Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape statistics
Message-ID: <4040@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Sep-84 16:08:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.4040
Posted: Sun Sep  9 16:08:38 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:40:19 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 64


* ] >                       Performing the indicated operations that means
* ] > 7 per cent of all women will be raped.  (Assuming there is a 50 year
* ] > window).
* ]
* ] That's a big assumption. Do you think a woman of 60 has the same chance of
* ] being raped as a woman of 20? Hardly. You have to make an age breakdown of
* ] those 700 rapes and determine the effective window based on that. I suspect
* ] 15 is more reasonable.
* 
* Go back to your Intro To Stat class, Jeff.  That 700 out of 500,000 figure
* is for the *entire* population of women.  If women in one age category
* are less likely to be raped, those in another are more.  If we accept
* your assumption that only women from, say, 17-32 are at risk, then the
* chance of them getting raped must be about 5 times higher (assuming
* uniform age distribution for the sake of argument) than 700 out of 500,000,
* in order to produce the composite figure.  (Alas, women, and girls, of
* all ages are at risk...)

Um. Maybe you could use a refresher in Reading Comprehension. (Maybe I could,
too, but that's another matter.) I am well aware the figure is for the entire
population, and I did not say that there is, in real life, only a 15 year
risk window. The way to calculate the window is this:

    The 700 can be tabulated with respect to age. We can also know how many
women are in each year of age in Dallas. For each year we can then find the
percentage chance of being raped (isn't this wonderfully clinical? :-)).
Adding all the percentages together gives a total percentage, which will be
equal to 700/500,000 times my "effective window". 15 years may be a totally
cockeyed guess, I may be 100% wrong about who is most likely to be raped, but
my method is correct.

    This total percentage, times the fudge factor due to unreported rapes,
gives the chance a woman in Dallas will be raped in her lifetime, assuming
the population distribution with respect to age remains constant during
that time (which it won't, of course, but...).

* ] With my assumptions, the number is now 6.3% instead of 33% (in Dallas).
* ] Which is still pretty frightening. But not nearly as effective grist for
* ] the propaganda mills.
* ]                                          Jeff Winslow
*
* ``Propaganda mills''?  Sounds like a ``conspiracy'' theory.  Why are
* you trying to deny the problem, Jeff?  Dallas does, indeed, have a
* high rape rate compared to other cities--but so does Los Angeles,
* New York, and other *large* cities.  The problem is here, and it is
* grave.  Were I to find a conspiracy here, it would be one of silence.

"Conspiracy theory" is your idea, not mine. I don't believe in them, and it
beats me how you get them out of my admittedly emotional reference
to "propaganda mills". And it beats the hell out of me that you can say
my figure of 6.3% is "denying the problem". Do you think that a 1 in
15 chance of being raped in one's lifetime isn't a problem? :-)

So why am I making such a big deal over statistics? Two reasons:

1. I like to form my opinions on truth as much as possible.

2. If you exaggerate a statistic, and it can be shown you did, you lose
   credibility, and people will stop listening to you. Even if the problem
   is the gravest possible. Everyone devoted to a cause should endeavor
   to get the most accurate statistics possible, not the most spectacular.

						Jeff Winslow