It's fairly common for feminists to claim that there is no need for men except for their sperm, which they could farm somehow, presumably. Men are all rapists-in-waiting, and they have a statistic to prove it: one in four women get raped.
Really? One in four?
Here is an analysis of that charge which is applied to university settings. Rape on campus is currently a huge feminist issue; is it valid, one in four? There have been men ruined by false charges of rape after consensual sex with women who turn on them. In the rape atmosphere, the woman gets the benefit of the doubt, because after all, men are animals.
But the statistics are far different from the hysterical claims:
At the University of Pittsburgh, there are roughly 14,800 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 3,700 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, Pitt students reported 4.Facts don't matter to those with an agenda; feminism is an agenda and it depends strongly on a vision of severe Victimhood at the hands of men, their Oppressors. (Here is a case where the Messiahs are also the Victims, in their own perceptions - except for male feminists, of course).
At Carnegie Mellon University, there are roughly 3,900 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 975 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, CMU reported 6. (That figure was a three-year high.)
At Duquesne University, there are roughly 5,700 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 1,425 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, Duquesne reported 3.
Just to be clear, and so those numbers stand out, here are the total number of reported sexual assaults for each of the three campuses in 2009, followed in parentheses by the numbers those universities should have suffered, according to the 1-in-4 figure:
PITT: 4 (3,700)
CMU: 6 (975)
DUQ: 3 (1,425)
Which means that, instead of 1-in-4, their chances of being sexually assaulted in 2009 were:
PITT: 1-in-3,700.
CMU: 1-in-650.
DUQ: 1-in-1,900.
16 comments:
Whoever claims that it's 1/4 during college is wrong, but the figure is not completely random. and the article you linked to makes a crucial mistake. the 1/4 (or usually more like 1/5 or 1/6) is over a period of time. taking the numbers you linked to, the ratios of 1/370 to 1/65 (include unreported cases) miss a step: do times 4 for 4 years of college. so it's already more like 1/92 to 1/16. you can then understand why over a lifetime, 1/5 women do get to be a victim of sexual abuse.
more.
http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/statistics/
Your source is waaay off; it claims 24 rapes per minute, which is over 12 million rapes per year. The DOJ claims 89,000 rapes per year. The CDC claims 132,000 averaged 1992 to 2000 (Latest I can find easily). These numbers are two orders of magnitude below the 12 million reported in your source.
DOJ also claims an annual rate in the US of 28.6 per 100,000, or 0.028%. If that is the case, then in 60 years of life the percentage is 1.7%, if it were calculated as a product. The claim that only 10% of rapes are reported might or might not be valid. There is no data to support that number - see here and here. The claim of 10% appears to be a hysterical fudge factor used to enhance the apparent danger to women.
However, at for any given year, the chances that a woman will be raped is 0.028%.
The use of 25% is a false indication of actual danger, and it is used to generate fear where only prudence is actually necessary. All women should carry mace and a gun, and be trained, practiced and capable of using them. My wife is.
not just rape.
'On average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States--more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year.'
it's not about false indication of actual danger. these are real statistics about what people experienced and why we should try to improve the situation. not just women either but they are much more vulnerable than men
'1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.'
all women should carry a gun? you must be living on a farm or some tiny remote village. that would never work in slightly crowded places, forget big cities. way too dangerous. get real. do you ever leave your bubble?
@Anonymous: do you ever post without slipping in an insult or two?
You do realize that totally destroyed any credibility you might have had. That, and the fact that you posted anonymously.
Troll.
First comment had no insult at all.
second comment makes one snarky remark about getting real which I think is appropriate considering that having all women carry a gun is unrealistic. Why not wear a helmet while walking? Always a chance of getting hit... way more common than situations where one might need a gun!
calling out that he must be living on a farm or small village is not an insult, if that's what you are implying. looks like maybe u just insulted him
Is troll your signature? looks appropriate to me given the content of urban comment.
@non-anon: again with the insults. No one asked you for snark, and no one else indulges themselves.
I think you need to troll somewhere else. Grownups are talking here.
The major problem with the various "statistics" loosely thrown around (i.e., "1-in-4 women will be raped in their lifetime") is that the definition of "rape" is VERY loosely applied to include situations that do NOT meet the legal definition of rape. Consequently, the frequency of occurrence of RAPE (actual; not based on conflation of different acts NOT defined to be "rape") is nowhere near the "1-in-4" figure. A comparison of DOJ statistics (albeit granted in advance that the last few years have been based on surveys rather than actual cases) generally show that incidents of RAPE per 100,000 (or some such number) have remained fairly constant.
How would I know this? Because I am a certified women's self-defense instructor, who was required to go through the training for becoming a rape crisis counselor in order to be certified. When reviewing the literature, I found many articles/reference books that conflated various feminist categories of behavior under the blanket umbrella of "rape". Some of the sources included being asked out on a date as "rape." That's how silly some of the statistics can be. And, of course, once some feminist author publishes a horrendous number (like "1-in-4") based on "loose" data, it acquires a life of its own, without anyone (apparently) fact-checking to see if the original sources did some such thing. From that point on, it becomes an article of "faith," the received "wisdom" of the Sisterhood.
It's enough to (almost) make one believe in Dr. Dawkins's "memes."
On second thought - maybe not.
Young women objectify themselves, wearing revealing clothing and doing themselves up to be like walking Barbie dolls. They flirt and sexualize themselves all the time. Many of them are emotional trainwrecks seeking comfort from the opposite sex. Much of this is due to our pressure-oriented culture. There's a lot of competition, or so they're led to believe, for women to attain a certain look and act a certain way. Most women in show business are skanks, jumping in bed with various people, doing drugs, etc. Their lives are nothing to envy.
As far as this bogus statistic of raped women is concerned, why even bother giving it the attention it doesn't deserve? Feminists clearly have too much time on their hands if they need resort to manufacturing statistics out of their butch haircuts. As with the NAACP, GLAAD and all the rest, they always need to be whining about something in order to give themselves a purpose for existing.
Rape is reprehensible. As is domestic violence. And... It is interesting that introducing self-protection for women produces such a visceral negative response, not of logic but of ridicule. It is apparent that those of The Narrative live under their umbra sufficiently to protect themselves from their own non-coherences.
A prime example is when the Left screams about the guns which killed the children at the grade school, and then scream louder when protection of the school killing grounds by people with guns is proposed. Obama is the worst, with his own children protected with heavily gun-laden men, yet weeping while continuing to support gun-free killing zones for children - children who are required to be in those zones every day.
Rape is also a weapon that is now fairly commonly used against men, by unstable women who hate men, and/or need excuses for having sex, or just because a man offends their delicate sensibilities. It is very common to hear of men being released from dozens of years in jail after finding that they did NOT rape. (without any data for support, I suspect that this is racially tilted toward blacks, with innocent black men being released; I could be wrong).
At any rate, women are now getting concealed carry licenses in large droves. Good for them. The all new society of barbarism to which we can't seem to prevent the CHANGE seems to require such measures. What with the maleducated being largely jobless and ineffectual child-men at best, the lawlessness and violence of the newly primitive society seems inevitable.
The original source for the "1-in-4" number was the 1985 Ms. magazine report by Mary Koss and the 1992 National Women's Study by Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical School of South Carolina.
For a thorough discussion of that "1-in-4" statistic (with 68 citation references), see:
Researching the "Rape Culture" of America
Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
"As an associate professor of philosophy at Clark University, Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers specializes in contemporary moral theory. She has written articles for The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and The New England Journal of Medicine."
Another source:
Society, Jan-Feb 1998 v35 n2 p356(7)
Realities and mythologies of rape.
Neil Gilbert.
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/MythsGilbert.htm
Excerpt:
"As a guide to trends in sexual assault, the BJS data show that rates of rape and attempted rape declined by about 30 percent between 1978 and 1988. As for recent experience, BJS findings reveal that 1.2 women in 1000 over twelve years of age were victims of rape or attempted rape. This amounted to approximately 135,000 female victims in 1989. No trivial number, this annual figure translates into a lifetime prevalence rate of roughly 5 to 7 percent, which suggests that one woman out of fourteen is likely to experience rape or attempted rape sometime in her life."
Regardless of what the actual number is, ANY rape is reprehensible, and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
By the same token, anyone who falsely claims rape (Tawana Brawley, Crystal Mangum) should suffer a commensurate penalty, as should those who foster these false claims (Al Sharpton). That they are NOT prosecuted for false claims is indicative of a serious imbalance in the impartiality of the law.
Let's see how this solution to rape is regarded by the Left:
A quick jury trial, an immediate supreme court hearing, and the guilty executed immediately by firing squad (quicker and more sure than injection; the Left hates injections).
The bodies of rapists killed in the act to be hung in town squares or major intersections as a message to all potential rapists.
Monitor the number of rapes to determine effectiveness.
I predict that they really don't want to control rapes; they want to control all men.
It's all about preventing abuse, any kind of abuse. You need to have some form of persecution complex to think that it's an attack on you or other men, rather than a defense of countless past, and future, victims. Sure, you can quote extremists who sound like they want to get rid of all men, but that's just poisoning the well. You find the most emotional reactions to give credibility to your own emotional bias.
Feminists ARE the extremists here. Eliminationism is the currency of the Left in its every aspect. And it is done under moral mantle just as Alinsky prescribed. You don't want to acknowledge the radicalism involved, then that reflects not on me, but on your own perception.
Further, the original issue of assuming the moral authority to designate a certain category of humans to be killable has been swamped by the Red Herring of complaints about how calling out the radicalism of the elitist messiah class for its radicalism is somehow unfair to the elitist messiah class.
As I said before, rape and assault is reprehensible; women should be armed and trained in self-defense. But you don't hear that being proposed, do you? Nor do you hear speedy trials and death by firing squad for convicted rapists, do you? How can these people be considered serious, if all they want is to kill certain categories of humans, and to self-righteously demonstrate against others? They don't want solutions, or they would offer them. No. They want the validation of their Leftist Narratives.
To self-righteously pontificate against abuse at the same time demanding the unlimited right to dismemember innocent living humans at a normal state of human development is irrational to the point of bein indiscernable from insanity. Such internal contradictions should cause cognitive dissonance in a rational person; but they make the non-coherence their policy.
'Feminists ARE the extremists here.'
A Feminist is anyone who thinks that men and women should have the same rights and wish to eliminate gender discrimination, which is a real thing whether you like it or not.
Get your definitions straight.
'You don't want to acknowledge the radicalism involved, then that reflects not on me, but on your own perception.'
I acknowledged that there is radicalism. Can you read?
...Sure, you can quote extremists...
Pointing out to extremists in any group does not mean much if you disagree with the group's position as a whole. As a non-Christian, I can point to extremists Christian but that does not prove Christianity wrong nor does it justify my own position.
'Further, the original issue of assuming the moral authority to designate a certain category of humans to be killable has been swamped by the Red Herring of'
Your post is about 'rape'... You bring up abortion and accuse others or Red Herring?
'women should be armed and trained in self-defense.'
Armed? Always!?
'Nor do you hear speedy trials and death by firing squad for convicted rapists'
Ok, you are a crazy person. My bad... moving along...
Chad,
Feminism, like Atheism, Progressivism and all other Leftist pursuits, is redefined according to the needs of the occasion: Consequentialist relativism in the absence of actual objective values. Feminism is not about legal equality; that has been accomplished. Feminism is now about totally eradicating any perception of differences between the sexes: all perceptions of differences are the product of the patriarchy. Thus, it is patriarchic to suggest that there exist differences of any kind between the sexes.
As for abortion, it is the flagship of feminism, and like all feminism these days, it is radical and has radicalized the entire population of the globe into neo-barbarism. Feminism dictates that the mother - and NOT the father - controls the life or death of the new human brought about by the necessary conjunction of BOTH the father and the mother; the father is responsible for sustaining the child, IFF the mother decides NOT to kill it. If the mother rejects the father, then the state is responsible for sustaining the child. This is specifically Feminism in action... as conceived by Sanger a century ago.
Equality without equal responsibility; equality by lowering the requirements; equality with unequal perquisites; equality by feminizing men; equality by naive denial of differences between females and males (of all sexually reproductive species - a blatantly empirical observation, denied).
Feminism is decidedly not equality oriented; it is forced-outcome-equality+ oriented, weighted in favor of females at the expense of males.
Finally, Chad, you have demonstrated that it is not protection of women that is important; nor is the punishment of their rapists important.
What is important is the denigration of all men because they are ALL potential rapists, being part of the hated "patriarchy" purely by virtue of their anatomy... and by virtue of the Messiah, Victim, Oppressor moral narrative of the Left.
I can see why you want to run off.
Post a Comment