to marry this perspective to EA, despite the methodology being highly partisan and significantly different from EA methodology.
Among the problems:
uncritically taking feminist sexual assault prevalence research at face value, without addressing the many methodological criticisms
mixing and matching studies with very different populations and methods to maximize the perception of male perpetration and female victimhood
failing to address the debate on false accusations
failing to discover any of the complicating lines of research, such as the token resistance research, and the research on self-justification and unreliability of memory
discussing drastic and hasty interventions like stings and medicalization
accusing an entire community of males of containing hundreds of rapists based on poorly-executed studies on a totally different population
While the article is being criticized for being too long, in some ways, it’s actually too short to support the extraordinary claims it is making, which are perhaps not fully recognized as extraordinary due to feminist research not being held to the same standards as other fields, and all sorts of glaring errors being normalized.
Here is my detailed rebuttal which is only enough to cover some of those problems, and here is an additional comment on the lack of balance in the original post.