Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UK Telegraph twisting scientific data in an anti-women way
Options
Comments
-
Extrapolation is not a problem once your methodology is sound.If you want to attack the methodology of the study, please do so. I can't see any sort of decent argument in the above paragraph. It is perfectly acceptable sociological research methodology to extrapolate out the findings to a certain population, as long as the sample was drawn correctly and randomly from within that population. I'd like to see you argue against this.
From what I can see though the methodology is rarely publicised, maybe that's the fault of the researcher or the fault of the newspaper, I don't know.
These 'studies' rarely seem to be publicly available, see for eg the other widely quoted one on domestic violence, the name escapes me at the moment.
But they are separate and distinct, but when used interchangeably the results can be dubious.taconnol wrote:Er...do you understand the concept of responsibility and how it is connected to blame? Full marks for trying to separate out the two so distinctly (and conveniently).
But I'm not advancing any hypothesis, I'm questioning someone else's, so the burden of proof is theirs.taconnol wrote:I'm afraid you have done little in the way of providing any "actual evidence" yourself, either in support of your arguments or in successfully arguing why we should not accept evidence to the contrary, including the above study.
I'm not so sure, some rape must be opportunistic, certainly in the case of drunkenness.taconnol wrote:My irritatation at the attitudes expressed in the survey is that in many, many cases, these issues (ie clothing, dark alley, intoxication level etc) are not factors at all. But the myth endures that if people just dress modestly, don't walk down dark alleys and stay sober, they will be going a long way in saving themselves from a possible rape. This is not reality
Wouldn't apply here, but doesn't that depend on what percentage of offences are in each category, for want of a better word.taconnol wrote:In this way, people are receiving false signals and information about how to protect themselves. How do you protect yourself if it's someone you know, in your own home and the person is just simply stronger than you? I don't know but wearing a longer skirt is not really going to save you
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just not synonymous.taconnol wrote:That was one part of his argument, one that he hasn't explained clearly, apart from trying to argue that responsibility and blame are mutually exclusive. He also hasn't stated the wording of the question and then set out what is wrong with it clearly. This would be a good starting point. As it happens, the questions in the survey used the words "totally, partially or not responsible at all", as the options in the different scenarios.
I'd like to see the questions but like I say above, they never seem to publish them.
No worries, there's a quote from Bertrand Russell which springs to mind :pac:taconnol wrote:Edit: Mikel, I've looked around for some more info on the study and it does seem to be seriously flawed so I take your point that the results should be viewed with some skepticism. I'm afraid I'm guilty of accepting it at face value because it suited my argument! Oh dear..
This is very important and often overlooked, these surveys aren't done in a vacuum. A pressure group with an obvious agenda commissions a firm to do the study. Either explicitly or implicitly there could be pressure to 'get the right result'.JC 2K3 wrote:The problem with stats on sensitive/contraversial issues, is that surveys to collect them are almost always performed by groups with an agenda, and stats by their nature are very easy to twist to suit and side of the argument.
If you don't like the answers just don't publish it and take your business elsewhere.
This often seems to come up while debating these kinds of issues.
I think it's a major weakness of groups agitating on these kinds of issues that they are obsessed with producing a 'big number'.
Maybe it's inherent in these organisations, or maybe it's what they think they have to do to get coverage, but I think it's completely wrong headed.
Any reasonable person I think would ask where the number came from and so far I've yet to see anyone publish details that would allow you to see this.
Very fcuked up indeed.taconnol wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm
How f*ked up is that? The ruling was only repealed a decade later, in 2008.
I wouldn't always take the judiciary as the indicator of public opinion.
Often in fact they are so out of touch that an appalling verdict precipitates such outrage that the law is changed, for eg it only recently became illegal in the UK (probably here too) for a man to rape his wife.
Interesting too that the origin of the 'asking for it' entering public consciousness was a verdict in the UK back in the eighties that a woman brought it on herself by wearing a mini skirt.
And The_Minister, damn you to hell! I was going to post that!
That was exactly the scene I was thinking of.
Any time on youtube watching that show is time well spent!0 -
-
:pac:0 -
Edit: Mikel, I've looked around for some more info on the study and it does seem to be seriously flawed so I take your point that the results should be viewed with some skepticism. I'm afraid I'm guilty of accepting it at face value because it suited my argument! Oh dear..
Personally I don't have much faith in any survey results until I see the actual phrasing of the questions and check out the demograph. I've seen so many surveys (especially in relation to science and politics) that were purposely phrased misleadingly in order to get the aswer the researchers wanted.The_Minister wrote: »I recall one girl saying to me (as we walked along a very dark path funnily enough:p) that she didn't wear skimpy clothes because she didn't want to raped. She still dressed sexy - jeans and a close-fitting top - but she felt that it would be harder for someone to rape her if she wore solid clothes like that, as opposed to very thin, loose clothes that could be removed easily.
I thought it made alot of sense. From a practical point of view 'provocative' clothes provide easy access.
That seems like good logic.Would you believe this rational was used in a court ruling in Italy whereby victims could not be as such if they were wearing jeans at the time of the crime because jeans are hard to take off and so the victim would have had to "helped" the rapist?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm
How f*ked up is that? The ruling was only repealed a decade later, in 2008.
Just shows how out of touch with reality people in power can be.
I think there is very little evidence to suggest that dressing provocatively is a big factor on who gets raped and who doesn't. However, it may be in rare cases where it was more of an opportunistic thing (from the 'easy access' POV). That said I would never indicate that someone dressing in a provocative manner 'had it coming to them'. All thinking likethat does is take responsibility away from teh real culprits, which is complete nonsense.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
If a rapist has a gun, or a knife or a strong fist, it doesn't matter how much clothes you're wearing.That seems like good logic.
Really (and unfortunatele) I think it's part of a wider attitude towards women in Italy that is very, very f**ked up.Just shows how out of touch with reality people in power can be.
Also, this piece of research came out today from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: Now the majority (well, 51%) of reported rapes to them are committed by a person who is a stranger to the victim:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0715/breaking39.html
Better? Worse? I don't know but it's really scary.0 -
Advertisement
-
If a rapist has a gun, or a knife or a strong fist, it doesn't matter how much clothes you're wearing.
Of course. I'm just saying in certain situations small things can make all the difference.taconnel wrote:Also, this piece of research came out today from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: Now the majority (well, 51%) of reported rapes to them are committed by a person who is a stranger to the victim:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0715/breaking39.html
Better? Worse? I don't know but it's really scary.
I think the fact that rape appears to be on the increase is the alarming bit. With the (sudden drastic) shift from the majority being known to their victim to complete strangers, it could mean that opportunistic rapists are on the increase. That to me is quite scary. The idea that there are people out there literally prowling around looking for someone to rape.0 -
I've usually no problem with numbers but that report is very confusing, they seem to on the one hand be saying the offence by a stranger is becoming more common percentage wise, but that reporting wise the known assailant is more common.Also, this piece of research came out today from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: Now the majority (well, 51%) of reported rapes to them are committed by a person who is a stranger to the victim:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0715/breaking39.html
Better? Worse? I don't know but it's really scary.
I think.
The message in the past always seemed to be the attacker being known to the victim.
Does that mean the offence has changed or reporting of it has changed, probably doesn't matter.
If you were clutching at straws, maybe the known assailant would be more likely to be an habitual attacker, but that's a pretty weak consolation to take.
It's actually surprising that's there's as many calls about childhood abuse, about 4,500, that's pretty depressing0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
True, especially if as you call them opportunistic rapists are on the increase.Of course. I'm just saying in certain situations small things can make all the difference.
Yes - it looks like the article was written by someone going through the report and pulling out stats, without tying them in together properly.I've usually no problem with numbers but that report is very confusing, they seem to on the one hand be saying the offence by a stranger is becoming more common percentage wise, but that reporting wise the known assailant is more common.
I think they're saying that more people are coming forward about rapes by known assailants but that even with this trend, the (slight) majority of reported cases are by stranger.The message in the past always seemed to be the attacker being known to the victim. Does that mean the offence has changed or reporting of it has changed, probably doesn't matter.
Maybe as a result of the Ryan report?It's actually surprising that's there's as many calls about childhood abuse, about 4,500, that's pretty depressing0 -
Basically, yes it's wrong to stereotype men. But there's still a huge job of work to be done on getting women to come forward about rape... .
Interesting topic, it would now appear that any means are justifiable to maintain this religious view. The definition of rape has changed, the incidence of rape is now generally accepted by an unverifiable means of quantifying the problem (Reported rapes to agencies, non-conviction being presented as a fault of the legal system) This is so much so the case that in the UK they now have quota's to achieve. Cases before court must equal 'x' per annum.
Then curiously creeping up behind all of this with little or no media attention is the increasing number of men being let out of prison when they have been proved innocent by new evidence and the number of women who have admitted to falsifying their statements ruining the mans life entirely.
There is a serious question to be answered if the measures in place to deliver upon your entirely valid concern are correct.
What if simply there are not as many rapes as we fear?0 -
I think the fact that rape appears to be on the increase is the alarming bit.
I would treat these figures with a pinch of salt. You have to ask a few questions,- this is the centre that had a publicity campaign implying your father is a potential rapist (creating fear, a secure source of political pressure hence funds).
- secondly when have they ever reported a reduction? Consider if it was always on the increase. Given that men and women are on the planet for thousands of years and rapists have always existed, logically if you accept that an increase is the only option every man on the planet by now is a rapist. The rape crisis centre has been in existence for 30-40 years something must be wrong if it is always going up. Can anyone honestly say, believe that every man they know is a rapist? Reduction in rape = reduced funding.
- Finally this country is about to face serious cutbacks and the rape crisis centre is along with everyone else in the firing line. As with all other publically funded bodies they are laying out their stall in the media as to why they should be an exception. What better way than to court public opinion by announcing rapes are on the increase. Agitating fear again.
0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement