Page: 1 2 3 4

Rape Claim (34)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

Tanos wrote:

grahamm wrote:
Well, according to the Daily Telegraph "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped" according to scientists.

However, according to this blog the "scientist" is an MSc student, the research quoted is from her *unfinished* dissertation and, oh, by they way, they have *completely* misinterpreted and misrepresented her findings which haven't said anyting of the sort!

That badscience.net blog is bad journalism

This is the real Telegraph story, and it includes a lot more detail than the press release.

See how different it is to the straw man account of the story that the guy from the Guardian who wrote the badscience piece responded to. eg the real Telegraph story agrees with the student's stuff about drunkeness reducing the risk of being raped.

It's not a "straw man" version of it, it's the version before the Telegraph was updated. From the blog:

Since I started sniffing around, and Sophia complained, the Telegraph have quietly changed the online copy of the article, although there has been no formal correction, and in any case, it remains inaccurate.

That doesn't excuse them for the original mistake.

They are also still making the claims about "the skimpier the dress and the more flirtatious the woman", and the point about presenting unpublished work as being "scientists say" still stands.

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.

Edited 4 Jul 09, 11:54 PM by emark

5 Jul 09, 12:13 AM
Tanos

UK(M), 14 yrs

emark wrote:

Tanos wrote:
See how different it is to the straw man account of the story that the guy from the Guardian who wrote the badscience piece responded to. eg the real Telegraph story agrees with the student's stuff about drunkeness reducing the risk of being raped.

It's not a "straw man" version of it, it's the version before the Telegraph was updated. From the blog:

That doesn't excuse them for the original mistake.

Sorry about that - you're right

They are also still making the claims about "the skimpier the dress and the more flirtatious the woman", and the point about presenting unpublished work as being "scientists say" still stands.

But the point that the Guardian journalist is peddling a straw man version of the Telegraph story does stand: none of the quotes from it or the version on the Telegraph site says anything about blame, just about a causal link. I don't see yet more evidence that men are more likely to rape women who look more attractive ("dressed provocatively" in this case) should be at all controversial.

Time and again these debates are mired in this cycle:

A. "A part of human nature looks like this".

B. "That can't be true! It's not right to do that!"

A. "Sigh. Yes, it's a bit like murder in that respect."

You can cause something without being to blame for it. Not everything natural is right. Human nature is a prompt not a computer program etc.

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk

Edited 5 Jul 09, 12:19 AM by Tanos

5 Jul 09, 1:18 AM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

Yes that's a fair enough point - I thought that myself, that even if it were true that there was a link, this shouldn't mean that women are to blame. Just as a link that people of a certain race were more likely to be attacked, or gay people, or say goths, wouldn't mean that the people themselves were to blame.

I think the blog's concern is specifically bad science reporting - and I think the point being made is that given that, rightly or wrongly, people will use such claims to support their sexist views (because the "she was asking for it by dressing that way" is one such argument), then newspapers should be extra careful in their reporting. If such a correlation was supported by science, so be it, but since it isn't, it's not helpful to feed such misinformation to those who will misuse it.

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.

5 Jul 09, 3:04 AM
Romola
UK, 7 yrs

Tanos wrote:

grahamm wrote:
Well, according to the Daily Telegraph "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped" according to scientists.

That badscience.net blog is bad journalism

This is the real Telegraph story, and it includes a lot more detail than the press release.

Regards,

Tanos

Drunkennness reduces the risk of being raped? I've been doing this totally the wrong way round! I now resolve to be well and truly bladdered in future then, except when with my chosen partner, who is welcome to 'rape' me whenever he pleases.

It's only a weblog

5 Jul 09, 4:06 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 5 yrs

Tanos wrote:

grahamm wrote:
Well, according to the Daily Telegraph "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped" according to scientists.

That badscience.net blog is bad journalism

This is the real Telegraph story, and it includes a lot more detail than the press release.

Regards,

Tanos

I have a great deal of time for Ben Goldacre and his bad science column.

The Telegraphs headline places the blame squarely on the victim again, whereas the title of the original manuscript did not.

Moreover the Telegraph presents the piece as finished research which it is not. They quote Scientists plural not MSc student singular.

What is more Ben Goldacre took the trouble to contact the author of the research, and quotes her reaction to the piece, which the Telegraph did not.

Sophia Shaw wrote:

�When I saw the article my heart completely sank, and it made me really angry, given how sensitive this subject is. To be making claims like the Telegraph did, in my name, places all the blame on women, which is not what we were doing at all. I just felt really angry about how wrong they'd got this study.� Since I started sniffing around, and Sophia complained, the Telegraph have quietly changed the online copy of the article, although there has been no formal correction, and in any case, it remains inaccurate.

In other words the author of the piece is unhappy with the Telegraph's treatment of the story, and the Telegraph altered the story since Ben Goldacre wrote his piece.

Bad journalism? Lurid headlines over a "blown-up" story on a piece of unfinished research, more like.

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand smacking.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Edited 5 Jul 09, 4:10 PM by proccie

5 Jul 09, 7:24 PM
merrynb99
UK(SL), 5 yrs

What struck me, when I read Goldacre's Bad Science column yesterday, is how many journalists there seem to be out there, and how many newspapers, all squabbling like jackals over what little news there is to report. So they end up (a) poring over every little piece of research being produced (however anecdotal and inconclusive) in order to dream up more and more lurid headlines to make up the circulation and sales targets they set for themselves, and (b) other journalists (like Goldacre) resorting to trying to make "news" out of the Telegraph's tabloid reporting.

Too many newspapers, not enough real news, imo.

...

Edited 5 Jul 09, 7:29 PM by merrynb99

6 Jul 09, 11:16 AM
Jane_Fae
UK(W), 3 yrs

Doghouse_Reilly wrote:

Hells_Bells wrote:

Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Awesome work, just quoting the prosecution pretty much word for word. Is that what counts as even handed journalism these days? Will tomorrow's story be along the lines of, "Defence lawyer says she didn't do it"?

Really insightful stuff from the Telegraph as ever.

Of course you'll know, Doghouse, that reporting court cases, especially ongoing ones, can basically only tell you what happened in court that day. Word for word is standard practice.

There was a lot that should have been reported that wasn't clear, and this was my main complaint. The accusations against the woman were given far more space than the case details. And when all is said and done she's getting charged with what, wasting police time or something? How does that merit the attention of a national paper? Hell even an actual rape trial shouldn't warrant that.

Not sure this is poor reporting per se. Criminal cases follow a fairly well-trod schedule, opening with a statement by the prosecution, going on to a statement by the defence...then evidence, etc.

This therefore looks as though a reporter was in court for the the prosecution's opening statement...and then had to file for the day. Maybe the prosecution went on a bit: maybe the deadline was lunchtime....

It is a prob with court reporting. Stories can alternate between: "the accused is the spawn of satan" and "the accused is an angel". Probably confuses the public who don't know how courts work....but you can't expect newspapers to explainj the system afresh in every article.

Regards,

John

6 Jul 09, 11:22 AM
Tanos

UK(M), 14 yrs

proccie wrote:
The Telegraphs headline places the blame squarely on the victim again, whereas the title of the original manuscript did not.

No it doesn't. (Partial) cause does not equate to moral responsibility.

If your car is stolen, you're part of the cause (eg "Increased car ownership leads to increased car crime" headlines) but you're not to blame: people shouldn't be stealing cars and they're the ones to blame.

Tanos wrote:
You can cause something without being to blame for it. Not everything natural is right. Human nature is a prompt not a computer program etc.

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
www.twitter.com/ukTanos

6 Jul 09, 5:12 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 5 yrs

Tanos wrote:

No it doesn't. (Partial) cause does not equate to moral responsibility.

Tanos wrote:
You can cause something without being to blame for it. Not everything natural is right. Human nature is a prompt not a computer program etc.

Regards,

Tanos

I think many would disagree with you.

Telegraph wrote:
"Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists"

Is more akin to: "Leaving your car unlocked makes it more likely to be stolen", than just "owning" a car. There is definitely a sense that if you don't want to be raped then don't dress provocatively; which puts the onus on the woman.

As mentioned, the female Author of the piece feels that way.

Even writing it as "Men more likely to rape women who dress provocatively", is better.

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand smacking.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Edited 6 Jul 09, 5:14 PM by proccie

6 Jul 09, 7:26 PM
sharktooth
UK, 2 yrs

emark wrote:
It's unclear if he was arrested before or after she was told this to the police, but nonetheless it seems she made the claim to the police.

Rightly or wrongly, this is a serious crime - Maxine Carr got three and a half years for providing a false alibi for Ian Huntley, even though the jury believed her when she said she had no idea he was guilty.

(I presume Mr Warren's fingerprints are now being kept on the national database as a result, despite being completely innocent...)

Probably his DNA too - and even with the ECHR ruling, since he's been arrested for a violent/sexual crime, it'll stay on there for a long time (12 years under the last proposals I saw).

This is - rightly - being treated as a serious crime. Even if there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, the taint of suspicion would always linger over him in people's minds. (It probably still will, even though she confessed to lying.) Remember that not only are there no restrictions on reporting the names of rape suspects, but arrests for rape are recorded and count against the accused when applying for many jobs.

Next page