Ched Evans situation

[Loz]

I thought sticking Evans, Polanski and Prince Andrew in the same argument was a little unnecessary. Andrew has yet to be convicted or even charged of anything untoward.

[legalbeagle]

Agree re Prince Andrew........

[StraferJack]

"

Completely agree there's a great deal of hypocrisy about quids"

Commas, commas, commas

[legalbeagle]

Abject apologies!

[StraferJack]

Unless, y'know, you thought a lot of what quids says is hypocritical. Maybe that is what you meant... ;-)

[legalbeagle]

It's a study in the US, not here. But still. Interesting approach to educating on this topic:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/lots-of-men-dont-think-rape-is-rape.html?mid=twitter_scienceofus

[Loz]

I always think that, while it's not always possible given the structure of some questions, such surveys should also be put to groups of women - if nothing else as a form of control group. How many women would answer yes to ??Have you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?? or 'in a consequence-free situation, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse?'. Without that information you cannot tell what is male 'opinion' versus what is societal opinion. Or even that you've phrased the question that it covers too broad an interpretation?

Sometimes I suspect the researcher doesn't want to know as such extra information would only upset their pet hypothesis.

[legalbeagle]

I'd be equally interested to see that study Loz. Doesn't invalidate this one though.

[Loz]

Well, I think it does, really. If they are asking questions like "in a consequence-free situation, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse", that makes someone as rapey as asking "in a consequence-free situation, would you take ?10000 from a bank" makes them bank robbers. Without some sort of control to compare the answers to and to regulate the questions, how can you understand the data?

Can you imagine if someone did a similar study with my bank example using only a certain ethnic group and then wrote up the report with the headline "Lots of people from [x] ethnic group don?t think stealing is stealing". The study would, quite rightly, be derided.

In fact, the only solid conclusion from the study is reflected in the opening words of the article - "pollsters have long known that the phrasing of a question can significantly affect how respondents answer it". This is more an inadvertent study on how researchers can get whatever answers they want from a survey.

[StraferJack]

Loz. Sometimes you do talk as if, in the case of sexual and domestic abuse, men and women are on an equal footing

[legalbeagle]

Loz has told me before that he hates feminists. And since I identified myself as one (as do all of my friends, including the men), he seems to take joy in jumping on everything I say and parroting: "It happens to men too you know!" every time I appear on the forum and mention females. I'm all for debate. And equality (hence being a feminist.) But it IS a bit wearing.

Sigh.

[StraferJack]

It is a point, there IS abuse against men,but to try and say they are the same thing is just wrong

It's wrong on numbers

It's wrong on levels of strength

Create a facebook account as a woman. Join some of the groups where males might dominate (and which you wouldn't think twice about if you were a man) . Express fesity opinion.

THEN you will see how different abuse is for women

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz has told me before that he hates feminists.

That is not true at all and I'd like you to withdraw that. I said I hate the Guardian's warped version of feminism.

I believe in equal rights and, for those feminists that also do, I'd happily stand side by side with.

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz. Sometimes you do talk as if, in the case of sexual and domestic abuse, men and women are on an

> equal footing

Not an equal footing at all. But, to me at least, I just do not get, why in so many cases, there is an unnecessary gender separation when discussing it.

[legalbeagle]

I've worked with some transgender people before through a charity. One of the things ALL of the male to female people said was that when they became women, they were immediately treated as though they were less intelligent.

In the UK, seven women a week are killed by partners or ex partners (and two men).

Around 85,000 women a year are raped (and 9,000 men).

One in five women in the UK will suffer some form of sexual violence.

One is six women in the US will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape during their lifetime.

"Revenge porn", "honour" killings, stalking, are almost exclusively done to women. Read the twitter streams of the women who asked for Jane Austen to be on a bank note, or who stood up for Ched Evans' victim or who complain about "revenge porn" or who simply utter the word "feminist" and then find me some men who have had that same level of abuse. Just a handful will do.

Yes it happens to men, and nothing should detract from or belittle the suffering it causes them.

But the simple fact is it happens to women in a far far greater scale.

It depresses me beyond belief that we still have to protest this shit, and engage with "but it happens to men too!" as though that were some kind of answer.

[StraferJack]

@loz - Because one gender is far and away the victim in the majority of cases

male victims is an interesting subject - possibly even a taboo one - but I don't think it's the same

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the UK, seven women a week are killed by partners or ex partners (and two men).

Actually, that is per month.

> It depresses me beyond belief that we still have to protest this shit, and engage with

> "but it happens to men too!" as though that were some kind of answer.

Who said it was an answer? But why not seek to understand the full scale of the problem? Look at, say, how domestic violence is discussed. Why genderise a problem that is actually a serious issue across genders?

What does it really achieve?

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @loz - Because one gender is far and away the victim in the majority of cases

Murder victims are male in far and away the victim in the majority of cases. Yet it would be silly to just concentrate on the male victims, no?

[legalbeagle]

Because the reason something happens to a man is not the same as the reason something happens to a woman.

If you want to look at how to improve those statistics for women, you look at women as a group.

Obviously.

[legalbeagle]

And there's no need to correct my stats either - they do vary from organisation to organisation. Refuge has it at one woman murdered every three days. The point being made is that it is more frequent with women than men.

[StraferJack]

logic is way off here loz

[legalbeagle]

The point Loz is one of cause and effect.

If you want to reduce the incidence of anything, you have to look at its underlying cause.

The underlying cause of violence against women is not the same as against men.

This does not mean that you do not study violence against men.

It does mean that studies about sexual violence against women are unlikely to translate to the opposite gender.

That does not mean that we do not share learning.

It does mean that there is great value in researching each group independently.

[Loz]

I disagree - it's not obvious at all.

Surely you'd look at the whole population and subdivide from the data into groups, be they gender, social class, etc, to devise the best solution. Predeciding that you'll just improve those statistics for women is ideology at work, no?

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> logic is way off here loz

Why?

[legalbeagle]

No one predecided anything Loz. But we do not all cure everything all at once. Some are tackling the biggest problems first with limited resources. Others are looking at other issues.

Why do you try to make everything about an underlying agenda?