Statistics used to dupe a population mixed with a touchy subject

Hello my fellow "Austrians". Its been a while and I have done a lot before I just came back here. What I want to discuss with you is very off-topic (hence it being posted in general), but I think I will enjoy discussing/venting with people who are more inclined toward using logic.

 

Heres the deal. I live in Quebec (Canada). There is this ad on Tv that states that 1 out of 3 women will be sexually assaulted at least once in their life. Then the ad goes on to explain that the victims can be your mother, sister, aunt and so on and that the agressor can be your brother, father.... (you get the picture).

 

I never really had a problem with acknowledging the high probability that  much more women are victims of sexual assault than men. I had a problem with the number. I felt like it wasn't right. I found a video on youtube from a show that went on Tv that explained that the 1/3 statistic has been looken into by a group of people who used the law that grants the right to access the data collected and used by public organizations. The statistic is nowhere to be found. The closest thing to 1/3 is a survey of OPINION made 10 years ago or so asking people how they felt about sexual assault and how many victims they estimated would exist. I also learned that for the government here, sexual assault is made up of "rape" as well as unwanted flirting, bad joke, a wink, a stare and whisling. Also, if a woman has sex with a man and regrets it LATER, this can be considered as rape (yes, it doesn't make sense, I know).

So when the ad was posted on a forum I visit from time to time, I just had to point out that the numbers are probably wrong and that the ad in itself makes it look like women are defenceless against everything while men are predators and that I felt wrongly discriminated against. I also pointed out that the ad gives absolutely no advices on where to seek help and is probably just a video made to make the population panic and get more subsidies (yes, the whole thing was produced with governmental subsidies to begin with).

I always made it very clear that I condemn rape and that jail sentences here are too short and soft. I even donate my own money to groups helping victims of rape because I had some friends who were raped and I felt like that as an individual I had to do a little something to help out. Now, I am the bad guy because I supposedly made many rape victims who read my posts cry because of how inhumane my critique of lies really is. I also learned that to lie is just fine as long as one has noble goals and that the number of women raped is probably around 50% or even higher (no need to prove it, just numbers thrown in the air).

 

My summary of my issues with this situation:

-Made up numbers.

-Throwing together very different types of action and using the label "sexual assault" as a generic term for them.

-Using the generic term as a way to show inflated statistics.

-Double standards.

-Not giving any advices nor help.

-Showing that women are victims, men are predators.

-Being told that lying is just fine when the goal sounds okay.

-Using tax money to pit a group against another (covertly).

 

Am I just insane or an heartless *** to discuss these issues with people showing up the ad? Am I missing something here given that most people agree that I am wrong in doing so? Should I just throw logic out of the window? I mean I thought at least some adults would agree with me, but they are the ones who whine the most!

 

/Venting off

 

I'm not really expecting any response in particular. Just your opinion on this maybe. If some here understand French, do say so and I'll link you to the ads.

 

I don't know...

I've heard statistics that claim something like 25% (or maybe 20%) of women will be a victim of rape in their lifetimes and this doesn't take into account that a small number of women actually report the offense.

That's where they get their extra 8 to 13%, trying to calculate the number of actual offenses instead of the number of reported offenses.

Yan Grenier:

I also learned that for the government here, sexual assault is made up of "rape" as well as unwanted flirting, bad joke, a wink, a stare and whisling.

1/3 seems like a mighty low number if that metric is used. Be something like 99% (not counting repeat offenses) for all the women I've ever been friends with if you consider 'sexual innuendo' and bad jokes.

I've never actually understood how they measure unreported crimes. To me, 20% seems extremely high (not that I have any evidence to back up my assumption, either). But I find this the be the problem is most statistics; you have to know the methods used in great detail to know if the statistic is valid or not. And unfortunately, society today seems to take statistics at face value.

Yan Grenier:

I never really had a problem with acknowledging the high probability that  much more women are victims of sexual assault than men.

I haven't seen any studies on sexual assaults, but at least with domestic violence, the numbers are often very similar. Some even have women being more violent than men.

My main objection is the use of genders as broad sweeping terms. As in "X % of men will commit rape in their lifetime". Do only men rape? No. Do all men rape? No. So why specify men and indirectly create the illusion that men are rapists? It's the same thing as having headlines that read "a black man robbed a store yesterday". Why specify the robbers skin color (or gender)? Do they add any important information to the headline? No. It only serves to create and perpetuate the illusion that skin color and gender have some connection to criminal activity.

It's the same thing with these sexual assault studies. They perpetuate the idea that because I am a man, I am somehow more likely to commit rape. That somehow, even though I am an individual, I have some aggregate connection to everyone else who happens to have a penis and testicles.

Since both genders commit and are victims of these crimes, there is no rational reason to make it into a men vs. women situation.

Libertas est Veritas:

I've never actually understood how they measure unreported crimes.

They ask people...

 

 I just believe its a dishonest way of doing propaganda for a cause. You use statistics you cannot back and give the people asking you for proof the impression they are "agressing" against the "anti-rape" movement and victims themselves.

Too bad they can't explain why 3000 or so men under 24 (leading cause of death for men 24 and under in Quebec) vs 30 or so women under 24 suicide each year in Quebec although those numbers are very verifiable. That does not take into account the men and women who want or thought about it but did not so maybe I should add an extra 20% just to be safe? Where does the difference comes from and why? (I'l look up the exact number if you do wish but I know I may only be off by a very small margin, as surprising as it is).

Anonymous Coward:

I've heard statistics that claim something like 25% (or maybe 20%) of women will be a victim of rape in their lifetimes and this doesn't take into account that a small number of women actually report the offense.

This doesn't seem unbelievably high to you?  I realized that most women are not going to advertise whether or not they have been a victim but I find it very hard to believe that every 4th woman I run into during the day has at some point been raped.  You have to be careful of the "will be a victim of...." statistics too because often they are taken by extrapolating out a rising crime rate far into the future; i.e. if the rate of rape when up by 40% from 2004-2008 then that trend must continue during the years to 2012.

Stolz2525:

Anonymous Coward:

I've heard statistics that claim something like 25% (or maybe 20%) of women will be a victim of rape in their lifetimes and this doesn't take into account that a small number of women actually report the offense.

This doesn't seem unbelievably high to you?  I realized that most women are not going to advertise whether or not they have been a victim but I find it very hard to believe that every 4th woman I run into during the day has at some point been raped.  You have to be careful of the "will be a victim of...." statistics too because often they are taken by extrapolating out a rising crime rate far into the future; i.e. if the rate of rape when up by 40% from 2004-2008 then that trend must continue during the years to 2012.

Yet again, I don't know.

Googled it;

A study among college women has shown that 1 out of every 5 college age women report being forced to have sexual intercourse. (1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey) 22% of all women say that they have been forced to do sexual things against their will, where only 3% of men admit to ever forcing themselves on a woman. (Laumann, 1994)

...

Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. 1992). In 1995 there were 97,460 rapes reported to law enforcement officials. At a 16% reporting rate, this means that there were actually closer to 649,733 rapes in the United States. Along the same lines, the number of rapes reported in New York state in 1996 was 20,911. At a 16% reporting rate, this means the actual number of rapes was closer to 139,406. (Computerized Criminal History, Feb. 1998)

It's a problem...