Arts projects have a written or literary component in drafting the abstract, and developing the presentation entails understanding creative promotions and visual communication. The prestigious degree offers pedigree and networking for the few valuable internships and well paying jobs in the arts and communications fields.
Every sociopolitical group clings to shorthand statistics that illustrate a particular narrative about another group. I think one of my brothers or I were supposed to be in jail or dead by the mid aughts. That said you seem to be trivializing a field of thought and study that has a much longer history and more varied intellectual scope than rape and pay statistics.
... That's not the national 1 in 5 study I'm referring to. Those two college studies are not nationally representative--but the NISVS is. You know, the study not mentioned at all in that Slate article? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/09/07/cdc-rape-women-statistics/15239361/ Here is my exact quote (post #184 in this thread). The ones you're referring to are the 9,000 other sample size people sourced from three colleges. I mean, if we're going to play gotcha, why do you think "preponderance of evidence" presumes guilt before innocence again? Keep in mind Slate anecdotes don't count. And where is the standard for high national sample sizes here?
... and people who aren't feminists cling to voting in basketball forum threads? I just find it absurd how one can have such high standards for methodology and scientific thinking unless it applies to their own side of the fence. And you're going to bring the wage gap into this? not to alert the thread police, but please do read https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...p-and-wage-discrimination-illusion-or-reality (supports your view point with some very questionable skirting over of industry choice, but hey, well-written fact-based opposition) compare and contrast with this: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ll-women-computer-science-1-180953111/?no-ist then come back at me in another thread focused on the gender wage gap. because so decrees the on and off-again thread police
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html Again, full of flaws. Not even the survey respondents were given the opportunity to define a situation as rape or something lesser. This decision to define rape was left up to the surveyors. Seems legit.
maybe this is why: *going full circle* https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9804350&postcount=103
Why do high-profile campus rape stories keep falling apart? By Radley Balko June 2 at 10:42 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ofile-campus-rape-stories-keep-falling-apart/ At Slate, Emily Yoffe digs into the one of the poster cases for the anti-campus rape advocacy film “The Hunting Ground” and finds some devastating flaws in how the movie portrays what happened. [Kamilah] Willingham’s story is not an illustration of a sexual predator allowed to run loose by self-interested administrators. The record shows that what happened that night was precisely the kind of spontaneous, drunken encounter that administrators who deal with campus sexual assault accusations say is typical. (The filmmakers, who favor David Lisak’s poorly substantiated position that our college campuses are rife with serial rapists, reject the suggestion that such encounters are the source of many sexual assault allegations.) Nor is Willingham’s story an example of official indifference. Harvard did not ignore her complaints; the school thoroughly investigated them. And because of her allegations, the law school education of her alleged assailant has been halted for the past four years. I’ll let you read Yoffe’s article to understand why the allegations against the man don’t hold up. But this all raises an important question. I think the activists on this issue are mistaken when they say that we’re in the midst of a campus rape crisis. The data just don’t support the notion. And the studies that do have some serious flaws. The results produced by this debate are also troubling: Colleges and universities are essentially pulling an end-around the criminal justice system, adjudicating sexual assault cases on their own, on terms more favorable to the accusing party. The punishment isn’t as severe, but it can still be pretty devastating for the wrongly accused. And the guilty aren’t put away to protect society, but merely banished from campus to protect the students who pay tuition. That said, there’s obviously no doubt that campus rape happens. The nature of the crime makes it extraordinarily difficult to assess its frequency. From the studies I’ve seen, it seems safe to say that it isn’t nearly as frequent as the one-in-five figure often raised by activists, but it happens often enough that there are likely thousands of assaults on campus every year. It’s also easy to sympathize with frustrations over how difficult rape can be to prove, especially those assaults that don’t produce any physical injury. And because rape can be so hard to prove, there’s no doubt that there are thousands of cases in which a rape actually occurred and for which the perpetrator was never disciplined, criminally, administratively or any other way. So here’s my question: Given that there are so many legitimate incidents to choose from, why have so many high-profile cases ultimately fallen apart? If you were to ask an average person today to name a prominent story about rape on college campuses, odds are pretty good that among the top four or five replies would be the Duke lacrosse case, the Rolling Stone cover story about Jackie and the University of Virginia, Columbia University “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz and one of the stories from “The Hunting Ground.” Yet in all of these stories, either the accusations were later shown to be a complete fabrication or at least serious questions were raised about them. The Rolling Stone U-Va. story: What went wrong(1:58) Columbia University has released its report on Rolling Stone's retracted story detailing an alleged rape at a U-Va. fraternity. The Post's T. Rees Shapiro - who first reported inconsistencies in the Rolling Stone article - explains the key findings in the report. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post) Each time a new high-profile story falls apart, a larger portion of the public becomes less likely to believe the next one. (It would be nice to think that we’d evaluate these stories on their own merits. But that isn’t how we tend to process contentious issues.) The anti-campus rape activists often claim that false accusations of sexual assault are practically nonexistent. (“Anti-campus rape activists” is a necessary but admittedly clumsy term. Every sane person is obviously opposed to campus rape. And even among activists who have made campus rape their issue, there is dissent and disagreement about strategy, priorities and reform.) But that so many of the accusations that they themselves have chosen as emblems of the cause have been proved false or debatable suggests that they’re either wrong about the frequency of false accusations or that the movement itself has had some extraordinarily bad luck. Calculating the frequency of false rape accusations is even more difficult than studying the frequency of rape. Consequently, the researchers and activists who have tried have put this figure all over the map, from a fraction of a percent to as high as 40 percent. My own hunch is that they’re much more common than “almost never,” which activists claim, but nowhere nearly as common as their apparent occurrence in these high-profile cases. So why do anti-campus rape activists keep shooting themselves in the foot? Something else must be at play. One possibility is that the nascent anti-campus rape movement isn’t as seasoned as the activist groups to whom we’ve become accustomed. We’re used to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (or if you’re familiar with it, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm) who are incredibly meticulous about vetting their poster cases. This is an unfortunate reality of successful activism: You must be very careful when choosing your victims. But there’s a big difference between always picking good cases and this uncanny record of picking bad ones. So this explanation isn’t quite satisfying. A second explanation could just be that the cases that fell apart are the ones we remember — or, we remember them because they fell apart. There may be some truth to this. Exoneration stories certainly capture the public’s attention. But the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone story were huge national news well before skeptics began poking holes in the accusers’ stories. In fact, the earliest skeptics in these cases faced quite a bit of scorn and derision. In the case of Sulkowicz, the consensus is still probably in her favor, although the story looks much different now than when it was first reported. In the “Hunting Ground” story, Yoffe just posted her investigation today, so this explanation clearly doesn’t apply. A third possibility was suggested by the Columbia School of Journalism’s report on the Rolling Stone story. Last July 8, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a writer for Rolling Stone, telephoned Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erdely said she was searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show “what it’s like to be on campus now … where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture,” according to Erdely’s notes of the conversation. In other words, there’s a strong desire to find the “emblematic” case, one that checks off all the right boxes — a sympathetic victim, a privileged attacker, an indifferent administration, and so on. Real life doesn’t usually produce such clean-cut cases. So there may be an urge to bend stories to make them more sympathetic, more universal and more likely to generate outrage. Probably more to the point, this desire to seek out the perfect poster case may also make activists and their sympathizers in the press more credulous and less willing to ask questions when a story that appears to fit the bill does come along, as Jackie’s story did. For activists and sympathetic journalists alike, there’s a strong incentive to want to see a promising story (i.e. “promising” in terms of its potential to generate change) in the most favorable light, and with that, a proclivity to overlook the red flags. Another possibility merges these two points: The alleged victims most eager to generate publicity for their stories may be the those most likely to say what activists or journalists in search of a good story want to hear. This means the stories most likely to be heard are those most in need of skepticism — and those least likely to get it. That’s a conflation of incentives that’s almost guaranteed to produce bad results. This is obviously a very sensitive topic — but this point in particular is a delicate one, so let me be clear. This isn’t an argument that college students (and anti-rape activists in particular) never get raped. Nor is it an argument that accusations should never be believed. Nor is it an argument that rape victims should be ashamed to come forward. It’s only to say that generally speaking, an alleged victim eager to generate publicity about what happened to her may require more verification than an alleged victim who is reluctant to come forward. All else being equal, reluctant witnesses are more persuasive than eager ones. (Of course, all else is rarely equal.) Finally, it may be that activists deliberately seek out and champion the ambiguous cases to demonstrate their commitment to the cause. This is pretty common among ideologues. (I see it often among my fellow libertarians.) You show your bona fides by taking a hard line even on those issues, incidents and scenarios that scream out for subtlety. You see this in some of the reform proposals put forth by anti-campus rape activists, such as laws requiring explicit consent before each progression of sexual activity or in staking out absurd positions such as “drunk sex is always rape.” This one seems to have been a contributing factor in the Columbia and “Hunting Ground” stories, which became accepted demonstrations of acquaintance rape despite their ambiguity. (Only recently, a Salon headline referred to Sulkowicz as a “rape survivor,” despite the fact that her alleged assailant had been cleared by a school inquiry, was never criminally charged and denies the accusation.) But it couldn’t have been a factor in the Rolling Stone and Duke lacrosse stories — there was nothing ambiguous about what was alleged in those cases. As I wrote above, I have some real disagreements with the means with which the anti-campus rape movement wants to achieve its goals. I don’t think colleges are equipped to handle what are at heart criminal trials — nor should we ask them to take on that responsibility. But I certainly share the movement’s goals, as does any decent human being — we all want to minimize the incidence of rape, and we all want rapists to be brought to justice. The good news is that despite what you may have been led to believe, on the first objective, we’re seeing incredible progress. But the “believe every accuser” approach to this issue is proving to be destructive to both goals. It’s obviously destructive to the men who have been wrongly accused and whose reputations and lives have been ruined. But it’s also destructive to actual victims of sexual assault. Every high-profile story that crumbles under scrutiny reinforces the perception that false accusations are common. And that only makes it more difficult to hold the real assailants accountable.
New DOJ Data On Sexual Assaults: College Students Are Actually Less Likely To Be Victimized http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11...ts-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/ DECEMBER 11, 2014 By The Federalist Staff A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.
So between 15% and 32% of women who are classified as being raped by the definition of rape used by this study don't agree that they were raped.....I think that's quite an indictment of the definitions of rape they use wouldn't you agree? If that many women who are classified as being raped disagree that it was rape, how many women who weren't raped would disagree? How many men would disagree? We might have made a breakthrough here.
if one thing is wrong one way, it must be wrong both ways. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates *going full circle again* http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9804350&postcount=103
What's interesting about some of these girls who destroy dude's lives through false rape accusations is that they parlay the publicity into a career as social justice warriors. It's almost as if that was the plan all along. I mean, we're not talking about STEM majors here.
dude this is why you shouldn't make observations based on anecdote. also, you'll live longer if you stick to r/Funny *SJW OUT*
Again though, if your definition of rape is dismissed by 15-32% of women who are raped....maybe your definition is flawed, no? Perhaps a lot of "unreported rapes" are "unreported" because the women don't consider it rape.
...this is exactly the problem. Here, let me clarify this: If this helps clarify further, the "68% of sexual assaults are unreported" figure is from a DOJ study, from the NVCS everybody keeps quoting and that I've been pointing out systematically underreports sexual assaults itself.
But seriously, look at Kamilah Willingham's twitter. All her allegations were investigated and dismissed, both by the school and courts. Unfortunately the guy she falsely accused (a black guy) couldn't finish law school until the case ran it course. 4 years. Her twitter is all about privilege and cultural change, even though she went to Harvard, about as privileged as you can get, and she used her position to almost destroy a dude's life.
Then how is it a problem? If women don't think they've been raped, why would they report a rape? I mean, the woman in this case did, but she's a pretty terrible person. If the people doing the studies use such flawed definitions of rape that the women who are in the studies disagree with them, how are they valid? You wouldn't report a robbery that you didn't consider to be a robbery, you wouldn't report an assault that you didn't consider to be an assault....then why would you expect people to report rapes that they didn't consider to be rape?
so...you want to allege that some % of rape accusations are based on the need to score an internship because they attend Harvard but they're not in STEM. ...interesting. perjury and false accusation penalties aside, not the most plausible thing for me to believe
because rapes are being committed and people are getting away with it? https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
I wasn't aware that Harvard students needed to pad their CVs with "I was raped" but uh, I guess working in a STEM field has helped insulate me from the unwashed non-STEM rabble and their strange job hunting rituals
