[Closed] #MeToo

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

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.

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,

Say what you want about these rapey blokes, they are certainly dedicated. Some don't even take a day off.

50% of 83000 = 41,500
288 men = 144 rapes per man per year.
315 - 288 = 27 men
41,500/27 = 1637 per man per year.

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.

Price's contention is questionable in its original context and hasn't been shown to apply outside that context either. However -

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

Here you appear to have obtained your figure of 288 very busy men by taking the square root of the output, not the population. If you're going to comb the internet to find any questionable theory that supports your argument at least do the sums properly.

I got as far as your maths and switched off.

That's because you're either ignorant or stupid or perhaps both. Either way you're not interested to engage in an actual exploration of the situation or the problem because it doesn't confirm to your view of the world.

It absolutely does not. It states that half of the scientific papers are contributed by the top square root of the total number of scientific authors.

Er yeah I know. I even referenced that in my post. Did you actually read it? Price's law has been shown to apply to many other populations as well though. If you look at the data on offending behaviour it fits very well to that.

Yeah, let's just dismiss all those

No let's just treat those separately as they are a separate problem. I am NOT dismissing them without debate, just not debating them here. They are a different problem that straddles a much broader swathe of problems in society where any one group is responsible for transgressions against another. Women are just as guiltu of that towards men - ask any man that has been through a messy divorce and he will tell you all about the micro-aggressions, hostility and outright biggotry that women are capable of.

If 288 men are responsible for 50% of the 83,000 rapes then you're saying that another 27 men (315-288) are responsible for the other 50%?

Well I'm suggesting it, offering it as a hypothesis if you like. It's very hard to know for sure and the actual figure could be as high as 2,300, which is about the number of rape cases that result in a conviction in a year (2016 data). We can either assume that rape is only ever committed once by a perpetrator, or we can reason that it's more than once.

If the frequency is either one or two, then the total number of men in a given year likely to commit rape (as defined by a jury) is vanishingly small, just 0.0007% of the male population.

This argument does not account for the fact that potentially up to 90% of rapes are not reported. If you factor that in and scale it up, you reach a population of men likely to commit rape that numbers 23,000 which is 0.07% of the population and that is before you factor in the reality that it is very unlikely that a man who has raped has only raped once. There is data on this you just have to take the time to find it like I have.

Look, for crying out loud, I'm not saying rape is not a problem! Far from it. Just that the way it's reported as being a 'problem with men/masculinity' is as ignorant, bias and prejudicial as tarring any group with the trangressions of a tiny minority.

Here you appear to have obtained your figure of 288 very busy men by taking the square root of the output, not the population

Yes true, a mistake. It would explain why the two sets of data seem vastly different.

Adjusted figures would be about 5600.

Say what you want about these rapey blokes, they are certainly dedicated. Some don't even take a day off.

This is also a good point but it's harder to pick apart. We should try though.

It's true you cannot simply abstract one year of data unless what you want to do is state that in one year what is the population that are likely to commit rape. Those are the figures I've produced so if you factor in a time frame over which the offending behaviour is likely to take place, you will get to a much larger number.

From my reading, it seems to be that the likely total number of men in an given population who might at some point commit rape is at most 9%. That number is obviously a lot higher than the other figures but it's still a very small minority and that is my ultimate point.

Why are we defining the problem as if it were a problem associated with 'men' rather than just 'some men'? And I think the answer to that question is political rather than issue based.

get this man a new spade. he's nearly worn this one out...

the way it's reported as being a 'problem with men/masculinity' is as ignorant, bias and prejudicial as tarring any group with the trangressions of a tiny minority.

Agreed. But you can't hope to argue that case by using obviously flawed mathematical assertions

True but then that's what the debate is all about.

So here's an interesting thought. If the number of men likely to rape or who have raped at some point in the past is materially higher than say 9% (let's say it's really high at 20%), then on this page alone, there are at least three rapists.

I know I'm not one so which of you is it?

I was to wolf whistle good and loud (I can't but that's neither here nor there) and 20 women heard it would they all be equally harassed by it? Do I need to bellow "Not you, her in the crocs!" each time? Is that more offensive?

I can't remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle*.

[i]
*With the exception of someone whistling at a dog to control sheep.[/i]

jimjam - Member
I can't remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle

"Not you, her in the crocs!"

You utter perv.

The problem is Geetee is that you've completely made up the "Just that the way it's reported as being a 'problem with men/masculinity' "

atlaz put it very well above in his middle para:

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.

It's a problem with society. Just think about how many men might have been slightly aware of Weinstein's actions, but didn't dig deeper because it's complicated, or he's powerful, etc. Similarly how many women knew that it had happened to them, but didn't mention it to their friends due to fear of being seen as 'trouble' or other reasons.

The whole point of the #metoo campaign it to try and break down these barriers so that people speak out in future.

So as you've completely made up the 'problem with men/masculinity', your arguments come across as trying to dismiss the potential benefits of wider acceptance that there is an issue that needs addressing.

scotroutes - Member

jimjam - Member
I can't remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle

Have you tried wearing high heels and a mini skirt?

Yeah, not so much as a second look. Bloody transmisogynist brickies round here.

If 5600 Muslim extremists blew themselves up, I think we'd be having a pretty big discussion about Islam.

it seems to be that the likely total number of men in an given population who might at some point commit rape is at most 9%

If it’s [b]ONLY 1 in 10 [/b]blokes who are rapists then yes, I can see why you aren’t concerned that it’s a “male” problem 🙄

Ffs, can you even hear what you are saying ?

jimjam - Member
I can't remember the last time I actually heard a wolf whistle*.

*With the exception of someone whistling at a dog to control sheep.

For the sake of brevity I deleted the fact that I can't whistle, forcing me to be forever at the purple faced and pursed lips end of the sexual predator spectrum. Like the autism spectrum, we're all on it, apparently...

OK let's simplify the numbers a little to make easier to engage with the idea I'm trying to get across here. I may be making mistakes but I can trust you all to identify those and maybe we will get to a better understanding of the problem as a result.

OK so there are a [u]reported [/u] 83,000 rapes a year. That's reported, not taken to trial and not convicted, just reported.

If the frequency of offending were just one to one, i.e. a man only ever rapes once, then over a 30 year period, that would put the total population of men who have this problem (i.e. that they are pathologically pre-disposed to rape) as being 7.5%.

Now, it's not remotely realistic to think that this is likely. Let's say the rate of offending behaviour is at least 1.5 instances per perpetrator. That would reduce the population of men displaying this pathology as being 5% (again over the same 30 year period).

Let's also now make a reasonable adjustment for age. We know that serial rapists are likely to offend over a very long period of time but they are also so tiny in number (of perpetrators) that no sane individual could use them to try and prove anything other than the fact that they are very dangerous individuals who should be locked up.

A large swathe of the problem lies in a narrower window of time, between the ages of 18 to say, 35, where men and women are single and the frequency of sexual encounters that have the potential to go wrong and result in rape are much higher. So let's define a window of say 15 years and use that to define the problem.

Then the number becomes 2.5%.

Again, you can attack me, you can slander me, you can say I need 'help', I really could give a ****, my point is that the story we are given is not reflective of men or masculinity. There is no crisis in masculinity, there is only a crisis with a small minority of men who demonstarte deeply predatory and pathological behaviour.

If you're not prepared to engage with an important idea/issue then take your rage elsewhere.

OK so there are a reported 83,000 rapes a year. That's reported, not taken to trial and not convicted, just reported.

Any rage on this thread appears to be yours. Possibly because you're being so poor at getting your point across.

I really could give a ****,

Are you American as well as being demented?

I thought GT's argument sounded familiar.... 😮

Niamh connolly: i hope this island isn't some hideaway for paedophile priests.

Father Ted: well Niamh, we're not all like that. Say there are 200 million priests in the world and 5 per cent of them are paedophiles, thats still only 10 million . . . .

[quote=geetee1972 ]OK let's simplify the numbers a little to make easier to engage with the idea I'm trying to get across here.

Whilst we all agree your maths is dodgy, we understand the point you're trying to make (badly), and the biggest problem isn't actually with your maths. I suggest going back to the start of this thread and reading through all the points other people are making and try to understand them, because you don't seem to be comprehending anything anybody else is saying.

A similar form of logic and reasoning being demonstrated here....

Outright racism is no longer socially acceptable because ALL of us shifted our behaviour away from accepting it as part of life.

this. And there always were - and still are - people saying, "But not all [ethnic majority] people are racist!!!!!!" because they feel insulted or attacked - but all the non-racists have a part to play in ensuring it is driven out, is no longer socially acceptable, even in minor forms. It's not just rapists, not just people who harass others that need to help out here.

One key factor is that, by discussing the issue more publicly, we become aware of abusive behaviours around us that we may not have noticed, or are so ingrained into society that everyone just takes it as standard.

So we should be changing our 'socialized behaviour'. This came up earlier in the thread, but you just can't keeping saying shit like this

Harassment (actual harassment, not misinterpreted advances or wolf whistles or other socialised behaviour whether you think it acceptable or not),

like you're the arbiter. Just because it's 'socialized' doesn't mean it's OK. It doesn't mean that it doesn't count or isn't hurtful, or doesn't have measurable effects on people's mental health.

We changed our behaviours with drink driving, with smoking around kids, with using casual racist slurs. We can do it with sexist slurs too, but people need to stop see it as an accusation and start seeing it as a challenge to make things better.

with using casual racist slurs. We can do it with sexist slurs too, but people need to stop see it as an accusation and start seeing it as a challenge to make things better.

People are still racist, people are still sexist

...and people still drink drive. It's definitely not all solved. But I used to hear my parents generation using words like '****' without a second thought. We've definitely made some progress from that, even if you do still hear bellends in football crowds that would prefer that we hadn't.

even if you do still hear bellends in football crowds that would prefer that we hadn't.

Good point - so even racism is something we need to keep working at.

[quote=doris5000 ]One key factor is that, by discussing the issue more publicly, we become aware of abusive behaviours around us that we may not have noticed, or are so ingrained into society that everyone just takes it as standard.

This - it's surprising just how much is going on when you start noticing properly. One eye opener for me though was the comments on FB from somebody I know well and trust implicitly about her experiences - I have to suspect that if these things happen to her they probably happen to most women. Hence I'm dubious about that 25% figure, it seems far too low to me.

Are you American as well as being demented?

Nice, real nice. Well me personally no, I'm not suffering from any kind of mental illness or neurosis though I have experienced periods of depression before and I have sought help, once voluntarily and once, when I was a child, to help with the situation I found myself in.

But otherwise no, quite sane, well adjusted and with a measured IQ in the roughly 85th percentile.

My father however has dementia so perhaps you meant him?

Do you think the conviction rate might be higher if society hadn't been so male dominated for centuries?

If there's one area where women have not been marginalised and men are treated particularly harshly it's the legal system. We are far more punitive towards male offenders than female ones. The low conviction rates almost certainly do not represent any inherent patriarchy and simply reflect the fact that in so many instances, the prosecution comes down to her word against his. 83% of reported rapes are committed by people the victim knows and likely a substantial portion of those are committed in situations where the degree to which the act was unambiguously rape probably very high. It’s a challenging situation and needs fixing in some way but so far no one has come up with a satisfactory answer. One thing I am 100% sure about, it’s got nothing to do with courts being sexist. Maybe it was 30 or 20 years ago, I just don’t believe that that is relevant now. But something is.

Whilst we all agree your maths is dodgy

It's not though. Do the sums for yourself and see what you get.

A similar form of logic and reasoning being demonstrated here....

It is exactly this.

I suggest going back to the start of this thread

So my original point was that the instances of 'low level' harassment, i.e. street harassment, work place harassment etc, where there is no actual assaault, is a problem that exists between both sexes. I used the word asymmetric in a metaphoric way, which caused problems, because I meant it to mean that it's not a one way issue. The problem is definitelyt not '50/50' but it's also not something that only women experience. To illustrate, the frequency with which men have used the #MeToo tag is about 30%. We don't know whether that's in solidarity or to signal a personal experience of harassment, but my general asking of all my male friends suggests it's more likely the latter.

There also seemed to be some broohaha about me questioning what the definition of harassment is.

Some people here were saying that the ONLY definition is what the person who feels harassed thinks. That's clearly wrong though; you can't possibly say that's right. The definition has to be socially agreed and there have to be reasonable limits on things.

I also copped some flack about the whole neuroticism thing. I'm simply going to repeat the vast amount of data that shows beyond question that men score overwhelmingly lower on agreeableness than women and women score overwhelmingly higher on neuroticism than men.

If you don't like the word neurocticism because of it's connotations we can call it something else, pick a word, how about 'liquorice allsorts'. Neuoticism is simply the predisposition to worry or feel anxious about things. I score very high on neuroticism relative to men, but still lower relative to women. I score very high on agreebleness compared to men (I'm very high on compassion but very low on politness as will come as no surprise). It doesn't mean all men or all women, just that there are patterns that might explain some of whart we see.

For example, if I approach a women in the street and ask to take a photograph of her, then if that women were particularly high 'liquorice allsorts' 😀 then she might well misinterpret that approach as harassment. It's not though is it. It's one person approaching another to engage with them.

Which brings us on to the other issue - men approaching women because they ultimately want sex. That was poorly worded in the context of the debate but it's 100% accurate in the context of the human race. What governs our behaviour is highly nuanced at an individual level and to some degree at a societeal level, but there are very recognisable patterns that are driven by the most basic elements of evolutionary biology.

Most men spend their late teens and 20s desperately trying to find a mate. It's hardwired into us; the whole act of courtship, from the first tentative appraoch to the final act of sex is driven by that need. Without it there wouldn't be 9bn people on the planet.

So my argument was a broad abstraction of a much bigger idea but a lot of people didn't get that and chose instead to be really rather nasty by suggesting I was mentally ill.

Think about that for a moment. If I really was, what kind of response would those nasty and uncompassionate remarks have? You realise that that is precisely how society creates monsters right; I mean every mass rapist, mass murderer has been made by a long process of alientation and disenfranchisement. Think about that for a moment.

Whilst we all agree your maths is dodgy

It's not though.

I'm out.

That's a shame.

Here's a challenge

1. Find a few 'red pill men' channels and read the content and replies

2. Find a few 'red pill women' channels and read the content and replies

3. See if you can eat your own fist.

Here's a challenge

Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand.

By the way have you seen the film 'The Red Pill'? It's quite interesting.

[i]Are you American as well as being demented?[/i]

[i]Nice, real nice. Well me personally no,[/i]

Sorry, that was rather below the belt. I know you're British

[quote=geetee1972 ]Think about that for a moment.

Do you a deal - you follow my advice and go back to the start of the thread and read [b]what other people are saying[/b] and you think about that. Because at the moment the communication with you seems to be a one way process.

Sorry, that was rather below the belt. I know you're British

OK so you're trying very hard to demonstrate that you're just a see you next Tuesday. Is that your aim?

You might not agree with me, but that's no justification for making a deeply personal attack on someone you don't agree with. That's what biggots and facists do. And that's before we address the use of the word 'demented' in such a pejorative way. How do you think that makes the numerous poeple on here who have a genuine challenge with their mental health?

read what other people are saying

I have done, that's what my last long post was aimed at addressing. Really I know a lot of what I said got misinterpreted, spun badly etc. I'm happy to accept that some of my arguments were poorly worded in the context, but that doesn't make them wrong.

So my argument was a broad abstraction of a much bigger idea but a lot of people didn't get that and chose instead to be really rather nasty by suggesting I was mentally ill.

Think about that for a moment. If I really was, what kind of response would those nasty and uncompassionate remarks have? You realise that that is precisely how society creates monsters right; I mean every mass rapist, mass murderer has been made by a long process of alientation and disenfranchisement. Think about that for a moment.

So even though it is often socially acceptable to question someone's sanity, if that person feels that it is targeted, overdone and constitutes abuse, there may be severe detrimental effects on them and we should consider the impact of it?

Some people here were saying that the ONLY definition is what the person who feels harassed thinks. That's clearly wrong though; you can't possibly say that's right. The definition has to be socially agreed and there have to be reasonable limits on things.

...But if a woman feels that something constitutes abuse, maybe she's just wrong?

GT, do you honestly think that these two positions don't directly contradict each other?

[quote=geetee1972 ]How do you think that makes the numerous poeple on here who have a genuine challenge with their mental health?

Some of us are 😆 - sorry 😳

Really I know a lot of what I said got misinterpreted, spun badly etc

Thank you for your heartfelt and sincere apologies

You might not agree with me, but that's no justification for making a deeply personal attack on someone you don't agree with.

...But if a woman feels that something constitutes abuse, maybe she's just wrong?

Well abuse is a strong word and I've never for one moment suggest that 'abuse' be something that rests just inside the mind of any individual.

Abuse suggests that a physical act took place that almost certainly consitutes assault.

I was talking about harassment where the act of harassment isn't clear cut as being thus; a misplaced 'hello' and 'hey can I get your number' a guy forced to stand too close to someone on the tube because it's packed.

I gave the example above of approaching a woman to ask if I can take a photogrpah of her (there's always context and an explanation if the person is willing to talk, I don't just walk up and ask can i take your picture). This has happened to me once or twice; I've approached the individual, said excuse me and been met with a very rude and dismissive response.

I'm quite sure that in the mind of that individual they would claim I was harassing them. Do you think that's what happened?

GT, do you honestly not feel that these two positions directly contradict each other?

So in answer to this no I don't because I'm separating 'abuse' from 'harassment' based on them not being the same thing and the potential for ambiguity and misinterpretation.

But you make a valid point I think, which is you do have to be careful of what you say and to whom and going about the world and your engagement in it assuming a perspective of compassion and empathy is definitely something we should all try to do.

Many people have suggested you need some help, I have to agree

I know I read what they said. I re-read what I said. I have also checked out what I said with a number of people and the feedback is that my points are entirely valid.

I have no problem if you have a negsative opinion of me; it's a shame because I think almost everyone has something really interesting to offer and most people are inherently good people. I guess you and I won't be sharing a beer any time soon.

But, and I mean this sincerely since I almost certainly have a blind spot somewhere, can we do this.

Tell me what exactly it is I said that caused offence or made you think I need help and I will either acknowledge it as a mistake and offer an apology or else try to re-phrase it in a way that results in us either agreeing or agreeing to disagree.

[img] [/img]

Tell me what exactly it is I said that caused offence or made you think I need help and I will either acknowledge it as a mistake and offer an apology or else try to re-phrase it in a way that results in us either agreeing or agreeing to disagree.

I've never met a woman who has never been made to feel scared for their wellbeing in the street due to unwanted advances

[b]geetee1972[/b]
That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

My point is this.

ITS NOT AN ASYMMETRIC PROBLEM!

Stop making out like it is. Plenty of men, myself included, have been victims of assault and harassment by women, many times.

We could go on but start there

Good lord. Never has so much shit been written by one man in such a short period of time.

doris5000 - Member

And there always were - and still are - people saying, "But not all [ethnic majority] people are racist!!!!!!" because they feel insulted or attacked - but all the non-racists have a part to play in ensuring it is driven out, is no longer socially acceptable, even in minor forms. It's not just rapists, not just people who harass others that need to help out here.

One key factor is that, by discussing the issue more publicly, we become aware of abusive behaviours around us that we may not have noticed, or are so ingrained into society that everyone just takes it as standard.

So we should be changing our 'socialized behaviour'. This came up earlier in the thread, but you just can't keeping saying shit like this

Just because it's 'socialized' doesn't mean it's OK. It doesn't mean that it doesn't count or isn't hurtful, or doesn't have measurable effects on people's mental health.

We changed our behaviours with drink driving, with smoking around kids, with using casual racist slurs. We can do it with sexist slurs too, but people need to stop see it as an accusation and start seeing it as a challenge to make things better.

This is an interesting test and it certainly made me question some of my ingrained thought process on race ect...

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

OK fair enough, thank you (sincerely) for engaging.

So the issue of neuroticism. It's important to separate out the cause and the effect.

The evidence is that a lot of women feel scared for their wellbeing in the street on a regular basis. I accept that this is a self reported fact.

Now we ask, what causes this?

It could be because they are experiencing genuinely predatory behaviour and they are right to feel scared.

Or it could be that they are prone to feeling highly anxious and tend to worry about things more than external environment would justify.

We have to first accept that these two explanations are at least possible. If you don't accept that, then we aren't going to reconcile our respective points of view. But let's assume that's not the case.

Think of this situation.

You're terrified of flying to the point that it's debilitating. There's no evidence to suggest that that fear is justified because flying is the safest form of travel right? So your 'fear' is rooted in neurosis (someone on here started a thread on exactly this).

That neurosis is just something we experience and it causes us to fear things that other people might not.

In this instance of women fearing for their safety on the street, consider this:

Men are far more likely to be the victims of violence in this situation by a very large factor, I think somethling like three or four times more likely.

Men don't tend to report this feeling of fear or insecurity despite the evidence to suggest that they should. Why?

Because men are less likely to score high on 'liquorice allsorts' (neuroticism but let's take the politics out of the word) than women. And conversely it makes them more likely to take risks.

Ironcially the reason men are more likely to be the victims of violence (that is more likely to be perpetrated by men) is because they score far lower on agreeableness. They are much more OK with hurting people whereas women aren't.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying women are 'neurotic' far from it (and I made that exact point on thursday) and I'm not saying that all those expressed fears are unfounded. I am saying that 'SOME' of that fear will be the product of that predisposition towards anxiety though and if that offends you, I'm sorry, it's just a fact of life.

OK so regarding the 'asymmetry' point, I have fully addressed that above. We will probably have to respectfully disagree on this one.

Good lord. Never has so much shit been written by one man in such a short period of time.

Well if you can't keep up intellectually Zokes, I suggest you just excuse yourself and **** off.

The evidence is that a lot of women feel scared for their wellbeing in the street on a regular basis. I accept that this is a self reported fact.

Now we ask, what causes this?

Men are far more likely to be the victims of violence in this situation by a very large factor, I think somethling like three or four times more likely.

Men don't tend to report this feeling of fear or insecurity despite the evidence to suggest that they should. Why?

OK so regarding the 'asymmetry' point, I have fully addressed that above. We will probably have to respectfully disagree on this one.

Well if you can't keep up intellectually Zokes, I suggest you just excuse yourself and **** off.

Distilling salient points from a large amount of irrelevant text is actually quite a rare skill. As you can see from my post about your turgid shite, thankfully it's one that I possess. I think quite a few others have it too, judging by their collective responses.

If only you spent as much time reading as you clearly do on typing lessons.

you're just a see you next Tuesday

Nice, thanks.

Just because you believe that you can argue a point well doesn't make you right. You can hurl all the slightly dodgy facts (that back up your side of the argument) at the screen that you like, you'll continue to come across as a right sausage because, deep down, your argument is that women are inferior.

At the very best you are a dyed-in-the wool sexist, whether that is due to your upbringing (I believe you told us earlier in the thread that you were abused, my apologies if I remember incorrectly) I expect we'll never know.

My accusation that you were demented is due to your complete inability to consider or give credence to another's point of view. Demented could maybe be honed slightly, though you definitely have some issues.

I seriously suggest visiting someone who can help you as I'm sure some of the issues that we see on the forum must spill over into, and have a negative effect on, your personal life.

All the very best, I'll leave this thread now.

You sausage.

Yes you are wrong on that one and have chosen to try and interpret the facts in a false way.

Well if we are to take the evidence of the #MeToo campaign then of the total set of people that have experienced either harassment or assault, roughly two thirds are women and one third are men.

So no, not symmetric. But then also not remotely the balance of the problem that you have been led to believe.

As you can see from my post about your turgid shite, thankfully it's one that I possess

Aha, let me guess, you're a journalist.

That's because you're either ignorant or stupid or perhaps both. Either way you're not interested to engage in an actual exploration of the situation or the problem because it doesn't confirm to your view of the world.

As far as I see it you have several problems in this thread:

1, Your insistence that something is being said when it's not (i.e. all men are closet rapists and we are all assaulting women)
2, Your attempt to assert a conclusion based around maths which, whilst calculated correctly (if I accept you accept the mistake you made), is clearly NOT true
3, Your unwillingness you listen to any concept other than your own. I'm happy to call bullshit on your maths and I don't, honestly, care that you think I'm ignorant and stupid but you rarely address any points that don't fit your world view.

Fundamentally, most of the posters do not agree with you. No amount of weaselling around this fact will change it. NOBODY is saying that there's an epidemic of men assaulting or harassing women but the experience of women suggests it is a long-term, insidious problem that needs addressing. Either you can accept that and we might be interested in debating the volume of men we need to bury in shallow graves or you can continue trying to minimise the issue. Name-call all you want, it doesn't stop you being wrong in large parts of what you're writing.

deep down, your argument is that women are inferior

WOW! where on earth did you get that notion from?

and your comment that women's neurocy is making more alleged victims?

WOW! where on earth did you get that notion from

Pick any one of the several thousand lines of tripe you've just inflicted on us.

Wow geetee.
Just unbelievable.
I'm glad others have the time to pick apart the bollocks, because my open-mouthed incredulity is preventing me

1, Your insistence that something is being said when it's not (i.e. all men are closet rapists and we are all assaulting women)

OK no one here is saying that I grant you. But that argument is being made elsewhere.

NOBODY is saying that there's an epidemic of men assaulting or harassing women but the experience of women suggests it is a long-term, insidious problem that needs addressing

OK so then we do broadly speaking agree.

Where it happens it is a problem and needs addressing. I agree 100%.
I agree that there is a lot of normalised behaviour that some men display that falls into this category. I think the percentage of men that do this is probably very large. To illustrate, I would regard a guy calling out 'show us yer tits love' as being an example of this and if I heard it, I would challenge it. I think that's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I think these fall into the set of what has been referred to as 'micro-aggressions', which is a useful term to use. But I also think that women have their own set of micro-aggressions towards men. They're often different. Sometimes they are the same but they are often a different set of behaviours.

Where does this leave us then? Do we broadly agree?

WOW! where on earth did you get that notion from?

GT this may come as a surprise but that's actually how you come across on here.

and your comment that women's neurocy is making more alleged victims?

Oh for crying out loud why why why? Did you read my explanation of this, the one that relates to the fear of flying example?

Please, if you disagree with that explanation outline where you don't agree.

Where it happens it is a problem and needs addressing. I agree 100%.
I agree that there is a lot of normalised behaviour that some men display that falls into this category. I think the percentage of men that do this is probably very large.

I think these fall into the set of what has been referred to as 'micro-aggressions', which is a useful term to use.

But I also think that women have their own set of micro-aggressions towards men. They're often different. Sometimes they are the same but they are often a different set of behaviours.

Where does this leave us then? Do we broadly agree?

Oh for crying out loud why why why? Did you read my explanation of this, the one that relates to the fear of flying example?

GT this may come as a surprise but that's actually how you come across on here.

OK well apologies, but you're wrong, nothing is further from the truth. I think that's what happens when two people/groups of people approach the same issue with vastly different thought processes. I can’t possibly expect to determine how you chose to interpret me though of course I can influence it and it’s cause and effect to some degree so I accept some responsibility for the outcome but really it's just not true.

I'm glad others have the time to pick apart the bollocks, because my open-mouthed incredulity is preventing me

Yup, that's pretty much where I'm at. I thought I'd seen it all with Jamby's nonsense on the Brexit thread, but geetee has really upped the ante when it comes to delusional obfuscation here.

OK well apologies, but you're wrong, nothing is further from the truth.

You are not the best arbiter of how you come across to others.

OK well apologies, but you're wrong, nothing is further from the truth.

If in the rest of your world (non-STW) everyone considers that you hold men and women in comparable esteem, and are systematically respectful to both in equal amounts, then you can just chalk it up to STW being a weird place and move on. But I do think you'd get something out of taking a step back and trying to understand why you come across as such a misogynist here, and if you do feel strongly that it's wildly misrepresentative of you as a real person it will probably give you some ideas of how your behaviour differs here, and maybe give you a chance to change the perception of people here; not by trotting out pseudo-science and opinion as fact, but by behaving differently.

If not just move along - there are too many people who (strongly in many cases) disagree with you on this thread for it to be worthwhile continuing the way you have so far.

Men are still in charge of 90% of our businesses or organisations, governments and the rest

Did you see this?

[url= https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/10/economist-explains-12 ]The Economist on the gender pay gap[/url]

It helps partly explain why that is the case. I am not saying that there isn't truth in what you're saying, I think there is something in it, but how things are and why they are that way is probably not what you would expect.

The fact that there are more men in very senior positions in comapnies and government (it's very high, I don't think it's 90% anymore but I accept it's still very high) does not by defgault mean we live in unfair, discriminatory patriarchial society. It 'might' but that's only a hypoethesis. Just as likely is that we live in a world where men and women make very different choices about the lives they lead.

Porbably the reality is a bit of both. There is undoubtedly discrimination and there is undoubtedly a lot difference in choices that men and women make.

The fact that there are more men in very senior positions in comapnies and government (it's very high, I don't think it's 90% anymore but I accept it's still very high) does not by defgault mean we live in unfair, discriminatory patriarchial society. It 'might' but that's only a hypoethesis. Just as likely is that we live in a world where men and women make very different choices about the lives they lead.

To some extent, geetee, you have to acknowledge that though you may like to think it's not true if a large number of individuals happen to hold that opinion about one single person, there's a reason

Yes I do, and the comments made here really bothered me, which is why I spent the weekend checking this out with as many people who really know me as possible and they all told me the same thing.

I know what I am and how I am. I know what my neuroses are, my character flaws and failings and I am open enough to be able to tell you what they are.

In the context of this thread, they are a predisposition to be beligerant with my arguments, to be very dogmatic, to find it hard to see the other person's point of view. I accept that but for as long as those as the only things I'm being accused of, then every response here (that isn't a personal attack, and there have been a lot of those) has the potential to change my mind.

But the one thing I am not, is a mysogninist.

geetee1972, there is something genuinely disturbing in the lengths which you have gone to on this thread to justify your statements and by implication your own attitudes to women. Normal self-doubt means that most people, when they find they are so out of step with what people around them are saying, will usually stop and think and ask themselves whether they are wrong, and there will be a period of reflection and introspection. They might ask questions to clarify what others are saying, but they are otherwise fairly quiet.

Your response to being told by pretty much every other person on this thread that you are wrong, has been to seek evidence and and construct arguments to justify your views, going to quite obsessive lengths with some of your 'analysis', statistical and otherwise.

But, and I mean this sincerely since I almost certainly have a blind spot somewhere, can we do this.

Your desire to keep this thread running and discussing you/your views and beliefs, itself seems to me to be unhealthy. Rather than persisting in posting on this thread, I suggest you read the Mumsnet thread linked to earlier on, and then read it again. There are probably other similar threads on Mumsnet that you can find detailing women's experience of rape and sexual abuse - read them. While you are reading, try to imagine what it must be like for them. Take some time to think about that. Until you have done so, I would suggest you don't post any more on this thread.

Put it this way geetee. If I were a woman reading this thread, I'd probably thinking.
"Great, just when we thought we were making progress, along comes someone trying to diminish/dismiss/derail it".

Every post comes across as
"I accept that there may be a problem, but..."

Do you understand why that might be a problem?

Come back with proof....

OK but you're not going to agree with the proof so is there any point?

The article by The Economist proves beyond doubt that there is no statisticallty significant difference in what men and women earn when they do the same jobs.

Further the difference in choice women and men make is discussed here:

[url= http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf ]Men and Things, Women and People[/url]

Now what is interesting is why the roles that women tend to choose are paid less than the ones that men tend to choose. THAT'S a question.

It also needs to be cited that the way society regards fathers (with great disparity and discrimination) is a big part of this problem.

Your response to being told by pretty much every other person on this thread

Hardly a representative sample. If i were to step into a room with a bunch of third wave feminists and expect anything other than a hostile response I'd be crazy. As I said before, I've checked out my ideas with a lot of other people I know personally and I get a very different response.

I suspect that the people arguing with me on this thread are doing so because they vehemently disagree with me.

Your desire to keep this thread running and discussing you/your views and beliefs, itself seems to me to be unhealthy.

I've always believed that debate is very healthy and besides, there are a lot of other people on this thread as well so if you're right, then we all need help.

OK but you're not going to agree with the proof so is there any point?

The article by The Economist proves beyond doubt that there is no statisticallty significant difference in what men and women earn when they do the same jobs.

Now what is interesting is why the roles that women tend to choose are paid less than the ones that men tend to choose. THAT'S a question.

It also needs to be cited that the way society regards fathers (with great disparity and discrimination) is a big part of this problem.

As usual, amongst all the personal abuse - both sides have some valid points although geetee clearly has less of them, but it's all lost in increasing polarisation and ridiculous shrieking.

As for the Guardian article, I agree with most of it except...

If a woman tells you that you ****ed up, and you feel like shit, don’t put it on that woman to make you feel better. Apologize without qualification and then go away.

If I as a man, tell another male that he ****ed up - I do not expect him to make an unreserved apology and go away. I expect him to defend himself if he feels he did not **** up, the "my way of the highway" attitude creates hugely dysfunctional teams. That attitude does nothing to counter the stereotyped view of how females approach arguments (ie you can't win, so dont listen).

I'd also add that I fear that Guardian may just turn off more males to the issues that women face, than it will convince.

It does but how does that impact the problems of habitual sexual abuse that id factually going on.

Well it doesn't but I thought we'd moved on from that and were now talking about the work place and the decisions men and women make regarding their career.

people with the same jobs and pay has nothing to do with the disparity of people in those positions.

If you're doing the same job and you're being paid the same amount for it, where is the disparity?

never mind.

You're going to be needing this before long. The one you're using must be worn out by now...

[img] ?v=20160306[/img]

If I as a man, tell another male that he * up - I do not expect him to make an unreserved apology and go away. I expect him to defend himself if he feels he did not * up, the "my way of the highway" attitude creates hugely dysfunctionl teams. I feel that this is why workplace spats amongst males end more quickly than they do betwern female colleagues.... but hey.

If you're doing the same job and you're being paid the same amount for it, where is the disparity?

If i were to step into a room with a bunch of third wave feminists and expect anything other than a hostile response I'd be crazy

Third wave feminism promotes ownership of reproductive rights, better employment rights, and opposition to physical/ sexual abuse.