(TW : Discusses rape stats) AIBU to find this interview with Louise Perry insulting to both women and men?

[Carla786]

I still think Louise Perry has valid points in her 2022 book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution and some of her Maiden Mother Matriarch podcast interviews, although I've always had disagreements with quite a few of her points

I cam across this interview today and was shocked, however. She badly states that she thinks 1/3 of men would commit rape given the chance of getting away with it.

Evidence? In her book, she does cite a study of US college students where 1/4 of the men said they would force sex if they could get away with it. (Higher numbers said yes when asked that than when asked if they would commit rape if they could get away with it).

But 1/4 is not 1/3, and a sample of US college students is not 'all men'. I searched for other studies giving such high numbers, but could find none. I myself believe that the numbers of men who would do that are higher than we'd like to think, but I certainly don't think they're as high as 1/3, and tossing around this kind of unsubstantiated claim feels insulting to men on general

She's spoken of the huge impression working for Rape Crisis for her gap year had on her, so maybe that's given her a skewed view?

Furthermore, if she sincerely believes that 1/3 of men are that evil, why on earth does she keep encouraging women to marry as early as possible and have kids younger? I don't think there's anything wrong with marriage and kids young, but I certainly wouldn't give that advice if I believed 1/3 of men were potential rapists! lt feels profoundly immoral to encourage women to prioritise marriage so much if you believe 1/3 of men would rape. Particularly as someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about abuse surely knows that those men who would rape or abuse are more likely to step that up when a woman's pregnant or raising a young kid.

MN thoughts? Am I overreacting, or is this position both disturbing and profoundly insulting to both men and women?

@Carla786 your post might have indicated a more than usual insight into this for anyone like me doing a search. Thanks.

Search having a context

Yes, I do think you’re naive, OP. Or an affronted man.

I haven’t read the article. I think a lot hinges on your interpretation of ‘if they could get away with it’.

You seem to be limiting it to ‘western men, socialised well, in peacetime, normal life’. Other women may choose to expand that to, ‘if they were in a situation, time and place where it was normal’. And that is very different.

You discount war. You discount countries where women have fewer rights. You discount college students. If you p-hack your data set to ‘men who probably wouldn’t, who live in a place and time where men don’t say it out loud, and where women have rights’ then you’re right. But that’s not the world. PNG for example, 41% of men say they have raped. Not would, have. https://www.sdgfund.org/gender-violence-papua-new-guinea

PNG men aren’t genetically or biologically different to some bloke in Tescos. Socialised differently, yes. Not enough but a bit. But if you can find a large cohort of men where 41% of them have raped, you have to discuss that in good faith. Not discount it out of hand. Where men have total power over women, more than 1/3 of them rape. Which is a very good argument for them not having that power. And why the tissue paper of civilisation has to include feminism.

You are naive.

For the vast majority of human history, rape against women has been normalised, standardised, and accepted, and it wouldn't have been that way if most men were opposed to rape. Up until the last hundred years in Western nations rape was seen as a crime against the woman's husband or father rather than against her, even - violating another man's property was the offending aspect, not that fact that a woman had been brutalised.

Marital rape was legal within the last forty years in Western nations, and in many countries is still legal. Wartime rape is widespread and committed by men from all nations, often encouraged by the men's commanders. If society collapsed, you cannot tell me that the average man on the street, filled with entitlement, would not offer protection to women...in exchange for sexual services.

Obviously these articles don't have the percentage of the perpetrators, but men rape and sexually assault their fellow female soldiers in the UK armed forces, and rape, stalk, and assault their fellow female scientists in Antarctica. Male priests rape nuns, and male carers and nurses rape women in psychiatric institutions, and in aged care.

Anywhere that men have power over women, they will contrive to rape women with impunity - and even those who don't participate will foster an environment where it is rife, by supporting their fellow men and staying quiet instead of standing up for women.

I think many men have integrity and would stand up for women, and not behave that way, but, equally, I think it entirely believable that 25 - 35% of men would force women to comply with their sexual whims without caring whether the women wanted to participate (aka rape).

This thread has really rubbed me up the wrong way. 1 in 4 women have been raped. 1 in 3 women suffer domestic violence. That is real physical and mental harm done to women.

Yet you have started a thread about feeling insulted on behalf of men because a woman said a sentence about them.

Perry has always been a very superficial writer - I'm not even going to call her a thinker. The consistent strand through her work is cherrypicking stats at her convenience without ever really questioning methodology or digging into their complexity. And it's all underpinned by such broad-brush generalisations.

In this case she's plucked a "shocking" stat with no rigour behind it to get headlines. She doesn't seem interested in the social or biological factors behind that stat, or how they may differ according to various other factors (geography, class, wealth among others). As OP correctly points out, there is absolutely no internal logic between her flagging that stat and her overall push behind a very conformist, traditional approach to marriage. If she believed that stat and took it seriously she would either be exploring how we rectify it - if we can - or advising women to keep away from men.

many Russians/Germans/Japanese etc still alive today

Why is it that only the "enemy" is on your list??

Yes, she is.

Do you mean his 'enforced monogamy' theory - I have issues with that, but didn't he mean social pressure to marry monogamously, rather than forcing women to marry?

Obviously his grand theory ignores marital rape entirely.

Good point, I see what you mean. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm glad plenty of women civilians have been able to flee, it's terrible to have such little control over what will happen to you, and of course the soldiers can't stop bombs etc falling...😢

Billionaires will be able to pay for security...there's also the difference in types of danger. Women are more at risk of sexual violence, and more likely to face this from someone they know (as opposed to men who risk more stranger physical violence). A female billionaire is still more at risk of partner sexual violence than a male one, because women don't tend to force sex on their partners (though it's definitely not unheard of).

So you think 1/3 of men would rape if they had a chance...or that that is at least credible...?

I hope not...

1 in 4 women report being raped or sexually assaulted as an adult. The actual number is thought to be even higher.

So why does it seem outside the realms of possibility that 1 in 3 men would perpetrate this? It's not "most men" - the majority wouldn't rape, but it's clear we do have a huge problem in that a substantial proportion of men would and DO.

All very good points...and depressing ones. I will think this over..

Poor women of Papua New Guinea, it must be a terrifying place.

I thought a lot of the 1 in 3 statistic was because lots of rapists reoffend? Either way it's a terrible stat..

This is it - she's trying to play both sides, her older fans - women who are fans of her older, more explicitly feminist writing, and the newer fans (who presumably pay the majority of her bills) - conservative men who want to listen to an attractive woman telling other women that their place is married and in the home. How do you square that?

I'm sure she'd tell women to make sure they pick the right man, but how many women have done everything right, dated and then married the man who was green flags all the way, and then he's turned out to be anything from useless to outright evil?

You ignored the other part of my post, which was feeling her position was extremely insulting to women:
'
Furthermore, if she sincerely believes that 1/3 of men are that evil, why on earth does she keep encouraging women to marry as early as possible and have kids younger? I don't think there's anything wrong with marriage and kids young, but I certainly wouldn't give that advice if I believed 1/3 of men were potential rapists! lt feels profoundly immoral to encourage women to prioritise marriage so much if you believe 1/3 of men would rape. Particularly as someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about abuse surely knows that those men who would rape or abuse are more likely to step that up when a woman's pregnant or raising a young kid.'

But I see what you mean...I still think the 1/3 stat is too much, but pps' posts about social and historical norms give me pause...

Exactly. I really don't think her newer conservative male fans (especially US ones) will like her claim that 1/3 of men would rape.

And as I've said, if she truly believes that 1/3 of men would rape, then encouraging women to have kids young and depend financially on a man, at least at the start, is vilely immoral advice

There was a study on here a while that suggested 1/6 Australian men would abuse a child @Carla786 may I suggest that you are struggling because you are finding it hard to accept that men’s sexual behaviour is such a huge problem.

theconversation.com/a-survey-found-1-in-6-men-admit-sexual-feelings-for-children-so-is-paedophilia-increasing-218124

Because those armies raped in much higher numbers. Yes, the other Allies committed rape too, but the numbers were lower, because dehumanisation of the enemy was not systematised in the same way, and because the commanders exercised much more control.

Besides, Russians weren't the enemy in that war, and I suspect the other Allies could have at least tried to do more to stop Berlin women being raped.

As for your second point humans are animals and like all animal we have a drive to procreate. There are two things at play, men’s sexual behaviour is appalling and we need men to pro create with and where possible we need the decent men to stand up to the awful men because we are physically smaller and much more vulnerable. These things are complex.

That's terrifying.

Is it really that high worldwide? Presumably there was nothing to skew the stats?

Does it impact on your 1/3 belief at all? You sound like you have been completely in denial about these issues. This is what multiple generations of feminists have been highlighting for nearly 75 ish years now.

I came in to mention that study as well @LuckyGreenWriter

I’m afraid you are sorely mistaken, OP

We are still doing a woeful job of educating men that women get to choose whether they have sex, every time. Too many think she should because she did before, we’re married, she did it with her ex etc.
One is too many. But it isn’t 1. Mr Tout le monde is alive and well and living next door to you.

edited for clarity.