.
Feedback

Letter to Editor: 'One Billion Rising' Not Based on Solid Facts

Sonoma County resident Joe Manthey says statistics aren't correct and they 'smear the character of men and boys.'

By Joe Manthey

Lately our community has been bombarded with a United Nations (UN) claim that “One In Three Women On The Planet Will Be Raped Or Beaten In Her Lifetime.” The UN fails to cite any sources for this claim and the latest UN report-- "Prevention of violence against women and girls. Report of the Secretary-GeneralE/CN.6/2013/4" --on violence against women provided by a UN media officer when asked for such does not make the “one in three” claim.

By extrapolation of this “lifetime” figure, Eve Ensler, founder of the Vagina Monologues, assumes that, worldwide, one billion women have been raped or beaten. Consequently, this year’s V-Day theme is "One Billion Rising."

Ensler used war-stricken Congo as an example in an attempt to persuade the public of her one billion estimate, reasoning that because one in three women in the Congo are victims of male violence then all women world-wide must suffer at the same rate.  

In all fairness to the V-Day activists, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Intimate Pertner and Sexual Violence Survey http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/ also suggested that rates of sexual violence in the United States are comparable to those in the Congo.

It found that in 2010 approximately 1.3 million women were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims of sexual violence. It reported, “More than 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.”

What the CDC did to arrive at these inflated statistics was redefine sexual violence which allowed the surveyors to determine what counted as an assault.

For example, women were asked, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” 61.5 percent responded affirmatively and were thus classified as rape victims due to “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”

If a woman was unconscious or severely incapacitated, that’s rape. But being under the influence does not necessarily constitute such.

Participants were also asked if they ever had sex because someone pressured them by “telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?” All affirmative answers were counted as “sexual violence.”

And if a suitor wore her or him down by “repeatedly asking” or “showing they were unhappy” they were similarly classified.

Hence, what the fine print reveals is that “advocacy research” prevailed as the CDC 1 in 3 numbers are inconsistent with the 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, which estimated 188,380 rapes and sexual assaults on females and males. Granted, not all assaults are admitted in surveys, but that’s a fraction of the CDC’s survey estimates.

Technically, the one billion number is correct, but only if you equate being 'beaten' as having ever experienced any form of physical 'violence,’ such as being pushed or slapped. http://www.k4health.org/sites/default/files/L%2011.pdf However, using the same technical definition, twice as many men than women have experienced the same forms of violence and abuse in their lifetimes. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/DALY6%202004.xls

Perhaps the V-Day activists believe these inflated numbers will draw needed attention to the genuine problem of sexual violence against women. Unfortunately, stretching the definition of violence against women does a disservice to legitimate victims.

To state that 1 billion women - one in three worldwide – will be beaten or raped in their lifetime (presumably by a man) is statistically quite incorrect. Why then make such an outlandish claim, if not to smear the character of men and boys as inherently violent and abusive?

Joe Manthey is a Petaluma resident and a male advocate. Visit his website at www.joemanthey.com. For an alternative to the U.N. global analysis of domestic violence visit http://www.oneinthree.com.au/. For a bibliography that examines scholarly investigations which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners visit http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 20, 2013 at 01:25 pm
I still say Preserving Sonoma will get way more than enough votes and present to City Council.Read More Instead of doing the right thing City Council will punt the ball and not vote to do the ballot anyway. They can save money and do the right thing but they are so far conflicted with Darius and his free gifts, campaign gift, parties and the like they are blinded. Same with Chamber of Commerce.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.