Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds
Virtually all young women in the UK have been subjected to sexual harassment, according to a survey from UN Women UK, which warns that most women have lost faith that the abuse will be dealt with. Among women aged 18-24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.
How about this: One of you lads who's handy with a wrench, do what this bloke does.
https://www.youtube.com/@DadhowdoI
But instead of being "dad", be that chubby bloke down the pub, an uncle who addresses the camera as "mates".
Actually looking at his channel he does teach you a lot of DIY stuff but that doesn't mean there's no market for it, with the right attitude.
>>40204 >Sites like Instructables.com seem to get by fine.
Genuinely, even though I had heard of this site, I had never visited it, and yet just now I made my own ice cream because seeing you mention it inspired me to try something.
It was a piece of piss, any bugger can do it, and I can tell already from licking the wooden spoon and whisk beaters that it's going to be delicious. Although the ingredients I bought turned out not to be the same amounts as in the recipe, and I don't like wasting food. I don't have a healthy diet at the best of times, but even I thought I was pushing it when I drank the remaining third of a tin of condensed milk rather than throw it away.
Likewise, iFixit seem to have figured out a solid business model based on teaching you how to fix your own stuff for free, then selling you parts and tools.
>>40629 >CCTV operators in Redbridge now run specially targeted women’s safety shifts which involve identifying lone women walking home late at night and checking the nearby area for threats.
>They can also deploy officers to make sure they are safe, and to speak to any men who may be acting suspiciously.
Imagine taking a stroll one night and you get stopped by a load of cops on bikes who start rapidly asking you where you're going and where you live and generally trying to get you to kick off like bouncers do. You tell them to fuck off and suddenly you find yourself being bundled into the back of a police van as a rapist.
It's the same with all those signs you get on the underground telling you not to look at women as some cack handed solution.
>>40630 We live in a (failing) optics based society. The rights of man, and woman, are being eroded solely for the sake of show. There was a very brief window back in the 90s and early 00s where it looked like things were getting better, like the grand experiment had been justified. The most egregious racism and sexism had been eliminated, more and more people were judged on merit rather than birth, more than at any other point in history. There was also an understanding that people were allowed to like and dislike things, you could be a bit racist, a bit sexist, but the line was marked as intended, you can't beat people up for being different, and you can't use positions of power to discriminate against them.
Everything since then has been an optics based solution to a solved problem. It would be nice if armies gathered up their gear and went home when the war was won, but they never do. The battles raged on, suddenly the line wasn't physical abuse, it was the insinuation of physical abuse, then it was the belief that physical abuse may occur, then it was emotional and mental abuse, then financial abuse, and now it's staring.
I know the other lad is going to write an essay on why exactly non-consensual looking is the worst thing since Genghis Khan, but I simply do not care. The simple fact is it does not end here. You might ask what evidence I have to back up this statement, and I refer you back to my timeline of the law around definitions of abuse. I don't know where we're going, but I don't like it.
And to make a specific and BRILLIANT point which I usually try to avoid as it tends to distract from the central theme but in this case I can't resist, are women really going to feel safer being followed around dark alleys by police officers given very recent history?
I should point out, even though it seems obvious, that talking about some kind of golden age in the 90s is very brit-centric, plenty of countries had it far worse than us at the time and indeed still have it much worse than us today. America comes to mind here. The poor, fat bastards. That said, I live here, not elsewhere.
>>40631 >The most egregious racism and sexism had been eliminated, more and more people were judged on merit rather than birth, more than at any other point in history.
I believe this is the point at which Graham pulls the lever to dump you out of the chair.
>>40632 That's funny because it references a current popular entertainment programme in which people beg for approval by embarrassing themselves in front of millions of strangers.
This kind of response proves his point very well, and moreover, demonstrates how and why things have gone this way so rapidly over the last decade.
See how he was talking about optics? That's you, that is. You couldn't resist making that kind of snarky little jab, without engaging any of the substance of his post, because on places like Rudgwick or Twiter, that would get you a load of virtual back pats. Everyone would make a display of agreement, and you'd feel confident you are therefore in the right; just as in your metaphor, you just take it as granted and self evident that dismissing this person has the majority moral support.
But it's all fake. It's not true. You live in a bubble world where people having the right attitudes is all that matters, you are unconcerned altogether with real life outcomes. You support and legitimise things that actively make shit worse, because and even sometimes purely so that you can have a good circlejerk over it on social media.
How dare you make silly jokes on an imageboard. If you don't spend all Saturday debating me that only proves why the country's gone to the dogs. I'm a serious thinker, respect my opinions.
>>40639 >You were content enough to embarrass yourself in front of the two of us, so it seemed like a good point of reference.
That's not a joke, it's not funny. It's just social policing. You're straightforwardly telling him he's out of line and gross, and everyone thinks he's gross and out of line, so he'd better shut up if he knows what's good for him.
>>40641 >You're straightforwardly telling him he's out of line and gross
If he genuinely thinks that egregious discrimination is over and people are being judged on merit, he straightforwardly is out of line. The idea that we've somehow fixed the worst bits of society and the cream can now rise is patent nonsense. It's like standing outside and saying the sky is really green with pink polka dots.
>>40642 I never said what you said I said. I don't like you enough to put energy in to helping you understand my point, though, I think you don't need help, I think you're doing it on purpose.
>>41151 It must be weird to be a woman who has been mugged. Would such a hypothetical woman feel the way I feel about this, which is that it's useless and they should focus more on muggings? Or would they be more supportive of this campaign?
Most have been indoctrinated to think that men are the problem. It'd be useless. At best, they'll parrot the narrative that "toxic masculinity hurts men too".
>>41160 >>41161 It was an implicit association test. There’s nothing you can do to get rid of it. The only purpose of those experiments is to prove that people really are prejudiced even when they think they aren’t. And even then, the link is pretty tenuous. That’s before we even mention that the site you linked to clearly has an agenda.
>>41161 >Most have been indoctrinated to think that men are the problem.
Yeah! What they need to realise is that ultimately, women are raping and abusing themselves!
>>41165 Not him, but the problem is fairly well-understood. Women aren't getting raped because they're contributing to it. They're getting raped because men have a socialised attitude of entitlement. Such as when rapists claim a woman was "dressed provocatively", or when they claim a woman "offered no clear sign she didn't want it".
But maybe you're right, maybe instead of men not raping women, maybe women should try harder to not get raped.
I thought we dealt with you in the Russell Brand thread, simplad.
But you're missing the whole point. It's not the fact that some men do rape women or otherwise have sexist and toxic attitudes towards them. Quite unfortunately, it happens, and it really shouldn't, ever.
The point is a generalised belief that we're all rapists and that all of us have negative attitudes towards women.
Well, I don't rape women, and I don't act sexist around them. And neither do most blokes. It seems unfair to paint all men with that kind of broad brush, and I believe men need to complain when it happens.
>They're getting raped because men have a socialised attitude of entitlement.
That's a very nice unfalsifiable hypothesis you've got there ladm8.
I'd personally say people get raped (and mugged, and murdered, and subjected to genocide, and trapped in their homes while they are bombarded with chemical weapons, or whatever else it might be), because a small percentage of other people are wrong 'uns who don't care about right or wrong. I'd say the reasons people do any of these things are manifold, deeply layered and complex.
Honestly it doesn't piss me off reading views like yours, I just find it pitiable.
Like, you genuinely think you're helping, but you have no idea how entirely impotent your screeching is, and it's a bit tragic to behold. It's like when during the black death those people went around flogging themselves to earn God's forgiveness. They earnestly thought they were doing the right thing, but they were mistaken, because in reality the plague had nothing to do with god, it was caused by a bacteria. Your convictions are purely and entirely an article of faith, not evidence or reason.
Men are already taught to not rape. Everyone agrees rape is wrong. Rapists are violent criminals and wronguns, no amount of shaming normal men about they're very bad harassers and probably rapists too is going to change the behaviour of a tiny minority of violent criminals.
Do you honestly imagine men walk around thinking they're entitled to any woman they fancy? That's so divorced from reality I can't imagine you actually believe it.
I'm not simplad. I just felt like making a silly joke.
>Do you honestly imagine men walk around thinking they're entitled to any woman they fancy?
My brother once masturbated onto my stick insects because I wouldn't let him watch Thundercats. It didn't kill them but I didn't want them after that. And if they do, it's a delusion that will sort itself out over time if somebody's not completely thick. Live and learn. In year 10, I thought I had a chance with the fittest lasses at our school. Didn't take long for me to realise that I was hopelessly punching above my weight.
>My brother once masturbated onto my stick insects because I wouldn't let him watch Thundercats. It didn't kill them but I didn't want them after that.
wtf kind of word filter is this. All I said was that I was agreeing with >>41170 lad.
>>41170 But it's not just criminal scum. Many women report being sexually assaulted or raped by perfectly nice-seeming men. The adverts are aimed at those men, who are not psychopaths but merely clueless about the difference between "ooh, don't touch me there, you naughty boy, tee hee" and "help, stop raping me, you fucking rapist".
By conflating the two, you are saying that many perfectly normal men really are irredeemable wrong 'uns, and that's exactly why you're angry at the advert; because it did precisely that.
Not wanting to really get into it now, but I think I've read somewhere that when women were given questionnaires in surveys where they were asked if they had experienced sexual harrassment, the options listed included some behaviours that you might consider a bit rude or even slightly offensive, but not really think of as harrassment by most people's standards.
Which does two things. First, it suggests to survey subjects that some relatively mild offensive behaviours actually count as sexual harrassment, while also getting disturbingly high statistical numbers of prevalence of sexual harrassment.
I think on one of those questionnaires, "being witness to a person telling a sexually explicit joke and feeling uncomfortable because of it" was counted as sexual harrassment. I don't know, but unless that joke was directly directed at you, most women I know wouldn't feel harrassed. What I mean is, there's a difference between somebody telling a joke about another woman's big knockers, and somebody actually joking to you that your own knockers are big.
Well, you see, this is where I have to disagree. I'm not going to come at it from an angle of "but those poor blokes just got confused/they were drunk/it's hard to see the line" or whatever, because that debate has been had to death around here. However- If it's the nice men (or as you say perfectly nice seeming), then really is it asking that much for women to actually take a bit of agency in preventing it?
And you will counter "but that's victim blaming stop blaming women for being victims of horrible rapists", but I thought it was perfectly nice men? Surely it'#s more effective to teach women to say "stop, that's actually out of order" than it is to broadcast a vague and non-specific message to 50-% of the entire population which is, by the nature of its vagueness and non-specificity, going to reach abso-fucking-lutely nobody, much less the people it needs to reach?
You could say "oh but those men might get nasty, women don't feel safe to say no", to which I must pedantically counter- But I thought it was the perfectly nice men? If they'#re going to get violent when a woman says no, then they're obviously fucking not the perfectly nice men, are they, so we are back to the root of the argument that it's innefective because rapists are fucking rapists, and they are going to commit rape no matter how much more illegal you make it, or how much more posters you put up on the tube saying "remember: don't do rapes, raping is naughty".
>>41175 >If they'#re going to get violent when a woman says no, then they're obviously fucking not the perfectly nice men
No, but they seem perfectly nice up to that point.
So what's a public awareness campaign going to do to stop them?
That's the point you div. They're already comfortable being deceptive. In fact I'd wager it's chaps exactly like simplad who often fall into that category- They learn how to say all the right things and give all the right signals as a modern, liberal, progressive, woman respecting fisherbloke, and slip past a woman's radar.
You don't stop them by just generally promoting the idea of not doing rapes, any more than you can make an ad campaign about how mugging isn't nice. Just think about it- What about a public ad campaign raising awareness about how harmful stabbing people can be.
>Surely it'#s more effective to teach women to say "stop, that's actually out of order" than it is to broadcast a vague and non-specific message to 50-% of the entire population which is, by the nature of its vagueness and non-specificity, going to reach abso-fucking-lutely nobody, much less the people it needs to reach?
Yeah, good luck with that. You're more or less spot on, but the way it works, it is up to a woman entirely to decide if your advances are daring (in a positive way) and arouse her interest, or if the exact same behaviour from another lad is creepy or even a criminal offence. And yet, we're somehow supposed to be able to read a lass's mind and know which it is. True, there's always a subjective element in whether or not somebody feels victimised, but a lack of clear goalposts can sometimes make it impossible to navigate that whole minefield. And by that I don't mean the obvious realisation that you don't just physically force yourself onto somebody who is saying no. Or even isn't.
You can't win as a lad. And many blokes have realised this, to the point that they're keeping any and all everyday interactions with women to a minimum, so that no situation can be misconstrued as harrassment. Which, in turn, women are starting to notice, so now you've got entire women's web forums complaining that chivalry is dead and that men no longer make an effort. What goes around comes around, I guess.
I had a lass moaning at me a bit ago that she can't find anyone to do the rough CNC play she's into because they're all scared of getting in trouble if a lass turns around and accuses them of being a rapist.
I quietly agreed with her that it's a ridiculous state of affairs, while internally I could imagine the fisherpersons screaming on Twitter about how it shouldn't be permissible evidence that her Fetlife and acrobat is full of pictures and short stories about how much she loves being choke-fucked and forcefully used, and that it's harmful to victims if you're allowed to submit the dozens of text messages talking in detail about wanting you to do exactly that.
It's a terrible time to be a sexual deviant, really.
Plenty of sexual harrassment happens because the blokes doing it don't realise that's what it is. The ad you're moaning about doesn't even mention rape, so comparing it to a hypothetical "anti-mugging" ad campaign doesn't track. Harrassment often takes place without the perpetrator thinking there's anything wrong with it in the first place, not being considerate, not thinking, you know, how you live your entire life. No one pulling out a knife and going "gimme' your fucking phone!" thinks their actions are victimless, they just want someone's phone. The advert explains what it's about very clearly, it tells you it's "not banter, it's not harmless", it doesn't mention or reference rape once, but you've clearly got your own bag of spuds so you're pretending it's about something completely different.
>Plenty of sexual harrassment happens because the blokes doing it don't realise that's what it is.
But a good amount of it is also not because blokes are genuinely oblivious to it being harrassment, but because the definition of what counts as harrassment has been expanded over the years, making it kind of hard to keep up on what's a no-no that month. And that also ties in with the young generation being hypersensitive to anything and everything that's even mildly offensive and which wouldn't have raised anybody's eyebrows just a generation ago.
I recently saw a mature woman in a blue dress, she had the most incredible thick, shaved legs and a brilliant figure. I thought to compliment how wonderful she looked but I hesitated because of this thread.
>>41182 >And that also ties in with the young generation being hypersensitive to anything and everything that's even mildly offensive and which wouldn't have raised anybody's eyebrows just a generation ago
You need to spend less time online nodding along to what other berks say and spend some time talking to actual people.
>but because the definition of what counts as harrassment has been expanded over the years, making it kind of hard to keep up on what's a no-no that month.
No, it's not, it's dead easy. Regardless, please make up a story about how your mate's dead sister's cousin got locked up for being nice to a woman, it'll be a laugh to read.
I can't really be arsed going back and forth because you're just going to complain and cry about nothing, then say "simp" over and over because it's a funny word you heard somewhere online.
>please make up a story about how your mate's dead sister's cousin got locked up for being nice to a woman
I'm on it, I'll get back to you.
I just wonder what you get out of this battle you've been fighting on .gs the past few weeks. Why engage in angry shouting with us three here on .gs. Do you think that's going to change anything?
>>41184 I'm not the lad you're responding to but I'm having trouble following both of your threads of logic.
Are you saying that the legal system isn't weighted in favour of the accusations of women? Evidence proves the contrary, unfortunately, as much as I'd like to come in to this conversation as non-partisan. It's just one of those discrepancies between the genders that exists. Some blokes do take that fact and act as if they're not even allowed to look at a woman nowadays though.
Is harrassment according to these surveys. It could be harrassment, if it's the sixth time today, or the guy won't take no for an answer, but do you not see how fuzzy this all gets?
>A poster campaign has drawn attention to the issue of "intrusive staring" on public transport, warning travellers it can constitute sexual harassment.
Most blokes will still understand that there's a difference between glancing at a stranger in public like a normal person would in a socially appropriate way, and fixating on their boobs or arse inappropriately. But it's just another piece of the puzzle where the goalposts are being moved as to what is potentially illegal behaviour and what isn't. Because again, where do you draw the line. You're not solving the problem of where to draw the line by moving the threshold of illegal behaviour ever closer.
I was in a club one time and a lass who was in an obvious freeloading mood that night pretty much shoved her tank topped boobs in my face at the bar and asked me "Hey, don't you want to buy me a drink". So I said, what do I get in return for it. And she said, "nothing, I'd just like a drink". You had to admire the gall, but what if I said I felt harrassed by her. And she was obviously doing more than just asking for a drink by forcing her tits on me.
She looked quite fit, and normally I would have, but something about the way she very overtly just wanted me to pay for her drink and then fuck off just rubbed me the wrong way, so I said no and just turned around and left.