Holy sexism, batman!
Replies
-
One last thing before I get back to reading.
This shows how significant false rape claims are compared to false murder and other crimes.
Jaysus. Operationally define 'unfounding rate' (as it was defined in what you are reading) and give an example for what that means in murder and robbery, please.0 -
One last thing before I get back to reading.
This shows how significant false rape claims are compared to false murder and other crimes.
Jaysus. Operationally define 'unfounding rate' (as it was defined in what you are reading) and give an example for what that means in murder and robbery, please.
Unfounded simply meant it was false or there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim. The author is British so some of the wording is different. For murder or robbery it would mean a false claim such as "so-and-so stole this item from me" when in fact the item wasn't stolen from them. Cases that had any evidence at all were put into the "founded" category. So there is a chance that a few legit cases are in that percentage but it's a pretty small chance.0 -
The fact that a woman can't go about her business in the evening without feeling threatened is a sign that sexism is alive and well. Why would she feel threatened by guys 'just looking' or 'admiring' if there weren't too many men with a habit of harassing and assaulting women? Look up the figures for the proportion of women who have been assaulted anywhere in the world. Of course if we were being entirely logical, the fear should be directed more towards acquaintances, but that's not the way fear and intimidation work.
How come everyone is suggesting self-defence classes/body-language cues for the woman or trying to downplay the guys' demeanour without addressing how to make men socialise with women appropriately without making them fearful for their safety?
It infuriates me that this woman had to tell her mother and boyfriend where she was going just to leave her house. You may claim that she is being oversensitive or fearful but we all know that her reactions are entirely reasonable.
How come no one seems to be saying of the men above: if you'admire' a woman, don't choose one trying to get into her house in the evening in a quiet stairwell, don't cat call, and don't stand there gawking/drooling openly as how is she supposed to work out what your next move may be?
For what it is worth, I am rarely the subject of this kind of behaviour and the few times it has happened I have rarely felt worried about my safety because I am more than capable of looking after myself and handling idiots. Nevertheless, it is still nauseating, degrading and disturbing. There is no sense of self-esteem to be gained from being viewed/treated like a piece of meat.
THIS.
Anybody claiming that this incident was not based in sexism quite frankly doesn't know what sexism is.
right, so every drunk a-hole "hollering" at a girl is a sexist…
I love how this thread has devolved into a bunch of feminists all screaming "I am woman hear me roar" ….LOL get over yourselves..peoples are a-holes, d-bags, whatever..does not make them sexist...0 -
I don't want to get into all the points addressed here or the OP. I read most of the way through the thread and just do not have the time to read the rest.
There is just one thing I want to say. I don't understand why people think that discussions about consent should not be an important aspect of sex education and rape prevention programs. It is extremely important for both genders to understand consent. And I don't understand why you would think that all people received that education at home in a healthy way.
Girls need education to understand what consent is, so that they can minimize any potential confusion for themselves or others. People that grew up with sexual abuse do not know what consent is, and need to learn what it is. They need to learn to identify what they do and don't want, so they can have enjoyable, fun, passionate sex. They need to know that when they say no and they are forced that it is rape. If a girl grows up being raped at home, she does not understand that concept. If your father teaches you from the time that you are young that you can't say no, and continues to rape you no matter what you do to protest, you are being taught the opposite of what healthy, loving parents teach their children. That's not the child's fault. Yes, there should be discussions of what consent is in sex education. This also applies to boys that have been sexually abused.
And boys need to get proper education about consent. It's wonderful if all of you growing up as boys knew what consent was, but not everyone does. Sometimes kids learn about sex from peers, and not from adults. And sometimes boys can teach each other that the goal is to get sex however they can. These boys are not horrendous criminals. They are teenagers that just need proper education about sex, just like they need education about all kinds of other stuff. Why would people not need proper sex education? And why would consent not be a part of that? Now, with social media, we see it happening (just as it always has before social media). Boys sexually assaulting girls that are passed out drunk. I think that any healthy person can agree that if a girl is passed out unconscious that it is not ok for a boy or group of boys to assault her and take video and photos of her. We need to teach this to people when they are young and interested in sex, but not yet fully educated in a healthy way.
Is it fair to boys or girls not to teach them about consent? No, it isn't. It is for the benefit of boys and girls in many different ways to have proper sexual education which should include discussions about pleasure and consent. Without that education many lives get ruined.
Also, some people in this thread have very old, outdated and wrong information about the legal definition of rape. And, btw, in the United States the FBI definition was very recently expanded. You are not going to get accurate information on this by doing a google search. I have first hand experience with the legal system in regards to the definition of what rape is. Even if someone told you that info and they worked in the field, they are wrong and are giving you wrong and outdated information and are in need of furthering their current education. And the definitions do vary somewhat from country to country and state to state, but it does not vary that widely. Furthermore, the crime of sexual assault is prosecutable no matter what the legal definition is. Although just because a case is not prosecutable (due to statutes or evidence, etc) does not mean the crime was not committed. That is a separate issue, and the victim/survivor still needs support and healing and to talk about it.
People are very uneducated about the meaning of the definitions. A lot of people don't even know what statutory rape actually means. It means that the person assaulted was under the age of consent (varies from place to place, but often around the age of 15), and the person that committed the crime was over the age of consent with at least a certain amount of age difference from the victim (it varies, but off the too of my head I think it is about 4 years or more). But, if an adult man rapes a 5 year old child, it will often be prosecuted as statutory rape. The reason is because since the child is so young, they do not need to argue whether she consented or not because she was completely powerless in that situation and was not able to consent (especially if the offender was in a parenting role and lived with the child). Yes, there are times when the statutory rape charge is misused (imo), but that is not the case for the charge as a whole. It does not mean the child consented.
I'm only bringing this up in response to the direction that the thread went in.0 -
Here's a nice little quote about that 2% figure that a lot of the radical feminists throw around from time to time. (not specifically saying people in this thread)
Edit: If the cut off ends of words annoy you just copy the link into a new tab. Too lazy to resize it lol0 -
The fact that a woman can't go about her business in the evening without feeling threatened is a sign that sexism is alive and well. Why would she feel threatened by guys 'just looking' or 'admiring' if there weren't too many men with a habit of harassing and assaulting women? Look up the figures for the proportion of women who have been assaulted anywhere in the world. Of course if we were being entirely logical, the fear should be directed more towards acquaintances, but that's not the way fear and intimidation work.
How come everyone is suggesting self-defence classes/body-language cues for the woman or trying to downplay the guys' demeanour without addressing how to make men socialise with women appropriately without making them fearful for their safety?
It infuriates me that this woman had to tell her mother and boyfriend where she was going just to leave her house. You may claim that she is being oversensitive or fearful but we all know that her reactions are entirely reasonable.
How come no one seems to be saying of the men above: if you'admire' a woman, don't choose one trying to get into her house in the evening in a quiet stairwell, don't cat call, and don't stand there gawking/drooling openly as how is she supposed to work out what your next move may be?
For what it is worth, I am rarely the subject of this kind of behaviour and the few times it has happened I have rarely felt worried about my safety because I am more than capable of looking after myself and handling idiots. Nevertheless, it is still nauseating, degrading and disturbing. There is no sense of self-esteem to be gained from being viewed/treated like a piece of meat.
THIS.
Anybody claiming that this incident was not based in sexism quite frankly doesn't know what sexism is.
right, so every drunk a-hole "hollering" at a girl is a sexist…
I love how this thread has devolved into a bunch of feminists all screaming "I am woman hear me roar" ….LOL get over yourselves..peoples are a-holes, d-bags, whatever..does not make them sexist...
Yes. This.0 -
why don't women ice skate? because there is no ice between the bedroom and kitchen. *high five*
::slips off bar stool while trying to high five guy next to him who doesn't even have his hand raised::
high fives as drunkenly hollering at two hot babes who need to cook my dinner and wash my clothes….0 -
One last thing before I get back to reading.
This shows how significant false rape claims are compared to false murder and other crimes.
Jaysus. Operationally define 'unfounding rate' (as it was defined in what you are reading) and give an example for what that means in murder and robbery, please.
Unfounded simply meant it was false or there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim. The author is British so some of the wording is different. For murder or robbery it would mean a false claim such as "so-and-so stole this item from me" when in fact the item wasn't stolen from them. Cases that had any evidence at all were put into the "founded" category. So there is a chance that a few legit cases are in that percentage but it's a pretty small chance.
No, it includes cases where the accuser refuses to cooperate and cases where not enough evidence is available to go toward prosecution. Different departments may have stricter standards on what they consider 'unfounded', as is always true when using the Uniform Crime Report Data on Index Crimes. It's an enormously difficult database to try to compile due to differing standards, but they do a pretty good job.
I'd think that if an active investigation of a robbery or murder lead nowhere, many departments would be less apt to close that case with the 'unfounded' marker. They probably believe the person was robbed (or murdered, lol) and just note that there was no main suspect, etc. Big difference between 'cold' and 'unfounded', though! Too bad departments are allowed to decide that rape accusations are unfounded when they are equivalent to a case gone cold or unprosecutable.
Now, I believe some are really unfounded. Don't get me wrong there. It's a data problem, and it's helped out by perceptions about the crime compared to other crimes. People believe a robbery with nobody punished still probably occurred. They think a rape gone that way is a woman lying.0 -
One last thing before I get back to reading.
This shows how significant false rape claims are compared to false murder and other crimes.
Jaysus. Operationally define 'unfounding rate' (as it was defined in what you are reading) and give an example for what that means in murder and robbery, please.
Unfounded simply meant it was false or there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim. The author is British so some of the wording is different. For murder or robbery it would mean a false claim such as "so-and-so stole this item from me" when in fact the item wasn't stolen from them. Cases that had any evidence at all were put into the "founded" category. So there is a chance that a few legit cases are in that percentage but it's a pretty small chance.
No, it includes cases where the accuser refuses to cooperate and cases where not enough evidence is available to go toward prosecution. Different departments may have stricter standards on what they consider 'unfounded', as is always true when using the Uniform Crime Report Data on Index Crimes. It's an enormously difficult database to try to compile due to differing standards, but they do a pretty good job.
I'd think that if an active investigation of a robbery or murder lead nowhere, many departments would be less apt to close that case with the 'unfounded' marker. They probably believe the person was robbed (or murdered, lol) and just note that there was no main suspect, etc. Big difference between 'cold' and 'unfounded', though! Too bad departments are allowed to decide that rape accusations are unfounded when they are equivalent to a case gone cold or unprosecutable.
Now, I believe some are really unfounded. Don't get me wrong there. It's a data problem, and it's helped out by perceptions about the crime compared to other crimes. People believe a robbery with nobody punished still probably occurred. They think a rape gone that way is a woman lying.
No that's a different category called "no crime"
Maybe the terminology has changed in the past 7 years since this article was written but they made it clear that there was a distinct difference between unfounded and no crime.
Edit: now that I think of it "no crime" might be a sub category of "unfounded", I'll have to go back and check in the morning. Things are getting kind of hazy right now from pain meds. Surgery of peace.0 -
One last thing before I get back to reading.
This shows how significant false rape claims are compared to false murder and other crimes.
Jaysus. Operationally define 'unfounding rate' (as it was defined in what you are reading) and give an example for what that means in murder and robbery, please.
Unfounded simply meant it was false or there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim. The author is British so some of the wording is different. For murder or robbery it would mean a false claim such as "so-and-so stole this item from me" when in fact the item wasn't stolen from them. Cases that had any evidence at all were put into the "founded" category. So there is a chance that a few legit cases are in that percentage but it's a pretty small chance.
No, it includes cases where the accuser refuses to cooperate and cases where not enough evidence is available to go toward prosecution. Different departments may have stricter standards on what they consider 'unfounded', as is always true when using the Uniform Crime Report Data on Index Crimes. It's an enormously difficult database to try to compile due to differing standards, but they do a pretty good job.
I'd think that if an active investigation of a robbery or murder lead nowhere, many departments would be less apt to close that case with the 'unfounded' marker. They probably believe the person was robbed (or murdered, lol) and just note that there was no main suspect, etc. Big difference between 'cold' and 'unfounded', though! Too bad departments are allowed to decide that rape accusations are unfounded when they are equivalent to a case gone cold or unprosecutable.
Now, I believe some are really unfounded. Don't get me wrong there. It's a data problem, and it's helped out by perceptions about the crime compared to other crimes. People believe a robbery with nobody punished still probably occurred. They think a rape gone that way is a woman lying.
No that's a different category called "no crime"
Maybe the terminology has changed in the past 7 years since this article was written but they made it clear that there was a distinct difference between unfounded and no crime.
I don't understand the distinction that the author might've been pointing out, unless he means there was actual proof that there was no rape. In either case, the woman is expected to be lying, I'd think. My point is that 'unfounded' really shouldn't lead people to believe that the woman made a false allegation (in every case in that category). With proof, I could totally see a 'no crime' category, and that would be a false allegation.
Without proof, it could boil down to not having evidence of a rape, for example. That doesn't mean a rape didn't occur, so it doesn't mean it was a false allegation.0 -
One last thing before I get back to reading.
This shows how significant false rape claims are compared to false murder and other crimes.
Jaysus. Operationally define 'unfounding rate' (as it was defined in what you are reading) and give an example for what that means in murder and robbery, please.
Unfounded simply meant it was false or there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim. The author is British so some of the wording is different. For murder or robbery it would mean a false claim such as "so-and-so stole this item from me" when in fact the item wasn't stolen from them. Cases that had any evidence at all were put into the "founded" category. So there is a chance that a few legit cases are in that percentage but it's a pretty small chance.
No, it includes cases where the accuser refuses to cooperate and cases where not enough evidence is available to go toward prosecution. Different departments may have stricter standards on what they consider 'unfounded', as is always true when using the Uniform Crime Report Data on Index Crimes. It's an enormously difficult database to try to compile due to differing standards, but they do a pretty good job.
I'd think that if an active investigation of a robbery or murder lead nowhere, many departments would be less apt to close that case with the 'unfounded' marker. They probably believe the person was robbed (or murdered, lol) and just note that there was no main suspect, etc. Big difference between 'cold' and 'unfounded', though! Too bad departments are allowed to decide that rape accusations are unfounded when they are equivalent to a case gone cold or unprosecutable.
Now, I believe some are really unfounded. Don't get me wrong there. It's a data problem, and it's helped out by perceptions about the crime compared to other crimes. People believe a robbery with nobody punished still probably occurred. They think a rape gone that way is a woman lying.
No that's a different category called "no crime"
Maybe the terminology has changed in the past 7 years since this article was written but they made it clear that there was a distinct difference between unfounded and no crime.
I don't understand the distinction that the author might've been pointing out, unless he means there was actual proof that there was no rape. In either case, the woman is expected to be lying, I'd think. My point is that 'unfounded' really shouldn't lead people to believe that the woman made a false allegation (in every case in that category). With proof, I could totally see a 'no crime' category, and that would be a false allegation.
Without proof, it could boil down to not having evidence of a rape, for example. That doesn't mean a rape didn't occur, so it doesn't mean it was a false allegation.
"No crime" was if there wasn't enough evidence to support the claim. As I just edited above I'm getting kind of hazy right now, "Unfounded" may have be a larger category that "no crime" and "false accusation" were a part of. I'll re-read those pages in the morning when my head is clear.0 -
Sweet baby Jesus, just eight more posts and this derailed thread will mercifully roll off my "last 25 topics" list.0
-
let it roll, let it roll, let it roll...Sweet baby Jesus, just eight more posts and this derailed thread will mercifully roll off my "last 25 topics" list.0 -
I'm here for the free rolls0
-
based on this thread..any drunk guy that ever hit on a woman is sexist…sounds legit...0
-
I'm here for the free rolls
0 -
0 -
I'm here for the free rolls
Almost there!!0 -
I'm I going to be part of a roll? I never have been
I'll just drop this here for anyone interested in the 'unfounded' debate. Read past the first part, because the sources and things on in look solid.
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/acquaintsa/participant/allegations.pdf0 -
0 -
in…for the sexist roll0
-
in…for the sexist roll
love it!0 -
in0
-
in…for the sexist roll
IN
0 -
People who don't want to be perceived as threatening should probably avoid yelling and whistling at strangers in the street.
I am willing to believe that many of the people on this thread would be uncomfortable if someone "unappealing" were the one yelling and catcalling. If a great big man were yelling about how sexy you are. (Not all men would be offended, but some of them would be unsettled by a man yelling at them in the street.)
If you think someone is attractive and just want to admire, do it silently if you are worried about not being seen as a jerk. Some people like it, some don't. We don't have any way of knowing who is who, and there is no obligation to make strangers feel good about themselves through the cat calling.
If you think someone is attractive and are interested enough to start a conversation, walk up and talk to them. Like a person of equal worth.
If you think someone is attractive and wish you could talk to them, but you know the situation could be seen as threatening, (walking up to someone in the dark when no one else is around), move along.
There's a huge difference between attraction and an attempt to establish a connection and randomly evaluating a stranger's body. It's not illegal, just very entitled.
(FWIW, all the women I know who have been pregnant have also had to use sick and vacation time. The Family Leave act applies to men and women for new babies, but it doesn't require pay, just no loss of employment.)0 -
I am willing to believe that many of the people on this thread would be uncomfortable if someone "unappealing" were the one yelling and catcalling. If a great big man were yelling about how sexy you are. (Not all men would be offended, but some of them would be unsettled by a man yelling at them in the street.)
If you think someone is attractive and just want to admire, do it silently if you are worried about not being seen as a jerk. Some people like it, some don't. We don't have any way of knowing who is who, and there is no obligation to make strangers feel good about themselves through the cat calling.
Like a person of equal worth.
just very entitled.
Do you get your life perspective from Jezebel and gender studies? Gender studies explains the motivations of catcallers so well (just the male ones of course) , they all want to rape, hurt, and oppress women with their privilege. Every behavior a man does toward a woman must be approved by an all female council (manginas can serve too), and if the lady subjectively deigns the behavior inappropriate, the man's behavior should be a criminal offense. Because it hurtz the feels of wommin if he approaches her inappropriately to the lady.
Yes, if the person is unattractive, it means they want to rape me (great big man rape more than great little men), oppress me with inequality, and have a sense of entitlement.
I guess it depends on the context and what they are yelling. "Hey baby" might be a little odd coming from another guy towards another guy, unless you're in San Francisco that is.
Some people like being approached first (romantically), some don't, but does that give the one who doesn't like to approached the right to file a criminal harassment charge on the person approaching? No, we shouldn't live in a matriarchal nanny state where not following the subjective proper etiquette (reasonable woman standard) is a crime.0 -
Do you get your life perspective from Jezebel and gender studies? Gender studies explains the motivations of catcallers so well (just the male ones of course) , they all want to rape, hurt, and oppress women with their privilege. Every behavior a man does toward a woman must be approved by an all female council (manginas can serve too), and if the lady subjectively deigns the behavior inappropriate, the man's behavior should be a criminal offense. Because it hurtz the feels of wommin if he approaches her inappropriately to the lady.
Yes, if the person is unattractive, it means they want to rape me (great big man rape more than great little men), oppress me with inequality, and have a sense of entitlement.
I guess it depends on the context and what they are yelling. "Hey baby" might be a little odd coming from another guy towards another guy, unless you're in San Francisco that is.
Some people like being approached first (romantically), some don't, but does that give the one who doesn't like to approached the right to file a criminal harassment charge on the person approaching? No, we shouldn't live in a matriarchal nanny state where not following the subjective proper etiquette (reasonable woman standard) is a crime.
For most of the post, I wrote people and didn't specify men v women. A woman yelling at me in the street would have me thinking the same names as a man. I don't like to be yelled at by strangers.
I don't file criminal harassment charges either. That doesn't happen. If you want to argue that it does, the burden of proving the imprisonment of men for a cat call and nothing else is on you. And, go!
So it would matter to you if a man was yelling at you (the only place I specified gender). Unless you were in San Francisco. Nice that you get the right but not women.
Considering I wrote "people" throughout the post, I think your gender views are glaring through more than anyone's.0 -
Oh you meant men and women. Women feel so entitled to catcall other women, and their catcalling is an expression of inequality!
No, a big burly man in San Fran calling me (a heterosexual) male "baby" or whistling at me wouldn't bother me one bit. Now if he said "I'm going to kill you or rape you punk!" I'd be concerned as those are actual crimes and should be. There are some behaviors that shouldn't be tolerated, but there are other behaviors that should be. I just don't feel entitled to being treated like a princess wherever I go.
Rationally, being whistled at or called "baby" on the street shouldn't send you into a state of fear and panic. If that is so, you may have ingested too much femprop or just be generally paranoid.
Within the context of when it is dark and you're alone, you may think the guy has other nefarious motivations like desiring to rape you, but that is not the case. Is there any evidence that stranger rapes (nowhere near as common as acquaintance rape) begins with catcalling or weird facial expressions?
You're presuming the motivations of these guys as nefarious and your presumption is incorrect, your presumption is built on misancdric ideological propaganda.
Of course, we can never rule out danger in those situations, but in the vast majority of catcalling cases, the male isn't trying to rape you, disrespect you, assault you, or oppress you. His motivations are not to harm you but express interest from afar, from a position where he doesn't have to risk rejection.0 -
No, a big burly man in San Fran calling me (a heterosexual) male "baby" or whistling at me wouldn't bother me one bit. Now if he said "I'm going to kill you or rape you punk!" I'd be concerned as those are actual crimes and should be. There are some behaviors that shouldn't be tolerated, but there are other behaviors that should be. I just don't feel entitled to being treated like a princess wherever I go.
Rationally, being whistled at or called "baby" on the street shouldn't send you into a state of fear and panic. If that is so, you may have ingested too much femprop or just be generally paranoid.
Within the context of when it is dark and you're alone, you may think the guy has other nefarious motivations like desiring to rape you, but that is not the case. Is there any evidence that stranger rapes (nowhere near as common as acquaintance rape) begins with catcalling or weird facial expressions?
You're presuming the motivations of these guys as nefarious and your presumption is incorrect, your presumption is built on misancdric ideological propaganda.
Didn't you already say that it would be strange if a man yelled "Hey Baby!" at another man? Implying that how the person receiving the "compliment" feels matters? But there's no way to tell, right? Some people like it. Ergo, men should walk around yelling sex compliments at other men freely, because it matters not at all whether or not the man being yelled at appreciates it or not.
I'm not reading motivation into anything. You are mistaken in that I care about the motivation, I don't have much way of knowing the person's intention. I don't feel panicked by a cat call. I don't like them-there's a difference. I said, if you don't want to be perceived as threatening, don't yell at strangers. It's good advice regardless of gender and intent. Don't whistle at strangers, they aren't your dogs. Don't tell them about their bodies, they didn't ask.0 -
Yes strange since gay men are not wont to do that in my area, but that may be different in other places in the world.
Cat calling isn't threatening. How do you get "I'm going to rape you and hurt you" from " hey pretty baby!" or a whistle? How do you make that leap in logic? You';re erroneously presuming these guy's motivations - you know nothing about men.
You don't want them to say something like "what a fine butt!" because I guess it makes you feel objectified (more asinine feminist theory).
Yes, they're not your "dogs," such an emotional profound statement so uncommon of feminist rhetoric! Ha! Equating catcalling to being disrespected like a dog the catcaller owns - so ingenious! Do i feel like a dog when a woman catcalls me on my muscular arms? No, but maybe if she placed her coat over a mud puddle so i could walk across unscathed would be a better gesture.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions