It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:
That is, at least, David Futrelle’s opinion on the matter. Over on the MRA Reddit boards, someone linked to an image of a person asking “Why has decades of telling men ‘Don’t Rape’ not seemed to have resulted in a significant decrease in the occurrence of rape?” to which Futrelle replies, “If I might hazard a guess: that’s because IT HAS YOU NUMBSKULLS.”
His… evidence is a graph from the Bureau of Justice showing a decrease in the rate of rape between 1973 and 2009. As he explains:
This is based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Some have criticized the survey’s methodology and say that it undercounts the incidence of rape, but even if that is true, the trend is clear: Rape has declined significantly over the past three decades, and I think it’s fairly obvious that increased awareness and understanding of rape, largely the result of feminist anti-rape campaigns, has contributed significantly to this decline.
There are actually several problems with the NCVS methodology, including this bit: “Rape – Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.” That definition excludes most of the types of rape committed against males victims and excludes most of the types of rape committed by female abusers.
However, there is nothing on the BJS site or from the NCVS results that suggest “it’s fairly obvious that increased awareness and understanding of rape, largely the result of feminist anti-rape campaigns, has contributed significantly to this decline.” More so, all crime has declined over the last forty years. Futrelle must show that the changes in society’s methods of dealing with crime in general had little or at least less impact than feminists so-called anti-campaigns.
This claim is much like the pro-abortion claim that greater access to abortion reduced child abuse and violence in communities. Certainly one can argument that if a person does not have a child, the child cannot be abused and no person who can later grow up to hurt other. However, there is no evidence supporting such an asinine claim, and the same holds true for Futrelle’s claim.
The irony is that Futrelle completely undermines the current feminist argument that society is a cesspool of “rape culture”, with women so threatened by rape that they must suspect every male, even the tiny babies, are rapists until proven otherwise.
Yet the greater irony is Futrelle, like many feminists, likely believes in Kate Harding’s moronic, misandrous assertion that there is a grand, overwhelming threat of rape against women. If that threat is real , then how effective are feminists’ anti-rape campaigns? The only way around this is to make the absurd claim that rape was so prevalent before feminists came along that practically every female was raped.
Futrelle’s kind of stupidity does not happen on its own. This is not a happy mistake. It is intentional. Futrelle actually thought about it, looked up some random statistic, and slappd it down on the Poker table like he had a winning hand with his pair of Uno cards.
If Futrelle really wants to prove that anti-rape campaigns (that coincidentally often fall to include men and boys as potential victims) reduced the rate of sexual violence against women (since they really are not concerned about sexual violence against men and boys), he should try actually making an argument backed up by statistics, not just pasting a single graph, waving his finger at it, and sticking his tongue out like a five-year-old child.