If you take rape as an example of this, 50% of the 83,000 reported rapes that are committed each year are being perpetrated by just 288 men. Run the calculation through and you get a figure of 315 men committing 100% of all rapes

If 288 men are responsible for 50% of the 83,000 rapes then you’re saying that another 27 men (315-288) are responsible for the other 50%?

Price’s Law is useful to use here. It states that in any population where there is an output or action to be measured, 50% of the frequency of that output will be generated by the square root of the population.

It absolutely does not. It states that half of the scientific papers are contributed by the top square root of the total number of scientific authors. It is itself open to criticism about its validity on its very specific subject matter. To make the leap to present it as something that has any kind of legitimate use in calculating the number of rapists from the number of committed rapes is extraordinarily dishonest.

If you take rape as an example of this, 50% of the 83,000 reported rapes that are committed each year are being perpetrated by just 288 men. Run the calculation through and you get a figure of 315 men committing 100% of all rapes,

Say what you want about these rapey blokes, they are certainly dedicated. Some don’t even take a day off.

50% of 83000 = 41,500
288 men = 144 rapes per man per year.
315 – 288 = 27 men
41,500/27 = 1637 per man per year.

Price’s Law is useful to use here. It states that in any population where there is an output or action to be measured, 50% of the frequency of that output will be generated by the square root of the population.

Price’s contention is questionable in its original context and hasn’t been shown to apply outside that context either. However –

If you take rape as an example of this, 50% of the 83,000 reported rapes that are committed each year are being perpetrated by just 288 men

Here you appear to have obtained your figure of 288 very busy men by taking the square root of the output, not the population. If you’re going to comb the internet to find any questionable theory that supports your argument at least do the sums properly.

I got as far as your maths and switched off.

That’s because you’re either ignorant or stupid or perhaps both. Either way you’re not interested to engage in an actual exploration of the situation or the problem because it doesn’t confirm to your view of the world.

It absolutely does not. It states that half of the scientific papers are contributed by the top square root of the total number of scientific authors.

Er yeah I know. I even referenced that in my post. Did you actually read it? Price’s law has been shown to apply to many other populations as well though. If you look at the data on offending behaviour it fits very well to that.

Yeah, let’s just dismiss all those

No let’s just treat those separately as they are a separate problem. I am NOT dismissing them without debate, just not debating them here. They are a different problem that straddles a much broader swathe of problems in society where any one group is responsible for transgressions against another. Women are just as guiltu of that towards men – ask any man that has been through a messy divorce and he will tell you all about the micro-aggressions, hostility and outright biggotry that women are capable of.

If 288 men are responsible for 50% of the 83,000 rapes then you’re saying that another 27 men (315-288) are responsible for the other 50%?

Well I’m suggesting it, offering it as a hypothesis if you like. It’s very hard to know for sure and the actual figure could be as high as 2,300, which is about the number of rape cases that result in a conviction in a year (2016 data). We can either assume that rape is only ever committed once by a perpetrator, or we can reason that it’s more than once.

If the frequency is either one or two, then the total number of men in a given year likely to commit rape (as defined by a jury) is vanishingly small, just 0.0007% of the male population.

This argument does not account for the fact that potentially up to 90% of rapes are not reported. If you factor that in and scale it up, you reach a population of men likely to commit rape that numbers 23,000 which is 0.07% of the population and that is before you factor in the reality that it is very unlikely that a man who has raped has only raped once. There is data on this you just have to take the time to find it like I have.

Look, for crying out loud, I’m not saying rape is not a problem! Far from it. Just that the way it’s reported as being a ‘problem with men/masculinity’ is as ignorant, bias and prejudicial as tarring any group with the trangressions of a tiny minority.

Here you appear to have obtained your figure of 288 very busy men by taking the square root of the output, not the population

Yes true, a mistake. It would explain why the two sets of data seem vastly different.

Adjusted figures would be about 5600.

Say what you want about these rapey blokes, they are certainly dedicated. Some don’t even take a day off.

This is also a good point but it’s harder to pick apart. We should try though.

It’s true you cannot simply abstract one year of data unless what you want to do is state that in one year what is the population that are likely to commit rape. Those are the figures I’ve produced so if you factor in a time frame over which the offending behaviour is likely to take place, you will get to a much larger number.

From my reading, it seems to be that the likely total number of men in an given population who might at some point commit rape is at most 9%. That number is obviously a lot higher than the other figures but it’s still a very small minority and that is my ultimate point.

Why are we defining the problem as if it were a problem associated with ‘men’ rather than just ‘some men’? And I think the answer to that question is political rather than issue based.

get this man a new spade. he’s nearly worn this one out…

the way it’s reported as being a ‘problem with men/masculinity’ is as ignorant, bias and prejudicial as tarring any group with the trangressions of a tiny minority.

Agreed. But you can’t hope to argue that case by using obviously flawed mathematical assertions.

Agreed. But you can’t hope to argue that case by using obviously flawed mathematical assertions

True but then that’s what the debate is all about.

So here’s an interesting thought. If the number of men likely to rape or who have raped at some point in the past is materially higher than say 9% (let’s say it’s really high at 20%), then on this page alone, there are at least three rapists.

I know I’m not one so which of you is it?

I was to wolf whistle good and loud (I can’t but that’s neither here nor there) and 20 women heard it would they all be equally harassed by it? Do I need to bellow “Not you, her in the crocs!” each time? Is that more offensive?

I can’t remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle*.

*With the exception of someone whistling at a dog to control sheep.

jimjam – Member
I can’t remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle

Have you tried wearing high heels and a mini skirt?

“Not you, her in the crocs!”

You utter perv.

The problem is Geetee is that you’ve completely made up the “Just that the way it’s reported as being a ‘problem with men/masculinity’ “

atlaz put it very well above in his middle para:

Nobody is suggesting that if 25% of women are assaulted or harassed that 25% of men are responsible but we are all responsible for the solution whether it’s 25%, 2.5% or 0.25%. Outright racism is no longer socially acceptable because ALL of us shifted our behaviour away from accepting it as part of life.

It’s a problem with society. Just think about how many men might have been slightly aware of Weinstein’s actions, but didn’t dig deeper because it’s complicated, or he’s powerful, etc. Similarly how many women knew that it had happened to them, but didn’t mention it to their friends due to fear of being seen as ‘trouble’ or other reasons.

The whole point of the #metoo campaign it to try and break down these barriers so that people speak out in future.

So as you’ve completely made up the ‘problem with men/masculinity’, your arguments come across as trying to dismiss the potential benefits of wider acceptance that there is an issue that needs addressing.

scotroutes – Member

jimjam – Member
I can’t remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle

Have you tried wearing high heels and a mini skirt? [/quote]

Yeah, not so much as a second look. Bloody transmisogynist brickies round here.

If 5600 Muslim extremists blew themselves up, I think we’d be having a pretty big discussion about Islam.

it seems to be that the likely total number of men in an given population who might at some point commit rape is at most 9%

If it’s ONLY 1 in 10 blokes who are rapists then yes, I can see why you aren’t concerned that it’s a “male” problem 🙄

Ffs, can you even hear what you are saying ?

jimjam – Member
I can’t remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle*.

*With the exception of someone whistling at a dog to control sheep.

For the sake of brevity I deleted the fact that I can’t whistle, forcing me to be forever at the purple faced and pursed lips end of the sexual predator spectrum. Like the autism spectrum, we’re all on it, apparently…

OK let’s simplify the numbers a little to make easier to engage with the idea I’m trying to get across here. I may be making mistakes but I can trust you all to identify those and maybe we will get to a better understanding of the problem as a result.

OK so there are a reported 83,000 rapes a year. That’s reported, not taken to trial and not convicted, just reported.

If the frequency of offending were just one to one, i.e. a man only ever rapes once, then over a 30 year period, that would put the total population of men who have this problem (i.e. that they are pathologically pre-disposed to rape) as being 7.5%.

Now, it’s not remotely realistic to think that this is likely. Let’s say the rate of offending behaviour is at least 1.5 instances per perpetrator. That would reduce the population of men displaying this pathology as being 5% (again over the same 30 year period).

Let’s also now make a reasonable adjustment for age. We know that serial rapists are likely to offend over a very long period of time but they are also so tiny in number (of perpetrators) that no sane individual could use them to try and prove anything other than the fact that they are very dangerous individuals who should be locked up.

A large swathe of the problem lies in a narrower window of time, between the ages of 18 to say, 35, where men and women are single and the frequency of sexual encounters that have the potential to go wrong and result in rape are much higher. So let’s define a window of say 15 years and use that to define the problem.

Then the number becomes 2.5%.

Again, you can attack me, you can slander me, you can say I need ‘help’, I really could give a ****, my point is that the story we are given is not reflective of men or masculinity. There is no crisis in masculinity, there is only a crisis with a small minority of men who demonstarte deeply predatory and pathological behaviour.

If you’re not prepared to engage with an important idea/issue then take your rage elsewhere.

OK so there are a reported 83,000 rapes a year. That’s reported, not taken to trial and not convicted, just reported.

Do you think the conviction rate might be higher if society hadn’t been so male dominated for centuries?

Any rage on this thread appears to be yours. Possibly because you’re being so poor at getting your point across.

I really could give a ****,

Are you American as well as being demented?

I thought GT’s argument sounded familiar…. 😮

Niamh connolly: i hope this island isn’t some hideaway for paedophile priests.

Father Ted: well Niamh, we’re not all like that. Say there are 200 million priests in the world and 5 per cent of them are paedophiles, thats still only 10 million . . . .

Whilst we all agree your maths is dodgy, we understand the point you’re trying to make (badly), and the biggest problem isn’t actually with your maths. I suggest going back to the start of this thread and reading through all the points other people are making and try to understand them, because you don’t seem to be comprehending anything anybody else is saying.

A similar form of logic and reasoning being demonstrated here….

[video]https://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw[/video]

Outright racism is no longer socially acceptable because ALL of us shifted our behaviour away from accepting it as part of life.

this. And there always were – and still are – people saying, “But not all [ethnic majority] people are racist!!!!!!” because they feel insulted or attacked – but all the non-racists have a part to play in ensuring it is driven out, is no longer socially acceptable, even in minor forms. It’s not just rapists, not just people who harass others that need to help out here.

One key factor is that, by discussing the issue more publicly, we become aware of abusive behaviours around us that we may not have noticed, or are so ingrained into society that everyone just takes it as standard.

So we should be changing our ‘socialized behaviour’. This came up earlier in the thread, but you just can’t keeping saying shit like this

Harassment (actual harassment, not misinterpreted advances or wolf whistles or other socialised behaviour whether you think it acceptable or not),

like you’re the arbiter. Just because it’s ‘socialized’ doesn’t mean it’s OK. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t count or isn’t hurtful, or doesn’t have measurable effects on people’s mental health.

We changed our behaviours with drink driving, with smoking around kids, with using casual racist slurs. We can do it with sexist slurs too, but people need to stop see it as an accusation and start seeing it as a challenge to make things better.

with using casual racist slurs. We can do it with sexist slurs too, but people need to stop see it as an accusation and start seeing it as a challenge to make things better.

People are still racist, people are still sexist – read the Lukaku thread, apparently he should have been pleased to be racially abused.

People are still racist, people are still sexist

…and people still drink drive. It’s definitely not all solved. But I used to hear my parents generation using words like ‘****’ without a second thought. We’ve definitely made some progress from that, even if you do still hear bellends in football crowds that would prefer that we hadn’t.

even if you do still hear bellends in football crowds that would prefer that we hadn’t.

It’s heard more than that, it’s still a vert present problem – see the video I posted a couple of years back. It’s a case of living inside a bubble – something STW exposes and proves at times where people let their true self out at times.

Good point – so even racism is something we need to keep working at.

This – it’s surprising just how much is going on when you start noticing properly. One eye opener for me though was the comments on FB from somebody I know well and trust implicitly about her experiences – I have to suspect that if these things happen to her they probably happen to most women. Hence I’m dubious about that 25% figure, it seems far too low to me.

Are you American as well as being demented?

Nice, real nice. Well me personally no, I’m not suffering from any kind of mental illness or neurosis though I have experienced periods of depression before and I have sought help, once voluntarily and once, when I was a child, to help with the situation I found myself in.

But otherwise no, quite sane, well adjusted and with a measured IQ in the roughly 85th percentile.

My father however has dementia so perhaps you meant him?

Do you think the conviction rate might be higher if society hadn’t been so male dominated for centuries?

If there’s one area where women have not been marginalised and men are treated particularly harshly it’s the legal system. We are far more punitive towards male offenders than female ones. The low conviction rates almost certainly do not represent any inherent patriarchy and simply reflect the fact that in so many instances, the prosecution comes down to her word against his. 83% of reported rapes are committed by people the victim knows and likely a substantial portion of those are committed in situations where the degree to which the act was unambiguously rape probably very high. It’s a challenging situation and needs fixing in some way but so far no one has come up with a satisfactory answer. One thing I am 100% sure about, it’s got nothing to do with courts being sexist. Maybe it was 30 or 20 years ago, I just don’t believe that that is relevant now. But something is.

Whilst we all agree your maths is dodgy

It’s not though. Do the sums for yourself and see what you get.

A similar form of logic and reasoning being demonstrated here….

It is exactly this.

I suggest going back to the start of this thread

So my original point was that the instances of ‘low level’ harassment, i.e. street harassment, work place harassment etc, where there is no actual assaault, is a problem that exists between both sexes. I used the word asymmetric in a metaphoric way, which caused problems, because I meant it to mean that it’s not a one way issue. The problem is definitelyt not ’50/50′ but it’s also not something that only women experience. To illustrate, the frequency with which men have used the #MeToo tag is about 30%. We don’t know whether that’s in solidarity or to signal a personal experience of harassment, but my general asking of all my male friends suggests it’s more likely the latter.

There also seemed to be some broohaha about me questioning what the definition of harassment is.

Some people here were saying that the ONLY definition is what the person who feels harassed thinks. That’s clearly wrong though; you can’t possibly say that’s right. The definition has to be socially agreed and there have to be reasonable limits on things.

I also copped some flack about the whole neuroticism thing. I’m simply going to repeat the vast amount of data that shows beyond question that men score overwhelmingly lower on agreeableness than women and women score overwhelmingly higher on neuroticism than men.

If you don’t like the word neurocticism because of it’s connotations we can call it something else, pick a word, how about ‘liquorice allsorts’. Neuoticism is simply the predisposition to worry or feel anxious about things. I score very high on neuroticism relative to men, but still lower relative to women. I score very high on agreebleness compared to men (I’m very high on compassion but very low on politness as will come as no surprise). It doesn’t mean all men or all women, just that there are patterns that might explain some of whart we see.

For example, if I approach a women in the street and ask to take a photograph of her, then if that women were particularly high ‘liquorice allsorts’ 😀 then she might well misinterpret that approach as harassment. It’s not though is it. It’s one person approaching another to engage with them.

Which brings us on to the other issue – men approaching women because they ultimately want sex. That was poorly worded in the context of the debate but it’s 100% accurate in the context of the human race. What governs our behaviour is highly nuanced at an individual level and to some degree at a societeal level, but there are very recognisable patterns that are driven by the most basic elements of evolutionary biology.

Most men spend their late teens and 20s desperately trying to find a mate. It’s hardwired into us; the whole act of courtship, from the first tentative appraoch to the final act of sex is driven by that need. Without it there wouldn’t be 9bn people on the planet.

So my argument was a broad abstraction of a much bigger idea but a lot of people didn’t get that and chose instead to be really rather nasty by suggesting I was mentally ill.

Think about that for a moment. If I really was, what kind of response would those nasty and uncompassionate remarks have? You realise that that is precisely how society creates monsters right; I mean every mass rapist, mass murderer has been made by a long process of alientation and disenfranchisement. Think about that for a moment.

Whilst we all agree your maths is dodgy

It’s not though.[/quote]I’m out.

I’m out.

That’s a shame.

Here’s a challenge

1. Find a few ‘red pill men’ channels and read the content and replies

2. Find a few ‘red pill women’ channels and read the content and replies

3. See if you can eat your own fist.

Here’s a challenge

Can you explain what you mean? I’m not sure I understand.

By the way have you seen the film ‘The Red Pill’? It’s quite interesting.

Are you American as well as being demented?

Nice, real nice. Well me personally no,

Sorry, that was rather below the belt. I know you’re British

Do you a deal – you follow my advice and go back to the start of the thread and read what other people are saying and you think about that. Because at the moment the communication with you seems to be a one way process.

Sorry, that was rather below the belt. I know you’re British

OK so you’re trying very hard to demonstrate that you’re just a see you next Tuesday. Is that your aim?

You might not agree with me, but that’s no justification for making a deeply personal attack on someone you don’t agree with. That’s what biggots and facists do. And that’s before we address the use of the word ‘demented’ in such a pejorative way. How do you think that makes the numerous poeple on here who have a genuine challenge with their mental health?

read what other people are saying

I have done, that’s what my last long post was aimed at addressing. Really I know a lot of what I said got misinterpreted, spun badly etc. I’m happy to accept that some of my arguments were poorly worded in the context, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

So my argument was a broad abstraction of a much bigger idea but a lot of people didn’t get that and chose instead to be really rather nasty by suggesting I was mentally ill.

Think about that for a moment. If I really was, what kind of response would those nasty and uncompassionate remarks have? You realise that that is precisely how society creates monsters right; I mean every mass rapist, mass murderer has been made by a long process of alientation and disenfranchisement. Think about that for a moment.

So even though it is often socially acceptable to question someone’s sanity, if that person feels that it is targeted, overdone and constitutes abuse, there may be severe detrimental effects on them and we should consider the impact of it?

Some people here were saying that the ONLY definition is what the person who feels harassed thinks. That’s clearly wrong though; you can’t possibly say that’s right. The definition has to be socially agreed and there have to be reasonable limits on things.

…But if a woman feels that something constitutes abuse, maybe she’s just wrong?

GT, do you honestly think that these two positions don’t directly contradict each other?

Some of us are 😆 – sorry 😳

Really I know a lot of what I said got misinterpreted, spun badly etc

Thank you for your heartfelt and sincere apologies

You might not agree with me, but that’s no justification for making a deeply personal attack on someone you don’t agree with.

Your analysis is a crock of shit. You have ignored what people said, asked and suggested. Go back, re read and take some perspective. Many people have suggested you need some help, I have to agree.