if I used an estimate of apples vs. an estimate of oranges, or reported apples vs. reported oranges, in both cases the numbers would be much more favorable to the argument of apples being better than oranges
FTFY. Since the definition of rape and consent had heavily changed in that 80+ year interval, you are not comparing the same thing.
Unless your argument is that unlike numbers cannot be compared…
Yes that’s exactly my argument.
…even with attempts at correction,
Not as specific absolute numbers when your correction multiplier can arbitrarily go anywhere between 2-10x (look up Radzinowicz dark figure formula that Lilly reportedly used)
…in which case any comparison of rape statistics over a significant period of time is impossible
definitely not possible without taking the differences in definition (including age of consent), reporting behavior and the distribution and behavior of population at risk (like hiding…) , etc into consideration just to make a statement like
the incidence of American wartime rape in France in WW2 was [not] significantly higher than under normal circumstances
Ironically, the BBC article you’re referring to captures my objections very well even in its title:
Revisionists challenge D-Day story
One woman - from the town of Colombieres - is quoted as saying that “the enthusiasm for the liberators is diminishing. They are looting… everything, and going into houses everywhere on the pretext of looking for Germans.” Even more feared, of course, was the crime of rape - and here too the true picture has arguably been expunged from popular memory. According to American historian J Robert Lilly, there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war. “The evidence shows that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common,” writes Mr Hitchcock.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm
Sorry for pointing out that something was a terrible example?
You managed to outdo the example in outlandishness.
if I used an estimate of apples vs. an estimate of oranges, or reported apples vs. reported oranges, in both cases the numbers would be much more favorable to the argument of apples being better than oranges
That’s not even close. Jesus H. Christ.
FTFY. Since the definition of rape and consent had heavily changed in that 80+ year interval, you are not comparing the same thing.
Would you like to elaborate on how the definition of rape and consent changing in that 80+ year interval changes an estimation made in the early 2000s using modern definitions of rape?
Yes that’s exactly my argument.
So you couldn’t say, for example, that modern rates of rape are lower than that of American soldiers during WW2? Since numbers are incomparable, of course, by your own argument.
Ironically, the BBC article you’re referring to captures my objections very well even in its title: Revisionists challenge D-Day story
… what? I haven’t referred to any BBC article.
You managed to outdo the example in outlandishness.
How? By your own argument, you have nothing to contradict my point, since numbers are apparently incomparable. How can you say a point is outlandish if you can’t even dispute the basis of the assertion?
Would you like to elaborate on how the definition of rape and consent changing in that 80+ year interval changes an estimation made in the early 2000s using modern definitions of rape?
I’ve specified differences between 2022 and 1944 few times above how they may apply differently to the two eras and situation, particularly the marital part, I don’t think I need to repeat myself about it. Now, have you read the book?
So you couldn’t say, for example, that modern rates of rape are lower than that of American soldiers during WW2?
Correct and I’m not the one comparing apples to oranges here.
… what? I haven’t referred to any BBC article.
Mea culpa, you’ve just responded to it and seem to be quoting the numbers from it:
Reference [10] is the BBC article.
How can you say a point is outlandish if you can’t even dispute the basis of the assertion?
Let me recite it:
By those numbers, it would be safer to be a French woman with an American soldier in WW2, than to be a woman with an English man today."
Those numbers say nothing about the actual safety of a French woman now vs. WW2.
But this is getting a little boring at this point. Just use a contemporary comparison next time and then you won’t give off the impression of someone trivializing war associated sexual violence.
I’ve specified differences between 2022 and 1944 few times above how they may apply differently to the two eras and situation, particularly the marital part, I don’t think I need to repeat myself about it.
Unless you think marital rape was a major problem amongst American GIs in France from 1944-1945, it’s not really a salient point.
Now, have you read the book?
Yes, actually. It has its problems, but the estimation of the number of rapes performed by GIs in France is not in dispute here; we are accepting it for the sake of the argument and as the citation given, the implication thereof which is being disputed.
Correct and I’m not the one comparing apples to oranges here.
How can you say a point is outlandish if you can’t even dispute the basis of the assertion?
Mea culpa, you’ve just responded to it and seem to be quoting the numbers from it:
I quoted the wiki article because the wiki article was what was offered by the original commenter, and was the implication that I was refuting. Jesus H. Christ.
Those numbers say nothing about the actual safety of a French woman now vs. WW2.
Which means your point is “We don’t know and we can’t know because evidence doesn’t exist”, which is utterly worthless as a contribution to the discussion.
So, uh, thanks, I guess.
But this is getting a little boring at this point. Just use a contemporary comparison next time and then you won’t give off the impression of someone trivializing war associated sexual violence.
I love that you offer both “Numbers are meaningless” and “You should’ve used contemporary numbers instead!”
Of course, if I did, then your argument would doubtlessly be “But contemporary definitions of rape don’t include acts we include in modern definitions of rape, therefore, it’s incomparable and my preconception remains untarnished by evidence.”
Unless you think marital rape was a major problem amongst American GIs in France from 1944-1945, it’s not really a salient point.
Bravo, you’ve found the difference!
Yes, actually. It has its problems, but the estimation of the number of rapes performed by GIs in France is not in dispute here;
The comparability of arbitrarily picked numbers is in dispute which depends on the methodology.
“We don’t know and we can’t know because evidence doesn’t exist” / "Numbers are meaningless” and “You should’ve used contemporary numbers instead!” / your argument would doubtlessly be “But contemporary definitions of rape don’t include acts we include in modern definitions of rape, therefore, it’s incomparable and my preconception remains untarnished by evidence.”
Fair, my time is better spent on people understanding the difference between “use comparable metrics FFS” and “numbers are useless”.
If marital rape was not an issue amongst GIs, it would not have driven their rate of rapes up. As we are concerned with actual rapes committed, and not arbitrarily excluding rapes because of legal definitions, it makes no sense to try to claim the lack of marital rape recognized by contemporary law to be at all relevant.
The comparability of arbitrarily picked numbers is in dispute which depends on the methodology.
Yet you aren’t disputing the methodology, but the definitions of rape. Yet in your dispute of the definitions, you manage to define literally nothing that would create substantial discontinuity between the statistics being compared.
Fair, my time is better spent on people understanding the difference between “use comparable metrics FFS” and “numbers are useless”.
Comparable metrics like “Rape per capita” and “rape per capita”.
But sure, go back to claiming that the numbers are wrong, and that I’ve inflated them fivefold, and then backtrack and completely reverse your argument into a dismissal of the applicability of those numbers once it turns out that the numbers are valid and are against your argument, not in support of it.
If marital rape was not an issue amongst GIs, it would not have driven their rate of rapes up.
Yet you aren’t disputing the methodology, but the definitions of rape.
Comparable metrics like “Rape per capita” and “rape per capita”.
Since 1944 rape was legally redefined and expanded 5-6 times in both France and England (i prefer not to get into the details…), some of the laws and significant societal changes, actual policing standards changed even after this book was written (2001) and published (2007). Even the non-conflict related stats have a disclaimer about cultural and legal differences limiting direct comparison, but most importantly the UN considers conflict-related sexual violence as its own distinct category (again you’ve compared conflict vs non-conflict stats).
But at this point I’ll give in to your logic and conclude this discussion with this graph which clearly indicates “that by those numbers, it would be much safer to be a woman with an English man in 2007, than to be a woman with an English man in 2022.”
FTFY. Since the definition of rape and consent had heavily changed in that 80+ year interval, you are not comparing the same thing.
Yes that’s exactly my argument.
Not as specific absolute numbers when your correction multiplier can arbitrarily go anywhere between 2-10x (look up Radzinowicz dark figure formula that Lilly reportedly used)
definitely not possible without taking the differences in definition (including age of consent), reporting behavior and the distribution and behavior of population at risk (like hiding…) , etc into consideration just to make a statement like
Ironically, the BBC article you’re referring to captures my objections very well even in its title: Revisionists challenge D-Day story
You managed to outdo the example in outlandishness.
That’s not even close. Jesus H. Christ.
Would you like to elaborate on how the definition of rape and consent changing in that 80+ year interval changes an estimation made in the early 2000s using modern definitions of rape?
So you couldn’t say, for example, that modern rates of rape are lower than that of American soldiers during WW2? Since numbers are incomparable, of course, by your own argument.
… what? I haven’t referred to any BBC article.
How? By your own argument, you have nothing to contradict my point, since numbers are apparently incomparable. How can you say a point is outlandish if you can’t even dispute the basis of the assertion?
I’ve specified differences between 2022 and 1944 few times above how they may apply differently to the two eras and situation, particularly the marital part, I don’t think I need to repeat myself about it. Now, have you read the book?
Correct and I’m not the one comparing apples to oranges here.
Mea culpa, you’ve just responded to it and seem to be quoting the numbers from it:
Reference [10] is the BBC article.
Let me recite it:
Those numbers say nothing about the actual safety of a French woman now vs. WW2.
But this is getting a little boring at this point. Just use a contemporary comparison next time and then you won’t give off the impression of someone trivializing war associated sexual violence.
Unless you think marital rape was a major problem amongst American GIs in France from 1944-1945, it’s not really a salient point.
Yes, actually. It has its problems, but the estimation of the number of rapes performed by GIs in France is not in dispute here; we are accepting it for the sake of the argument and as the citation given, the implication thereof which is being disputed.
I quoted the wiki article because the wiki article was what was offered by the original commenter, and was the implication that I was refuting. Jesus H. Christ.
Which means your point is “We don’t know and we can’t know because evidence doesn’t exist”, which is utterly worthless as a contribution to the discussion.
So, uh, thanks, I guess.
I love that you offer both “Numbers are meaningless” and “You should’ve used contemporary numbers instead!”
Of course, if I did, then your argument would doubtlessly be “But contemporary definitions of rape don’t include acts we include in modern definitions of rape, therefore, it’s incomparable and my preconception remains untarnished by evidence.”
Bravo, you’ve found the difference!
The comparability of arbitrarily picked numbers is in dispute which depends on the methodology.
Fair, my time is better spent on people understanding the difference between “use comparable metrics FFS” and “numbers are useless”.
If marital rape was not an issue amongst GIs, it would not have driven their rate of rapes up. As we are concerned with actual rapes committed, and not arbitrarily excluding rapes because of legal definitions, it makes no sense to try to claim the lack of marital rape recognized by contemporary law to be at all relevant.
Yet you aren’t disputing the methodology, but the definitions of rape. Yet in your dispute of the definitions, you manage to define literally nothing that would create substantial discontinuity between the statistics being compared.
Comparable metrics like “Rape per capita” and “rape per capita”.
But sure, go back to claiming that the numbers are wrong, and that I’ve inflated them fivefold, and then backtrack and completely reverse your argument into a dismissal of the applicability of those numbers once it turns out that the numbers are valid and are against your argument, not in support of it.
Pathetic.
Since 1944 rape was legally redefined and expanded 5-6 times in both France and England (i prefer not to get into the details…), some of the laws and significant societal changes, actual policing standards changed even after this book was written (2001) and published (2007). Even the non-conflict related stats have a disclaimer about cultural and legal differences limiting direct comparison, but most importantly the UN considers conflict-related sexual violence as its own distinct category (again you’ve compared conflict vs non-conflict stats).
But at this point I’ll give in to your logic and conclude this discussion with this graph which clearly indicates “that by those numbers, it would be much safer to be a woman with an English man in 2007, than to be a woman with an English man in 2022.”
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022