1 in 5 women get raped?

Yes

If your mother and father had divorced, and your father hadn't been given equal shared custody (where you would have been with him half the time and he would have had an equal role in raising you), it would have been unjust. Do you agree?

If your father hadn't been given equal custody, he would have probably felt shut out from being an equal parent. And he would have been right to feel like he wasn't being treated fairly.

Do you understand how your father would feel that way? Would you agree with him?

Yes
.... So?

Cant you see your obsesive narrative:

My narrative is equality for men and women.

I want equality in support for rape victims. I want equality when it comes to pay for equal work. I want equality when it comes to working conditions. I want equality when it comes to custody.

You can call it obsessive if you want. But, equality is an important principle in what I believe.

But you still think statistics are manipulated by those you share your believes with?

Name one organitation you consider reliable in terms of statistics

Deciding whether statistics are valid are not is a lot more than organization.

This raises an interesting question... how do you tell if a set of statistics are scientifically valid. This is a good question to ask whenever you are given statistics in support of an argument. I ask the following questions.

1. What was the study really measuring? Every study has a method of measuring what they are studying. In this case a study has to look at a woman's responses and determine if she is a victim of rape or not. The definition of rape used by the researchers is very important to the result.

2. What was the population sample... was it big enough, was it representative? In this case you need to look at how they found people to respond to the study... if it is college students, or targets a certain race or a certain education level you will get different results.

3. Is there selection bias in the sample? If a large number of people don't answer a survey... you have to ask why. Are the people who don't answer more likely to be people who never had a problem, or people who did have a problem. Any of these things can dramatically influence the results.

4. What are the criticisms and contradictory results from other researchers? There are often two sides to a story. If you want to understand the actual result objectively you should listen to the other side to see if they have a valid criticism.

5. What are the biases of the researchers? If the researchers are being paid by a political or business interest, they should self-report this. Of course if they are doing good science, it is still good science. But the bias of the researchers can influence results.

6. How are the results being reported? Often the headlines and poster from political groups are misleading or even outright incorrect. They are claiming the research is saying one thing... but if you read the actual study done it says something else.

I believe that we should ask these questions whenever we are given statistics on any important topic... this is just about the rape statistics. You will notice that the organization is not on my list (although honestly there are some organizations, for example the FRC that make me assume that the research is bogus without even reading the study).

Ohhh (Max pats himself on the back)..... that is a pretty good list. This topic is a lot bigger than the specific topic on this thread.

I might refine that a little and make it into a new thread topic.

Oh wow you have just liked yourself ... didnt expect less from you

There you are:www.observatoriodelainfancia.msssi.gob.es
You could have known about it by yourself but ill please you and do some research for you

Vale. Lo agradezco.

Eres lo suficientemente listo como para haber resuelto esas incognitas tu solo... deja de pretender que no crees en los estudios estadisticos de importantes organizaciones

Did you read my post on the difference is between valid statistics and invalid statistics? I think what I wrote pretty clearly.

It has nothing to do with how "important" the organization is. It has to do with whether the statistics were measured in a fair and scientific way. Why does the "importance" of an organization matter at all when it comes to evaluating if a specific claim they are making is supported by the evidence or not?

Read my post again.

This is funny.

I bet the anonymous thumber who is upthumbing and downthumbing threads based only on the author including those written in Spanish... doesn't even speak Spanish. I don't mind at all, at least someone is putting in the effort... I do wonder if they are actually taking the time to read the posts before they upthumb or downthumb them.

It just makes me laugh.


Que Tonto!

By important i meant worldwide reputed organitation, oficial institutions, experts association and all similar to those... presenting statistic data in order to define and elaborate a plan of action to solve an actual social problem... not caring about anybody's narrative cause its unheard of in their country

Thats what 'important'means to me.... i dont know what kind of organitations or companies you give the honor to be labelled as important.... i would dare to say you consider important those i would define as finantially or politically powerful

The thumber is upthumbing those post written in english. And how can you be so arrogant to believe somebody upthumbing me could just be someone who doesnt understand what ive said or even havent read the posts at all?!!! Is it that the respect you show to other users? Or is it that you think so poorly of me that having somebody supporting me could just be the result of a tonto's silly game?!

I'm not sure what the figures are but I did come across the statistics of a study in similarity to this topic in a book somewhere some time ago. Hell, I can't even remember what book it was.

Lol. That is exactly my point.

For anyone who is going to be pulled in to this bump on this old, very long thread. Here is the basic point I am making.

The slogan "1 in 5" referring to sexual assault of women is often heard from activists and politicians. It is a political slogan pretending to be a scientific fact. My point point is that the science behind this slogan isn't very good.

1. The researchers in these surveys didn't ask women "have you been sexually assaulted". If you ask this question (even anonymously) the number is about 1 in 25 who say that they were. Instead of trusting women, they ask a series of yes or know questions including if you have had sex while drunk. These studies rely on an arbitrary metric to determine the definition of sexual assault that doesn't include the opinion of the women themselves.

Not surprisingly these studies lead to some strange contradictions if you interpret all the data rather than picking out the data to match a preordained conclusion.

2. There are problems in the data that are admitted by the researchers themselves including sampling problems. The metric that was used to analyze the data is also not published (something that is normally done in scientific research).

3. There are other studies, including the Department of Justice study, that suggest the number is much lower... on the order of 1 in 25. Of course these studies also have problems (measuring these numbers are difficult) since they rely on self-reporting. The main difference is how rape is categorized; does having sex that both partners want in a long-term committed relationship while the woman is drunk count as rape?

The main point I am making is that this political slogan is based on science that is faulty at best. Furthermore, the bad data is causing administrations to take actions that make things worse on college campuses for both young women and men.

Slate makes a similar case to the one I am making...

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/09/aau_campus_sexual_assault_survey_why_such_surveys_don_t_paint_an_accurate.html