Study challenges assumptions on wartime sexual violence

[DavidDvorkin]

There is no evidence to support frequent claims that rape as a "weapon of war" is widespread, nor that its incidence has been growing. Domestic sexual violence victimizes far more women in war-affected countries than does the conflict-related sexual violence that is perpetrated by combatants. Recent studies show that male victims and female perpetrators may be more numerous than generally believed.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/sfu-sca101012.php

[spanone]

1. and some people still think the earth is flat

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Er, what?

[BlueToTheBone]

3. The women in

Bosnia, Somalia, Yemen, the Sudan to name a few places in recent past that undercuts that study,

[DavidDvorkin]

4. So the researchers ignored available data?

[cali]

6. You bet your fucking ass they did.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/11/congo-rape-crisis-study-reveals-shocking-new-numbers.html

[4th law of robotics]

13. Is it your sincere belief that the Congo is the only nation undergoing war-based violence?

Because you cite as a counter argument a single nation, whereas the study in question does not limit itself to that one nation.

You are aware are you not that other nations are at war?

For instance; if a study were to show that unemployment in the US is down compared to last year would a report on the unemployment rates in a single US city that shows the opposite refute that initial claim?

[4th law of robotics]

9. You don't understand how studies work

showing that the actual numbers are lower than the commonly accepted numbers doesn't prove it never happened.

For instance: if it could be shown that 11.99 million people died in the holocaust rather than 12 million as is commonly cited would that prove the whole thing never happened? Of course not. Nor could you refute such a study by showing pictures of dead bodies. This is not how statistics work.

[Zalatix]

11. no, but the study claims that rape as a weapon isn't widespread. That is batshit crazy.

This study is beyond all hope of rational discussion. The study is only worthy of being laughed at, mocked, and printed out as fertilizer.

[4th law of robotics]

12. Could you cite any reason other than not liking the conclusion?

What is your evidence that this is often employed as a specific weapon of war in most countries at war and that the rates at which this occurs are on the rise?

[Zalatix]

15. I don't really care to.

[4th law of robotics]

16. So the study is wrong: because . . .

You realize "because" isn't an ironclad argument. Right?

Evolution is Bullshit. The entire theory is batshit crazy.

Supporting studies are beyond all hope of rational discussion. Those studies are only worthy of being laughed at, mocked, and printed out as fertilizer.

Don't believe me? It is. Because.

/have I convinced you?

[cali]

5. Why are you posting one clearly bullshit "study"

that encompasses only the years 2000-2009. It supposedly relies on reported sexual violence. What about the vast number of studies that contradict this piece of dog shit? And just what the fuck is Simon Fraser University. You know what the real tip off that this is a piece of disgusting misogyny? The claim that recent studies show that male victims and female perps may be more numerous than generally believed. In war? Really? Who but women hating pigs could ever believe that claim? This is so disgusting, so shameful, that I'm too furious to keep writing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/11/congo-rape-crisis-study-reveals-shocking-new-numbers.html

[ismnotwasm]

8. That's a very good question

Why post something like this in the first place? It's easily refutable, clearly bullshit. What possible reason? Strange.

[4th law of robotics]

10. "Who but women hating pigs could ever believe that claim?"

Wow. What a ridiculous statement on your part.

Saying that men are also victims proves you hate women. Yeah . . .


Some people don't do well when their sacred beliefs are threatened by reality. Often they lash out at those presenting them with new information that challenges their worldviews.

[Robb]

7. Doesn't seem terribly groundbreaking, provocative title notwithstanding.

The study claims the accepted narrative "...suggests that the experience of the small number of countries afflicted by extreme levels of sexual violence is the norm for all war-affected countries."

I don't think anyone actually thinks that. But yes, intuitively I expect if one averages out sexual violence across ALL war-affected regions, it would be a figure generally less appalling than that in countries "afflicted by extreme level of sexual violence."

Much meh; although I expect the source data would be interesting.

[4th law of robotics]

14. "I don't think anyone actually thinks that. "

Apparently some do. On this very thread, as they seem to believe the Congo represents all war torn nations.

[LadyHawkAZ]

17. READ THE REPORT BEFORE DRAWING CONCLUSIONS PLEASE

Everyone's forming opinions based on the HEADLINE and the EXCERPT.

http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2012/2012HumanSecurityReport-Part1-SexualViolenceEducationandWar.pdf

PLEASE READ BEFORE STARTING THE ARGUMENTS.

Thank you. You may now resume your regularly scheduled quarrel.

[OldDem2012]

18. A few thoughts...the world outside an occupied territory in a war zone is simply not...

...going to gain concrete evidence about the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war until such time as those areas are retaken, and/or reliable uncensored communications are restored. Too often, the victims of rape in a war zone are subsequently murdered, leaving few if any witnesses. Additionally, a victim who manages to survive a rape under such conditions may be unable to report the crime for fear being murdered, and/or fear of religious/cultural sanctions. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the amount of data for this "study" is severely limited, leading to severely skewed results.

Just my opinion, but I'm calling bs on this "study". Garbage in equals garbage out.