- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2632 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
Expand all images.
565 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
|>>|| No. 31684
Define sexual harassment. Is asking a girl for a snog while drinking tinnies down the canal sexual harassment if she says no, or does it need to be more sinister.
Polls like these never reveal their methodology so there is no way to really figure out what these people consider to be harassment or if that is even a fair definition of what's happening.
|>>|| No. 31686
It's disturbing enough that 97% would define the experiences they've had as sexual harassment, but I'm also inclined to agree; without being provided with the definition or methodology used in the survey, it's impossible to know what action (if any) would be an appropriate response.
I'm glad we've moved into an era when even the most soulless of corporate entities will generally get HR to take action if they get a serious complaint like this. At the same time, it's hard to do this in public -- you can't police every interaction. The perception in the survey that most harassment won't be taken up by the authorities is probably correct.
It might not be conducive to getting to a real solution about helping women not experience shitty things, but I do feel compelled to bring up the fact that I've been "sexually assaulted" as a man in public spaces as well, experiencing everything on the spectrum from inappropriate comments from colleagues to having my arse and crotch outright grabbed by women. I've also been violently assaulted by both men and women, and there seems to be a shocking lack of attention sometimes on the fact that most violent assault is a gendered issue of almost exclusively men bashing the shit out of eachother.
I kind of wonder whether this might just be people behaving dysfunctionally within a dysfunctional society, and the remedy might be something more akin to better mental health generally, so that we're not abusing eachother for kicks.
This is a conversational cul-de-sac. Otherlad is right, studies and surveys are almost useless without also publishing the definitions and population/data collection methods.
|>>|| No. 31688
>It's disturbing enough that 97% would define the experiences they've had as sexual harassment, but I'm also inclined to agree; without being provided with the definition or methodology used in the survey, it's impossible to know what action (if any) would be an appropriate response.
"Their bar for sexual harassment might be too low" is certainly an interesting line to take.
|>>|| No. 31689
Different lad but 97% is a figure that stretches credulity. I believe that there's a massive issue, I could believe 80% of women are harassed but 97%? I would be surprised if 97% of the population own a television.
|>>|| No. 31690
I don't know, I believe it. I have quite literally not met a woman who hasn't been harassed in some way, but there's certainly types of harassment that men get too but probably welcome. I have been catcalled by a woman and it made my day, because it was novel and also I didn't feel threatened - reverse the roles and the story is different.
My point is that I really don't think any of us really understand how relentless it can be for women. I'd not rule out that I've had interactions with women that they could viably consider harassment, simply because I didn't apply enough empathy to a situation to realise I was being inappropriate. I can't think of an example, but that's sort of the point.
|>>|| No. 31691
That's a wilful misreading. What I'm saying is that sexual harassment takes many forms, and it's hard to think of a realistic catch-all solution that would make all of them disappear. The thing that makes blokes stop wolf-whistling in the street is not likely to be the same thing that makes a colleague stop making inappropriate passes or touching at work, for example.
It might be a poor analogy, but if you want to solve road accidents, it's not only about sticking signs up saying "be safer" (though not an inherently bad idea). It's more that it's one part of a broader set of solutions including setting speed limits, enforcing drink-driving laws, getting car manufacturers to adhere to safety standards, etc..
A survey like this can't tell us much without saying what the experiences of sexual harassment actually are with a bit more nuance.
|>>|| No. 31692
Exactly, and it's also worth noting that you can identify that you've been sexually harassed regardless of how you feel about it. Someone self aware enough can know that Big Gary giving them a backrub, unprompted, at work, is harassment, even if ultimately they quite liked it. And when the line is that thin, it does become difficult to know what to do.
(I did work with a guy who would do this, though he did not discriminate on gender)
|>>|| No. 31693
>97% is a figure that stretches credulity
Why and how? Think through that argument carefully. Don't bother with "they can't do maths".
|>>|| No. 31694
I would think that any incident that someone would describe as harassment is unwanted by definition. Even if what you say does hold any water at all, I don't think this would be enough to meaningfully affect the data.
|>>|| No. 31695
>The thing that makes blokes stop wolf-whistling in the street is not likely to be the same thing that makes a colleague stop making inappropriate passes or touching at work, for example.
Well, no, the thing that makes blokes stop doing both of those is the same thing: social pressure. If you were going to say "HR policies", know that HR is frequently complicit in the abuse and that even if they did act the abuser would just cry foul and play the victim.
|>>|| No. 31696
>At the root of all this is the normalisation of the idea that a woman’s body in a public place is simply public property and young women just have to put up with it. We have to shatter that normalisation through policy and in the press if we want to change the picture
Sorry, but this is total fucking wank. Nobody thinks that women's bodies are public property.
>Should we, as a gender, be doing more to tackle sexual harassment?
I dunno, maybe. What are you suggesting? Confronting cat callers on behalf of random women? I've never actually seen cat calling happen IRL.
|>>|| No. 31697
I completely agree with you about HR, and I'm aware much of sexual harassment policy is based on very primitive power politics (i.e. "would it be more damaging to the organisation to sack them or do nothing?" type of reasoning). That said, I do also think that the threat of being dismissed is one potentially useful tool among many.
I disagree somewhat about "social pressure", though. Yes, cultural change is the goal, but there's loads of mechanisms by which you can do that. Legislation can be a good idea, where applicable. Enforced social guidelines in other contexts, maybe not -- even worse, it might cause some backlash and people deliberately bucking the change.
As I say, it's hard to even talk about the right way to exert "social pressure" without knowing what kind of harassment we're talking about. It reminds me of the way people will publish vague social media messages about "normalising (behaviour x)". Fine, maybe behaviour x should be normalised, but perhaps it would be more useful to address the reasons why behaviour x is stigmatised, ideally with specific examples of how this presents itself in real world events?
>Sorry, but this is total fucking wank. Nobody thinks that women's bodies are public property.
It's poor phrasing, but I think there is something to be said for the idea that all bodies are treated as "public property"; we all have expectations and prejudices about appropriate behaviours and attitudes towards our bodies imposed on us based on our characteristics, it's just this tends to take the form of sexualisation for (young) women.
|>>|| No. 31698
It's simply intuition based on spending an unreasonable amount of time looking at polls and surveys.
I accept I could simply be wrong, but these two things can't be reconciled in my head:
1. Roughly as many young women must be harassed as have a washing machine, or any other near-universal household item. For an alternative comparison, a young woman who hasn't been harassed would be about as rare as a genuine flat earther.
2. All of these women are willing to let a survey taker know about the harassment. All of them, even the deeply conservative ones, the ones who're trying to pretend it didn't happen, the ones who fear retribution for speaking out, and so on.
Now I'm quite prepared to accept that the first one is the case despite my skepticism. It seems unlikely, , but I'm open to the fact I could be underestimating the scale of a truly gigantic problem. The second is the real source of my suspicion. It simply does not seem likely that reporting would be so universal in a society so at peace with harassment.
|>>|| No. 31699
I don't know, I think at least part of that statistic is the result of men being expected to be the active one in any courtship and a shifting perception of what is and isn't considered appropriate. It reminds me of a gay lassm8 angrily complaining to me that she couldn't have a drink after work without being bothered by lads trying to talk to her, I saw her point but she seemed to hold it against the men despite them doing what society expects them to do.
Suppose I can look forward to sexual harassment being a topic at the next work stand-up at any rate. Zoom bothering - the act of being unusually flirty with a colleague in a morning phone call because you just awoke from an awkward sex dream.
>I would think that any incident that someone would describe as harassment is unwanted by definition.
When I was a teenage call-centre drone I had a female manager sneak up on me when I was working and tickle me to wake me up. I don't know if it strictly counts as sexual in my book as I'm not sure of her intent but I didn't like it. She was a bit wrong, the term 'mutton-dressed-as-lamb' came to mind because she was in her late 30s but dressed like a teenager and clearly had a thing for the young meat.
Still would've but it was clearly inappropriate touching for an office environment as defined by society. On the flip-side there's plenty of times I've felt more like I'm taking one for the team in bed* but you wouldn't call it sexual harassment because I was expected to and didn't want to cause a fuss.
*don't roll your eyes at me, I'm just making a point.
|>>|| No. 31700
I remember once when I was younger, I think I was at uni, there was a woman walking ahead of me in the street, she looked back a couple of times but I thought nothing of it. Then I tripped on a paving stone and made a stumbling noise, at which I heard her audibly gasp. I had an impulse to explain that I wasn't following her but realised that would just have made it worse, so I crossed the street and sped up so I was in front of her so she could see me. I know it wasn't remotely my fault that she felt threatened or like she was being followed by me, but I still felt fucking awful and it's stuck with me. It was probably the first time I really thought about it from a woman's perspective.
If I had felt like I was being followed, I would have been preparing to fight - she seemed like she was just preparing to be attacked. My response is likely just as sad, that I feel like I'm expected by society to do violence to remain safe, but at least for me it changed a little bit about how I thought about how men and women are treated.
|>>|| No. 31701
The problem with the two points you raise is that:
1. If this weren't the case, then that would require that either the bar for what constitutes harassment is too low, or they're simply lying. Neither of these assertions is a particularly good look.
2. It's an anonymous confidential survey. There is no retribution for speaking out. Nobody that cares will know that they answered the survey and reported being harassed.
>I do also think that the threat of being dismissed is one potentially useful tool among many.
Only if it's a credible threat. You only need look at the news from Google where it's the people that report issues and make noise that are the ones getting dismissed or referred for mental health issues.
|>>|| No. 31702
For 1 that isn't quite correct, there are other possibilities: It could be an unrepresentative sample or some other questionable structural decision, which isn't quite the same thing as lying. It's entirely possible to set up a poll in a less-than-ideal fashion by accident while acting in good faith.
I would never say that the bar for what constitutes harassment is too low. I would consider it a plausible explanation for the high figure that it's much lower than what most people would consider harassment. That is a bad look (because it looks too similar to "too low"), but I don't think most people are right. If we could see the survey's definition it would be easier to decide if the figure is plausible without having to make any judgement on whether that definition is appropriate.
For 2, remember that you're dealing with a figure as high as 97%. Assuming a representative sample, that includes the paranoid, the ignorant, and the completely crazy. Unless you go further and imagine they're in the 3% and the actual figure is 100%, I suppose.
I suppose I should make clear I'm interested here because I'm the sort of sad individual who's interested in surveys, not because I'm the kind of bad-faith dickhead who wants to demonstrate that "actually only 80% of women are harassed. The remaining 17% are merely made to feel very uncomfortable which isn't harassment, so actually there's no problem." I take as read that the problem actually exists.
|>>|| No. 31705
97% of women report sexual harassment, but it doesn't say what that harassment entailed. Are they being groped, touched, verbally harassed or is simply being unattractive enough for a women to think you speaking to them is harassment? We need to know where the bar is do something about it.
The survey doesn't say and we'll never know because they never publish their data and methodology properly so it can be peer reviewed. Sociology is a fucking tinpot science and I wash my hands of this weirdness.
|>>|| No. 31706
>It could be an unrepresentative sample or some other questionable structural decision
Ah, so you're going with "leading market research company didn't do their job properly"? Yeah, no.
>Assuming a representative sample, that includes the paranoid, the ignorant, and the completely crazy.
I'd think the 3% covers those with plenty of room to spare. Plus the error bars on 1000 young women (about 4.2m) are themselves around 3%.
|>>|| No. 31707
To anyone doubting the numbers, ask the women in your life about their experiences. The world is full of awful perverts who mostly get away with it. Being wanked at in the street or having an erection rubbed against your arse on the Tube or getting a hand up your skirt in a nightclub is just a normal part of life for women.
I've never done any of those things, but I do know that I've been a little bit too persistent when chatting someone up, I've made female friends feel uncomfortable with jokes that were a little bit too near the knuckle, I've slept with women who were probably a little bit too pissed, a little bit too vulnerable. There's a massive grey area of stuff that's not necessarily criminal, but is definitely unethical - stuff that you justify to yourself at the time, but that you know deep down is a bit predatory. I think that men tend to diminish the experiences of women partly out of ignorance, but partly as a defence mechanism against having to examine their own behaviour.
We shouldn't just uncritically accept any possible allegation as true, but we do need to recognise that women are perpetually under threat in a way that makes them justifiably fearful and hyper-vigilant. Like >>31700 crossing the street, we need to make a conscious effort to help women feel safe whenever we can. We need to examine our own actions and we need to have honest conversations with other men about how we can all be better.
|>>|| No. 31708
I think the level of disbelief itt is quite naive. Basically every woman I've spoken to for long enough has a story about some bloke taking photos of them, grabbing them, talking to them like shit, all sorts. Now, you might say "ah, but you've only ever spoken to three women, you big saddo", but the point stands. These are situations that men basically don't have to deal with.
|>>|| No. 31709
When I was at university I was walking about 20 metres behind a female student on a quiet road on a very foggy day. The only noise was our footsteps and I could tell she quickened her pace when she realised I was behind her. She then decided to cross the road, but almost exactly where my car was parked so I had to follow her across. I don't think I've ever felt more like a sex pest.
I must look a bit like a wrong 'un because in my younger days middle aged women would shield their handbags from me as we walked past each other.
|>>|| No. 31710
Women in the Western world are amongst the most privileged and least endangered demographics out of the entire human population. First world feminism is nothing but petit bourgeois power politics.
I won't try to claim there exists perfect gender equality in Britain today, but I won't be taking shite like the OP's article seriously until western women start fighting in wars, becoming homeless or committing suicide at the same rate as men. Until then they can deal with the fact somebody wolf whistled at them six years ago.
|>>|| No. 31711
Solid logic there, ignore women being sexually harassed because they don't fight enough wars. Just such brilliance on display there.
|>>|| No. 31712
I think the point at which I realised she was trying to get away from me I would have waited for her to leave the area before following her across the street... well, do better next time.
|>>|| No. 31713
Cuts to the point mind.
97% of women have been sexually harassed is a useless statistic. I bet 97% of men can say they've had a woman misinterpret an entirely innocent attempt at flirtation. Neither of those would help anyone or contribute anything towards solving whatever is wrong here.
There needs to be a line drawn between proper sexual assault and the delicate sensitivities of middle class Guardian fisherpersons. We can't tackle everything at once, and the list of things more important than being looked ot funny on the tube or getting inappropriate messages on Tinder is about as long as a Dostoyevesky novel, it's as simple as that.
You can call that a relative privation fallacy if you like but I'll be saying I told you so when we're all underwater and you realise we should have spent more time talking about that.
|>>|| No. 31714
"Climate change exists, so we shouldn't talk about sexual harassment".
|>>|| No. 31715
The point of the other post was that, in a just world, the problems of a relatively highly protected class of people are not the first priority.
By all means, argue about whether these things should be prioritised, or whether it's a fallacy to try and pit one social ill against another, or whether they're wrong in their assessment of privilege and danger, or whatever else, but it's the laziest thing to just mischaracterise an argument and then dismiss it.
|>>|| No. 31716
Observation of people has taught me that people label it as sexual harassment when a sexual advancement is rejected that they would have been fine or even fantasised about had it been a person they were into. If you believed everything you read about what is sexual harassment. You would never be able to procreate. This is perhaps why internet porn has turned to incest because they are the only women young men are taught they can engage without volatile rejection.
As long that is the bar of entry I am dubious about such statements about prevalence in society being meaningful. I've also read too many online journalist treat it like it was one step away from rape when a guy took the intitive to talk to them, that is clearly not the bar for sexual harassment but there seems to be a lot of people who think it should be.
I've also been in a organisation that had to deal with the bullshit of people using innuendo to try play the system to sabotage people they didn't like, you get a lot of mileage just from floating the concept of sexual harassment, as from an institutions perspective it really must be handled seriously and you can't be dismissive. it is like a cheat code for a special kind of cunt and the more you feel it must always be taken and you must believe the victim seriously the more power they have.
I am sure this post will be inevitably strawmanned into condoning what are quite self evidently crimes or hand waving away all sexual harassment as non existent.
|>>|| No. 31717
It's a totally flippant argument. By definition, anyone participating in this conversation isn't prioritising the most serious problems in the world. Most of us aren't aid workers in the D.R. Congo, most of us don't live in poverty so we can give every penny we can to the World Food Programme. Unless you really are living that hyper-utilitarian life of service to the very poorest, then saying "it isn't the worst problem in the world so I don't have to care about it" is functionally equivalent to the defining statement of privilege - "it doesn't affect me, so no-one should care about it".
We've got a mix of priorities based only very weakly on pure utilitarianism, which is fine. Sexual harassment isn't the worst problem in the world, but it's a serious problem nonetheless.
It might be uncomfortable to admit, but it's a problem we're all complicit in; the upside is that we are all able to combat it in some way.
|>>|| No. 31718
I believe the argument is that entitlement masks it self in victimhood, especially to the entitled themselves, and it is the privilege that complain the loudest and the most when they don't get something they want.
|>>|| No. 31719
>anyone participating in this conversation isn't prioritising the most serious problems in the world. Most of us aren't aid workers in the D.R. Congo
Selective reductionism isn't a counterargument to that point. Maybe we're not all in UN development thinktanks, but it's reasonable to believe plenty of people here work for the NHS or campaign for their political cause, attend protests, and so on.
>Sexual harassment isn't the worst problem in the world, but it's a serious problem nonetheless.
Which is what ties into the previous point- It's not the most serious problem, but it can be serious, except here we're talking about a survey where a majority of the instances were fairly inarguably in the not at all serious camp. It is not only slightly offensive to people who belong to the group who have been involved in serious sexual assault, but it's counter-productive as a whole.
At the end of the day this is the kind of tripe pushed by very comfortable people with very comfortable lives, who want in on a bit of that "life is hard because of factors preordained before my birth" political currency, doing a disservice to people who have legitimate claims to that currency.
|>>|| No. 31720
>the upside is that we are all able to combat it in some way.
Combat WHAT mate? "Sexual harassment" in the context of the OP is entirely nebulous. I have never stuck my hands up a women's skirt unsolicited, but I have been shot down in flames when trying to chat one up. Was I harassing her? Is any women I've tried it on with who didn't like me a victim of harassment?
We have no answers, only a statistic which makes no sense to any of us because we're not wrong uns. So where do we go from here?
|>>|| No. 31721
Do you think women aren't able to tell when they're being harassed? Maybe because you have to be as clever as a man to be capable of making the distinction?
|>>|| No. 31722
So what sexual harassment stats do you lads actually believe then?
|>>|| No. 31723
This is all just a smokescreen for the anti-protesting laws they're planning to pass.
|>>|| No. 31724
>Unless you really are living that hyper-utilitarian life of service to the very poorest, then saying "it isn't the worst problem in the world so I don't have to care about it" is functionally equivalent to the defining statement of privilege - "it doesn't affect me, so no-one should care about it".
Agreed, and I also don't think that the existence of worse things precludes devoting attention to less-severe-but-still-bad things.
At the same time, what if we're also complicit in several other bad things that aren't "the worst problem in the world", but still deserve more attention than sexual harassment? For example, I think it is valid to point out that if we're concerned about gender equality, it is justified to have conversations about violence committed among and to men, about the near-universal gender differences in suicide, about the relatively shorter lifespans of men in wealthy countries, and so on.
Those conversations seem to be few and far between, and when they occur they're often presented in conspicuously shallow and non-gendered terms, or even in ways that push the burden of seeking care back onto men ("suicidal men just need to seek help more", etc.). So I think there's some fairness in pushing back against research like this. I'm with you that "but what about x?" is an unproductive reaction, but it might also be that this is an unproductive survey, or at the very least an unproductive way of presenting the survey findings.
|>>|| No. 31725
>Do you think women aren't able to tell when they're being harassed?
No, I'm asking what women define as harassment and if I've been complicit in it. No one has been able to define what harassment is so how can we combat it?
|>>|| No. 31728
How would the people responsible know what constitutes harassment if all I said was "yes"? You're deflecting.
How can we define that which is completely arbitrary and unique to each individual? What I consider harassment might not even register on another person's radar.
I have been made to feel uncomfortable by the advances of men and women on 100s of occasions, but is that harassment because I say it is or only once it passes an arbitrary threshold? Does my gender or sexual orientation affect this threshold?
|>>|| No. 31729
I think women will decide if it's harassment entirely based upon how much they liked your face and if you looked high enough in status to meet their requirements.
At the end of the day human interaction is just too flawed for us to allow wishy washy self-definition on these kinds of things. There needs to be something concrete, because no matter how much awareness and sensitivity you promote in men, you can't teach people not to be socially awkward fuck ups.
Aren't there also statistics suggesting gen Z simply isn't having sex? They're practically celibate compared to the generations before them and is it any wonder why.
|>>|| No. 31730
Open question lads: Have any of you ever turned down a female's advances on you? How did she react?
I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think the very fact I can ask that question, knowing it's rare enough that it might never have even happened to some of you, has a lot to answer for.
|>>|| No. 31731
Fuck it I will bite. Yes some women can't tell, there are the Beatrice and Alice Grants of the world who assume that if someone doesn't give them what they want when they asked nicely that person was unreasonable. And that they can ask any man in a bar to buy them a drink and when they man tries to talk to them afterwards assuming they are interested cause a scene of it being harassment and walk off with their free drink.
I've met these people I've met the BBC journalists daughters who were taught and believed male sexuality defacto disgusting and men were only after one thing. I've met the child of Barristers who would lecture me on how I am privileged so I wouldn't know.
I've met the lady who doth protest too much who ended up marrying their 'harasser' who I had been expected to defend her from. I've seen the girl get too drunk in a bar hit on someone and when they sobered up decide it was the other people’s fault. I've had the girl who couldn't take no for an answer take rejection as me being cruel. And I have meant the person who wielded sexual harassment as a weapon in HR to sabotage someone else.
All of this is more of an insult to the multiple women I have loved who have been raped than me, what again is quite telling is that these women were very quiet about their abuse, deenying it or tried to rationalise it (so ironically by your point they didn't know they were harassed), being a victim has very different behaviour from being entitled belief that you are one, powerlessness runs through a victims behavour.
Life has taught me that the worse just of anything is a person involved in a situation.
|>>|| No. 31733
Is my answer invalid if I'm gay? I went through a period in my 20s where I would only go to pubs with a beard I could use as a shield so I wouldn't get chatted up by women, I never considered it harassment though, just annoying; people are horny and pubs are where they go to meet other horny people. I was there to meet horny men though, so they were out of luck.
I have been inappropriately touched by men and women though and I would consider that harassment, but I feel like they knew that already and didn't care so me telling them that probably wouldn't have made much difference to their behaviour.
|>>|| No. 31735
I'm deflecting? You're prevaricating. What point are you making? That we can't effectively fight harassment, because some of the 97% of responses might not be 'as bad' as you, a man, think is bad? Does that mean we shouldn't try? If we should try, then why is this important?
|>>|| No. 31736
>as bad' as you, a man, think is bad
Projection, no one has said this. Every single response has been consistent in their confusion over what defines harassment and how to effectively combat it when we don't even know where the line is or what 97% of women consider harassment to be.
How do we combat a nebulous, arbitrary concept? It's futile by definition, so we need to crystallise the debate so we can have a consistent and non-confusing idea of what we're fighting. Which is what we're all asking and you continue to dance around.
|>>|| No. 31737
The point they are making is that sexual harassment is entirely subjective, it is defined by the reaction of the victim, and that is a nebulous bench mark. If we tried to codify it and took it by the broadest definition we would have to lock up all society, it we took it by the narrowest rapists would walk free.
Sexual harassment therefore is an entirely unhelpful catch all term, it is too broad to be useful and any statistics about it is meaningless.
It would be like if we got rid of all the different categories of assault and just called it all 'non-consensual physical contact' then we wouldn't be able to have a sensible conversation about that either, because discussion about murder and fist fights would be equivocated with aggressive football tackling and being too close on public transport.
|>>|| No. 31739
Oh, good, someone said something silly I now longer have to care about this issue.
|>>|| No. 31740
If you're being banned for posting links to the DM, posting excerpts without the links isn't any better. It's not a technicality you'll be allowed to get away with. Just fucking stop.
|>>|| No. 31741
Thanks modlad, I almost got riled up at the story without realising it was DM nonsense.
|>>|| No. 31742
So you're confused about what sexual harassment is? Tell your employer, maybe they'll send you on a training course.
|>>|| No. 31744
Are we blanket banned for DM links or just where not relevant? I'm wondering about exclusives. I think I've posted links before without issue but that might just be because I'm a quality poster and/or sensitivity-lad forgot to whinge.
|>>|| No. 31745
I think it depends what mood the mods are in, but almost any DM link will result in a ban and deletion even if it is an exclusive or it's something written for them, like when they had exclusives about Prince Andrew or the article Are Nige penned at the weekend about him leaving politics "for good".
|>>|| No. 31746
She must think she's making some kind of statement but I do wonder about Patel's comment that more will be done to make women feel safer walking home.
I mean, 'feeling safer' sets me on edge a bit. A few years back I remember reading a farcical story of an American college campus running courses on rape awareness that spooked the women up -and then they handed them tasers at the end with predictable results.
|>>|| No. 31747
>Ah, so you're going with "leading market research company didn't do their job properly"?
It's hardly beyond credibility. How do you properly weight a survey like this? You can't exactly cross reference it with how people voted last time, income, likelihood of turnout, etc.
|>>|| No. 31750
Around last August, the Daily Mail's url was wordfiltered to "If I post a link to this website again I will be banned". A month or two after that, we started banning people for posting it. Same goes for The Sun.
|>>|| No. 31751
You can't make women feel safer coming home.
If you take the case that's in the news of Sarah Everard then she is in bright clothing, she was in well lit areas, she was on the phone to her boyfriend whilst she was walking home. You can take all the precautions there are in the world but if some psychopath decides he wants to kidnap and murder someone then he's going to try and kidnap and murder someone once he has the opportunity.
|>>|| No. 31752
I feel very sad about this case; how are any of us safe if there are policeperson sexbeasts out there on the prowl.
|>>|| No. 31753
It's OK, Cressida Dick has promised extra police patrols in the area.
|>>|| No. 31755
Pinched or grabbed arse by a not friend/ partner is much higher than I would have imagined (34-37%) in Britian.
|>>|| No. 31756
I think a better thing to find out would be what proportion of men have pinched someone's arse.
Do a significant number of men do it or is it just a small number of serial bum gropers giving all of us a bad name? Is one man pinching 50 bums worse than 50 men pinching one bum?
|>>|| No. 31757
>looked at your breasts
>winked at you
>asked you out for a drink
|>>|| No. 31758
>Looked at your breasts
>Winked at you
>Asked you out for a drink
>Commented on your attractiveness
|>>|| No. 31760
Yes it is a survey of general sexual behaviour, not exclusively sexual harassment.
|>>|| No. 31761
Not wanting to defend abusive behaviour, at all, but a good number of these definitions are dogshit.
It's the typical strategy of such charities, trying to gain attention to their cause by stretching definitions and presenting studies with quite vague research designs. In the end, it's always about money, and about agenda setting.
I have no problem at all believing that a large amount of abuse happens every day that no upstanding person could possibly defend, but that's not the game these charities are playing.
You could now say that the means justify the ends. But I wonder.
|>>|| No. 31762
The fact that one in eight women have been flashed, one in five have been asked for sexual favours and one in three have been groped on the arse should at least give us pause for thought.
|>>|| No. 31764
What happened to flashing anyway? It seemed to be all the rage in the 00s but these days there's not a sausage outside of naked protests. I'm not saying I've seen any blokes in trench coats but there were plenty more tits back in my day.
You would think it would be a consequence of global warming if anything.
|>>|| No. 31766
Unless the Guardian is being very sneaky, I believe it was UN Women UK.
(Although it's possible that was a different survey that happened to be published around the same time. I can't imagine how else the figures from YouGov differ so widely from those quoted by The Guardian.)
|>>|| No. 31769
The arse grabbing percentage is a lot higher than the self reported harassment percentage. More women are getting unrequested arse grabbings than being asked out for drinks. That can't be right.
|>>|| No. 31770
Don't get me wrong, I think not even the most scrutinising look at the study's details will be able to absolve men, that is those men who harrass women, of any and all wrongdoing.
But if you indiscriminately class comments on somebody's physical attractiveness as harrassment, then the gamut is going to be quite wide. From somebody shouting "OI !!! GREAT TITS!!!" after a lass to somebody saying "I say, Ms. Brown, you look quite dashing in your outfit today!".
Also, asking somebody for a drink, I mean, come on. Really? Are you telling us that from now on, any lad who musters up the courage to ask a lass to go for a drink is going to be seen as some sort of sex pervert?
To be true to itself, the study would then also have to class it as harrassment when somebody looks at a woman's ankles.
|>>|| No. 31771
Different times, but just over 10 years ago I knew a lad whose pulling technique in clubs was to go behind women and feel their arse. It was surprisingly successful; if she turned around and smiled then he was in there, if not then he just moved on. No need to try and chat them up or waste time on smalltalk, a quick cop of their arse was enough of a barometer to quickly know whether he was in there or not. It probably helped that was about 6'5" and reasonably attractive.
I do also have female friends who bemoan the fact that #metoo means they're far less likely to receive an unsolicited grope in clubs; even if the person doing it is a complete creep they said it's nice to feel wanted. You can't win.
|>>|| No. 31772
>I do also have female friends who bemoan the fact that #metoo means they're far less likely to receive an unsolicited grope in clubs; even if the person doing it is a complete creep they said it's nice to feel wanted.
Am I really the only person who has always thought that grabbing a random lass's arse is wrong on a good number of levels?
I don't think I've ever heard any lass say that an arse grope by a stranger in a club is a reassuring sign that she's wanted.
I'm all for not overblowing the whole issue, I think there has been more than enough veering off into the muddy waters of "all men are rapists", but it's one thing to ask a lass to go have a drink, and quite another to make uninvited physical contact. The latter is a boundary that you have no right to cross unless you're given unmistakable permission that it's okay.
|>>|| No. 31774
And you're still being a massively disingenuous bellend, even by .gs standards.
|>>|| No. 31775
I know discovering women wanted to be treated the way society has told you should under no circumstances ever treat them is a head fuck. Makes you feel tricked.
|>>|| No. 31776
My brother is a good few years older than me and it blew my mind going clubbing with him before and seeing him do this. I always just assumed he was particularly uncouth rather than out of touch until now. Sign of the times but he had his own mindfuck that I was screwing women of different races like it was nothing.
Time moves fast, I wonder what we do now that will be unthinkable in the future. Aside from owning a home.
|>>|| No. 31777
>I know discovering women wanted to be treated the way society has told you should under no circumstances ever treat them is a head fuck
I guess then there'll never be an explanation why one of my female friends when we were all about 20 nearly reported another friend to the police after he massively groped her in the back of a Renault Clio in a dark car park. She obviously wanted it, never mind that they were both waiting for her boyfriend to come back to the car, so whatever got into her pretty little head that she then nearly went to the coppers the next day was beyond everybody's reasoning. Women, eh.
I honestly couldn't believe she didn't go to the police. Our gropey friend was well known for that sort of thing after three or four beers, it wasn't the first time that he'd tried something like that. She apparently didn't even tell her boyfriend till the next day.
|>>|| No. 31779
Some women want it. Evidently not all, and not from everyone or all the time. From what I can tell half of women want the Christopher Grey experience, the other half are appalled by the idea women would want that, and they need to be protected from their own desires.
|>>|| No. 31780
Not that it particularly matters, but are there any women in this thread?
I honestly quite like that roughly 2/3 of the posts have been querying the statistics and picking over the definition of sexual harassment, which does incline me to believe it's mostly men, and sperglad(s)
My partner asked me if I could have a conversation with my male friends about the treatment of women following the abductorapurder. I'm honestly not sure what it will achieve, my male friends are all progressives who either don't care about the specifics and just want people to be happy, or they're already vocal proponents. I imagine we'd agree on saying it's our fault if we chose to make a decision that led to our demise, knowing it was the unsafe choice. But that doesn't mean we deserved it etc.
|>>|| No. 31781
The only person who has brought it up with me is a female work colleague, who told me that she used to live in that part of London and had far more sense than to walk around there alone at night because it wasn't safe.
When the Ched Evans rape case was in the news I only ever heard victim blaming from other women, saying things like it was her fault for having so much to drink and getting herself in that position.
I don't know, maybe it's a generational thing as these were all from women in their late forties and early fifties.
|>>|| No. 31782
>When the Ched Evans rape case was in the news I only ever heard victim blaming from other women, saying things like it was her fault for having so much to drink and getting herself in that position.
My mum makes occasional remarks whenever there is a new rape case in the news that young women these days are asking for trouble by wearing all that revealing clothing.
I'm not sure if it's age related amnesia, but I know for a fact that pictures of my mum from her partying days in the 70s exist in a shoe box somewhere at her house where she's wearing disturbingly skimpy mini dresses.
So I'm not sure if her comments should really be understood as "I've been there", or if she has actually forgotten what she got up to in her day.
|>>|| No. 31783
>I'm not sure if her comments should really be understood as "I've been there", or if she has actually forgotten what she got up to in her day.
Alternately, your mum wanted it.
|>>|| No. 31784
>Not that it particularly matters, but are there any women in this thread?
Don't answer him ladets! All this time reputable academic journals such as the Daily Mail have warned us of a PC gone mad and now he's come to abduct all of us.
|>>|| No. 31785
>A Met police officer arrested after the disappearance of Sarah Everard was taken to hospital with a head injury he suffered while in custody.
He's either tried to kill himself by running head first into a wall, tried to prove he's a mentalist by injuring himself or other rozzers have fucked him up.
As a side point, when they say "human remains" have been found do they mean body parts rather than a full corpse?
|>>|| No. 31786
>As a side point, when they say "human remains" have been found do they mean body parts rather than a full corpse?
I think "human remains" always kind of indicates that the body was probably in a bit of a jumble. A leg here, a head there.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]