idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yes, all the other links I edited into my post were college-specific. Some say 1 in 5, some say 1 in 4. Either way, it's far, far higher than 1 in 12.
Except those numbers didn't come from actual studies.
How extensive is rape among college women? wrote:
[...]the data suggest that nearly 5 percent (4.9 percent) of
college women are victimized in any given calendar year. Over the course of
a college career—which now lasts an average of 5 years—the percentage of
completed or attempted rape victimization among women in higher educa-
tional institutions might climb to between one-fifth and one-quarter.
18. These projections are suggestive. To assess accurately the victimization risk for
women throughout a college career, longitudinal research following a cohort of
female students across time is needed
Every study, ever, uses statistical projections. And, yes, the more data you have over time makes for a better study.
That doesn't invalidate this research. That's an absurd
All it says is that research with more data points would be preferable. In this case, the two principle questions that would need to be answered are whether or not the rate of rapes remains stable across years (which, given that each of these studies WAS conducted in different years, I'm guessing is either stable or on a slight decline), and the rate at which rapes are committed against victims previously targeted (which, if meaningful, would obviously influence the statistic with regards to number of women).
Also, the fact that they recommend further study isn't a flag for concern, it's basic procedure. Every study will end with a discussion of challenges they faced, how they addressed those challenges (if they could), and all factors that could affect their conclusions. They will supplement this with a call to action with regards to topic areas where data is lacking. For a study on something like this, longitudinal data is the natural conclusion. As it is for every study with an open-ended timeline. It's built into the central concept.
And I'm willing to trust Kakar's link that the rate of assault is 1 in 3 for women in the military. The same link says it's 1 in 6 for civilians.
That said, the link does NOT say that 1 in 3 women in the military are raped while in the military, while on duty, by service members, etc. And to be clear, I'm talking about the item they actually cited, which has a link in their references section.
It's specifically stating the population of female veterans, 1/3 of which report a history of sexual abuse when they initially join (according to that same source).
You're completely ignoring the fact that there may be a significant correlation between past assault and a desire to join the armed forces.
The only statistics that source cite with regards to rapes internally is that estimates range from 20% to 48%. So, 1 in 5 (roughly civilian) to about 1 in 2 (way worse than civilian). College rape frequency is almost certainly higher than with civilians. Maybe it's lower, maybe it's higher. I don't really care which is the worse environment. Because my only point was that discouraging a young woman from entering into the armed forces because there's potential she could be raped is absurd when the clear alternative, college, is (at best) almost just as bad.
I'm inclined to believe it would be far healthier to give her your encouragement with whatever career path she chooses, with eyes wide open, so that if (god forbid) something terrible happens, she's not faced with a culture of "I told you so."
Also, no, I refused to respond to Alma because he was being a pig. Edited, Jun 4th 2013 10:36pm by idiggory