#emilyyoffe

[endingcollegesexualassault]

College Women:Stop Getting Drunk

Emily Yoffe, a columnist on Slate.com is another woman who speaks about the influence of alcohol consumption and sexual assaults on college campuses. She does this in her article: “College Women: Stop Getting Drunk”. 

It is yet another article that pins the responsibility to stop sexual assault on the crime’s victims, saying that, “we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them” (Yoffe, 1). 

Are people like Emily Yoffe not also failing to let the perpetrators of these crimes  know that they shouldn’t do these “terrible things” in the first place? No matter how drunk she may be, or how easy it may seem? 

While it is a valid suggestion that a young woman in college should not drink excessively every weekend, it should not be made because of its potential in leading to sexual assault. 

Here is the link to Yoffe’s article, so you can take a look at exactly what she says for yourself:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/10/sexual_assault_and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.html

[slatesucks-blog]

Might I suggest an older woman commonly known as "Prudence" be added to this list?

[slatesucks-blog]

Ugh.  Prudie gave advice to a gentleman whose ladyfriend only disclosed she had herpes after they slept together about 10 times.  While what this woman did is bad form and Prudie's advice that we should all have the STD chat before we get naked is good, herpes isn't a big deal.  Repeat after me: herpes isn't a big deal.

Anyone who cared to Wiki it or read Dan Savage's well-researched advice on the subject would learn that many people have it, many people have it and don't know it, and beyond some obnoxious itching, it's not harmful.

But why need research? By refusing to do even minimal research on the virus, Prudie perpetuates the stigma about herpes that made disclosing so difficult for the letter writer's girlfriend.

[slatesucks-blog]

A Hurricane in a Bell Jar over Rape

I thought this piece was interesting enough, if overstated in grand Slate fashion (to be fair, the grand fashion most science journalists use).  If you haven't read it, it's a review of the literature about the psychology of rape as it pertains to women.  The conclusion Jesse Bering comes to is that women have evolved defense mechanisms against rape, particularly during ovulation.  His claims are grand, but the article's interesting enough.

Now there's a shitstorm over at Double X.  Amanda Marcotte's rebuttal is pretty good.  The crux of her argument is that Bering's article assumes a fair number of cultural myths about rape to be true.  And, she quotes a scientist debunking the article. So far, so good.

What really got my hair up in a dander is Emily Yoffe's half-assed response.  Instead of fighting science with science, she complains about "hormonally-obsessed" researchers focusing on ovulation.  The gem here is her implication that because women don't go into heat, women aren't hormonally motivated. "Female humans do not, which for some reason drives evolutionary biologists buggy. They endlessly do studies trying to prove that the behavior of female humans is dictated by our hormonal status..."

I'm neither a scientist nor a science journalist and I get cranky, too, with the overplayed cultural rhetoric that my periods somehow control me.  That said, I'd be hormonally-obsessed, too, if I were a scientist studying hormones.  I just want refutations of scientific research to be defended with, ya know, science.