Read critically please (TW:Rape)

I read this article about rape culture http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture. It essentially claims statistics don't back up rape culture claims. Now I'm not going to argue what the statistics are, here are some statistics you can look at if you're a bitter man who has deluded himself into believing false accusations are made all the time http://www.rainn.org/statistics?gclid=COT6ku-_m7wCFcY7MgodFWAAtA. The point of this post is to remind people to read critically and not take articles like the one first mentioned seriously. The article argues that "Statistics surrounding sexual assault are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent". The citation simply leads you to a professor who indicts the "one in four" statistic. The author of the citation also claims that the lack of cohesion in studies definitions of rapes make them unreliable. The rest of the article goes on to indict the one out of four women are raped statistic. The author of the article uses the impetus of the citation to make the aforementioned claim. However, the source only disputes one piece of statistical evidence and the lack of cohesive definitions doesn't mean all scholarship is "unreliable" nor does it necessarily imply inconsistency. First, unreliable implies the studies themselves were poorly done. Aside from the one of four study, which was indicted according to its "expansive" definition of sexual assault, there are no other examples provided. This lack of evidence allows us to call into question what is clearly a gross over generalization. Now moving on to the claim of "inconsistency". This claim is true in a sense that multiple definitions are being used according to the cited work. However, this doesn't mean that all definitions are pointing to similar results. It could be that even with the most conservative definitions and the most liberal definitions we have similar results coming up. The lack of consistency of definitions doesn't necessarily produce an inconsistency in the results. Regardless, even if it did this doesn't give us a compelling reason to disregard all studies, but instead to consider all studies individually. Finally, the laughable moment of the article is when it cite statistics from an organization indicted in its own citation. The Bureau of Justice Statistics study is unreliable given by this common critic from within the article's previous citation, where it states:

Feminist activists and others have plausibly argued that the relatively low figures of the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics are not trustworthy. The FBI survey is based on the number of cases reported to the police, but rape is among the most underreported of crimes. The Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Survey is based on interviews with 100,000 randomly selected women. It, too, is said to be flawed because the women were never directly questioned about rape. Rape was discussed only if the woman happened to bring it up in the course of answering more general questions about criminal victimization. The Justice Department has changed its method of questioning to meet this criticism, so we will know in a year or two whether this has a significant effect on its numbers. - http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html 

Honestly the author of the article is an idiot. Making wild claims from very little evidence and then contradicting herself with her own evidence. Perhaps if the author read their own evidence they wouldn't be so easily proven to be a fraud. The point is when ever you see a headline be critical. Also don't let the sea of citations and studies affect your ability to analyze the points being made. This is the worst type of cherry picking and the author should be ashamed.  

Don't talk to me about the "American Dream"

    When people bring up a tiresome anecdote about how their single mother worked hard, got a job, did night school and was able to obtain a good job or how their father rose through the ranks, explaining the prosperity they enjoy now I typically want to gag. Not because these stories aren't inspiring or heart warming. Mostly because these people typically end the story with a "and that's why the poor need to stop complaining" bit at the end. It's honestly the most disrespectful and ignorant statement to make. My parents are similar to all of these stories. Teenage drop outs, who worked hard and helped raise a family of currently 2 college students (one of them soon to be a college graduate) and the other still in high school. My father has a great drop with one of the most prestigious real estate companies in NYC and my mom has quickly worked her way from a gate agent to the administrative assistant of Terminal 5. The point is that their stories are pretty remarkable, yet I never heard my parents once take it as a sign that they were more deserving of success than anyone else. The reality is that often our success is a result of luck just as much as it a result of hard work. If you are under the delusion that people don't work hard enough, then think again. There is always someone out there who is working hard, if not harder than you are. Yet you're knowledge of what fields are growing or perhaps you happen to pick a company while they are expanding may have been the difference between you getting a great job and the other person remaining stagnant. Furthermore, for those of you who think that working through college entitles you the right to belittle those who cannot make it through college need to grow up. Working through college is difficult and I have so much respect for people who work tons of hours, but that doesn't make you better than those who don't work. Honestly, I can't stand it. I can't stand the hubris and I can't stand the fantasy people live in. Here's a hint for you all.

The American Dream is dead (it's always been dead)

The stories we like to tell ourselves at night  about the poor rising up the ranks are just anecdotes, which represent a minority of the population. While the majority of poor Americans struggle and see the window of opportunity sealed shut. The rich board these windows up with wood and then claim the hurricane known as recession, globalization, government and so on are keeping it closed. I think I know what's going on: old fashion greed. So if you want to argue with someone's socio economic plight by talking about your hard work or even worse (your parents), then shut it. I don't care and you're not helping anyone. 

Latino isn't hot blooded and Latino isn't exclusively seductive

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIL2sdfoVc
     It's a TED talk called "The power of seduction in our everyday lives by Chen Lizra. The purpose of the talk is to recast seduction as a positive tool that can be used to improve one's own self confidence and one's ability to obtain their goals in life. I could just critique this talk based on how it shifts the focus from a communal view on the world to a selfish view on the world, but what flustered me more was how she portrayed Cuban culture in an exotic and superficial manner. One might say, "Raymond how do you know, you're not Cuban." Well Cuban culture, while definitely unique, has many ties with Puerto Rican culture and Latin culture in general. The description she gives of Cuba as a hub of self confidence where men "peck" at women with patriarchal dominance as women take the role of well intended succubi is one that glosses over the huge sexist structure that currently exists in Latin culture and also portrays women as being more than happy to engage in a clearly patriarchal system. To think that somewhere in an entire country there aren't women who are tired of men being incredibly forward about their desires to dominate them is ludicrous. This ridiculous conjecture is manifested in Lizra's description of Rumba, which comes off as an aggressive struggle rather than a graceful exchange. She depicts an illusion, where women are in control through the power of seduction, but notice that the woman in the dance is relegated to a passive role, where she serves as a lighthouse garnering ship, only to be reached by a boat that ravages her shore line. Whether this is true for rumba is beyond me, but I can tell you that dances like bachata, salsa, merengue, while all still male dominated (the man typically leads in these dances) aren't violent struggles for dominance, but instead expressions for a range of emotions.
   The reason the speaker is able to get away with this crap is because she has an accent and people are more than happy to accept an image of a Latin American country that indulges in hyper sexualization, feeding the stereotype that Latinos are just hopeless hot blooded romantics who can only express themselves in blunt and candid emotions. In the minds of everyone in that audience who believed her, Cuban women attract men with their flirtatious physical gestures and not their intelligence, kindness, wit, etc. Cuban men are alpha wolves who must convince the woman of his choice to be with him by being unyielding in his affection and his own sexual bravado. In her own words she described this as turning maybe's into yes. But there is an alternative to this that doesn't require this archaic macho courting process. Dating has for awhile given people the opportunity to get to know each other and mutually decide whether their maybe might be a yes or a no. One might argue seduction puts your foot in the door and that may be true, but in the world of the speaker seduction is the entire window of opportunity and you just need to use it to climb through it.
  Finally her explanation that Cubans are much nicer about body image is something I find equally dubious. Sure advertisement has been a source of body image problems in the world, but social expectations of body images still existed before advertisement was widespread and popular. If one thinks for a second that Cubans are accepting of all body types and images, then you are also exoticizing Cubans into some other worldly people. It sounds like that rhetor only heard what she wanted to hear from mothers and friends. Which makes sense she probably only engaged at the side of pools and other leisure areas. But I wonder what discussion she'd find in the middle of a mother combing her daughter's hair or them going out to buy a dress together. I suspect the conversation will not be a million "Que linda's".
    Latino culture is unique and complicated and I would never write a post saying "this is what Latino culture is", but I can certainly tell you what it isn't or at least when someone is removing its depth and instead providing a shallow cardboard cut out. Please stop it with the ongoing trope of Latinos being emotional and sexual deviants, who indulge without any restraint. Latino culture also doesn't have an unlimited well of self confidence, where everyone is ok with their bodies. Latino culture like most other cultures is Multi-faceted.