Forum menu
How do you reconcile you being over 3 times more likely a victim of stranger violence with your parking male privilidge?
How do you reconcile statistics detailing that women having a greater fear of violent crime than men, given that Molegrips mentioned fear and threat rather than actual attack
How do you reconcile statistics detailing that women having a greater fear of violent crime than men, given that Molegrips mentioned fear and threat rather than actual attack
Not sure we need to. We can't legislate for how scared any of us are of anything.
Which gender would you claim has the appropriate level of fear of violence? Are you saying men "privileged" by accurately estimating the risk we face or are men "privileged" by under estimating the risk we face and therefore being happier in spite of the higher risk we endure? If the latter then aren't men put in danger by our incorrect risk assessment, in which case women have the privilege. If the former are you saying that women are less able to estimate risk than men?
Not sure we need to. We can’t legislate for how scared any of us are of anything
So a society where women aren’t subject to regular sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, a media which is obsessed with sexualisation, etc would not decrease feelings of vulnerability
Maybe the consistent hyperbole and efforts to divide everyone accounts for the statistics that women fear men all day everyday. Air pollution kills more women than men. I'll bet if the threat of air pollution received as much coverage then the statistics would show that.
If tinribz is going to use out of context claims about violence to suggest that somehow men shouldn't need to examine their behaviours and attitudes, or that women's perception of violence is somehow skewed, I'm going to throw in this one about sexual assault. Shall we move on?
The CSEW estimated that 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 3.4 million female victims and 631,000 male victims.
So a society where women aren’t subject to regular sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, a media which is obsessed with sexualisation, etc would not decrease feelings of vulnerability
LOL so Women are not watching this media and reading these magazines etc?
If they weren't then people would be asking what they needed to do, to get them on board.
Slightly mawkish ad campaign suggest men should be a bit less arseholey.
Arseholes of the world unite in support of their right to carry on being arseholes.
But if this thread has taught me anything it's that privilege is really hard to spell
I'm conflicted. Third post in I mentioned I felt the ad meant well.
Tonight I intend to watch the first episode of season 3 of The Grand Tour with Mr Clarkson.
Yeah, I get it wrong all the time. I've made my phone as dumb as me so it corrects it when I spell correctly.
out of context
It wasn't out of context. He was answering someone's statement about the fear of parking a car in an alleyway:
Men were more likely to be victims of CSEW violent crime than women (2.1% of males compared with 1.3% of females1, Figure 9). This was true for all types of violence
You're implying Sexual Assault is the only kind of assault that matters and therefore men are privileged. You could equally claim that being kicked in the ball sack is the only kind of assault that matters in which case women are privileged.
Numbers for violence of all kinds is the only reasonably way to determine if men have an alleyway parking privilege, and it seems we don't.
Unless you want to defend Kilo's 'fear' point, in which case maybe you can address my questions on that.
labelling everything only creates division and clouds objective thinking
No-one is being excused from anything. Anyone involved in this debate is constantly being accused of being offended by everything, so I don't think you can accuse us of excusing people.
Labelling is important because it helps deal with behaviours that come from certain places. We are not islands, we are affected by our culture. And the point about sexual harassment is that it is often a *cultural* issue. We all learn from what's going on around us, from when we are babies. So when we see men acting badly without consequence, we think it's normal and we can excuse ourselves if we do it. This is what 'boys will be boys' means. Things like this advert are trying to act on a societal level - to prick the conscience that most people have to make them realise that it is not okay.
Individually, 50 years ago men were no more or less scumbags than they are today. But sexual abuse was far more commonplace because it was seen as the way people behave - normal gender dynamics.
stranger violence showed the largest difference in victimisation between men and women (1.3% compared with 0.4%)
How many actual men have been a victim of stranger violence, rather than percentages? How many were victims completely out of the blue, for example a random passerby simply lamping them? (This does happen, it happened to someone I know) I bet very few. As opposed to 20% of ALL WOMEN being subject to sexual assault. Your statistics need a lot more information to be useful here.
What about violence involving disposable razors? What percentage are Gillette proglide related and were these incidents perpetrated against men or women? Is the Mach3 statistically a more violent razor than the Turbo Glide?
The whole thing is laughable from both sides. Knuckle draggers getting upset because they are being called out and people clapping because men need to change. The only ones that need to change are these two groups, the rest of us are just calmly carrying on as normal fully functioning adults.
The whole thing is laughable from both sides. Knuckle draggers getting upset because they are being called out and people clapping because men need to change. The only ones that need to change are these two groups, the rest of us are just calmly carrying on as normal fully functioning adults.
This.
As opposed to 20% of ALL WOMEN being subject to sexual assault
The vast majority included in this statistic is low level unwanted touching etc, the equivalent figure is 5% for men which is lower than I would have guessed.
The only ones that need to change are these two groups, the rest of us are just calmly carrying on as normal fully functioning adults.
Ignoring there is an issue and something needs to change.
Actually 4% for men not 5 but this conclusion is well worth noting
John Flatley from the ONS said : “The data shows the complexity of measuring crime in all its different forms. Even offences under the heading of ‘violence’ vary enormously, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving, to homicide. We need to be careful that our perceptions and understanding of crime levels are shaped by appropriate data, and not overgeneralised.”
Ignoring there is an issue and something needs to change.
No, just that there are better ways than a ****ing advert from a corporation that changes its mind based on marketing. Gilette aren’t going to change the minds of these people that’s been shown already. What they will do is sell more cheap shite as a result. Which was what they wanted in the first place. This is a company with a history of human and animal rights abuse. They don’t care about any of these issues. Anybody that thinks for one second that they do is very, very naive
Brand-based advertising remains one of the most powerful mediums. It’s reach and ability to influence behaviours is unrivalled.
So, it seems logical to use it for good as well as for consumerism. Funnily enough, the people who know how to do this best work in marketing and advertising - usually on behalf of consumer brands. So, again it seems logical that a brand may do so. Am I missing something...?
As for complaining it targets white males. White males still have control of most of the capital, most governments, most of the means of production, most of the education system and most social organisations. White men have the most power so the greater ability to abuse power - it doesn’t take a genius to see that.
Some of the arguments about black men committing the most crime are amazingly naive. The most disadvantaged group in society, targeted most by the criminal justice system found to have committed the most crime. Doesn’t smell bad at all does it...
How do you reconcile you being over 3 times more likely a victim of stranger violence with your parking male privilidge?
With no difficulty. I've been 'victim' a handful of times of random stranger violence, for different levels of victimgood ranging from a random beating up from a gang of young lads in Hulme that was bad but could have been a lot worse, to being swung at by lads who later may have regretted this. On all occasions it was late, I was pissed, and aged under early 20s. This is pretty typical of both perpetrators and victims. Without dismissing these sorts of things, it's pretty normal for lads to put themselves in situations where this is a risk. Women tend to have to be more careful, and so don't put themselves in these situations.
@MOLGRIPS, unfortunately the term and many others have been weaponised just like ones from the other side of the hall, they've started to alienate people because they're used to silence opposing opinions and no platform. What's to lose by parking it for a bit and seeing where the conversation goes without them? If it brings peoole to the table and greater understanding it's a good thing, no? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows these issues are real, but if something is blocking reasoned conversation, where's the harm in trying something new? There's very little ground being made while the shitstorm ensues.
@johnx2 I think the risk taking is one of the issues, I did read something about that. It is often referred to in a negative way.
The only ones that need to change are these two groups
So you're denying there's an issue?
The vast majority included in this statistic is low level unwanted touching etc,
So it's not important?
Without dismissing these sorts of things, it’s pretty normal for lads to put themselves in situations where this is a risk. Women tend to have to be more careful, and so don’t put themselves in these situations.
Ok but the men have a choice - you can get home early, or not go out. Women face the risk of sexual assault *all the time*. It can't be avoided.
You all are being told there's an issue, by the people whom it affects. You are dismissing their concerns based on your experience, as someone whom it does not affect. Can you not see a problem here? Would you like to share your opinion on uncomfortable hosiery, which was also an article in today's Guardian?
...and that's without mentioning the close shaves.
…and that’s without mentioning the close shaves.
Nicely done Sir.
The only ones that need to change are these two groups, the rest of us are just calmly carrying on as normal fully functioning adults.
"Ignoring there is an issue and something needs to change".
Not sure how you and it seems MG miss the point. The poster names the knuckledraggers as a group that need to change, accepting there is a problem but only that "some" need to change. You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.
So it’s not important?
Context is important.
Ok but the men have a choice – you can get home early, or not go out.
This may well reduce risk but it doesn't eliminate it and I would be keen to see some statistics that suggest it reduces the incidence to that of women in similar circumstances.
You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.
Society is the problem.
Not sure how you and it seems MG miss the point. The poster names the knuckledraggers as a group that need to change, accepting there is a problem but only that “some” need to change. You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.
Exactly, people are being damaged, there are some that need to change their ways, there needs to be a consensus on the best way forward to achieve this. Talking at people doesn't seem to be working terribly well thus far, does it?
The vast majority included in this statistic is low level unwanted touching etc,
So it’s not important?
It's important to countering your point which was regarding the woman you said felt too afraid to park in this alleyway of yours.
I doubt the woman you were referring to was avoiding the alleyway for fear of having her knee touched in a way that she wouldn't feel was worth reporting to the Police. Far more likely she was afraid of serious violence.
In which case the numbers re violent crime *are* important. (...and you're attempting to trivialise serious violence against women by equating it with events that 80pc of women don't report just to win an internet argument.)
No, just that there are better ways than a **** advert from a corporation that changes its mind based on marketing. Gilette aren’t going to change the minds of these people that’s been shown already.
Of course it's not but it is just one way to reach millions with only the effort of a massive brand. How has it be shown already that it hasn't worked?
I don't think there's many that think the message behind the add is not worthwhile. Onyl that it's been executed poorly by Gillette. If you alienate a good percentage of those that could help with that message then it's a fail 🤨
You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.
So to continue the street violence thing, you're walking home, late on a lonely road. A group of young women are coming the other way towards you. No Biggie. A group of young men? Nah, don't worry, men in general aren't a problem, just a few. Tell me there's no adrenaline going into your system...
(My obvious and laboured point is that 'bad men' are part of the group 'men in general'. Whose job is it to do something about bad men? I'd say men in general. Blimey. This is so uncontroversial it'd be safe to use it in an ad..)
No, just that there are better ways than a **** advert from a corporation that changes its mind based on marketing. Gilette aren’t going to change the minds of these people that’s been shown already.
Exactly true, what the aim really appears to be is to move the general population more to one side, to increase the number of people who tell a mate to wind it in a bit, who stand up and stop something who encourage others to change, that challenges behaviours and means that more people are thinking like decent folk. It's exactly the same as drink driving campaigns and social pressure as a part of those.
(My obvious and laboured point is that ‘bad men’ are part of the group ‘men in general’. Whose job is it to do something about bad men? I’d say men in general. Blimey. This is so uncontroversial it’d be safe to use it in an ad..)
Would you apply that to Muslims? I wouldn't.
Problems in society need to be solved by society a whole, not by subsets of society chosen by other subsets of society.
So to continue the street violence thing, you’re walking home, late on a lonely road. A group of young women are coming the other way towards you. No Biggie. A group of young men? Nah, don’t worry, men in general aren’t a problem, just a few. Tell me there’s no adrenaline going into your system…
Are they black men?
Would you apply that to Muslims?
Eh?
Ah, I get it. Actually yes, I do think that peer pressure is most effectively exerted by, er, peers...
Are they black men?
Actual laugh out loud! If I was black I'd probably add a few smileys too.
Would you apply that to Muslims?
Ah, I get it. Actually yes, I do think that peer pressure is most effectively exerted by, er, peers…
Peers chosen by you? So you're lumping Extremist Suicide bombers into a set of your choice - Muslims - and putting some sort of responsibility on Muslims to sort it out?
Which Muslims? Arab Muslims? African Muslims? All Muslims?
Extremist Suicide bombers also wear shoes, why not claim that Extremist Suicide bomber's peers are shoe wearers and make terrorism the responsibility of people who wear shoes?
Nah, it's just you choosing to lump Extremist Suicide bombers into the Muslim category of your choice because it suits you.
Ad absurdam...
And yet, it is those who are actually around an individual who are best placed to notice and head off bad behaviour. This discussion has been about casual bullying type behaviour by men, but similar would apply to extremism I guess.
How has it be shown already that it hasn’t worked?
Just read reactions from the ye olde macho men. Are they not the ones that need to change?
Problems in society need to be solved by society a whole, not by subsets of society chosen by other subsets of society.
And that
I don’t think there’s many that think the message behind the add is not worthwhile. Onyl that it’s been executed poorly by Gillette. If you alienate a good percentage of those that could help with that message then it’s a fail 🤨
I hope you are right Taxi but i'd be a bit worried that if people are alienated by the ad then they are possibly not really seeing, or agreeing with, the message behind it.
And yet, it is those who are actually around an individual who are best placed to notice and head off bad behaviour.
So why classify them by religion? There's no evidence that Extremist Suicide bombers hang around with (say) Indonesian Muslims. Why not classify the nutters by geographical area? Why not say People in (say) London who are actually around Extremist Suicide bombers from London should be doing more to deal with it?
Why pick religion? You can't justify it. 'Muslims' is just an arbitrary group you've chosen to put Extremist Suicide bombers into.
You seem to have dismantled your point. Random capitalisation doesn't help 😀
I was waiting from some dross from GT and here it is. Did you read that trash before linking it GT? I got this far
Women make up 60 percent of university graduates, and dominate education, health care, and law. Yes, there is a pay gap. While some of that is due to bias, it’s actually more to do with the fact that men do most of the dangerous jobs, work outdoors more than women, are in arduous trades more than women, tend to pick higher-paid occupations when they’re in training, and are more willing to move to get higher-paying jobs.
Which is a pack of lies:
What proportion of School heads, university dons/profs, national health trust bosses, private clinic bosses and top baristers are women? Sweet **** all.
The pay gap is not due to men doing dangerous jobs because they are some of the worst paid. Window cleaner is one of the most dangerous. Agricultural labourer is outdoors, dangerous and badly paid. Men are highly paid to do the least dangerous jobs on the planet such as sit on the boards of companies where they earn 5,6 or 7 figures sitting on their fat arses.
Women are just as willing to move into high paying jobs but hit a glass ceiling created by you guessed it, men.