Should misrepresenting data in 'studies' be made illegal?

Question

For example:

When feminists made rape studies, they released their 'results' claiming one in four women were raped. Yet, these women themselves - let alone the men 'responsible' - were not even remotely aware they had been 'raped' (by feminist definition).

So, we know the general population's interpretation of rape is that of a gruesome & violent crime. However, the feminist definition included repeat 'requests' (nagging for nookie) and exchange of favours (bribes).

Is it 'fair' to claim that one in four women are 'raped' when indeed they are not - specifically not according to Joe Blogg's definition of the word.

Additionally, the same data released included a mathematical error which, if memory serves actually made the reality closer to one in eight. And that did not account for the forty-some percent of women who did NOT agree they had been 'raped'.

Based on the facts and accounting for the heavy repercussions of this crime, should misrepresenting this be made illegal? (1 in 4)

Just add some elaboration, if we take the 40+ percent who did not believe they had been raped, put that in context to the mathematic error (which doubled the numbers of 'victims') I think it's easy to see that for women's groups to still be using the '1 in 4 women are raped' claim is now a blatant lie. It is no longer misinformation as they are aware of the mistakes & 'misrepresentations'.
Saying a guy who went on a few times about getting laid is guilty of 'rape' surely should be 'policed' somehow?
If I released a 'study' claiming one in four men were victims of attempted castrations by women - there would be an outcry of foul play - yet no one bats an eye lid when feminists tell outright lies about half the planet's population.

jurydoc - yes, you have an excellent point. However, when women's groups go around colleges 'educating' (read, shaming boys) with these 'studies' - they students simply take on what they're told, no kid in his/her right mind is going to question the tutor outright. Similarly, womens' groups will repeat the same line on their webpages without any link to the source (aside from perhaps a link to the women's website that performed it) and then our media (newspapers, newscasters on television, etc.) repeat the 'eye catching' parts without offering the actual citation.
Result: Millions of people going around blindly believing what they've read/heard and that all men are 'potential' rapists.

Yes, we should have the common sense to go find the study source ourselves - but how many 'joe bloggs' people will do that?

Barry C

Thanks for your input, but to suggest I have a personal stake in the 'rape' issue is way off key. I've never found myself in that situation, and even dating terms - aside from one relationship, I've always left it in the woman's hands (to do the chasing, etc.)
My only 'stake' is I used to be pro-feminist and actually believed the claims of 1-in-4 and the obviously implied 'too many men are rapists'. Then I learned -how- many of these studies were done (e.g. domestic violence studies tended to be done via telephone calls to home addresses during work hours back in the 70s, knowing most women would be in while most men would be out - thus avoiding collecting information on male victims / such small numbers as to be insignificant -30/40yrs later, we're seeing men are also victims of d/v at the hands of women).

So, thanks for your 'confidence' in me, but I'd suggest not projecting opinions based on single questions submitted by members of Y!A.

czekows person - no, the figures did not come direct from government. The studies were created and performed by feminists - not government.

Answer 1

Researchers have the right to operationally define the variables they are studying in any manner they wish. We, as the critical reader, then have the RESPONSIBILITY to assess those definitions and determine their validity and reliability. Not having the study to which you refer in front of me I cannot address the ethics of the specific study you quote; however, as a serious social researcher I can tell you that I ALWAYS read the original study to make my own determinations of the merits of the study.

Answer 2

According to one feminist spokesperson: "The statistics don't really matter... We're just trying to focus on the real issue here [1 in 4 being women being raped]... not bicker about numbers" http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf

Rape is a sickening crime and anyone who commits rape should be jailed. Unrealistic rape statistics don't help to solve rape crimes, and only stigmatise men in general and reinforce the climate of vicitmhood that women are supposed to feel.

Why do I think the '1 in 4' statistic is false? Because the term 'rape' is expanded to include acts that most people would not think of as rape:
"[t]oday’s definition of date or acquaintance rape stretches beyond acts of violence or physical force. According to common definitions of date rape, even verbal coercion or manipulation constitutes rape” (Roiphe, 1993, pp. 66–67) and “with such a sweeping definition of rape, I wonder how many people there are, male or female, who haven’t been date-raped at one point or another. People pressure and manipulate and cajole each other into all sorts of things all the time” (Roiphe, 1993, p. 79).

I personally think that the falsely inflated '1 in 4' statistic results in the stigmatisation of all men. To the degree that men get falsely imprisoned - a massive violation that might include their being beaten and raped in prison - due to this stigmatisation, I think that those who propagate these false statistics are doing something bordering on hate-crime.

Should it be made illegal? Probably not as could result in all sorts of infringements of free speech in other areas. Perhaps the only answer is for people like us to publicly expose these half-truths as openly and often as possible until only the true bigots and fools are left citing them.

Answer 3

1) After reading your question I do have to reply, tongue firmly in cheek, "well, if Joe Bloggs says so....it MUST be right!"

2) Based on your description of events, I would be reluctant to classify your example as a misrepresentation -- the report was clear about what, for purposes of the study, "rape" meant. There hardly seems to be any deceptive intent.

3) If you've dealt with studies on any level -- either as a student, or as someone conducting or designing studies -- then you no doubt already know that, to a large degree, you can design a study to reach whatever conclusions that you want it to reach. We (fellow students, professors, etc.) used to often joke about the validity of studies, and study design, by saying "tell me what you want me to find, and I'll tell you how to find it." My point is that if someone wants a study to support the hypothesis that, say, one in fifty women in the U.S. are raped, such a study can be designed. If someone wants a study to support the hypothesis that, say, one in three women in the U.S. are raped, that study can also be designed. Studies are informative but, goodness knows, they can be shaped just like anything else, to meet ones needs. That's not to say that I agree/disagree with the statistics you've described -- nor is it to say that I agree with your take on them.

Should the kind of thing you have described be illegalized? Heck no. Interpretation, semantics, these all come into play. Who is the final arbiter of "truth," who could step in and say "hey, you didn't represent this right....'cause Joe Bloggs says that isn't even rape!" Certainly not you. Or me. You disagree with the study? Come up with your own, or cite others that in your opinion discredit the one you disagree with or that support what *you* think is right. There's a role for debate here, and a place for challenges and disagreements. (I should point out, however, that responding to an oft cited study by saying, for example, that one in four women "are indeed not" raped -- and this is the really sloppy part -- "specifically according to Joe Blogg's definition of the word" rape is *not* the level of debate and intellectual challenge that I have in mind.)

Besides, if you illegalize what YOU (or some unnamed person, or whoever) consider to be a misrepresentation in a study....what are you going to do, incarcerate everyone who has reached those "faulty" or fallacious conclusions? (I'm talking about the level of alleged "misrepresentation" you're describing -- which is a different situation from, say, deliberately destroying data to skew results, etc., which I am not addressing.)

Wow. Talk about a "chilling effect" on science (yes, social sciences are included)!

Answer 4

It should not be made illegal. In essence, we would be punishing people for the crime of interpreting words or ideas differently.

I abhor the false rhetoric used in such 'studies'. However, I would not want to be subject to punishment if those folks were to have sufficient political power to punish me for interpreting things differently than they do.

Groups like the Rape Crisis Center need to justify ever-larger budgets, so they'll seek study interpretations to bloat their potential customer base. They get more money if they can claim there are more 'victims'.

Ladies - carry a gun and learn how to use it effectively. Don't be a victim.

Answer 5

It should be but there is no way to really police it.

By it's very nature a statistic can be used to prove both sides of an argument depending how you run the numbers.....so would just wrap us all in even more red tape.

Should rape be punished..Hell Yeah!

Should false accusations of rape be punished just about as severly...Hell Yeah!

Is begging for sex from your signif other/spouse rape..NO

Is offering to buy a coat in exchange for sex rape..NO (although lightly fits protistution)

Should same standerds apply to women as to men...Hell Yeah! (meaning if guy was drunk then women raped him)

If both man and woman were drunk and had sex should only one be charged with rape..No..since both were drunk then both raped the other

Answer 6

Those statistics you are talking about came directly from the federal government. Statistics can be manipulated in many different ways, who is to say which is the most accurate? And who cares if this was the case? Isn't rape still completely horrible? Shouldn't rape be severely punished? Does it really matter if it's 1 in 4 or 1 in 8?

Answer 7

revolt continuously overjoyed to proportion. I agree they are going to could be afraid the choice to stay and stay in problem is theirs on my own. they might consistently ease their minds and purely return to their u . s . of commencing up. Now unlawful immigrants have a sparkling concern. interestingly our government has upped the anti and is now going after unlawful immigrant employer living house vendors via seizing their property. the article states; Federal government iced up the eating place chain's financial company money owed and seek for to snatch $ 3. 5 million worth of sources allegedly offered with money produced from employing unlawful immigrants - which includes the companion and young ones's 4 residences, 5 eating places and a warehouse. **** it fairly is purely a concern of time in the previous than they flow after the character. unlawful immigration is purely that unlawful and as such ANY money earned illegally or property is often seized via a regulation enforcement organisation. ICE, IRS and close by police are all legislations enforcement agencies. unlawful immigrants are working illegally interior the U.S. Which makes their property concern to seizure. voters know this might additionally be accomplished, whether unlawful immigrants do no longer. Now in an try to save interior the U.S. And lay low they're going to easily lose the coolest purchase. have faith of it in all different situations regulation enforcement does grasp sources offered with monies gained illegally they sometimes do no longer care if it fairly is community sources or no longer. they do no longer do the homework to confirm what could have been earned legally via way of a companion, all of it is going!!!! it does not ask your self me to look the IRS and close by regulation enforcement attempting to get an element of the pie. there are multiple frivolous complaints via potential of the ACLU, companies and spiritual entities. it fairly is no longer unreal to have faith that an attempt to recoup between the mandatory costs will no longer spur this on. this might doubtless come to bypass. ***** finished article on the link!!!!!

Answer 8

You are full of fallacious arguments I won't even try to address it one by one.

For example, you haven't cited a single instance where anyone can see if you are just ranting or have a valid point.

I am inlined to think that you read an opinion piece and came to a different conclusion based on the evidence presented.

It seems you are capable of reading critically, but not aware of how rhetoric woks by looking at the bigger picture of persuasion within the framework of scientific method or any other framework.

But personally, I think there is a burr up your butt nagging at you about something you did with a girl that came to the surface when you heard something in school....

I suggest you learn a lot more about persuasive writing Honestly, unlike many many of your peers here, you exhibit potential, but it is far from realized yet.

In the meantime, deal with your personal demons about rape definitions separately.

Answer 9

I no longer believe statistics unless they are independently collated and come with a health warning (i.e. confidence level rating). Same goes for government and government agencies as they can be amongst the worst offenders.

Answer 10

You call it "misrepresentation," they call it their interpretation. There is no one way to say whose interpretation us correct. So no it should not be made illegal. Many people look at the same set of data from different point of view to come up with an argument, with different emphasize. If these are illegal, all college professors, textbook authors will be locked up.