NationStates Jolt Archive

Amnesty International really hit a low point when they made this study. It was a very insulting conclusion to come to espically the way they did it. The study worked on the basis of asking people how likley, in various situations, a woman would be likly to be raped. Some of the circumstances in these situations were within the control of the woman herself. Hence AI concluded that if you believe that a woman is more likly to be raped in a situation which she created then you believe it is her fault. Thats quite a considerable logical leep which has this problem. One of the examples may be that a woman is walking through a park very late at night. Yes it is likely she could get raped in that situation and yes she choose to be in that situation, but that doesnt mean its the woman's fault.

Amnesty International really hit a low point when they made this study. It was a very insulting conclusion to come to espically the way they did it. The study worked on the basis of asking people how likley, in various situations, a woman would be likly to be raped. Some of the circumstances in these situations were within the control of the woman herself. Hence AI concluded that if you believe that a woman is more likly to be raped in a situation which she created then you believe it is her fault. Thats quite a considerable logical leep which has this problem. One of the examples may be that a woman is walking through a park very late at night. Yes it is likely she could get raped in that situation and yes she choose to be in that situation, but that doesnt mean its the woman's fault.



Never cared for AI. You should have seen my other post on the subject from a year back when they were condemned by the world's nations.

Never cared for AI. You should have seen my other post on the subject from a year back when they were condemned by the world's nations.

What were they condemned for?

Amnesty International really hit a low point when they made this study. It was a very insulting conclusion to come to espically the way they did it. The study worked on the basis of asking people how likley, in various situations, a woman would be likly to be raped. Some of the circumstances in these situations were within the control of the woman herself. Hence AI concluded that if you believe that a woman is more likly to be raped in a situation which she created then you believe it is her fault. Thats quite a considerable logical leep which has this problem. One of the examples may be that a woman is walking through a park very late at night. Yes it is likely she could get raped in that situation and yes she choose to be in that situation, but that doesnt mean its the woman's fault.

No, the questions asked the polled people if they thought the woman was responsible, not if they thought a women was more likely to be raped.

(Incidentally, only 5% of those polled thought a woman was totally responsible if she was walking though a dangerous or deserted area.)

Link? Summation? Anything?

Link? Summation? Anything?

Here a link for the AI news story, (with a link to the report)

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml

AI IS THE SINGLE WORST INVENTION IN ALL OF MANKIND! WAY WORSE THAN THE NUCLEAR BOMB! BY MAKING AI WE ARE BUILDING OURSELVES A COMPETITOR FOR THIS PLANET! COMBAT WITH IT IS EVENTUALLY INEVETABLE! GODDAMNIT WE MUST DESTROY IT!:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

OH! wait you mean Aminesty....oh shit....nvm...they still suck...what the fuck....ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE HOWEVER! AHAAHAHAHHAHAH!

Here a link for the AI news story, (with a link to the report)

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml
Thanks. Based on that article, it seems that Adriatica II has an issue with reading comprehension. Nothing in that survey was particularly surprising. I mean, a third of people think that a woman who was flirting is asking for it? Yeah--a third of the people surveyed are assholes. If anything, the number was a little low.

AI IS THE SINGLE WORST INVENTION IN ALL OF MANKIND! WAY WORSE THAN THE NUCLEAR BOMB! BY MAKING AI WE ARE BUILDING OURSELVES A COMPETITOR FOR THIS PLANET! COMBAT WITH IT IS EVENTUALLY INEVETABLE! GODDAMNIT WE MUST DESTROY IT!:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

hahahahahaa?
Artificial Intelligence?
we're talking about Amenesty International
and ease of on the "fuck off" smilies

(I agree with your statement on Artificial Intelligence by the way)

Never cared for AI. You should have seen my other post on the subject from a year back when they were condemned by the world's nations.
Amnesty being criticised by the majority of the world's governments? How surprising!

Here a link for the AI news story, (with a link to the report)

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml


Just been reading through the report.


Only 4% of respondents even thought the number of women raped exceeds 10,000 per year when the true figure is likely to be well in excess of 50,000:


and then have a look at this ...


• Within the 2004/05 total of 60,946 sexual offences, the police recorded 24,120 indecent assaults on a female and 3,515 indecent assaults on a male.
• There were 14,002 recorded rapes in 2004/05, 92 per cent of which were rapes of a female.


and bear in mind this ...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.


I suspect more than a fair bit of sensationalising going on here. It looks like AI has taken the 'sexual offences' figure and regarded it as 'rape'. A sexual offence could be anything of a sexual nature

I suspect more than a fair bit of sensationalising going on here. It looks like AI has taken the 'sexual offences' figure and regarded it as 'rape'. A sexual offence could be anything of a sexual nature

The Home Office only records reported rapes. Many more rapes go unreported for various reasons.

Do you really think that Amnesty are out to control people? If anything they want to make people more anti-rape.

The Home Office only records reported rapes. Many more rapes go unreported for various reasons.

Do you really think that Amnesty are out to control people? If anything they want to make people more anti-rape.


Point 1 - true, but it strikes me as somewhat unlikely that there is a difference of 50,000 rapes per year between what is recorded and what is actual.


Point 2 - do I think that Amnesty, as a public lobbyist and special interest group, is out to control people? yes, absolutely. They are out to influence the public agenda - that's the reason they exist

Point 3 - they're likely to want to make people more anti-rape. Agreed, for sure. What I suspect they are doing is trying to scare :eek: people into believing that rape is a far bigger problem than it actually is. They are doing this for admirable reasons - to highlight the problem of rape and encourage a shift in societal attitudes i.e. to make society less prone to thinking that rape is not a terrible crime. But inflating statistics and going in for shock tactics is the wrong thing to do

Do you really think that Amnesty are out to control people? If anything they want to make people more anti-rape.
Goddamn those Big Rape Lobbyists and their aggresive advertising campaigns. The choke-hold they've taken over American politics is so great that almost no US politicians have the guts to come out as anti-rape.
Their worse than Big Decapitations, they are.

Doesn't surprise me. It's like that study done by NOW in the 70s that said that 4 of 5 women will be raped in their lifetimes. In that number they included things like if the woman is drunk she cannot give consent therefore if she has sex she has been raped, even if she is the aggressor and the man is drunk as a monkey, too. That's why I have serious problems ever taking studies to heart from an organization with an obvious agenda.

No, the questions asked the polled people if they thought the woman was responsible, not if they thought a women was more likely to be raped.

(Incidentally, only 5% of those polled thought a woman was totally responsible if she was walking though a dangerous or deserted area.)

Thats just it. That wasnt the question. Had it been that simple it would have been an issue. There was a spectator article on this which I saw a link posted to in a previous thread, but cant find it now.

Hmmm, well contrary to what I posted up above, on further review this thread is wrong.

Q3. I am now going to read out a series of scenarios which a woman may find herself in. In each could you please indicate whether you believe a woman is totally responsible, partially responsible or not at all responsible for being raped if…

a) The woman is drunk (Base, n=1,083)
b) The woman has behaved in a flirtatious manner (Base: n=1,078)
c) The woman has failed to say ‘no’ clearly to the man (Base, n=1,076)
d) A woman is wearing sexy or revealing clothes (Base, n=1,076)
e) It is known that the woman has many sexual partners (Base, n=1,076)
f) The woman is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area (1,075)


The chart below summarises the results to each of these statements.

And the actual report: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/images/ul/s/sexual_assault_summary_report_2.doc

Uh....some of these though are just asking for it. >.>

I stand corrected. I assume the spectator report I read must have covered this in a diffrent angle to the one I showed.

I stand corrected. I assume the spectator report I read must have covered this in a diffrent angle to the one I showed.
Happens to the best of us! :p

The Home Office only records reported rapes. Many more rapes go unreported for various reasons.

Do you really think that Amnesty are out to control people? If anything they want to make people more anti-rape.
I would agree.
It is my view that in the US around 60% or maybe higher, of rapes go unreported because they committed by some one who is close to the victim. In fact most rapes are done by someone the woman knows, most often its the boyfriend who does it. Male coworkers come in second.
By the time they reach 40, very very few American women can say they have been lucky enough to have avoided being raped by that age. I think it is less than 10% who can say that.
That is why we need tougher laws. And improved support mechanisms for victims cause I observe that what we have now, it woefully inadequate and just doesn't do the job its supposed in a number of instances.

Doesn't surprise me. It's like that study done by NOW in the 70s that said that 4 of 5 women will be raped in their lifetimes. In that number they included things like if the woman is drunk she cannot give consent therefore if she has sex she has been raped, even if she is the aggressor and the man is drunk as a monkey, too. That's why I have serious problems ever taking studies to heart from an organization with an obvious agenda.
Well, in the former case it is rape cause the woman is in no position to make rational decisions herself.
In the latter case, if they are both drunk, it is not rape but a no fault accident.
The reason it is rape in the former is because the man still has his wits and knows the woman is not in her right mind and so takes advantage to have sex with her for his own selfish benefit. And I'm not excusing women, it works the other way too. If a man is drunk and a woman who is sober has sex with him, she is guilty of rape too.

I would agree.
It is my view that in the US around 60% or maybe higher, of rapes go unreported because they committed by some one who is close to the victim.


Have you any evidence for that view?



By the time they reach 40, very very few American women can say they have been lucky enough to have avoided being raped by that age. I think it is less than 10% who can say that.

This really quite appalling ... if true. Can you provide evidence of this?


That is why we need tougher laws. And improved support mechanisms for victims cause I observe that what we have now, it woefully inadequate and just doesn't do the job its supposed in a number of instances.

You can mandate tougher laws until you have evidence clearly demonstrating that something needs to be done. And, I'm going to stick my neck out here, I think you don't have any evidence.

Have you any evidence for that view?




This really quite appalling ... if true. Can you provide evidence of this?



You can mandate tougher laws until you have evidence clearly demonstrating that something needs to be done. And, I'm going to stick my neck out here, I think you don't have any evidence.

You must have missed the part where I said it was my personal political OPINION.
But since you asked, I checked the figures.

Fact: every two minutes a woman is being forcibly raped in the United States
Fact: In 1995, the FBI believes 72 out of every 1,000 women in the US were raped.
Fact: During 1994 and 1995, over 780,000 women in the US were raped.
Fact: The FBI also believes that only 37% of all rapes that occur in America are actually reported. Which means that 72 out of 1,000 is not the actual number rapes that happened. Rather it reflects only the rapes that were reported.
Fact: Women often don't report rape because they believe it is a private or personal matter or they fear reprisal.
My personal opinion, is that the first two reasons are the primary cause of why rapes go unreported. Attitudes about such thing need to be changed. If you are raped, it is not just a personal matter. If he raped you, how do know he won't rape the next girl he hooks up with? By reporting it, you might be preventing him from doing it to the next person.
Fact: The US Justice Department says that only 26% of all rapes and attempted rapes are reported.
Fact: In 1994 and 1995, the Justice Department estimated that less than 1 in 3 rapes actually gets reported.
Fact: 1 out of every 4 rapes occurs in a parking garage or other public area.
Fact: Only 31% of rapes are done by strangers
Fact: 68% of rapes occur between 6pm and 6 am. Women should always be vigilant during night time hours. Trust no one.
Fact: Only 45% of rapists were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. That means the majority knew exactly what they were doing.
Fact: Only 29% of rapes involved the use of some type of weapon to silence the victim.
Fact: 75% of rape victims require intense medical care
Fact: 81% of rape victims are white women. Only 18% are black
Fact: 50% of all rape victims come from low income households. The other 50% come from the middle and upperclasses combined.
Fact: The National Women's Study reported that 84% of rapes that occur in the US each year go unreported.
Fact: Of the rapes that are reported, 41% are committed women under the age of 18.
Fact: 92% are committed by people the woman knows personally
Fact: Victims of marital or date rape are 11 times more likely to be clinically depressed, and 6 times more likely to experience social phobia than are non-victims. Psychological problems are still evident in cases as long as 15 years after the assault.28
Fact: A study examining the use of health services over a five year period by female members of a health maintenance program found that the number of visits to physicians by rape victims increased 56% in the year following the crime, compared to a 2% utilization increase by non-victims.31

The National Public Services Research Institute estimates the lifetime cost for each rape with physical injuries which occurred in 1987 to be $60,000.32
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm


Fact: the number of rapes actually being reported has declined considerably.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm
But just because they are't being reported does not mean they are not happening.

Fact: Every year, 1.2 million women are raped by their current or former boyfriends/husbands (as denoted by the use of the term "male partners")
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

Only slightly alters my opinion. I still hold that most rapes go unreported which was my original point.

That's why I have serious problems ever taking studies to heart from an organization with an obvious agenda.
Why do people say "agenda" as if having an agenda is a bad thing? Especially when you're talking about "oh no, the evil anti-rape agenda".

Why do people say "agenda" as if having an agenda is a bad thing? Especially when you're talking about "oh no, the evil anti-rape agenda".

There is an implict adgenda to this study. The thing is if you ask someone a question "Do you think in these situations someone is A, B or C" and then give a list of diffrent scenerios, it is almost implied that the results are expected to be diffrent. Its almost the Hawthorne effect. If you give a multiple choice question set up like that then the sort of though would be "why give those options at all if they arnt at all true, any of them" so the conclusion is that some of them must be true some of the time. If you know about the Hawthorne effect, you'll see what I mean.

Have you any evidence for that view?


I can. I know of three rapes that have gone unreported. I've yet to see one actually reported from the girls that I know.

bump

I would agree.
It is my view that in the US around 60% or maybe higher, of rapes go unreported because they committed by some one who is close to the victim. In fact most rapes are done by someone the woman knows, most often its the boyfriend who does it. Male coworkers come in second.
By the time they reach 40, very very few American women can say they have been lucky enough to have avoided being raped by that age. I think it is less than 10% who can say that.
That is why we need tougher laws. And improved support mechanisms for victims cause I observe that what we have now, it woefully inadequate and just doesn't do the job its supposed in a number of instances.
Proof, please.

Otherwise, you're no better than the rest of the drive-by media alarmists trying to inflate fears to push an agenda.

EDIT: An agenda is a fine thing to have, if you're open and up-front about it and don't skew your questions to enhance your findings' likelihood of agreeing with you.

And I'm not excusing women, it works the other way too. If a man is drunk and a woman who is sober has sex with him, she is guilty of rape too.
But men are far, FAR less likely to report it as such. Between the "macho" stereotype and the potential embarassment, not to mention that to the average "guy", any lay is a fine lay, the report rate for that example must be infinitesimal.

Well, in the former case it is rape cause the woman is in no position to make rational decisions herself.
In the latter case, if they are both drunk, it is not rape but a no fault accident.
The reason it is rape in the former is because the man still has his wits and knows the woman is not in her right mind and so takes advantage to have sex with her for his own selfish benefit. And I'm not excusing women, it works the other way too. If a man is drunk and a woman who is sober has sex with him, she is guilty of rape too.
So you're telling me that the time I was living in the dorms at UNLV and at 3 o'clock in the morning a woman who shall remain nameless buzzed my room and came up and pretty much attacked me was raped because I was sober and she had a few?

Why do people say "agenda" as if having an agenda is a bad thing? Especially when you're talking about "oh no, the evil anti-rape agenda".
I have no problem with people having an agenda. I just don't trust their statistics for the reason I said in my post.

There is an implict adgenda to this study. The thing is if you ask someone a question "Do you think in these situations someone is A, B or C" and then give a list of diffrent scenerios, it is almost implied that the results are expected to be diffrent. Its almost the Hawthorne effect. If you give a multiple choice question set up like that then the sort of though would be "why give those options at all if they arnt at all true, any of them" so the conclusion is that some of them must be true some of the time. If you know about the Hawthorne effect, you'll see what I mean.

So, basically, the Hawthorne effect says, "People are stupid and can't think for themselves."

I can. I know of three rapes that have gone unreported. I've yet to see one actually reported from the girls that I know.

Although I know that anecdotal evidence means little, I can honestly say that no less that 75% of the women I have known well have been sexaully assaulted at some point in their lifetimes - many of them while still children.


But men are far, FAR less likely to report it as such. Between the "macho" stereotype and the potential embarassment, not to mention that to the average "guy", any lay is a fine lay, the report rate for that example must be infinitesimal.

No one is likely to report this situation as rape in a legal sense, unless it is obvious that one person was "getting the other drunk" to have sex with them. However, when surveys are done, more and more of these types of situations come out.

Of course, men are overall less likely to report any type of rape - even a violent one, because of fear of the stigma of being weak.

So you're telling me that the time I was living in the dorms at UNLV and at 3 o'clock in the morning a woman who shall remain nameless buzzed my room and came up and pretty much attacked me was raped because I was sober and she had a few?
Yes. You at the least, need to apologize to her.

Proof, please.

Otherwise, you're no better than the rest of the drive-by media alarmists trying to inflate fears to push an agenda.

EDIT: An agenda is a fine thing to have, if you're open and up-front about it and don't skew your questions to enhance your findings' likelihood of agreeing with you.
It was a valid opinion that I have just as much right to post as someone who comes along with facts and figures. There is no monopoly or restriction on who can state opinions.
If you want facts and figures see my other post.

You are clearly one of the many who don't know how public agendas are pushed. If you use only strict facts, you will never be able to do anything. All the lobbyists on both sides of the political isle know this. That is why they always make the data fit their opinions. It how they push their agenda.
That is how it works in the real world. Personal attacks is also how it works in the real world both in America and in Europe. Heck, the British parliament is worse than the US Congress. The Italians and Japs are worse than either.
If you want to know how real politics works, you aren't going to find out from a tightly regulated site like Nationstates or Jolt. Here everything is very sanitized. So sanitized that political discussion here doesn't even resemble the real thing in the real world.
And there is a reason why everything here is so sanitized. My fault is that I was thinking this was real political discussion forum. But real political discussion forums would not have all the restrictive rules this site has. Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with having such rules.

But men are far, FAR less likely to report it as such. Between the "macho" stereotype and the potential embarassment, not to mention that to the average "guy", any lay is a fine lay, the report rate for that example must be infinitesimal.
because of intense pressure to not report it as such. We are teaching our youth the wrong values.

Doesn't surprise me. It's like that study done by NOW in the 70s that said that 4 of 5 women will be raped in their lifetimes. In that number they included things like if the woman is drunk she cannot give consent therefore if she has sex she has been raped, even if she is the aggressor and the man is drunk as a monkey, too. That's why I have serious problems ever taking studies to heart from an organization with an obvious agenda.
If a woman is so drunk she can't consent, then it is rape. If a man is that drunk, chances are he'll be unable to sustain an erection so rape won't be an issue there...

No, the questions asked the polled people if they thought the woman was responsible, not if they thought a women was more likely to be raped.

(Incidentally, only 5% of those polled thought a woman was totally responsible if she was walking though a dangerous or deserted area.)
But others thought she had partial responsibility correct.

So, basically, the Hawthorne effect says, "People are stupid and can't think for themselves."


No. The Hawthorne effect is that people behave diffrently when they are aware they are being observed. This happens all the time when their opinions are being studied by questionare. Basicly if you give that kind of series of options and a sereies of circumstances people are going to think there is more than one response to a given situation. Hence they will think "Why would there be multiple options for multiple situations if its the same one every time?" or something to that effect. Multiple choice by its very nature does that. If you had asked the open question "Do you think women are ever responsable for being raped" you would get a very diffrent reaction

No. The Hawthorne effect is that people behave diffrently when they are aware they are being observed. This happens all the time when their opinions are being studied by questionare. Basicly if you give that kind of series of options and a sereies of circumstances people are going to think there is more than one response to a given situation. Hence they will think "Why would there be multiple options for multiple situations if its the same one every time?" or something to that effect. Multiple choice by its very nature does that. If you had asked the open question "Do you think women are ever responsable for being raped" you would get a very diffrent reaction

In other words, you just described someone who cannot or will not think for themselves. A person who truly thought that a woman is never responsible for being raped would answer in that way to all of those questions, because they would be intelligent enough to know that it was their opinion being polled and that there is no "right" answer to be given, other than what they believe.

Your suggestion is like saying that you should expect different answers if I ask the following questions:

First, I just ask one: Does an infant ever deserve to be beaten?

Then, I ask several: Does an infant deserve to be beaten if he cries?
Does an infant deserve to be beaten if if she knocks over her food?
Does an infant deserve to be beaten if he pees while his diaper is being changed?
Does an infant deserve to be beaten if she spits up on your shirt?

And so on.... How many people do you think would answer yes to one of these just because they think I expected a different answer? I would hope no one would, because I would hope they are more intelligent and compassionate than that. Any person who answers no to the very first question, but answers yes to any of the following ones either does not know what they believe, or are falling prey to your "I can't actually think for myself if you ask me more than one question," effect.

Amnesty International really hit a low point when they made this study. It was a very insulting conclusion to come to espically the way they did it. The study worked on the basis of asking people how likley, in various situations, a woman would be likly to be raped.
That's very interesting, and it is poor methodology.

Would you mind posting a link to the questions asked, or a source describing this methodology? I'm not doubting you, I would just like to have verification handy for my own purposes.

No, the questions asked the polled people if they thought the woman was responsible, not if they thought a women was more likely to be raped.

(Incidentally, only 5% of those polled thought a woman was totally responsible if she was walking though a dangerous or deserted area.)

Ah, disagreement.

Now we really need a link.

Snip

That is a very extreme and obvious example. However in more subtle situations this effect does have profund influences. Go do a sociology A-level before you criticise the Hawthorne effect again. What would most likly happen in your example is a misinterpretation of the word "beating" to mean smack or something more small scale since the people you would ask would think "He cant actually mean that, it must mean something else" Which is what happens in studies like this

Here a link for the AI news story, (with a link to the report)

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml

Thanks, that helps. :)

That is a very extreme and obvious example.

No more extreme or obvious than the rape one. And yet you claim that people were misled by the rape questions.

However in more subtle situations this effect does have profund influences.

If this is true, it basically amounts to people not thinking for themselves. People will also follow someone they view as being in authority, even when being told to do something they know is wrong. That doesn't make it any less of an effect demonstrating that people either cannot or will not think for themselves.

Go do a sociology A-level before you criticise the Hawthorne effect again.

I'm not criticizing the effect, just the traits of humans that makes it possible.

Meanwhile, do remember that not everyone is from, I'm guess, Britain?

What would most likly happen in your example is a misinterpretation of the word "beating" to mean smack or something more small scale since the people you would ask would think "He cant actually mean that, it must mean something else" Which is what happens in studies like this

So now we have people with no reading comprehension too? Meanwhile, do you really think the answers should change if it were smack instead of beat?

Only 4% of respondents even thought the number of women raped exceeds 10,000 per year when the true figure is likely to be well in excess of 50,000:

and then have a look at this ...
• There were 14,002 recorded rapes in 2004/05, 92 per cent of which were rapes of a female.

These are not contradictory numbers. In fact they are entirely plausible, since many rapes may not be recorded because they are not reported, and others may not be recorded as rapes, but as a lesser crime such as "indecent assault." The cops play politics, too... and it is often in their interest to minimize the worst crimes by reporting them as lesser crimes. The most famous example in the crime literature is devaluing stolen property to list thefts and robberies as minor crimes; but it happens with other crimes as well.

Now, the fact that Amnesty's number is plausible does not mean it is necessarily accurate: we would need victimization surveys to get a better idea. I only mean that your source does not contradict Amnesty's claim in any way.

Point 1 - true, but it strikes me as somewhat unlikely that there is a difference of 50,000 rapes per year between what is recorded and what is actual.

Really?

Yates, who conducted the review, said it was "best practice" to have dedicated teams though it might not be possible in smaller forces.

Mr Yates said between 80% and 90% rapes went unreported, which meant police had a "substantial intelligence gap" as they could not assess the true pattern of offending.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4452962.stm