Top products from r/FeMRADebates

We found 25 product mentions on r/FeMRADebates. We ranked the 150 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/FeMRADebates:

u/roe_ · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

This will be the third such large-scale social transition.

The first was from foraging to agriculture - humans had to transition from hunting game/foraging and working relatively few hours to working the soil and working many hours.

Then the industrial transition describe here.

The lives of agricultural and industrial people look utterly alien to foraging people. (Arguably, the story of genesis is an allegory about the transition to agriculture). For example, from Scott Alexander's review of Empire of the Summer Moon:

> So there was a bit of traffic back and forth between America and Comancheria in the 19th century. White people being captured and raised by Comanches. The captives being recaptured years later and taken back into normal white society. Indians being defeated and settled on reservations and taught to adopt white lifestyles. And throughout the book's description of these events, there was one constant:

>All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives.

>There was much to like about tribal life. The men had no jobs except to occasionally hunt some buffalo and if they felt courageous to go to war. The women did have jobs like cooking and preparing buffalo, but they still seemed to be getting off easy compared to the white pioneer women or, for that matter, women today. The whole culture was nomadic, basically riding horses wherever they wanted through the vast open plains without any property or buildings or walls. And everyone was amazingly good at what they did; the Comanche men were probably the best archers and horsemen in the history of history, and even women and children had wilderness survival and tracking skills that put even the best white frontiersmen to shame. It sounds like a life of leisure, strong traditions, excellence, and enjoyment of nature, and it doesn't surprise me that people liked it better than the awful white frontier life of backbreaking farming and endless religious sermons.

However idyllic the word "artisan" seems, it's nowhere near as idyllic as the prospect of living like a foraging person is.

Quoth Robin Hanson from the introduction to The Age of Em:

> Like most of your kind, you probably feel superior to your ancestors. Oh, you don't blame them for learning what they were taught. But you'd shudder to hear of many of your distant farmer ancestors' habits and attitudes on sanitation, sex, marriage, gender, religion, slavery, war, bosses, inequality, nature, conformity, and family obligations. And you'd also shudder to hear of many habits and attitudes of your even more ancient forager ancestors. Yes, you admit that lacking your wealth your ancestors couldn't copy some of you habits. Even so, you tend to think that humanity has learned that your ways are better. That is, you believe in social and moral progress.

> The problem is, the future will probably hold new kinds of people. Your descendants' habits and attitudes are likely to differ from yours by as much as yours differ from your ancestors. If you understood just how different your ancestors were, you'd realize that you should expect your descendants to seem quite stranger. Historical fiction misleads you, showing your ancestors as more modern than they were. Science fiction similarly misleads you about your descendants.

(If you want to feel both of these things at once, try reading science fiction written in the '50's)

Point of all this: we can't look to the past as a guide to how we'll be in the future.

u/Mercurylant · 1 pointr/FeMRADebates

Sorry, I was getting kind of burned out on this sub (and reddit in general) for a while, and skipped out on this conversation, but I didn't mean to leave you hanging on all of this.

>Might be I dont know, do you have a source for that? How large was the difference?

I'm not aware of any study that addressed it at all (although some research addressed in this book seems to imply it,) but I wasn't trying to raise specific points of data I'm aware of which firmly establish cultural influence on IQ. I'd stepped back to questioning what sort of evidence might be persuasive to you. The discussion might not be resolvable with the pool of data we already have access to, but we should at least be able to address whether we have realistic expectations about what the data should show in the event of either hypothesis being true.

>Something with very large effect size, best a very quick improvement correlated with adoption of another culture (eg a religion that spreads) while controling for genetic replacement. If germany became islamic without the population being replaced and suddenly test scores rise to heaven or dank down in the low 80s it would definitely be worth looking into.

This doesn't strike me as a reasonable threshold to expect the evidence to reach in the event that the hypothesis of IQ having a significant cultural element is true. It's very, very difficult to dramatically change cultures so quickly. Is Germany became Islamic without major adjustment of demographics (already unlikely,) it would be an expression of Islam which bore heavy influence from existing German culture.

This is not to say that if cultural influences on IQ are real, we shouldn't expect to see IQ changes at all in response to cultural changes. But cultural influence on IQ being real doesn't mean rapid alterations with large effect sizes any more than evolution being real means rapid macroscopic alteration of species.

>Yeah, we would, but we do not because we do not know of any. That is kinda my point. The ones we know about are not trivial- having a schoolwhere they teach you to read and count probably helps a lot. After that improvements are very hard to come by afaik.

I'm not arguing in favor of cultural influences on IQ because I think adjusting culture is a convenient lever for creating improvements in IQ. Deliberately creating significant alterations in culture is incredibly difficult, so it would be a hard lever to use even if a huge proportion of all variation in IQ were cultural. I'm arguing in favor of cultural influences on IQ because I think the weight of evidence favors it.

u/azi-buki-vedi · 9 pointsr/FeMRADebates

> Have you worked in the construction industry? I've been an elevator mechanic and a finishing carpenter. The first paid 50 bucks an hour and the base yearly income for a ticketed mechanic was over $100,000.

Perhaps it's a matter of where you live then. Before moving to the UK I was in Eastern Europe. I've not worked in construction, but have friends who have. They were well paid, when they did get paid. But nowhere near as well as you describe. And the financial crisis hit them hard. I'm glad to hear things are better elsewhere.

As to your comments about expectations in a relationship, yeah I agree that none of this means you will want (or have any right to expect) a 1950s housewife. But men I know have been in this situation and it has caused marital problems. I don't think that the people posting on this sub are a representative sample of the population at large. In any case, I brought up gender roles not to defend them, but to point out how (unfortunately still persistent) expectations may affect men's decisions and options.

Also, would you comment on the Slate article I linked? I believe it is informed by this book. A relevant quote from its description, which I think reflects my own thoughts on why academic lag in boys is a problem:
>Only policies that redress the balance between men and women through greater access to education, stable employment, and opportunities for social mobility can produce a culture that encourages commitment and investment in family life.

EDIT: it's -> its (doi!)

u/jolly_mcfats · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

Kinda coming late to this.

First- let me say that I have listened to this podcast on occasion, and usually enjoy it. In fact, I often find that when it does discuss women in history, it is extremely interesting because what is discussed flies in the face of a common perception of women in history (ie, that they were powerless and had no influence).

Because these particular episodes tend to be the ones most accurately described as "stuff I missed in history class"- they become the most memorable. If I were to describe the podcast to someone, I would probably mention that it often covered women in history. I wouldn't really write a letter of complaint, because... well, it would only really bother me if I felt that they were getting it wrong (and I am way too much of a history noob to really have that reaction unless we are talking about one of a very few things I have actually studied as an adult), or if I felt the presentation was deliberately partisan. It's not- and women featured in it are sometimes portrayed as protagonists, and sometimes antagonists- which makes it a somewhat refreshing take on inclusivity. In particular I remember some bit about the influence of washington wives in mid-18th century america that was none too flattering. Oftentimes I find that attempts to tell "herstory" paint women as a saintly underdog of history- always doing great things, never making mistakes. Sometimes you'll run into what seem to me to be strange emphasis effects (consider Pickering vs Leavitt. Variable stars are really cool, but somehow the context of their discovery as part of the process of nailing down the big bang theory is missing from wikipedia)^1. That's not what this podcast does.

When I hear "stuff you missed"- I assume it is going to be an examination of past events from perspectives not generally given the spotlight in history classes- which tend to focus on the stories of the famous and powerful, and the conflicts between them. The title of the show would lead me to expect to hear more about Leavitt than Pickering, because I would expect the history of nailing down the big bang theory to be prominent, whereas "Pickering's Harem" and the discovery of variable stars might be left out (although, I've really only read one history of the Big Bang theory, and that is where I first learned about Leavitt). "Pickering's Harem" is interesting outside of that particular bit of scientific history because it highlights how the conventions of the time (public discomfort at the impropriety of men and women working side by side at night under the light of stars) affected the professional opportunities available, even when you could pursue degrees in a field- especially if you've ever worked in an observatory and know how unromantic it is, and how little hanky panky you would expect in the freezing conditions that are required viewing things at night at high altitudes without introducing atmospheric disturbance.

I don't think I'd just write it up exclusively to implicit bias. Sexism exists, and there is resentment for ideologically-driven efforts in the area like this one. Historical innacuracy aside, detractors seem to derive far too much enjoyment from denigrating the woman who was incorrectly identified as the inspiration for Rosie the Riveter for only working a few weeks, or maintaining that Ada Lovelace was only indisputably the world's first technical writer to just claim that people just want accurate accountings of history. People seem to want history to reflect that people like them were important- and that people who aren't like them have their importance exaggerated. We expect some strange transitive property of history in which we seem to be tallying up what accolades we are personally worthy of, despite the fact that we had nothing to do with it.

  1. Or maybe this is my own implicit bias operating. I'm not arguing that Leavitt deserves less attention- I'm saying that Pickering isn't getting enough at wikipedia, which is a little odd considering how important scientific writers like Singh find him.
u/SomeGuy58439 · 1 pointr/FeMRADebates

> Most of us are fairly engaged here, so we understand the material a bit more than a layperson would, but certainly not more than an academic (except for the FRD members who are academics in the social sciences).

I'd differentiate further based on whether or not the branch of academia in question explicitly includes advocacy for social change amongst its self-description.

(i.e. there are certain parts of academia that I find rather unreliable).

u/geriatricbaby · 3 pointsr/FeMRADebates

>Really? You can demonstrate evidence that computer companies were refusing to hire women?

There are whole books on the subject. Here's one.

Here's another about the UK.

>Because the majority of law students are female?

Does that make my statistic invalid? We still haven't reached parity in the profession. Things aren't equal.

>It's apparently wrong if I minimize the concerns of elite women at Google who "suffer" from someone saying something they disagree with (which was apparently severe enough that some decided to skip work, the poor babies), but it's perfectly fine for you to claim that sex discrimination regarding access to resources and hiring is just a matter of men complaining about it being too hard for them.

It can't be that wrong if you're willing to do it here. Plenty of people feel the same way which is something I know because they have expressed as much. I guess it can't be that wrong to express this opinion.

u/ABC_Florida · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

I recall one Mexican drug cartel having a female leader.

> “We are still beholden to the idea that women are not political creatures and are not violent. We still believe these ancient notions that women are passive.”

This past more or less fact kept past western societies together. And this illusion keeps it together now. If none of it exists, we fall back in civilization where terrorists are. Where individual power and strict morals rule. IMO.

BTW, thank you very much for your links. Someone was replying me with The Gate to Women's Country regarding a fantasy, what a divided society would look like.

u/maxgarzo · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

> 'suicide by cop'

raises eyebrow incredulously

I'm familiar with the concept, I'm curious about the juxtaposition you've just created here and I'm none to sure I'm comfortable with it-even as I'm glancing across the room at a certain book on the shelf

u/Spoonwood · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

There's a book on this topic published by two Canadian academics called Spreading Misandry

Also some articles in the New Male Studies journal concern this topic

u/Not_Jane_Gumb · 3 pointsr/FeMRADebates

Start here and here, and if you have the time, read this excellent work. Then you can point out that correlation doesn't entail causation, that wages haven't scaled to productivity, and that rent seeking means the price for top performers is vastly inflated.
But serious question here: why are you arguing with someone who isn't likely to change his or her mind? Is there money riding on this?

u/Tedesche · 6 pointsr/FeMRADebates

I don't contest the idea that men are trained not to cry and women are allowed to. I simply contest the notion that this is because men are trained not to express their emotions, whereas women are. In my opinion, men are simply trained to express their emotions differently than women.

More to the point, I think men are trained to be more independent, whereas women are trained to be more interdependent. Thus, when men encounter a problem they do not feel they can solve, they get angry and express that suffering with angry outbursts, because their implicit understanding of their suffering is that it is their fault for not being able to find a solution on their own. By contrast, when women encounter a problem they cannot solve, they cry and/or seek help, because they are trained to construe their failure as evidence of lack of support.

The idea that men are trained not to cry because their pain and suffering is considered "weak" is a distinctly feminine construal of male psychology. If you look at men who go to other men as a means of support, you see them asking for advice, not emotional support (Google "Deborah Tannen" for an excellent summary of this phenomenon), because they value practical solutions over emotional support, because that fits with their belief that they ought to be able to generate their own solutions, rather than rely on other people for assistance. By contrast, women seek other women's emotional solidarity, because they are trained to believe that they cannot solve their own problems independently.

u/MaxMahem · 7 pointsr/FeMRADebates

So this is basically the Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus model of understanding human communication. It has been quite some time since I've read that book, but I don't recall it basing its findings very empirically. And the book is not without its detractors. Most of whom ground their insights with a lot more evidence.

Myself, I found the book somewhat insightful, but as with much pop-psychology, I wouldn't read overmuch into it fundamentally. While I can recognize the strategies for communication and dealing with stress he talks about in the book in myself and others, I can also see just as many counter examples in life (including prominently my parents and brother).

So it's a big and much disputed point as to the reality of the assertions. Which makes the why kind of a mute question.

But to answer it anyways, I'd say if it is reality, its most likely just a product of modern western culture. In other cultures men and women may have different strategies for communicating/deal with stress, and it may have been different in the not to distant past.

u/RapeMatters · 1 pointr/FeMRADebates

>Sounds like you work with sexist people. Also, I doubt people are as intolerant as you believe.

People are exactly as intolerant as I believe - no more and no less.

I actually had to get a job in another state (gotta love the age of computers for lots of reasons - working virtually in another state) because I burned my bridges in this town - by arguing that men should get paternity leave the way women should get maternity leave. I honestly thought that was pretty noncontroversial.

>So what's your solution? Make a law that requires everyone to accept your opinion? Oh, wait, this is already what activist feminists are doing...making their opinion the law.

Barring businesses from discrimination, because that's the way towards the most freedom. It's not perfect, but barring discrimination was a good act in the face of oppression.

>In apartheid Africa, in many residential areas that were required by law to forbid blacks, the number of blacks outnumbered whites.

Not sure how that proves who's "winning".

>Also, the entire North is a case study.

Let's try discriminating communities in the south vs nondiscriminating communities in the south. Otherwise we might as well compare Beijing and Tehran for all the sense it makes.

>What about them? A company was buying from people, and those people did bad things in order to sell to them. They then stopped selling to them. I don't see anywhere that the employees of the company were murdering people.

As I said - they hire out. It's essentially the same thing, but you get one step in between so you're not technically guilty by law and can plead ignorance.

>I'm skeptical, however, purely because I couldn't find any evidence of it outside your comment.

>In September, Wal-Mart was hit with three separate charges of predatory pricing. Government officials in Wisconsin and Germany accused the retailer of pricing goods below cost with an intent to drive competitors out of the market. In Oklahoma, Wal-Mart faces a private lawsuit alleging similar illegal pricing practices.

>The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection filed a complaint with an administrative law judge accusing the retailer of violating the state’s antitrust law. The complaint says Wal-Mart sold butter, milk, laundry detergent, and other staple goods below cost in stores in Beloit, Oshkosh, Racine, Tomah, and West Bend. The company intended to force other stores out of business, gain a monopoly in local markets, and ultimately recoup its losses through higher prices.

I don't live in Wisconsin, btw.

>If you've noticed this trend, once a new grocery store appears, why not just boycott the Wal-Mart, since you already know it's going to just up the prices?

I do. Most people don't.

>Maybe put up a website or run a local ad regarding it? Why doesn't the new grocery store advertise this history in order to draw customers, something like "Unlike Wal-Mart, we won't increase our prices once the competition leaves!"

Yeah they've tried that. People still go for the lower prices.

>Then the situation at Wal-Mart isn't bad enough for you to move. That's your choice. Why is that Wal-Mart's fault?

Because they're engaging in predatory pricing, which is against the law, and would be prosecuted if the state had any balls.

>Ah, so the majority are willing to pay more, and so the prices are more expensive. Yay for basic economics?

That is economics, yes. The strong beat out the weak and then prey on the consumer.

>Also, does Amazon not ship to your location? You can buy groceries online, and for cheap. It's why they bought Whole Foods, and have plenty of other suppliers. Why don't you?

I'm glad you brought up Amazon. Wal-Mart's predatory pricing on nonperishable goods has been broken thanks to amazon. You can order things and have them shipped in. Which I generally do.

However, for perishable items...

$20 is quite a lot for a gallon of milk, even by price gouging wal-mart standards.

>My choice is between benevolent tyranny or corrupt tyranny? Sorry, no. The entire history of the United States disproves this.

Those are your choices in this instance, yes. Economics is not some benevolent force for good. It merely is a thing that exists. The preferences of the actors drive the preferences of the economy.

If those preferences are racist, the economy will react accordingly. If they are sexist, the economy will react accordingly.

u/NuclearShadow · -13 pointsr/FeMRADebates

> Most critics of feminism that I know believe in gender equality.

Than 'most critics' would have to be ignorant and believe the lies.

> They just don't believe it will be attained by only ever elevating the level of women.

Nor does feminism. In-fact that very concept would be against feminism. I'll give you a example...

Let's say a fight for further labor rights was really taking hold in America. A push for greater safety regulations in fields that need it. Feminists like myself and all others would be absolutely appalled to the idea of such regulations passing but only applying to women workers. This would not be a acceptable outcome.

If any subject of rights comes up feminism has to advocate for the same for men as it does for women. This automatically makes feminism a (and a actual) men's rights movement just as much as it is one for women.

> . Or by gendering problems like rape or DV, as if male victims and female perpetrators didn't even exist (something traditionalism did implicitly, but NOT explicitly).

The idea of rape being a male perpetrator and a female victim only scenario has been around longer than feminism has. So this is simply dishonest to try to pass the blame for this on feminism.

In-fact feminism has progressed this idea and protected men with laws we have advocated for.

Hell there is even a feminist book written on the subject of male victims. Male Rape is a Feminist Issue is literally the title of the book.

u/kuroiniji · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

Before taking any of the claims presented in the article referenced in the OP into account, you need to take into account what the grant funding (Grant No. 2002-WA-BX-0011) was actually for. In this case the grant was for staff training and the development of an advocacy program [1]. It's also interesting to note that some of the grant funding appears to go towards a production of The Vagina Monologues and a performance by feminist activist hip-hop duo AquaMoon [1 pp 3].

Given that the grant application was made in January 2006 [1 pp 55], it is curious that they cited Mary Koss's 1985 Ms. Magazine Campus Project on Sexual Assault survey [2] and not the more recent 2000 Sexual Victimization of College Women study [3] performed by the National Institute of Justice which provides similar estimates.

The Koss study has been widely criticised, mainly because the researchers decided if the survey participants were raped, not the participants themselves.

> There are several reasons for serious researchers to question the magnitude of sexual assault conveyed by the Ms. findings. To begin with, a notable discrepancy exists between Koss's definition of rape and the way most women she labeled as victims interpreted their experiences. When asked directly, 73 percent of the students whom Koss categorized as victims of rape did not think that they had been raped. This discrepancy is underscored by the subsequent behavior of a high proportion of identified victims, forty-two percent of whom had sex again with the man who supposedly raped them. Of those categorized as victims of attempted rape, 35 percent later had sex with their purported offender.
> Rape and attempted rape were operationally defined in the Ms. study by five questions, three of which referred to the threat or use of "some degree of physical force." The other two questions, however, asked: "Have you had a man attempt sexual intercourse (get on top of you, attempt to insert his penis) when you didn't want to by giving you alcohol or drugs, but intercourse did not occur? Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" Forty-four percent of all the women identified as victims of rape and attempted rape in the previous year were so labeled because they responded positively to these awkward and vaguely worded questions. What does having sex "because" a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify? A positive response does not indicate whether duress, intoxication, force, or the threat of force were present; whether the woman's judgment or control were substantially impaired; or whether the man purposely got the woman drunk to prevent her from resisting his sexual advances. It could mean that a woman was trading sex for drugs or that a few drinks lowered the respondent's inhibitions and she consented to an act she later regretted. Koss assumes that a positive answer signifies the respondent engaged in sexual intercourse against her will because she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to deny consent (and that the man had administered the alcohol for this purpose). While the item could have been clearly worded to denote "intentional incapacitation of the victim," as the question stands it would require a mind reader to detect whether an affirmative response corresponds to a legal definition of rape. [4]

The other interesting thing about the Koss study is that even though the title is gender neutral Hidden rape: sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education, the implementation isn't. It only looks at the incidence of rape of women, not the whole student population. The only thing that seems to be hidden is the rape of men by women.

> The data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization after the age of 14 were obtained through the use of the 10 item Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss &Oros, 1982; Koss & Gidycz, 1985). This survey has been described as a self-report instrument that is designed to reflect various degrees of sexual aggression and victimization and is capable of identifying hidden rape victims and offenders from among a "normal" population. During actual administration separate wordings were used for women and for men. However, for purposes of demonstration, the female wording is presented in the following sample and the male wording is indicated in parentheses: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you (the woman) didn't want to because a man (you) used some degree of force -- such as twisting your (her) arm or holding you (her) down?" The text of all 10 items (female wording) can be found in Table 3 which is described fully in the results section. [2 pp 14]

Even though there appears to be numerous publications supporting the claims being made, the vast majority of these appear to have come from a single source, Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime [5]. Mary Koss' paper was included as a chapter in this book, there are also chapters from Malamuth, White and Humphrey, and Gidycz.

Now for some fact checking, some of the claims made in the article linked in the OP don't add up or are misrepresented.

> In a survey of male college students:
> + 35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it (ref 6,7).
> + One in 12 admitted to committing acts that met the legal definitions of rape, and 84% of men who committed rape did not label it as rape.(ref 6,7)

The 35% figure cited as coming from "survey of male college students" actually comes from a paper by Malamuth summarising six studies carried out by Malamuth and other researchers [6 pp 140]. The average incidence of men saying they rape if the believed they would get away with it is 35%, the thing is that the studies aren't necessarily comparable. Each study uses different scenarios, such as exposure to pornography, using media accounts that include violent descriptions, using media accounts that include non-violent descriptions, viewing a videotaped interview with a rape victim, and no exposure to any of the previously mentioned things at all.

The "One in 12" claim doesn't actually appear in the Malamuth paper, it comes from the book I never called it rape: The" Ms." report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acquaintance rape which reports the findings of Mary Koss' campus sexual assault survey.

> Based on first-person accounts, scholarly studies and data from a nationwide survey of college campuses conducted by Ms. magazine, freelance journalist Warshaw draws a devastating portrait of men who rape women they know. The Ms. survey reveals that 25% of the college women polled have been the victims of rape or attempted rape, 84% of the victims were acquainted with the attacker and 57% of the rapes happened on dates. One in 12 of the male respondents admitted to acts that meet the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. Warshaw, herself the victim of an acquaintance rape, handles an inherently sensational subject with compassion and restraint. She describes and condemns the social milieu that condones such acts by encouraging men to see sex as conquest and women to view sexual coercion as part of the "dating game." There is realistic, practical advice on how women can protect themselves against attacks by acquaintances and on how men can prevent this type of rape. [7]

The two findings aren't even from the same survey or study.

If you are wondering why I chose to look into this in more depth, have a look at the author of the last reference on the page the OP posted, Heise, L.L. Reproductive freedom and violence against women: where are the intersections? J Law Med Ethics. 1993;21(2):206-216..

  1. UIC Campus Advocacy Network - Grant Application: Office of Violence Against Women Grants to Reduce Violence Against Women on Campus
  2. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 55(2), 162.
  3. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Series: Research Report. NCJ.
  4. Gilbert, N. (1992). Realities and mythologies of rape. Society, 29(4), 4-10.
  5. Parrot, A., & Bechhofer, L. (Eds.). (1991). Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. New York: Wiley.
  6. Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of social issues, 37(4), 138-157.
  7. Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape: The" Ms." report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acquaintance rape. Harper & Row Publishers.