[Closed] #MeToo

[s]Binners [/s]and Alpin unless you have someting useful to contribute to the thead I suggest you leave before you are given a forced break.

Actually I’ve read more of the thread and Binners is calling out GT not bullying him.

Much better after the edit, Binners. I reported the thread before you edited then reported a second time after your edit to edit my report. still following? 😕 I don't often report threads becuase I reckon people can look after themselves - this time, and in the context of a thread on victim blaming and victims being called liars, I reported.

GT is socially aware, asks questions of himself and us.

I'd question the first assertion.

And he does ask questions, oh god does he ask questions. He never ****ing learns anything from the answers though.

In fact can we just retitle this thread #aboutmetoo

Geetee, I'm sorry to hear that you've been a victim of abuse. I've spent years working with both victims and perpetrators of abuse and the main thing I've learned is that trauma expresses itself in so many different ways. Despite that, trauma is still trauma and you have my sympathy.
That being said, your comments regarding the numbers of women dealing with harassment and abuse are unfair, you don't get to judge others' experiences, just as others don't have the right to judge yours.
For some of you having a go at geetee, he's said enough questionable shit that you can challenge without resorting to bullying.

He never **** learns anything from the answers though.

I reckon he does, check out his contributions to the photography thread in the light of debates on the ethics of photographing strangers and what constitutes voyeurism. I used to feel uncomfortable with the way he portrayed some of his subjects (and the choice of subject), his recent pics on here are more sympathetic to the subject and there's a bit more information about them so they are people not objects. He's the artist, I'm the spectator, I still feel provoked sometimes but that's part of his art, I think.

So, to summarise....

My abuse is real! Yours? You probably imagined it? Time of the month, luv?

I don’t think I owe anyone an explanation, but in the interests of a cause I believe very strongly in (which is that the instance of abuse of all forms experienced by men is both massively under-reported and not taken remotely seriously) I will share some of my story. And yes it will be about me but hey, screw you, this happened to me. If you don’t like to read it, fine.

My experiences fall into two broad categories. The first relates to the long term, sustained and deeply traumatic (mostly) emotional abuse I was subject to at primary school. This was not sexual in nature or indeed in the category of sexual harassment or assault on which the #MeToo campaign is focused, though it did involve actual physical assault by teachers.

The second set of experiences are the subsequent struggles I’ve generally experienced in life as a result of being pretty screwed up by what happened to me as a child. I confess I found it very difficult to integrate within the world of work and I’m fully aware of the failings I have been guilty of that made me a challenging person to be or work with. I’m not on a spectrum; ironically and perhaps thankfully, I’ve always been incredibly self aware but the scars you carry with you make you very predisposed in other social interactions, to being a bit of a mess. As someone else pointed out, trauma stays with you and expresses itself in any number of odd ways. The primary school element then is relevant but only indirectly. It would take a book to explain the full extent of the abuse but suffice to say in summary, that from the age of five to 11 when I left the school, I was sat on my own (by the teachers) the entire time. On many occasions the teachers organised to send me to Coventry, I was locked in cupboards, I was made to copy out the dictionary while everyone else watched cartoons for a Christmas treat. Of course it wasn’t all entirely without provocation on my part, but what can a five year old do that would warrant you threatening them with violence?

I was able to leave behind a large part of the problem in primary school, but my experiences at secondary school were in parts also pretty bad though this was confined now to issues with just other pupils rather than also teachers. In addition to the legacy nickname of ‘Alien’ or ‘Psycho’ following me around (a hangover from primary school and something which everyone, including the teachers, had called me), I had a period of about two years where a particular group of girls decided to make me a project. It started with simple sexualised name-calling that was incredibly upsetting and very embarrassing given that I was 14 and really struggling with my confidence and puberty. It progressed to violent attacks where they would approach me and kick me repeatedly in the shins, banking on the fact that I wouldn’t hit a girl. When that didn’t provoke a reaction they started targeting my genitals. Shortly after that my tolerance ran out and I warned them that if they didn’t stop, I was going to retaliate. Of course when I finally did snap, it did not turn out well for me.

Most of the experience since then I’ve sort of just taken for granted. I have ended up being OK in general; well adjusted, married with two fabulous boys and reasonably successful at work (though I’ve been fired from four different jobs to get to this point), but on whole all has worked out well. Recently however the barrage of media reporting on the experiences of women (and the subsequent emergent idea that there is something in opposition called ‘white male privilege’ which I detest and am on record on here for doing so), has really started to bother me. Coupled with a marital relationship that has been very challenging and has on many occasions been emotional abuse (because my wife has had prolonged periods of PND that have made me the punching bag) and challenges at work this year in particular, have made me reflect that my experiences, while relatively normal in adult life, still border on harassment and abuse. I’ve explored this with other men and have not been entirely surprised to learn that my experiences are not remotely unique.

So, this includes things like being bullied by my first boss (who was female) to the point that she openly said to me, in front of the four other female team members I worked with (I was the only man), that while I was good at my job she thoroughly detested me as a person and only put up with me because I was good at what I did. There was also the subtle kind of joking designed to emasculate you. I’ve had another female boss routinely call me ‘babe’ in the office, frequent placing her hand on my knee during both one to one meetings and while in the general open plan office. I’ve had women denigrate me to my face and in front of others about my importance and role as a father at home, saying that ‘it’s different for men, you’re not as important when it comes to bringing up children’. And yes, I’ve been groped in the street quite a bit, not routinely but certainly enough to know I’m not imagining it.

Does any of this bother me? Yes and no. I learnt to be pretty resilient so while right now, I confess, my demons are making me struggle, I know I can engage with them and get myself over it. What bothers me is the fact that it’s generally ignored, overlooked or derided and made fun of as has been very ably demonstrated on this thread. That boils my urine more than anything else. My examples may be relatively low level (I’ve not been raped for instance, which is a transgression that horrifies me), but that they aren’t unique. They are quite common. I have at least half a dozen other similar stories from close male friends that are as bad and in many cases even worse than this.

Do I think that more women than men experience this issue? Yes, but so what. This isn’t a, pardon the deliberate phrase, dick-swinging contest. You don’t get to erase one half of the narrative just because more of your gender has had a bad experience (and that is precisely what is happening in some circles and you’re a fool if you can’t see it).

As I already said, a lot of this has nothing to do with challenge injustice and equality and everything to do with power, which is always what harassment is actually about.

Now, regarding my comments on neuroticism, yes, they were trolling remarks, I’ll admit. But there is also something in them that needs to be considered. In general women are far more pre-disposed to neuroticism than men and that does change the way that people experience and perceive things. It can absolutely lead to paranoia and misinterpretation. This is something I am sure I am also guilty of and I know for a fact that I score higher than the average man on neuroticism, perhaps not surprisingly. But really that debate has to be for another post.....

Yes, but so what.

Oh, ok. So the whole Harvey Weistein thing shouldve been ignored? Cos there are men that get abused too?
I clearly don't understand what you're trying to say, because to me, its like you can't speak out about any issue, cos hey, there's another issue over here. Whataboutery, I believe it's called.
I hope I'm wrong and someone explains what you are actually trying to say.

Yes, but so what

And why is this only brought out when women raise the issue if not to undermine their case.

If you have an issue with abuse, raise it in a way which does not appear to diminish someone else's case

Thanks for your openness geetee.

I think it’s understandable that someone who has experienced abuse might be sensitive about their abuse and abuse which is similar. It also shouldn’t be surprising that their perspective may be different from others.

I’m all for challenging other people’s opinions - including geetees, but challenging their experience of abuse or ridiculing it, that isn’t on.

Oh, ok. So the whole Harvey Weistein thing shouldve been ignored? Cos there are men that get abused too?

I never said that. If I said anything it was that telling only one half of the story and diong it in a way that specifically precludes the male experience was wrong. That is happening. That is what I am challenging and why I chose to recount my own experiences.

And why is this only brought out when women raise the issue.

Because every time it is brought up, it’s done in a way that depicts the problem as purely asymmetric. I don’t believe it is. I’m not denying there’s a problem. I’m just challenging the notion that it’s a gendered issue that only women experience and men perpetrate.

I’m just challenging the notion that it’s a gendered issue that only women experience and men perpetrate.

Because every time it is brought up, it’s done in a way that depicts the problem as purely asymmetric. I don’t believe it is. I’m not denying there’s a problem. I’m just challenging the notion that it’s a gendered issue that only women experience and men perpetrate.

In that case why is it never brought up as an issue for men, in its own right?

[quote=geetee1972 ]Because every time it is brought up, it’s done in a way that depicts the problem as purely asymmetric. I don’t believe it is.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "purely" and how it is different from impure asymmetry, but you got called on this before because it quite clearly is an asymmetric situation. This doesn't mean that it's something men don't experience, simply that it's something experienced by a lot more women a lot more often. I just have my own anecdotal experience here, but I don't think it's totally worthless - I don't think I have ever experienced the sort of normalised "low level" harassment which is a regular occurrence for many if not most women, and I certainly haven't experienced sexual assault. I doubt very much that makes me unique as a man.

I actually have personal experiences that would be relevant to this thread, but you know what? Think I'll hang back for a bit... 💡

ITS NOT AN ASYMMETRIC PROBLEM!

It really is. Notwithstanding your own story, a simple qualitative comparison of this thread here on a male dominated forum vis its equivalent on the female dominated forum mumsnet shows a quite clear trend.

Yep, have to agree with Zokes there, the level of normalised behaviour that goes on mostly by men on women shows that. The power in balance that still exists in society demonstrates why it's a massive problem.

Nobody is denying that abuse towards men does not exist, however it's not on the same scale as that inflicted on women.

A phrase that keeps coming up is "get used to it" or "learn to ignore it" these are the major part of the problem, it's just accepted as part of life.

I'd suggest the Guardian list is a good starting point for many people who just don't understand how to behave in public situations. Take it as the first lesson, once you have mastered that one then maybe you can progress to some more advaced behavioural lessons. Such as how to deal with an office romance without it becoming harrassment or leaving the other person in a very difficult position.

The Weinstein story is one of the systematic abuse of women over a long period of time, aided and abetted and covered up by tens or hundreds of people over decades. That's not half the story, it's the story.

There you go - Tom Jones has stepped up to say he was abused early in his career. Don't know full story, but seems like it could serve to dilute the original issue to me.

[edit] take that back - he was also propositioned by a man.

but seems like it could serve to dilute the original issue to me.

He added: "There's always been that element there that people with power sometimes abuse it, but they don't all abuse it, there are good people."
Asked further about his own experience, he said: "It wasn't bad, just somebody tried to pull... it was a question and I said 'No thank you.'"

I don't think you can dilute the original story at all, there are other stories to tell but an industry run mostly by men has engaged along with a lot of other aspects of society to harass and abuse women for decade and more.

Edited Mike.

Just trying to get my head around how geetee thinks this should be reported.

If I said anything it was that telling only one half of the story and diong it in a way that specifically precludes the male experience was wrong.

No worries, just seeing some of the people trying to avoid this or divert attention away from it is, well I don't quite know what words to use. It's a bit like the football racism threads where a little bit of casual racism is OK cause well you should expect that as a footballer....

So women can't say they were abused my men in power

Why do you keep coming back with this suggestion? I’ve never said this. I don’t agree with this so why do you and others keep suggesting I am?

Really sorry to hear about your childhood GT. Sounds grim. SO if any of my remarks were insensitive, I apologize

But I fear that your experiences have skewed your perspective to the degree that it has little basis in reality.

Saying that men are equally as likely to be the victims of sexual harassment by women as women by men is patently ridiculous. That would be like saying that white people are as likely to be the victims of racism as black people. It's a ludicrous statement. This is due entirely to the balance of power in our society. Which I'm afraid is white and male. Very much so! And when it comes to sexual harassment, I'd say its almost exclusively one way traffic.

Also your suggestion that women are neurotic, and their 'abuse' is imagined, and that its a problem of their perception is both dismissive and insulting. On this subject, its right up there with 'well she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it'. Its offensive. As you can tell from the reaction its received

I think you've got issues with women, that which are in some ways understandable, you really really need to address. Because the statements you've made on this thread display a pretty unhealthy attitude to the opposite sex

I think, geetee, that the people are reacting against your assertion, which seems to be (and correct me if I am wrong) that this [i]is[/i] a symmetrical problem across the male/female genders, with an equal number of victims and equal frequency on both sides (especially considering 50% of the female victims are imagined by neurotic women), and both genders facing equal societal and institutional pressures to accept it and keep quiet about it.

FWIW, your own experiences sound horrific and I don't seek to diminish them in any way. I can definitely see how they would colour your opinions on this topic. I hope you got and are still getting help for those.

+1 binners.

Sorry GT, but whilst you may not have actually said that

women can't say they were abused my men in power

Your dismissive attitude as shown by the quote below, be it as a result of some clearly harrowing personal experiences or not, unfortunately leaves you somewhat ironically on the wrong end of the benefit of the doubt.

That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

On BikeMagic new female contributors were assumed to be trolls and abused.

And they gave as good as they got.

🙂

Saying that men are equally as likely to be the victims of sexual harassment by women as women by men is patently ridiculous.

Ok so I haven’t said this but I guess by saying the problem is not asymmetric I have implied it or maybe just have said it. So let me be clear.

I have said that I acknowledge that more women than men have experienced it though. So for the record, when I say the problem is not asymmetric, I’m being a little metaphorical. I DO NOT mean that it’s 50/50. But I do mean that the fact that one side of the problem is larger than the other is irrelevant.

I’m also saying that the male experience is vastly under reported and unrecognised. One side (I guess you would call them the third wave feminists) appears to be trying to politicise the issue and both ignore the male perspective in this problem (to the point where people don’t accept there is even a problem) and to some degree demonise men and masculinity by attributing that to the problem to that feature.

One thing the Weinstein case shows is that one man has been responsible for a very large number of transgressions and assaults. This shows that it is entirely possible, likely even, that the entire gamut of genuine harassment or assault experienced by women is committed by a very small number of men.

I strongly reject the idea that otherwise normal masculine/male behaviour, ie the biological urge to find a mate, is either unreasonable or constitutes harassment. The problem is far less about sex and far more about power but there will of course be overlap between these.

The way that the issue is being reported and talked about you’d think that every man walking the streets is a lack IOU’s and dangerous presator and that simply by approaching a woman in the interests of sex (which let’s face it is the reason most men approach women) is ‘predatory behaviour’. Again I reject that and that narrative has nothing to do with equality or injustice and everything to do with power and hegemony.

On the other side Is the issue that when men experience the same thing it just isn’t taken seriously. Why bring it up in the context of women’s experience? To try and bring some balance to the argument and not let it be such a one sided story.

I know aclotnofmyou dont after wth my position and that’s fine. But I’m not a monster who hates women. Far from it; if you talk to my close friends who have known me for a long time they will tell you I’ve always had a reputation for being something of a ‘feminist’, heck I even studied it as part of my under grad.

I’ve somewhat changed my mind lately because of things like ‘white male priviledge’ and ‘patriarchy’ and post modernism. I talk a position against these because I think it’s important.

As for the neuroticism comment you need to read up on the psychology of this to understand my argument. The sheer volume of self reported incidents of harassment (note I am specifically excluding actual assault here as that cannot be the product of neuroticism because something actually happened) just doesn’t make sense. For that volume of incidents to be true it would mean the vast majority of men would have to score on profiles as demonstrating extreme pathological predatory behaviour and that’s just not what the data tells us.

What is more likely in a lot of these ‘harassment’ casss is one party being quite insensitive but not predatory and the other side being quite sensitive (ie neurotic) and believing that the act was predatory. When you look at personality differences between men and women that is EXACTLY what you see. Men are far less agreeable than women ie they are less tuned in to how their behaviour affects others and less willing to modify their behaviour as a con sequence, and women are far more neurotic ie they tend to think and worry about things more readily they feel stress more readily.

One thing the Weinstein case shows is that one man has been responsible for a very large number of transgressions and assaults. This shows that it is entirely possible, likely even, that the entire gamut of genuine harassment or assault experienced by women is committed by a very small number of men.

I strongly reject the idea that otherwise normal masculine/male behaviour, ie the biological urge to find a mate, is either unreasonable or constitutes harassment. The problem is far less about sex and far more about power but there will of course be overlap between these.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/stamping-out-sexual-assault-at-music-festivals/8096544

One of hundreds of similar stories, now either the same few blokes go to a lot of gigs or it's a much wider problem. Again the number of Metro posts suggests that there are a lot of blokes out there who do not even know what they are doing is inappropriate or acceptable. Some may look back in later life and see that.

To be absolutely honest it's not up to you to decide what behaviour is harassment. It is the person receiving the behaviour/attemtion/hands/penis feels that is important here. Putting people in a position to say no and it be respected. I'm sure you can appreciate that part of it.

and that simply by approaching a woman in the interests of sex (which let’s face it is the reason most men approach women)

.......and there's your problem right there! You seriously think that the main reason most men approach women is to try and have sex with them? Seriously? Sweet jesus!!

You need help! Seriously! I'm not just saying that! You need to get professional help for your issues. Because if that's what you truly believe, that's a totally and utterly ****ed up way to view the relationship between sexes. Your attitude to women is absolutely warped!!!

I strongly reject the idea that otherwise normal masculine/male behaviour, ie the biological urge to find a mate, is either unreasonable or constitutes harassment.

The point most of us are at pains to make is [b][u]THAT IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO DECIDE WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT[/u][/b]. It is entirely in the gift of the recipient whether it is taken that way or not. The fact we keep having to repeat this to you shows that you are just not getting it. You are part of the problem. Stop and think.

As for the neuroticism comment you need to read up on the psychology of this to understand my argument.

No we don't.

We can already tell you're a very troubled individual with a deep-seated sense of inadequacy and a boundless aptitude for BS.

You somehow imagine you're making subtle and nuanced arguments in favour of your uniquely perceptive ideas, when you're just smearing our screens with your own unhappiness and your resentment that the rest of the world hasn't recognised you for the oh-so-clever-and-special individual that you know you are.

You've had a difficult childhood, I truly empathise with that, but the direction you've let that take you in is reprehensible.

Go away and get help.

[quote=geetee1972 ]The sheer volume of self reported incidents of harassment (note I am specifically excluding actual assault here as that cannot be the product of neuroticism because something actually happened) just doesn’t make sense. For that volume of incidents to be true it would mean the vast majority of men would have to score on profiles as demonstrating extreme pathological predatory behaviour and that’s just not what the data tells us.
What is more likely in a lot of these ‘harassment’ casss is one party being quite insensitive but not predatory and the other side being quite sensitive (ie neurotic) and believing that the act was predatory. When you look at personality differences between men and women that is EXACTLY what you see. Men are far less agreeable than women ie they are less tuned in to how their behaviour affects others and less willing to modify their behaviour as a con sequence, and women are far more neurotic ie they tend to think and worry about things more readily they feel stress more readily.

Doesn't make sense to you maybe. It makes perfect sense to most of us here though. Firstly it doesn't have to be the vast majority of men (and I'm fairly sure it isn't) - a minority of men is perfectly sufficient to cause the problem. Far more importantly though - and this is something where I agree with everybody else - it's ridiculous for you to dismiss the normalised "low level" sexual harassment as women being overly sensitive or neurotic. I'm sure it is real, and it is unacceptable. You are right about some men being insensitive and unwilling to modify their behaviour - it's just that your conclusion that those men don't need to modify their behaviour and that instead quote marks are needed around "harassment" is far, far wide of the mark. Because I'm hearing these comments from women I know and trust - women who are so, so far from being neurotic.

Sure in order for relationships to form between men and women there needs to be some encroachment into areas which might be interpreted as harassment, but the important thing here is to know where to draw the line - and it is quite clear where the wrong side of that line is (admittedly I'm pretty high on the avoiding conflict percentiles, so tend to stay well away from that line - hence finding it a lot more difficult than most men to form relationships).

I have said that I acknowledge that more women than men have experienced it though. So for the record, when I say the problem is not asymmetric, I’m being a little metaphorical. I DO NOT mean that it’s 50/50.

Then I'd suggest that it is a very poor choice of word and explains why people are reacting against it.

[i]"Symmetry: The quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis. Similarity or exact correspondence between different things."[/i]
- ([url= https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/symmetry ]OED[/url])

But I do mean that the fact that one side of the problem is larger than the other is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. I don't think anyone has suggested it is.

But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't discuss or try to tackle the much larger side of the problem because the smaller side also exists.

the other side being quite sensitive (ie neurotic)

Again this may be a definition thing. Perhaps you have a different definition of neurotic from your studies than most laypersons would use.

OED says: [i]neurotic (Medicine) Having, caused by, or relating to neurosis.
1.1 (in non-technical use) abnormally sensitive, obsessive, or anxious.

neurosis: A relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behaviour, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality.[/i]

I don't think you can label half the planet as abnormally sensitive or mildly mentally ill.

But I do mean that the fact that one side of the problem is larger than the other is irrelevant.

You could not be more wrong. You could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful.

Go away and get help.

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.

If men approaching women because they find them attractive isn’t ultimately because they’re looking for a mate then what is it for, anthropological speaking I mean?

THAT IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO DECIDE WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT. I

Sure I get that but then neither is it the other persons right either. It’s something that has to be negotiated by society, debated and argued over. It’s easy at the extremes; we can all look at what HW did and agree that it is deeply wrong. The problem arises in the grey areas in the middle.

A person can feel ‘harassed’ without another person necessarily being harassing. We have to find a way of accommodating that and not just put all of the power into the hands of the individual to decide if you’re guilty of a gross moral transgression.

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

The problem arises in the grey areas in the middle.

I don't think you can label half the planet as abnormally sensitive or mildly mentally ill.

Yeah I’m definitely not doing that. Everyone scores on being neuroticism to some degree. It’s sinply one of the big five personality traits you can identify in every person on the planet.

The issue isn’t that person a is ‘neurotic’ and person b isn’t. It’s the degree to which they demonstrate that predilection as measured against a normative group.

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

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.

Human behaviour isn't abstract. It's the most unabstract thing there is. Its the ultimate in reality. You can't sit and analyse raw human emotion.

It's your belief that its abstract that is clearly behind your totally dysfunctional and frankly pretty bloody disturbing attitude towards women

I'm not contributing any more to this thread. I'd suggest you don't either. You seriously need professional help! I'm not being funny, its no wonder your experiences in life, and your relationship with the opposite sex have been so 'challenging'. Your belief system is just so fundamentally wrong on so many levels. As someone with two daughters, it really worries me that there are people like you out there. I hope to god that the two sons you say you've got are more enlightened, and aren't having your frankly warped attitude to women passed on to them!

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:

[quote=GrahamS ]"Learn to read a f**g room." - not sure how my lack of social skills makes me a misogynist?

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 [b][u]ABSOLUTELY NOT[/u][/b] 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 [s]the two[/s] 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).

[quote=Edukator ]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.

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: [i]"Don't think you are innocent. If you have a penis you're a pig like the rest of them"[/i]

Of course if you express that then your point is dismissed for using the [i]"Not all men"[/i] 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.

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 [i]am[/i] 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?

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?

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 [i]"patronising"[/i] and being [i]"spoken to like we're children"[/i].

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

[img] [/img]

[quote=GrahamS ]Just been reading some the comments under the Guardian story

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]"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."[/i]

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.

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 ...?

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.

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 ..

[quote=geetee1972 ]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.

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 [b]are[/b] 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.