mahogany: (Default)
[personal profile] mahogany
In my last post, I was freaking out with outrage over the article that I read in the Vancouver Sun, which is a local newspaper.

The entire article had me up in arms, but the part that most upset me was:

During their lifetimes, research suggests, 83 per cent of women with disabilities are sexually abused; 80 per cent of female psychiatric in-patients will be physically or sexually assaulted.

Before they turn 18, 40 to 70 per cent of girls with intellectual disabilities will be sexually exploited.

Read more:

I decided that I need to better educate myself on this issue. I emailed the reporter, and asked her where she obtained her statistics. She was very kind, promptly emailed me back. Her statistics came from a brief filed with the Supreme court of Canada. Here is a link to the document:

Here is how the original info reads:

80% of psychiatric inpatients have experienced physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime.

Does anyone else see a huge difference?

Date: 2011-06-06 04:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It's still outrageous, but yeah. A verb tense changes a lot.

Date: 2011-06-06 05:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yeah, still outrageous. I'm still ploughing through the links from blauetefelin and lavendersparkle, plus reading through some of the briefs on the LEAF website to try and get my mind around these issues.

Date: 2011-06-06 04:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Just before the 80% stat in the LEAF report, it does say 83% of women with disabilities will be sexually abused in their lifetimes and 40-70% will be before the age of 18. Seems the journalist did report things slightly inaccurately, but not by much...

But yea, those numbers also suggest that a very high percentage of men with disabilities have been or will be assaulted at some point in their lives. This really is an issue of both ableism and misogyny.

Date: 2011-06-06 04:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Journalism is in a tragic state these days. You could use spotting the blatant crap-ness of tv journalism in particular as a nifty educational drinking game.

The numbers are awful, still.

Date: 2011-06-06 05:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
You could use spotting the blatant crap-ness of tv journalism in particular as a nifty educational drinking game.


Date: 2011-06-06 08:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I thought the figure for psychiatric patients was odd because psychiatric in-patients range from people who spend pretty much their whole adult life as in patients to those who just spend a few months in a unit once and the statistic didn't seem to work with that.

Date: 2011-06-07 01:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yeah. They're both outrageous statistics but I read the first one as saying patients will be assaulted while in the hospital, like the facilities themselves are hotbeds for this. (I do know people who have been institutionalized and assaulted there by the workers, though.)

Date: 2011-06-07 04:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
That's how I read it too, and that's also how everyone I've showed this to was reading it.

Date: 2011-06-11 12:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
yes! has and will are two very different things! whats wrong with their fact checker?!?!?


mahogany: (Default)

July 2013

 12345 6

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 12:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios