Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!houston.cs.columbia.edu
From: travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: How to lie with statistics in one easy lesson (Re: What is Feminism?)
Message-ID: <81504@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 20 Aug 90 14:53:49 GMT
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Lines: 121
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R


   travis@houston.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes:
   > ... over 90% of the incest cases reported to
   >the police and mental health professionals are in fact cases of
   >father-daughter incest, and most of them occur in stereotypically
   >patriarchal families.  

   What a nearly perfect example of a statistic taken completely out of
   context to make a point it does not in fact support at all!

I'm pleased I came up with a perfect example of something.  You seem
angry, but I'm not sure about what.  Your article confused me more than
anything else.  The point I sought to support was that some writers may
present confusing conclusions from apparently unknown bases.  Since you
were quite annoyed and confused by my presenting a single datum, I would
say that we exhibited the effect rather well.

   First, consider "incest"; a less biased statistic would be "statutory
   rape", but "incest" pretty thoroughly narrows the focus away from the
   many other possible sources of children participating in unwilling sex
   to just the household adults or near adults.

But I was not talking about statutory rape, my brief reference was to
father-daughter incest and nothing else.  Perhaps you're incorrectly
assuming that I deduced "incest" out of some statistic on statutory
rape?  Besides, statistics on statutory rape are far from unbiased,
since those laws are so frequently used to target male homosexuals.

   Second, consider "reported"; vaginal intercourse leaves much more
   compelling, easily noticed evidence than either anal or oral
   penetration, so this activity will be more "noticed", and thus more
   often reported about daughters.

Actually, "reported" in this context means "reported", as in "announced,
described, talked about," either to police or to mental health
professionals.  In fact, the more intimate an sexually abusive
relationship is, the less likely it is to be reported immediately.  Any
discussion of physical evidence of abuse is beyond the scope of this
(and your) article.

   Third, consider "reported" again; societal values for a girl's first
   intercourse include such terminology as "deflowered", "violated",
   "devalued", and "spoiled", while a boy's first intercourse is more
   likely to be tagged "gaining experience", "sowing wild oats", or
   "marriage training".  There is no compelling social call to report a
   boy's first sexual experience to the authorities, while we still try
   to protect our "weak, delicate girls" by doing so.

Yes, I would agree with this description of the double standard.
There's also the use of stud vs. slut.  However, its relevance to my
article seems slight, since you're talking about consensual sex between
teenagers of either sex, not the molestation of children.  Also, you
seem to believe that incest appears as a one-time incident, a "first
sexual experience", when this type of abuse typically takes place
repeatedly, over years.

   Fourth, consider "patriarchal", the "traditional" family structure,
   a likely source of objection to incest on religious and other
   traditional grounds, as opposed to the "untraditional" family, which
   might well consider a little incest OK if it's kept in the family?

Again, this is beyond the scope of this article (i.e., what I'm willing
to type in before I blow out of here), but "patriarchal" in this sense
referred to the so-called traditional family structure, where the father
makes the rules, mother is devoted to him and the children, and so on.
It doesn't matter if that family doesn't actually exist, if the
pressures on the people make them act in a certain way.  In the context
of child molestation, a common explanation is that the father obtains a
desired feeling of power and control by exercising it over a malleable
subject, his children.  The abuse is aa response to feeling out of
control and out of power, something his gender role tells him is unacceptable.

Inevitably, I'm distorting this argument by presenting in such a brief
form.  I'm also not discussing other attempted explanations at why
some adults damage their children so terribly.  Please bear that in
mind while replying.

   Fifth, consider "patriarchial" again, the social structure where the
   lineage of children is assured by control of access of sperm to the
   mother-to-be's womb.  In this "females as property" value system,
   reportage of property damage could be expected to be high, while the
   experienced male child (absent other abuse) is not necessarily
   "damaged property" in the view leading to the decision to make a
   report to the authorities.

I think you're trying to say that under patriarchy, abuse of male children
is less commonly reported than abuse of female children.  That may well be.
It is certainly true when dealing with adult males who have been raped.

   Sixth, if the topic is incest, I'm betting on grown siblings and cousins
   as the most frequent _participants_, infrequently if ever _reported_.

Quite possibly, but that has nothing to do with the type of crime that
I -- oh so briefly! -- mentioned.  "Father-daughter incest" in that
context referred to the sexual abuse of minors.  If Warren Beatty
wants to marry Shirley McClaine, that may be weird and stupid, but
that's not the type of crime I meant.

   Statistics are wonderful things, you can use them to prove whatever
   you want...to yourself.  The wider audience is urged to take them
   with salt.  Lots of salt.  That 90% figure proves nothing about
   patriarchal families except that they report father-daughter incest
   a lot, a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Skepticism is good, and I'm glad you have lots of it.  However, you
wrote a 70 line article discussing that single figure, when you had no
idea of its validity, the studies I had in mind, or even of the terms of
these studies.  Also, I used that single figure _explicitly_ without
attempting to draw any firm conclusion.  Surely you exhibit skepticism
without useful bounds.

It would have been better for you to write to me and ask me what I meant.
I suggest you find Judith Herman's "Father-Daughter Incest" (Harvard
Univ. Pr., 1981).  I haven't read it, myself; I was reading a brief
article by her in another book, where she quoted a figure of 94%
father-daughter incest out of all cases of incest reported to police,
mental health professionals, and one other group I can't recall.  She
cited three recent studies for that figure.  I'll be glad to send these
references to anyone who asks.

t