Is Stats Canada becoming Stats Canada for Women?
Here's yet another Stats Canada study that really just focuses on women.
And, just look at the headlines in newspapers like the Ottawa Citizen:
Most Sex Assaults Still Go Unreported: Stats Canada
The whole article in the Citizen is focused on women. But let's look at the reality. The entire Stats Canada study may have NOTHING to do with reality. They just ask people if they have been victimized. There is no attempt to try to validate any data - the plain fact of the matter is that you have no way of knowing if this study has ANY relevance.
For instance, it is well known that a significant number of REPORTED sexual assaults are bogus. That being the case, shouldn't we wonder whether a significant number of self-reported assaults are also bogus????
Lastly, may it also be possible that men significantly under-report actual assaults because of their very nature as men....and that perhaps women over-report for the same reason. I'm only asking - we certainly now know that there are significant differences between the sexes. But, shouldn't Stats Canada be asking these sort of questions?
posted by GayandRight @ 11:43 AM
9 Comments:
I just don't know what to say.
You're really upset about any focus on violence against women these days aren't you? It's pretty stomach churning, and I must say, it's making me think you're much less the "rational" conservative than I had thought.
Do you realize that the page you link to, which supposedly has an appauling focus on women, only contains the word "women" twice, and the first time it appears is three quarters of the way down the page? And it only even mentions the word "sex" (as in gender) twice. TWICE! (the word "gender" doesn't even appear). Four pretty passing references to the victim's gender in a pretty long page, and yet you see an appauling focus on women? I'd also like to point out that the word "men" appears exactly as many times as women, and not in a negative context. The site simply states that men are at higher risk of physical assault, and women are at higher risk of sexual assault. And if you don't believe that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
It's another truly infruiating post. I have the feeling (I could be wrong) that you would blast a post claiming that StatsCan had fallen vicitm to the "homosexual lobby" and was posting too many stats regarding crimes against homosexuals (as would I), but there's almost as much on that page about sexual orientation as gender, so I just don't get what your problem is.
As I've said, I can't fathom what your problem is here, but could you do me a personal favour? At least don't post anything about the supposedly terrible focus on violence against women on December 6th. Post away all you want on any other day, I think I'm going to largely ignore your blog from now on anyway, just don't post this cold-hearted stuff on the 6th.
Thank you.
Yes, but look at the ottawa citizen article...which is from a press release from stats canada. All about women...
Please don't visit the site on december 6th, because there will be some comments.
First of all, Fred can do whatever he wants on his blog. This is the Internet, the last remaining vestige of society where the radical left has not been able to quash free and open debate. Sorry about that.
Second, December 6 was a sad day but please, let's not try to suggest that all men are capable of what Marc Lepine did, like the Marion Boyds of this world would have us believe.
And while I'm on the topic, I cannot understand this business of making men march at the back of the line during the
annual "Take Back the Night" marches. A hypothetical: What if I had a mother, sister, wife or daughter who was the victim of violence? Would I be forced to take a back seat at that parade to an militant womyn activist who is there to make a political point? Yes I would, and it's sad that inclusiveness (a much-heralded left-wing value, no?) would be sacrificed in favour of an agenda.
Well, a few things.
First, I never said, nor implied, that Fred can't do whatever he likes on his blog. Of course he can. I made a request (a polite one I think) but he's free to ignore it (and will, I see) and that's prefectly fine (and I appreciate that he very politely warned me not to visit that day, as I'm sure I would be upset at something he might write - as is I think his warning to me).
Second, I also wasn't aware that combating violence against women was the pervue of the "radical left". If such is the case, I guess maybe I should move more to the left. I've always considered myself rather a centrist, but if it's only the "radical left" that thinks that violence against women is a particlar problem, then I'm more worried about the "right" than I was yesterday.
Third, I never suggested that all men (or many men) are capable of doing what Mark Lapine did. I'm certainly not. Actually I didn't say anything at all about December 6th, except mention the date. I was merely making a request that someone not publicly lament that we spend too much time talking about violence against women on a day focused on bringing more attention to violence against women (and again, he's perfectly free to ignore that request).
Finally, isn't the whole point of "Take Back the Night" oh, I don't know, "taking back the night"??? If the point is to move towards a day when women feel comfortable walking the streets at night when not accompanied by a man to protect them, doesn't it pretty logically follow that the march would be counter to it's whole point if the march was chalk a block full of men, right up front??? It's easy to take back the night if you're walking through the park with your 6 foot 200 pound boyfriend, but that kinda misses the point, no?
I suppose maybe the feeling here is that this focus on ending violence against women is an attack on men, and maybe that's what you find upsetting? Well, to me, this isn't an attack on men, it's an attack on rapists and scumbags, and I don't see what real men (the majority of non-rapists, non-scumbags, including, I'm sure, all the posters here) have to fear from an open discussion of the violence perpetrated against women.
Anyway, I fear we'll never see eye to eye on this, so there's not much point in continuing spinning around in circles.
I never said that combatting violence against women was only an issue for the radical left. I said that the silencing of legitimate debate is.
Violence against women can hurt more than just other women. Loved ones of both genders are often made to suffer and it's time that be recognized.
The plain fact of the matter is that our streets are safe for women to walk. It is men who face more danger - men make up 70% of homicide victims in Canada - on the streets than women.
"many more cases of legitimate sexual assault go unreported than there are cases of bogus sexual assualt."
You just say this....unfortunately, you just don't know. Our so-called Stats Canada could find out more information on bogus claims of sexual assault, but they CHOOSE not to. Why do you suppose that is?
The plain fact of the matter these days is that the courts are stacked against men...and the laws have been re-written to encourage complainents to come forward.
Fred is talking about real issues that some would rather not talk about.
Spousal violence occurs in almost equal proportions: 7% women, 6% men, according to Statistics Canada (July 2005).
Biological mothers physically abuse their children at a higher rate than biological fathers: +50% women to 38% men. More boys than girls are physically abused. Family Violence Initiative 2005.
Domestic violence policies require that men be removed and arrested from the home even if they have taken no action or have acted in self-defence.
Keep at it Fred.
Never let yourself be silenced.
Good job.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home