You know your right when they start shooting at you….

I think the problem here is twofold. First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about.

So you respond with more BS.

I would laugh if it wasn’t so tragic.

🙁

GT – I’ve deleted the eloquent and gently worded post I had written as I felt it was unnecessary and rather personal. I can’t be bothered to re-write it, go and get yourself checked out, you’re neurotic and need tablets.

I think the problem here is twofold. First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about.

A lot of us know BS when we see it. What we have here is a problem overwhelmingly perpetrated by men and experienced by women. It really is that simple, and your continued desire to divert the subject to something else does you no credit.

*trying to remember how the STW killfile works, think GT needs to join Jamba on my list of those beyond redemption*

I prefer to keep a mental list, reading the posts reminds me that despite the people I know and spend time with others exist and many are the reason we still have these problems, from denial to whataboutery and distraction. There is a reason people don’t want to discuss these issues honestly.
The world has a long way to go, we need to keep fighting to take it there.

I wrote this last night, and have debated posting it, but this thread needs moving on and it will give you something else to get your teeth into –
you can have a go at me instead (I promise to be more receptive to criticism than GT!)

Anyway, to go back to the Guardian list:

Well quite – if I had any idea how to achieve that, it wouldn’t mainly be wanting to avoid harassing women motivating me.

“Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.” – huh? That seems a bit overly general and impractical. Should there be a no-go zone around every woman in a crowd?

which leads straight onto this one, with a direct experience last night, when I had quite a lot of physical contact with a woman I didn’t know and had only just met. Given my complete inability to read a ****ing room I have thought back over it, and particularly in the context of this thread. It wasn’t sexualised physical contact – she was simply sitting next to me, looking at my cards in a game we were playing with some other people and ended up sitting quite close. I have to admit I’m a bloke with normal drives, found her attractive and the experience quite pleasant even though I’m sure she had no intentions – given she moved closer to me (though I certainly didn’t back away) I hope that doesn’t make me a creep. But would I have felt as comfortable if it had been a bloke? Would it have been as acceptable if as a bloke I’d moved up close to a woman I’d just met (there is clearly also an asymmetry here)? I still don’t quite know how to place the experience – in the context it did feel fine to touch a woman I didn’t know, though don’t get the idea I was putting my hands anywhere unwanted. Maybe it was intentionally flirty, but given my complete inability to read a ****ing room I don’t know.

Normally I don’t touch women I don’t know at all, but I will sometimes touch women I do know, in the same way I will touch men I know.

If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Not that I have much experience, and certainly none recently, but I don’t think I’ve ever done that. But then that’s because I’m high on the avoiding conflict percentiles – from what I understand it’s far from universally unacceptable, and I do wonder whether taking not asking again is always the right thing to do…

and finally:

Don’t read a list like this and think that most of these don’t apply to you.

But what if you’re fairly sure that they don’t? It appears that claiming to be a normal decent human being is also unacceptable, even if you are a normal decent human being (I’m certainly not claiming that none of those apply to me – apart from anything else I’m not all that good at challenging other people’s behaviour).

Sure I get that but then neither is it the other persons right either.

Within the context of unwanted attention, which as you yourself admit would be a prelude to some hopeful future sexual conquest, it is absolutely theirs right, and ABSOLUTELY NOT yours.

At this stage I can’t tell whether you’re deliberately trolling or genuinely are in need of psychiatric help. Whichever of the two it is, please, stop and think.

Aracer: re your experience last night, I think again the difference between the girl moving closer to you vs the hypothetical opposite comes back to the ingrained perception of male power in these situations.

Neuroticism and agreeableness are the two some of the factors where men and women differ significantly.

Is what you meant I’m sure. To whittle it down to these two as if they are the defining factors that are different in men and women skews the argument somewhat.

And they gave as good as they got.

I don’t recall the lady (and her boyfriend) from Birmingham who were on the receiving end of the worst of the off-forum abuse giving as good as they got.

you’re neurotic and need tablets.

I doubt drugs will help.

As for the touching Aracer alludes to, Britain is one of the few places I’ve lived where all physical contact is avoided. In France there’s ritual contact on meeting (les bises) and I’m used to, and not bothered by, being pawed by ladies who have no sexual interest in me, usually in response to me not being 100% concentrated on what they are saying and not making the right agreeing noises. In Germany I get my arm stroked. I don’t reciprocate, it’s an acceptable part of female behaviour, just a part of the way conversations are held.

I don’t recall the lady (and her boyfriend) from Birmingham who were on the receiving end of the worst of the off-forum abuse giving as good as they got.

No, you’re right. I wasn’t thinking of that but nasty stuff all the same.

So now we’re talking about the same people, teasel, the lady (and as they’re a couple the boyfriend) were effectively excluded from BM group rides and stopped contributing to the forum. Because sensibly they didn’t want to share space with a sex pest. Quite apart from the laddish nature of a lot of the posting was offensively sexual, reaching a peak when Ollning (that was his forum pseudo, mods) spent his days spreading his bodily fluids and solids around the fourm, while otheres contributed to unsensored Kylie type threads.

And I reckon that’s where STW would be without the moderation, because the sex pest, bullying bores (often the same people) end up dominating as the normal people get fed up with it and leave (sometimes after a last gratuitous flurry of retaliation).

So this is a forum dedicated to a male dominated sport but it doesn’t have to be female hostile. I think the moderation here, however unjust we may feel it is sometimes, is the only thing that means STW has not followed BM into oblivion. The undercurrents are there, but those who were the most offensive on BM don’t get there heads above the parapet for long.

And I reckon that’s where STW would be without the moderation, because the sex pest, bullying bores (often the same people) end up dominating as the normal people get fed up with it and leave (sometimes after a last gratuitous flurry of retaliation).

It’s called Banter Edukator, or locker room talk, it’s what proper MEN do when they hang out being proper MEN….
Round out way, a bloke at the bar made some comment about the lass at the bar (banter obviously to him) no more beer, door is over there. Simple rules got no respect don’t come in here.

Is a good point. We have our low points on here, and it’s still far more male dominated (and in places misogynistic and sexist) than it could be, but actually it’s also a lot better than it could be. For which we should thank scotroutes and his fellow mods.

Don’t read a list like this and think that most of these don’t apply to you.

That one annoyed me too aracer as there seems to be a passive-aggressive sub-text there: “Don’t think you are innocent. If you have a penis you’re a pig like the rest of them”

Of course if you express that then your point is dismissed for using the “Not all men” defence 🙄

However, I freely admit that I am “guilty” of some of the things on that list.

I have certainly touched women that I don’t know. I’m sure I’ve called a woman crazy on more than one occasion. I’m not entirely sure what “reading a room” means never mind learnt how to do it. And I’ve definitely made “assumptions about a woman’s intelligence, capabilities or desires based on how she dresses”

Oh and I guess I’ve now got defensive when I got called out too.

But I didn’t commit any of these supposed sins in an effort to subjugate women or prop up the patriarchy.

geetee1972 – Member

I think the problem here is twofold. First a lot of you seem incapable of elevating the debate to a more abstract level of human behaviour, which is what we are talking about. No, that’s what you are trying to talk about.
The whole point of the #metoo campaign is to take it out of the abstract and make it very real. Instead of reading about some celebrity in a unique set of circumstances in the news, we’re reading facebook posts of those close to us, colleagues, etc.

That’s what makes it powerful and thought provoking.

Your post could also have done that, if you’d just joined the #metoo side of it, but instead you decided to try and diminish the experience of others. Quite unbelievable how many on here have tried to deflect this – Graham S included. It’s just a simple lack of empathy.

But I didn’t commit any of these supposed sins in an effort to subjugate women or prop up the patriarchy.

careful now…

When most people drive somewhere that they could walk or cycle, it’s usually not in a conscious effort to increase their carbon footprint. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t contribute 😉

Quite unbelievable how many on here have tried to deflect this – Graham S included. It’s just a simple lack of empathy.

Huh? Not sure what I’m being accused of there?

Do I come across like I’m trying to deflect or dismiss the #metoo campaign?
Because if so I’d like to make it clear that is very much not my intention.

I am keen to to hear whether people think that Guardian list is fair but that’s a separate thing to #metoo I think.

Most people don’t drive to the shops when they could walk in a conscious effort to increase their carbon footprint. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t contribute

Yep point taken.

So do you think those rules I mentioned are fair enough and I’m wrong to question them?

Do I come across like I’m trying to deflect or dismiss the #metoo campaign?

Yes, or at least trying to trivialise some aspects. Your examples of when the Guardian questions should be implemented or not sounded very condescending. The answers to your questions should have been obvious without having to dilute this thread.

For e.g. Of course if a woman goes to kiss you in a European greeting way, you should reciprocate. What were you thinking? That the Guardian writer would say that you should put your hands up and say “Whoa there! I’m not falling for that – next minute you’ll be accusing me of sexual harassment”.

So do you think those rules I mentioned are fair enough and I’m wrong to question them?

Firstly, I don’t think there was any point to question them – read them – try and see the situation from the other side. Perhaps discussing them with a woman would be useful.
But the way you wilfully tried to give exaggerated examples of when they might not apply was petty and unwanted imo.

That Guardian list is one (American) woman’s take on the issue – and she may have been feeling a bit cross about the patriarchy as she wrote it.

I’d read it as one person’s perspective rather than cast-iron rules suitable for every situation, however it does seem a bit churlish to pick holes in it.

Thanks Alex.

It may just be my Engineer’s-Spectrum kicking in, but when someone produces a list like that I think it should aim to be definitive and clear.

You said my answers dilute the thread, but to me suggesting “rules” that are so obviously flawed dilutes the rules and the weakens the points they were trying to make. My answers were intended to illustrate that.

If you have a penis you’re a pig like the rest of them”

Only if it’s curly.

Your examples of when the Guardian questions should be implemented or not sounded very condescending

Just been reading some the comments under the Guardian story and in response to that point I’d say that the word “condescending” appears repeatedly to describe that list.

The top comment, by quite some margin, describes it as “patronising” and being “spoken to like we’re children”.

So perhaps my responses just reflect the tone of that article.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leaMb8fZrtU[/video]

Ah, had forgotten to do that – comments on the Guardian don’t at least have the same blood temperature raising properties as on other websites.

My standout comment was “Sorry, most of that does not apply to most of us.” which got the following reply “Riiiiiight.” I have a feeling there’s a similar confirmation bias here to drivers thinking all cyclists jump red lights – and possibly that also applies to the author of the article, hence that last point of hers. Because as I already pointed out, I totally agree with that comment – I don’t think most of that does apply to most men. Unless I’m living in my own confirmation bubble and simply not encountering the majority of men who do all those things.

I note that I’m not attempting in any way to diminish the original issue here, simply discussing the Guardian article.

My standout comment was: “I read it, I’m a woman and a feminist and I found it offensive and patronising. I don’t want to be included in this game.”

You can probably leave it now mate.

GrahamS – Member
Thanks Alex.

It may just be my Engineer’s-Spectrum kicking in, but when someone produces a list like that I think it should aim to be definitive and clear.

You said my answers dilute the thread, but to me suggesting “rules” that are so obviously flawed dilutes the rules and the weakens the points they were trying to make. My answers were intended to illustrate that.It’s important to remember that being in print in a newspaper gives them no particular validity. As the comments (including the one you quoted) show, they’re just one persons view.

The World has gone mad ..just thought I would throw this into the mix ..
Scot given three-month jail sentence for touching Dubai man’s hip

https://search.app.goo.gl/ah11

Shared from my Google feed

WTF? That has got absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. 🙄

Really …?
Mistaken intentions ..accidently touching someone..not mentioned anywhere in the thread ..go re-read ..
Oh ..Im sorry it happened to a bloke ..my mistake 8)

Really …?

Yes.

Going back a bit to the link posted about male behaviour at gigs, this para stood out:

Melbourne indie punk band Camp Cope were midway through a sold-out set at Brisbane’s Crowbar in May when a man began aggressively ploughing his way through the audience, leaving many women — called to the front by the band at the start of the set — in his wake.

and I have to ask just what has this to do with male behaviour towards women? I’m sure that the audience were more female than male, due to the main act, but this sort of behaviour is not unique to men, I’ve had young women try to force their way in front of me at gigs, and very aggressively too, so is that really any different? TBH, if I’d got to the gig early in order to get a good spot, and then the headline band had encouraged people to force their way in front of me, I’d be pretty pissed off! I pay to be entertained, and make sure I get to the venue in time to get a good place. Gender should not make a difference, in encouraging women to force thei way to the front in effect makes me a second-class citizen, and I deeply resent that. I have, on many occasions, let younger women smaller than me get in fron to avoid being crushed by an overly boisterous crowd, but anyone arriving late then trying to shove their way in front is suffering from an over-inflated sense of entitlement and will be told to bugger off!

So I’ve been doing some research and reviews of the data on harassment and assault. The figure of 25% relates to the percentage of women aged between 15 and 59 who report to have experienced harassment or sexual assault (including rape) at some point in their lives. It is impossible to argue that this figure isn’t anything other than remarkably high.

Indeed it’s so high that it needs explaining. I will leave aside for this purpose the issue that there will be a spectrum of incidents in this set (i.e. the set of instances that are defined and reported as being harassment or assault) that range from the unambiguously criminal all the way through to the those where a jury would find it difficult to decide what happened. We can also leave aside the additional set of reports of ‘street harassment’ since these are highly contentious and have as much to do with politics and power as they do an actual problem. I’m not dismissing or trivialising them, just acknowledging that they need a separate debate.

The biggest problem with the figure of 25% is that no one ever takes the time to equate the number of women experiencing these transgressions with the number of men perpetrating them. What happens in this instance is that everyone assumes that because the frequency is so high, therefore a very large number of men are guilty of making them, perhaps even as large as a quarter of all men. This leads to the narative we see, which is there is a problem with ‘men’ exhibiting predatory sexual behaviour in general.

It’s never specified but the politics of the reporting and the subsequent social dialogue means that the problem set is defined simply as ‘men’. Not ‘some men’ not ‘a tiny minority of men’, just ‘Men’. This leads to such nonsense ideas that ‘all men are potential rapists’ and that we live in a ‘rape culture’. The narrative is one of men committing routine harassment and assault every day and society turning a blind eye.

In trawling the research and reading around on patterns of offending behaviour (something I did on the weekend), the one thing that is clear is that perpetrators of any crime or transgression are far more likely to be repeat/habitual offenders. Typically you are either a regular law abiding citizen, or you are a habitual offender; this applies across the spectrum of offending or transgressive behaviour. This is demonstrated almost every time a major celebrity finally gets caught; it starts with one or two reports and turns into an avalanche; Jimmy Savile and Harvey Weinstein are prime examples.

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. So for example, in a company of 100 people, 10 of them are doing 50% of the work. Then 50% of the remaining output is being done by the square root of the remaining population and so on. (note that this was originally devised by studying the frequency of published papers in the academic community but it’s since been found to apply to all kinds of populations).

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, which is 0.00001% of the male population. Now 315 men is not insignificant and 83,000 rapes is horrible and needs serious attention. But that’s not the story that is written. The story is ‘rape culture’ and it’s being written based on a sample of just 0.00001% of the population.

Now I wasn’t sure that number was right so I did some additional research and found another study that confirmed the same thing but to a lesser degree. The vast majority of rapes are committed by serial rapists, with the frequency cited being something like six instances per perpetrator. That would increase the frequency of offending per perpetrator to 0.04%. There is also some more recent research that suggests it may be as low as two, in which case the number would be 0.13%. Those numbers are drastically higher than those given using Price’s Law, but they are still statisticallty insignificant if what you want to do is draw any kind of conclusion about the nature of men or masculinity in society.

OK, but so far we’ve only been addressing rape. What about the 6.25m women who cite ‘harassment or assault’, which can include rape but it not limited to that. It also includes thing like groping, touching exposing or any other kind of sexual assault.

Well 6.25m women a very large number (it’s 25% of the female population aged between 15 and 59 after all). If the frequency of perpetration by men was one to one, that would a large number and you could reasonably argue that this is a ‘male problem’ as a result. But none of the data suggests that’s remotely likely. That just does not fit the pattern of offending behaviour in any category and it certainly doesn’t remotely connect with my experience of the world; one if four men guilty of sexual assault, does that seem right?

So apply Price’s Law again to that number. Total population? Well you get a very long tail but it’s around 2,600 or 0.00008% of the population. Now again that seems very low so let’s apply the frequency principle. If it were 12 transgressions per offender then the offending population of men is 1.58%, six and it rises to 3.16% and two gives you 9.47%. It’s worth noting that the prison population (which is overwhelmingly male) is about 2.8%.

I don’t believe it’s two. I believe if you’re likely to commit one act, you’re likely to commit many more because all the data tells us that this is likely in patterns of offending behaviour and the factors that drive that kind of behaviour tend to be pathological; they are the result of a personality profile that scores very low on agreeableness (this is where men always score lower than women and counters women’s higher tendency for neuroticism as a negative trait). That low score on agreeableness is why the vast majority of the prison population is male, but it’s still less than 3% of ALL men.

So what is my conclusion on this. I’ll use a Socratic approach to try and summarise:

Is the instance of rape or sexual assault of any kind abhorrent and wrong? Yes, unequivocally.
Is the frequency an issue? Yes
Does the frequency reflect that this is a crime most likely to be committed by a man? Yes
Does the frequency of these crimes suggest this is therefore a problem with ‘men’? No, not remotely.

And this is the crux. Saying that it is is like saying that the problem with radical Islam is just a problem with Islam and that all Muslims are terroritst (or at least a large enough percentage of them are to make that a justifiable statement). You’re judging 50% of the population based on the actions of at most 2.8% and potentially far less. Harassment (actual harassment, not misinterpreted advances or wolf whistles or other socialised behaviour whether you think it acceptable or not), sexual assault and rape are NOT reflective of a problem with male or masculinity, they are a problem with a very tiny minority of men.

I got as far as your maths and switched off. If you seriously believe that 315 men are committing 83000 rapes a year, you’re mental as that’s a shade over 263 rapes per person per year. You’re not stupid so I can only conclude you’re intentionally throwing out numbers even a child could see make no sense in order to obscure the important parts of the discussion.

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.

You can choose to excuse the behaviour all you want but 25% is a HUGE problem and whether or not you are doing it is irrelevant; men and boys should know better than to do it or excuse those who do whether they are friends, colleagues, family or random people in the street.

Some people really need a hobby,cycling maybe.

edited.

I think GT is hugely, fantastically wrong, but I don’t really have time to contribute much beyond a snarky dismissal which doesn’t really add much to the conversation.

but GT you seem to take much of the wider discussion as a personal attack which seems to be driving a very defensive reaction imo

I’m not going to question your data..dont have the time or inclination to do so ..but I think that I could have jumped to that conclusion without the detailed research ..

Yeah, let’s just dismiss all those 🙄

What happens in this instance is that everyone assumes that because the frequency is so high, therefore a very large number of men are guilty of making them, perhaps even as large as a quarter of all men.

cite

Price’s Law is useful to use here.

Given the ridiculous results it’s giving you, it would seem not.

Harassment (actual harassment, not misinterpreted advances or wolf whistles or other socialised behaviour whether you think it acceptable or not), sexual assault and rape are NOT reflective of a problem with male or masculinity, they are a problem with a very tiny minority of men.

wolf whistles are harassment – this is the sort of thing you continuously try to dismiss. I’m guessing you don’t have any female friends who have spoken to you about this – that sort of thing is very definitely on the spectrum of things which causes women distress and forces them to change their behaviour. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “other socialised behaviour”, but have to assume you mean similar things which are prevalent in society despite being unacceptable.

Yes, it is a minority of men, I’m not so sure it’s a tiny minority. But in any case it very much is the responsibility of all men to do something about it, because we’re often the ones in a position of power who can change things. This is very much one of the points of the campaign – a point which like so many others you seem to have missed.