Monday, February 28, 2011
'One-in-Four' Lie Demolished, Once and for All
Relatively few women come forward to report their rapes, we are told, even though members of what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry insist that rape is rampant. They tell us that our college campuses are cisterns of male sexual predatory activity even though the numbers say it isn't so.
How could rape be rampant if hardly anyone is reporting it? Underreporting of Biblical proportions, of course. To solve the supposed underreporting problem, rape counselors and feminist legal scholars continually push for more and more funding for anti-rape campaigns and for more and more legal reforms in order to encourage rape victims to "come forward." None of these efforts have ever worked.
Many feminist scholars seriously suggest that the burden of proving consent be shifted to the male. This proposal, the Holy Grail of feminist rape reforms, is necessary, they insist, to do justice for all the multitudes of rape victims who simply aren't "coming forward" because the legal system is so terribly biased against women.
The reality, of course, is that rape -- although too common (one rape is one rape too many) -- is not rampant in our culture, or on our college campuses. The one-in-four stat, in all its various dishonest manifestations, has been debunked time and time and time again. Among others, Christina Hoff Sommers and Heather MacDonald have debunked it.
For my money, a writer on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Web site has driven the final nail in the one-in-four coffin because he uses their own (inflated) 90 percent underreporting figure to prove, beyond any question, that the one-in-four stat is a lie : One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven
Go read it. Go cut it out and paste it to your refrigerators. Go send it to your sister's friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
74 comments:
There is no lie that the feminist man-haters can tell that is too big for the dupes in the media to believe and repeat. No wonder our society is falling apart!
great article
One thing that has always stood out to me, that would make any serious statistical analysis utterly pointless, is that the feminists use these figures without any regard to what period of time they are talking about.
I've heard feminists say everything from one-in-four before Thanksgiving break, to one-in-four before graduating college, to one-in-four in a woman's lifetime -- claiming all three contradictory figures are true. They also simultaneously claim one-in-six, as if a fifty percent difference in the number of rapes is completely meaningless to them. The only conclusion is that feminists don't actually care how much rape there is.
Why journalists consider to cite these silly numbers is beyond me.
Because these feminists are "experts" on rape! How do they know? Because the feminists told them so.
Undeniable, simple math. And of course, the caveat we are all aware of -> a report of sexual assault in no way means sexual assault actually happened.
Excellent point, Freedom. If you fail to make that point, the average reader always assumes the report was legitimate.
The other point, following on from freedom, is that statistically when you start adding single digits to 3 in 4500 it doesn't make anything appreciably more dangerous.
when you start REMOVING single digits it does change things dramatically...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/education/statistics.htm
So listen, there is just one problem with the posted article: The math is wrong. Not the entirety of the math, just the part where the author writes about the 9,250%. You can't have over 100% of something. What you actually mean is 99.8888...% under reporting. Just thought I would add in some extra math. What you do is take the actual reported figure (for Pittsburgh that's 4) then divide that number by what the figure 'should' be which is 3,600. You end up with 0.001111... which you then multiply by 100 then subtract from 100%.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361529/Jailed-The-soldiers-cheating-wife-claimed-raped-cover-pregnancy-husband-Afghanistan.html
You can't have over 100% of something.
if the math faerie told ya that, get a new one.
Saltypig, for example, is 110% full of shit.
We need to explain to the media that these charlatans aren't "experts." Once we've done that the papers will stop parroting their made-up stats.
What they're doing is politics, not research.
Whenever I hear about the low levels of sexual assault on campus compared to the official stats I think it is one of two things:
-the stats are wrong
-how you are approaching taking care of victims is not working
Now the numbers are so extreme I honestly think it is a combination of both. So before we put more money into programs to get people help we either need to acknowledge that we are putting resources towards people that don't need help
OR
try a new approach to helping victims, shifting how the resources are used. And if numbers don't improve, or even worse go down then it is time for the budget cut.
Let's face it, you can never disprove a myth with facts, logic, or reason. Those who earn their income by purporting the 1 in 4 myth are just like the con men looking for the "lost gold mine". All they need is more time and someone to invest more money, and they will find the treasure. The best response to their estimated numbers of sexual assaults is "BULLSHIT". It saves a lot of time and frustration.
Salty Pig, I beg of you to explain further.
When talking about these statistics, you can't have 9,000% underreporting. That would imply that more women aren't reporting than those who allegedly should be the ones reporting.
If you take 99.88888% of 3,600, you get to 3,596. Which means the .1111...% are the reported instances of sexual abuse. 3,600 equals what, at Pittsburgh should allegedly be 25% of the female population. Hence there is a 99.88888...% alleged under reporting.
There are two possibilities therefore presented: Either the original statistic is trumped up, or under reporting is far worse than originally thought.
The obvious answer that sits with Occam's razor is the former as opposed to the later. It is far more likely that the original statistic was obtained improperly than only four out of 3,600 women would be willing to come forward about a crime perpetrated against them.
Salty Pig, I thank you for your time and I ask you to not question my math again.
You're misunderstanding. Colleges ALLEGEDLY have 9,000 times more claims than are reported, which is absurd.
Anon, 9,000% != 9,000x. It's actually around 90x. That being said, 9,000% is still a completely misleading number.
What the sexual grievance industry is claiming is this: Of a campus student body, 1-in-4 to 1-in-6 women will be sexually assaulted.
In the case of Pittsburgh, that should be 3,600 women.
The sexual grievance industry also states that of those 3,600, 90% won't report the sexual assault. That -should- mean that 3,240 women aren't reporting. In truth, of the alleged 3,600 women, 3,596 have not reported.
That means there is an alleged under reporting of 99.888....%, not 9,000%
Math: it works.
5 is 10% of 50
50 is 1000% of 5
Yes, but there are accurate ways to phrase a statistic, and there are inaccurate. Saying that under reporting is 9,125% as opposed to 90% is inaccurate. It is perhaps 9,125% higher than alleged, but you can't have under reporting of 9,125%.
You have to refute the statements in the same way they are framed. If feminists state that there is 90% under reporting, then you have to view the 3,600 as 100%, and not the 4 that did report. Do you see what I am saying? It's about logical consistency and academic integrity.
Another thing that is often overlooked is that there is good reason to believe that the number of real rapes has been declining over the past few decades, probably since around the 1970s. If you look at reported rape allegations, the number of cases that involve women being attacked by strangers has been declining, while the vast increase in reported rape allegations has come from allegations of relationship rape, date rape etc. Cases where women are attacked by strangers, or where there is clear evidence of force or violence, are more likely to be genuine rapes, while allegations of date rape or relationship rape or rape by a friend or associate are more likely to be cases of regretted sex or covering up for an affair, or seeking revenge for some other slight (again, not saying that is always the case. But it is more likely to be the case).
The real elephant in the room here is that real rapes have probably been declining because the sexual revolution has encouraged women to be more promiscuous. Because there are more opportunities for men to have easy sex, there is less need for them to satisfy their desires by coercion. This is a possibility that no-one really wants to acknowledge. Feminists don't want to acknowledge it because it undermines their victimhood narrative. Social conservatives don't want to acknowledge it as it would mean admitting that some of the things they favor, such as increased abstinence and modesty for women, can sometimes have unintended and harmful consequences.
So whenever the SGI harp on about how they want to change men's attitudes and behaviors, it is all nonsense. The truth is that even if men do change, they will never acknowledge it as they are too preoccupied with maintaining women's victim status and keeping men's feet to the fire no matter what.
I always suspected this one was crap.
The variation of it that always dumbfounded me was:
25% of all women in college will be raped before they graduate from college.
There was 1 reported "attempted" rape on campus while I attended.
The police at UNR were proud - and said there hadn't been a reported rape (attempted rape) in over 10 years.
I thought - well, 1 in 10 are even reported - so 1 happens each year.
That means that about 40 women attend UNR each year...
Anyhoo - debunk it all you want - it'll still get used.
Once you get a certain stink in the carpet - it never goes away.
You have to pull the carpet - or move out of the house.
The truth is that most of the contemporary attitudes towards things like expanding the definition of rape or draconian sexual harassment policies and the like are less to do with stopping actual crime and abuse, and more about simply controlling male sexuality. Partly this is a way for women to vent their frustrations on men who they feel are more interested in casual sex and avoiding commitment. Women have always felt for the most part that male sexual desire should be used for purposes that benefit women only.
But it is also the case that most societies have always sought to restrict lower-status males access to women and sexual partners. This is part of maintaining an incentive system that ensures society's survival and maintaining some kind of hierarchy of merit among males.
The truth is that modern hangups about allegedly rampant rape or sexual harassment are not really about rape or sexual harassment at all. They are a projection of broader cultural anxieties.
Do you people not understand that the Campus Police is different from the Disciplinary Board which is different from the Rape Counseling Dept. which is different from the Police.
The Disciplinary Board will do whatever possible to steer a victim AWAY from reporting an incident to the local police department.
It's all about terrorizing people so they'll support anything the feminist totalitarians propose.
Meanwhile, the feminist swine in the media continue to rave about "male power": http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/
***
We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.
***
Feminism has no relationship to reality.
Not THAT demolished - today's Daily Camera
Pitts: Words fail some of us, but there`s always room for hate and ignoranceBy Leonard Pitts, The Miami Herald
Posted: 02/28/2011 01:00:00 AM MST
Suggested things to say when a woman is sexually assaulted: Is there anything I can do? I am so sorry this happened. I am with you.
You would think suggestions would be unnecessary. You would think the essential fact of being human and knowing another human being has been hurt in one of the worst ways possible would make the words automatic.
But the recent attack on Lara Logan of CBS News -- beaten and assaulted while reporting on the uprising in Egypt -- suggests that is not always the case.
"Lara Logan is lucky she`s alive," wrote something named Jim Hoff, blogging on something called Gateway Pundit. "Her liberal belief system almost got her killed on Friday. ... Why did this attractive blonde female reporter wander into Tahrir Square last Friday? Why did she think this was a good idea? ... Was it her political correctness that about got her killed?"
Something named Debbie Schlussel, blogging on an eponymous Web site, used the attack as a launching pad for a screed against the "animals" Schlussel blamed -- meaning not the attackers themselves, but Islam writ large. "So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about."
On the other side of the bipolar American political divide, something named Nir Rosen -- a journalist and a fellow at New York University -- mocked Logan in a series of tweets as a "warmonger," presumably for her coverage of the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars, and said he was "rolling my eyes" at the attention she`d be getting.
Let us pass lightly on the specific "thoughts" -- a term used advisedly here -- raised by these individuals, except to note that, contrary to what Hoff and Schlussel imply, Logan did not wander aimlessly into that square. The woman is a reporter and she was doing what reporters do: going places, sometimes dicey, difficult or dangerous places, in order to originate the information that allows the rest of us to opine from the comfort of our chairs.
The suggestion that in doing her job, Logan somehow "deserved" what happened to her is appalling. As is Hoff`s political spin, Rosen`s mockery and Schlussel`s frothing bigotry.
But what is also appalling -- arguably, more appalling -- is the reflexive objectification of a woman who has been violently violated. To read these comments and the many more like them circulating the Web, it is easy to forget that we are talking about a real attack upon a real woman who must now grapple with real consequences. It`s as if some feel Logan`s tragedy exists only as a vehicle for them to score political points.
One in every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape. The number -- it comes from the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network -- bears repeating: one in six. Rape is nearly as common as the common cold. And can you imagine looking into the eyes of that one woman in six and saying something as asinine, as unfeeling, as heart dead and soul cold as, "So sad, too bad"?
Yet this sort of thing, this treating of other people`s traumas as if they were abstractions unworthy of reverence, is common now in the public forum. As in the vitriol that attended the deaths of Tony Snow, Robert Novak and Sen. Edward Kennedy. The great irony of the Internet era, the era that brought the world together, is that in some ways, we live at a greater remove from one another, from simple decency, and from our own humanity, than ever before.
Lara Logan was sexually assaulted. She is a real person -- she exists somewhere at this very moment -- and she is deserving of our compassion, our empathy and our prayers.
There was a time that would have been unnecessary to say.
Read more: Pitts: Words fail some of us, but there`s always room for hate and ignorance - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_17483873?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com#ixzz1FJL0k22j
DailyCamera.com
Sorry I had to break this up in so many increments.
@Stephen Crane:
The stat in the article agrees with your stat mathematically. You should clarify that you are arguing that you believe your measure is more important. You are saying that 99.88%, the percentage of rapes that go unreported as implied by a combo of the 1-in-4 figure and the 90% stat. Your figure reflects how ridiculous ridiculous the 1-in-4 figure is even when held up to the 90% stat. Nevertheless, the stat the author provides gives a more clear idea of how ridiculous the 1-in-4 stat is. For instance, if someone were to claim that every woman (1-in-1) is raped each year. It would still lead to a 99.99% figure which most people would not distinguish from the 99.88% because of the asymptote. Hell, someone could claim that 100 women are raped for every woman on the earth, but you'd still get the figure that 99.99% of rapes go unreported. And although 1-in-4 is a ridiculous figure, 100-in-1 is much more patently absurd. The only way to pick up on the distinction would be to look to the decimals further down, but most people psychologically write them off as insignificant figures.
That's why the author's method is better, because it allows the reader to get a sense of the magnitude of how far off the 1-in-4 figure must be.
Here is how you can double-check the author's figure:
x=unreported rapes
y=reported rapes
If 90% of rapes on a campus are not reported, then that means the 4 reported rapes constitute 10% of the total number of rapes.
10/y = 90/x
plug in 4 for y
10/4 = 90/x
solve for x
x=36
total rapes = x+y = 36 + 4 = 40
This result can be expressed by the following if p then q statement:
If 90% of rapes go unreported, then there are 40 rapes/year at the University of Pittsburgh.
1-in-4 figure leads to the following if p then q statement:
If 1 in 4 women is raped each year at the University of Pittsburgh, then there are 3700 rapes / year at the University of Pittsburgh.
The percentage difference between the actual number of rapes (as given by the 90% figure) and the number of rapes predicted by the 1-in-4 figure is given by:
(3700-40)/40 * 100 = 9150%
[…] I ask you to not question my math again.
sordid request denied.
When talking about these statistics, you can't have 9,000% underreporting.
very uninteresting, since i quoted only your false assertion that "[y]ou can't have over 100% of something."
almost busted out laughing seeing you invoke "Occam's razor" (standard blowhard move) after you built and unleashed a straw man.
you can have a 10% increase, meaning 110% of prior — last year's sales, for example. a jet engine compressor section might be run at 105% — of design power. you can have 257% of a child — per family, for example.
philosophically, in the context of your confusion, asserting "[y]ou can't have over 100% of something" isn't materially different from "[y]ou can't have under 100% of something".
Okay, so I had this great comment, wherein I linked to appropriate pages, pointing out the gross methodology and conclusion-making errors, that I was working on that demolished one of the most recent studies that makes this claim. I was concluding my comment with a comment about the safety of American campuses compared with American cities of similar size and wouldn't you know it, my browser crashed. Everything was gone (I probably would have had to break the comment up into multiple parts to make it all fit since Blogger has a word limit for comments).
At this point, I'm not going to retype the whole entire thing (I should probably write my comments in MS Word first). I strongly encourage you all to follow the link and read it for yourself. It's mind-boggling that people are allowed to get away with making such unfounded claims.
For now, I'm just going to leave you with this. Arizona State University, which has the largest campus by population of any US campus, had about 70,000 students across 4 campuses in 2009, 52% of which are female, about 55,000 of which are undergrads, about 59,000 of which attend classes on the Tempe campus, and about 12,000 of which live in campus housing. Anyone care to guess how many forcible rape cases were reported in 2009 for all four campuses? Five. That's right, five. That comes out to an incident rate of 0.14 per 1,000 women, which is over seven times lower than the national average (just for comparison's sake, does anyone care to guess what the lowest reported forcible rape rate (for males and females) is for any US city over 250,000 in 2009? A whopping 0.1 per 1,000 people (New York City)). A rate of 19.3 forcible rapes per 1,000 women (which is what the authors of this "study" are claiming the completed rape rate is) on ASU's campuses in 2009 would equate to 702 forcible rapes. Just out of curiosity, what percent of 4 is 702 (hint: it's somewhere between 17,000% and 18,000%)?
It's time journalists and reporters (the two terms aren't interchangeable) started to call these nuts on their outrageous claims. Statistics can certainly be made to say anything a person wants, and in this case that's definitely what's happened.
Saltypig, excellent!
I think this one finally fell apart for me somewhere in my last year of college at UCSD, when one of the local campus comedy papers--the MQ, it was--released an announcement of the formation of the UCSD Rape Team, based on the equally ridiculous statistic that "9 out of 10 men know that 'no means no'" one of the campus sensitivity brigades had been papering the walls with.
Obviously, the remaining 1 in 10 had gotten together to form the Rape Team.
philosophically, in the context of your confusion, asserting "[y]ou can't have over 100% of something" isn't materially different from "[y]ou can't have under 100% of something".
Pure sophistry. Typical of blowhards such as yourself.
I've noticed that some of the most pointless exchanges on this blog have involved trying to teach math to a moron. The result never involves the moron finally graduating from the third grade.
Damn. He did mess up his maths, or rather his premise. The article he's taking apart claims 1 in 4 during their degree. His maths dispproves 1 in 4 a year.
The numbers should be 4 times as high (assuming an average of 4 years for a degree). The innacuracy between 1 in 4 and reality is just as evident if you do so, even if the difference is somewhat reduced. But it's still a pity such an excellent piece has that kind of flaw.
Jared, as I commented to the fellow--gorillagogo--who called out the same error and then went on to harp about "four women at any given frat party having sex against their will", what the author there is doing is napkin math--napkin statistics, really--and points out the sheer absurdity of the trend.
Even going through and dividing the numbers he gets by four--as gorillagogo does--to assume that somehow there's an unaccounted for 800-1000 rapes going unreported per year on every college campus, ever is mind-boggling.
What's mindboggling is that anyone still believes these bogus statistics from feminist "experts."
Doing your own statistics is hard. Having someone else present it to you is easy.
"The suggestion that in doing her job, Logan somehow "deserved" what happened to her is appalling. As is Hoff`s political spin, Rosen`s mockery and Schlussel`s frothing bigotry."
I don't believe anyone said that. Here's what I think they're saying:"If you take a bath in chum and then jump into shark-infested waters, whose fault is it that you're dead?"
Please demonstrate for us how you are not at fault for being maimed and/or killed by voluntarily placing yourself in a dangerous situation.
If I touch a circular saw blade while the machine is in operation, what caused the loss of my fingers? The blade? Only a fool would say such a thing. Anyone with two brain cells can follow from the original action, turning on the circular saw,right on down the line to the effect,loss of fingers. Let me demonstrate: The circular saw is turned on by myself>I decide to place my fingers in the path of the blade> the machine cuts my fingers off. If at any point I were to make a different choice, say, touching the blade when the machine is not in operation, or not touching the blade at all, the outcome is different.
You would have us believe that Logan made no choices that led to the result, that is in fact, the fault of those who hurt her that she got hurt. Of course,this is true, they hurt her, just as it was a circular saw that ultimately took my fingers off, but it was my choices that made that outcome possible. It was her choices that made her rape possible.
No one is saying she deserved it, what they're saying is that she chose it. And she did. Out of all the things she could have done, she chose that choice,she made the choices, which in turn created results that she made other choices from,inexorably leading to the outcome of her victimization.
This is simple logic, it's cause and effect, something a 3 year old can understand.
It was wrong, but it could not have happened without her complicity in the matter.
You're missing the point about Lara Logan: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/overblown-coverage-of-lara-logans.html
Read the views of the revered female war correspondents cited -- they "get" it. The chivalrous mainstream media does not.
Lara Logan certainly doesn't deserve what happened to her, and she certainly demonstrated tremendous courage by covering these dangerous events.
But the media shouldn't exaggerate what happened, nor should they cherry pick this incident while ignoring others simply because Lara Logan has a vagina while the other reporters did not, nor should they blindly follow a feminist narrative implying that this somehow proves that women good/men bad is the primary lesson to come out of this (otherwise wonderful) revolution.
You're absolutely right. She should have gone to a fraternity party instead ------- much closer to home with much less hype.
It's simple logic, cause and affect. Will women ever "get" it?
Okay, so I had this great comment that I was working on, wherein I linked to appropriate pages and pointed out the gross methodology and conclusion-making errors, that demolished one of the most recent studies that makes this claim. I was concluding my comment with a comment about the safety of American campuses compared with American cities of similar size and wouldn't you know it, my browser crashed. Everything was gone (I probably would have had to break the comment up into multiple parts to make it all fit since Blogger has a word limit for comments).
At this point, I'm not going to retype the whole entire thing (I should probably write my comments in MS Word first). I strongly encourage you all to follow the link and read it for yourself. It's mind-boggling that people are allowed to get away with making such unfounded claims.
For now, I'm just going to leave you with this and some follow-up questions. Arizona State University, which has the largest campus by population of any US campus, had about 70,000 students across 4 campuses in 2009, 52% of which are female, about 55,000 of which are undergrads, about 59,000 of which attend classes on the Tempe campus, and about 12,000 of which live in campus housing. Anyone care to guess how many forcible rape cases were reported in 2009 for all four campuses? Five. That's right, five. That comes out to an incident rate of 0.14 per 1,000 women, which is over seven times lower than the national average (just for comparison's sake, does anyone care to guess what the lowest reported forcible rape rate (for males and females) is for any US city over 250,000 in 2009? It's a whopping 0.1 per 1,000 people (New York City)). A rate of 19.3 forcible rapes per 1,000 women (which is what the authors of this "study" are claiming the completed rape rate is for a 1-year period) on ASU's campuses in 2009 would equate to 683 forcible rapes.
This example raises a few questions that should make anyone suspicious (to say the least).
First, what percent of the reported number of rapes for 2009 (5) is the number of rapes that should have occurred given a completed rape rate of 19.3 per 1000 (683) (hint: it's somewhere between 13,000% and 14,000%)?
Second (this is a two-part question), assuming that each of those 5 complaints were for real incidents, what is the difference between reported rapes among women who believe that they were raped and the expected number of women who believe they were raped (46.5 of the total number of completed rapes) and what is the difference between the percentage of women who believed they were raped and filed reports and the percentage of women who allegedly report their rapes?
And third, assuming a steady student population growth rate starting in 2002 and that different women are raped each school year (though the graduation rate is important and would skew the result, I'm not asking you to factor it in), what number of female students would need to be raped each school year from 2002 to 2009 for one-fifth to one-quarter of all female ASU students to have been raped over that 5-year period. This is going to require a bit of math on your part and that you figure out seperate numbers for each year, so to help you out, the steady rate of increase from 2002 that would allow for the 25% increase in student enrollment (we're also going to assume an equivalent increase in the number of rapes from 2002) from 2002 is 3.09% per year; the total number of enrolled female students during that 5-year period should come out 35,394 (the number of female students in 2002 plus the difference between 2002 and 2003, 2003 and 2004, and so on); and the numbers of raped female students during that five-year period given a figure that's between one-in-five and one-in-four should come out to 7,079 and 7,834 (hint: the 2002 numbers start somewhere around 1,300 and 1,450)?
For all three of these questions, please correct my math if you get different numbers (I think I might be off).
The answers to each of these questions should give you an idea of just outrageous these claims are. It's time journalists and reporters started to call these nuts on their outrageous claims. Statistics can certainly be made to say anything a person wants, and in this case I believe that that's definitely what's happened.
I hope my comment post this time :(.
One in every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape. The number -- it comes from the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network -- bears repeating: one in six. Rape is nearly as common as the common cold. And can you imagine looking into the eyes of that one woman in six and saying something as asinine, as unfeeling, as heart dead and soul cold as, "So sad, too bad"?
Yet this sort of thing, this treating of other people`s traumas as if they were abstractions unworthy of reverence, is common now in the public forum. As in the vitriol that attended the deaths of Tony Snow, Robert Novak and Sen. Edward Kennedy. The great irony of the Internet era, the era that brought the world together, is that in some ways, we live at a greater remove from one another, from simple decency, and from our own humanity, than ever before.
Lara Logan was sexually assaulted. She is a real person -- she exists somewhere at this very moment -- and she is deserving of our compassion, our empathy and our prayers.
There was a time that would have been unnecessary to say.
Read more: Pitts: Words fail some of us, but there`s always room for hate and ignorance - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_17483873?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com#ixzz1FJL0k22j
DailyCamera.com
J.Bowen -- some of your comments go to spam because they have links. Sorry about that. I wish I could prevent it from happening. I just fished some out.
Anon, if rape were as common as the common cold, then maybe it should be legalized, since it is so natural.
What an insane view of the world that is.
No worries. I deleted the previous two that made it through. I like my last comment a little better anyways. I think my math is pretty close (maybe someone who's a little better at math than I am can double-check my numbers and, if necessary, come up with some better numbers) and it better-illustrates the outrageousness of the claims. These lobbyists are simply out of their minds. If rape were as prevalent as they claim it is then there would have to be one gigantic conspiracy among men to cover up the phenomenon as it would mean that women are getting raped left and right in colleges and universities across the country (one would think that a moderately-sized portion of those women would be so traumatized that they'd drop out of school).
"You can't have over 100% of something. "
The important thing being "thing" in "something"
Okay, that's all my bad. I was reading the article. I thought he was talking about an under reporting rate of 9,125% (or 91.25*3,600). Instead, he says that sexual assaults would have to be increased 9,125% in order to meet projected figures.
My bad, I'm a tool, hahaha.
One in every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape. The number -- it comes from the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network -- bears repeating: one in six.
***
No they haven't been. That is a made-up statistic coming from feminist propagandists who are out to demean men as a social class.
Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't change the fact that it is a lie.
And all of this horseplay over the math in the article is beside the point -- especially that stupid troll who claimed that someone had denied that there is such a thing as 110%. Nobody said anything of the sort.
Who cares? The point is that the feminists are lying. That is the only relevant point.
"The real elephant in the room here is that real rapes have probably been declining because the sexual revolution has encouraged women to be more promiscuous."
I don't agree. All violent crime has been declining, and you presume a motive that is unsubstantiated.
"I've noticed that some of the most pointless exchanges on this blog have involved trying to teach math to a moron."
That's why I'm staying out of it.
I remember trying to explain something to someone who wouldn't accept that multiplication is commutable.
INDICT
Only a full class-action lawsuit against Universities shall finally kill this universal blatant "1-in-4" hate-crime stat.
Until wimmin and manginas are cuffed and thrown in jail for their heinous hate crimes, using government/public money to fund massive campaigns to further their sickening lies and tyranny against males, there shall be no harmony.
Indict!
I'm not sure if I'll be able to manage to come out with accurate figures due to the fact the data might be skewed because of differences among campuses, but I'm going to give this a try anyways. I'd like to do what the author of the piece being discussed did, only on a much larger scale.
Apparently, the US Department of Education compiled(s?) a campus safety and fire report for every post-secondary institution that receives Title IV funding as part of the Jeanne Clery Act. Reports are available in multiple file formats and are available for selected institutions and for all institutions. I'm looking at the Excel file for all the institutions and I can tell you that this is going to be no easy task. There are almost 10,000 campus listings in the file, many of which are for separate branches of the same institutions. Excel will definitely make this easier as data can be sorted by column and can be easily crunch and entered into formulas, but it's still going to be a daunting and time-consuming task.
For now, I'd like to point out some interesting numbers that I've come up with in a short amount of time.
For 2007, 2008, and 2009, there 6,300 reported rapes on campuses with student populations of 2,500 or higher. The total number of female students across all of those campuses (as listed in the report)? 28,255,894 out of 50,356,368.
Now again, these are raw numbers that probably can't be made to say too much until sorted through (there are a few online campuses in there), but they definitely say a great deal already.
I would greatly appreciate any help that can be offered, even if it is only tips about how to do the calculations. If you know how to do this or would like to help do this, please contact me at bowenj10@gmail.com.
I wonder if La Griffe du Lion would like to work with those numbers.
Here's a common sense observation that shows the 1 in 4 myth is ridiculous. You don't even need any math and barely a brain to realize it. Think about the number. 1 out of every 4 women you see is supposedly raped or assaulted. Now go watch how women act. Watch how prevalent it is for women to be wearing next to nothing and showing off their bodies just about everywhere without a care. Look how often women are overtly sexual and aggressive when out in public. Watch how often women yell at and berate men with no fear of any retribution whatsoever.
If 1 out of every 4 women were being assaulted by men not only would they be bundled up, meek and quiet but it would be difficult to even find a women willing to walk the streets alone even in broad daylight.
"I would greatly appreciate any help that can be offered, even if it is only tips about how to do the calculations. If you know how to do this or would like to help do this, please contact me at bowenj10@gmail.com."
After giving this some thought, my advice is to stick to the raw data as much as possible. The less calculation you do, the less chance of misrepresenting that data. Adding the number of female students and adding the number of rapes reported seems straightforward enough if you say that's only what you did. As far things like online colleges, simply exclude them, and state that online colleges were excluded.
"If 1 out of every 4 women were being assaulted by men not only would they be bundled up, meek and quiet but it would be difficult to even find a women willing to walk the streets alone even in broad daylight."
Absolutely. The only way 1 in 6 women are raped or sexually assaulted is if you count a beta asking for her phone number as a "sexual assault" or "rape".
You know where the 1 in 4 stat that the 1 in 6 stat is based on came from?
A feminist passed a self-selected questionnaire around on a college campus. That questionnaire contained misleading questions such as "Have you ever had sex because a man gave you alcohol?". This question would count a woman as a "rape victim" if she was sitting at a bar, one man bought her a drink and then left, and then she decided to have sex with a completely different man that night.
Just because you see a stat on rape on RAINN doesn't mean that it's a "real" stat, the subject of rape is so politicized, and the data on rape mostly based on feminist opinions from the 70's, lies building on lies,that these false statistics are everywhere.
I know way more than 6 women, none of them have been raped. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe one in six HUNDRED women are raped, but it's nowhere NEAR as common as the "common cold".
When you say 1 in 6 women are raped, you're asserting that an awful lot of men are RAPISTS. You can't have a rape without a rapist.We know that is not the case. Even the scum of the earth;murderers,arsonists,crack dealers,etc, react with extreme violence toward any man even SUSPECTED of mistreating a woman in any fashion. 99% of men are outraged by rape, 40% of women sexually fantasize about it.
Who is more fixated on rape,then? Women are,and the 1 in 4, or 1 in 6, or whatever unreasonably large number of rapes you can think of, is an example of PROJECTION by early feminists. No more,no less.
Rape is nearly as common as the common cold
lol
By my calculations a female has about a 1 in 20,000 chance of being raped.
And that reporter was not raped of even sexually assaulted.She's in an excited mob and got manhandled a bit but the Egyptian females just went in and pulled her away. The male reporters got a bit of a beating.
What happened to that female reporter was sort of like what happened at the Puerto Rican day parade in NYC years ago.Some girls threw water or something on a few men and the men threw back and a couple of females got their tops pulled off and felt up a bit.The whole thing was totally exaggerated and men were prosecuted even though it was the feales who started the whole thing and initially liked the little game.
@Anonymous, thanks for the tip.
At this point, I think I'm going to organize the data using two different methods.
After looking at the data more closely I've discovered a massive problem (which I'm going to alert the DoE to). Not only does the data included campuses in foreign countries, university and college systems for which there is no data or data missing for certain years, and online "campuses", it also includes university and college systems for which there are multiple campus listings for which there are separate crime statistics but no separate campus enrollment numbers (the systems have the same enrollment numbers for all campuses, which causes the total enrollment figure for all systems to be much larger than it actually is). These factors all distort the rate in a huge way. Using just the raw numbers, the forcible rate rate is .26 per 1000 women. When the above factors are excluded, the rate jumps up by more than 300% to .79 per 1000 women.
The problem with excluding all of the above factors (which took me a little under an hour) is that by excluding systems for which there are multiple statistics but only system-wide enrollment numbers is that many of the larger university and college systems are not accounted for, thus giving a potentially inaccurate picture of campus rape across the country.
So, now that I've excluded all of those factors I'm going to run the numbers again, this time combining the crime statistics for all campuses within a system and counting them as one campus. While this method will also result in skewed results as the results will include system-wide statistics for certain systems along with individual campus statistics for other systems, I feel that it will be a little more representative of what's going on at colleges all across the country. I'm not expecting noticeably different results, but I believe it's better to have as many of my bases covered as possible. It would be no good to try to disprove one statistic that was arrived at using faulty methodology with another statistic that was arrived at using faulty methodology.
When I'm done - I expect this to take me quite a while (I might not even finish this today) - I'll try to find a way to post the Excel file so that everyone can see what I've done (or I'll email it to the site's listed email address). By doing so, I hope to do much of the tedious work, thus allowing others, if they want to, to do come up with their own figures to (I wonder if the rates vary according to diversity level, by state, and by urban versus rural location and what the numbers might actually look like given a certain rate of false claims or known number of false claims).
JB -- can't wait. This will be very helpful.
150% of 4 is 6. You can have more than 100%
What you are thinking is that if there is only four, you cannot have more than 100% because you'd be 2 short but we have an unlimited amount of numbers to deal with here.
Great site, Archivist, even if you can be a wee bit on the uber-prickly side.
Out of the multitude of outrageous bupkis feminists keep peddling is the pretense that they are outsiders who the mainstream media keeps slighting because of unacknowledged patriarchal misogyny, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yet time and time again the mainstream media has repeated their claims as true despite the staggering number of occasions they've exploded upon closer examination. This unfortunately seems to be a chronic bug of human nature. We keep hearing that religion is supposed to make people more moral but stuff like 911,the Catholic sex scandals or the dismal track record of theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, never seems to make a dent in the public imagination.
There is a huge amount of sexism in America but it's overwhelmingly protective of women. Men may have certain advantages but in return we find ourselves demonized way beyond reason. I wish you luck in changing the dynamic. But misandry is so ingrained in American culture I sincerely despair we'll be able to change that by the time the big asteroid is about to hit and all the drinks are on the house.
Post a Comment