Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: more on rape
Message-ID: <3555@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 03:27:50 EST
Article-I.D.: tekecs.3555
Posted: Wed Feb 29 03:27:50 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 22:48:10 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 27

>                   Psychological tests given to convicted rapists
> (and since rape convictions are rare, the chance that a significant
> number of these men were wrongly convicted is also rare) show that
> they are not significantly different from ordinary men.  No crazier,
> not insane, and no more violent.

Wrong! These tests show that they are not significantly different
from other men *to the best of the ability of the test to measure
such a difference*. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The result
quoted above may say far more about the tests or the motives of the 
people who gave them than it says about the rapists. What is the
criteria for "difference"? For "significant"? How do you measure
sanity or violence?

These men are different from most men in one obvious way...
only the most radical of feminists would claim most men are rapists,
but these men are. Any psychological test which claims no difference
simply wasn't looking in the right place or with the right "eyes".

I can't understand why some people have so much faith in psychological
testing. I have very little; when no reference is given, as in the above,
I have none at all. I'm sorry, Ariel, but it's late, and you hit a nerve.

For the record, I don't believe rapists are necessarily insane.

					the sceptical,
                                             Jeff Winslow