Making Female Singer Feel Safer

[mapleglo]

Have they gone too far? I don’t know. I think equality feels like oppression to the oppressors.

Yes, equality does feel like oppression to the oppressors. But @Joe Nerve's recent experience is not the first time I've heard about the issue. Both of my sisters are teachers in public school systems (New Jersey and Illinois). False accusations, in either direction, undermines society.

 

[Pops OB]

Nobody said you were guilty of anything, but if you want to understand statistics better, there are lots of free resources on the internet. Statistics do mean things, and there are lots of ways to understand unreported crimes - eg asking a group of 200 women anonymously if they were ever sexually assaulted and did not report it.

Ok, I never claimed anybody said I was guilty of anything; I have no idea where that came from.

My point exactly. What you’ll get is a particular researcher’s results with THOSE 200 participants. Small samples in scientific research are routinely rejected as flawed.

I wonder what surprising results a researcher might find if a small sample of prisoners were asked if they were wrongly convicted? I’m making NO comparison other than saying polling can be seriously flawed. Anonymous surveys don’t guarantee truthfulness.

Statistics assume that every person is being honest. Guess what? You can’t build that into your statistics because you can’t know who is and who is not being honest.

I don’t need flawed statistics to know there are sexual assaults on both sides. I don’t need flawed statistics to know there are false accusations on both sides.

It’s a dangerous world out there and if you are concerned about it, you take whatever measures you will in that regard. That’s why I don’t get dressed up and walk through the ghetto at night; that’s why I stay away from confrontations at bars; that’s why I don’t place myself knowingly in any situation where I might be falsely accused of whatever, statistics be damned.

 

[hrodbert696]

Biker Gangs, not Bandmates...

Perhaps I misunderstood your prior post. You seemed to be implying that women like Hynde were invulnerable badasses that wouldn't need consideration to feel safe from predatory males - I assumed you meant in a band or otherwise. If I mistook, I apologize. She described her attraction into the biker gang world as very much part and parcel of her rebellious rock and roll fandom, so I'm not sure she would draw such a distinction.

On the biology thing -

Testosterone is a thing. It does prompt behavior. It's still not strictly accurate to say "hormones drive men to rape," no, because there are a number of complexities in that seemingly simple statement - does it stand as a generalization, do all men have the same recipe of hormones? - what does it mean to "drive someone to" an action? - and a determining factor in what is or isn't a rape isn't just the desire of the offender, but the refusal of consent by the victim. Two men could be equally driven by testosterone with no particular self-control, but one encounters a willing woman while the other encounters an unwilling one. The second one might respond with force; the first one is not more virtuous, he's merely spared the test.

I guess I would avoid the language of hormones "driving" someone's actions, since that implies that they have no control and therefore no responsibility. But I do think you need to reckon realistically with the fact that hormones do, say, "lure," "draw" or even "tempt" people to certain courses. Not everyone fights the same temptations.

And on the other side of it, yes, reason and self-control are also real, and people have responsibility to use them. But they don't just exist automatically from birth. Those are qualities we learn and cultivate (or not). Maybe that's part of why we intuitively feel more disgust for a dirty old man than a reckless young one - by his age, he has had the chance to cultivate better virtues.

I think we have a hypocritical culture on a rather massive scale, where we spend so much time promoting instant gratifications of various kinds, and holding up sex as THE number one way to measure your worth as a person, and do next to nothing to teach or promote self-control, then turn around and blame young people for not exercising perfect self-control. Who is supposed to have taught them that? When? How many hours of the week get spent on the self-denial lessons vs. how many hours encouraging self-indulgence?

Sometimes people say that abuse of women has been going on since the dawn of time and we're only just now starting to fight it. Maybe in some ways that's true. But not always in the same forms, at least. In Puritan New England, the famous preacher Jonathan Edwards got entangled in a situation known as the "bad book case." What happened was that some of the young guys in town got hold of a gynecology textbook, read the contents, and proceeded to harass the girls in town with the knowledge they had obtained (Edwards, as the pastor, invoked church discipline to deal with the situation, which then angered some of the prominent families in town whose sons were involved). But what's shocking about the case was that some of the harassers were in their early TWENTIES - and were only just finding out about the birds and the bees from a contraband book.

That says volumes about what a rigidly controlled and repressed society puritan New England was, of course, and I don't think anyone advocates returning to that level of disciplined control of young people's lives. But I'd suggest a healthy society would be somewhere between that and where we are now. Clearly the story illustrates that there may always be some boys who will behave badly. But the harassment in that case is orders of magnitude different from what we find women enduring now.

 

[hrodbert696]

I see a lot of local bands advertising for musicians, and the adverts with three dudes looking for a female bassist or guitarist always come across as thirsty. I don't blame women for perhaps not wanting to go to random rehearsal spaces in this instance, and the notion that the women would be the dangerous party in the band is risible.

I think there are legitimate reasons for advertising for a female band member, especially on vocals. But your post reminds me of a CL ad around here, maybe a year ago. IIRC they were trying to start a sort of modern Americana band and specified they wanted a female fiddle player with a "suicide girl" look. That seemed pretty creepy - they could have said a "goth" or "alternative" or whatever kind of look, but went with that.

 

[tradernick]

Civility and self control on the behalf of men is obviously one prong of it(although to me, it can become a war of what society says a man should do and what their body/hormones are telling them to do). Are we essentially expecting men to change biologically? I don't know the answer to that, just ruminating.

I'm going to hold back and just say that I sat here for a while reading that. I really don't understand what you mean when you ask whether we're expecting men to change biologically. To me the one and only belief you could hold that would cause you to say that would be the belief that a man's genetically inbuilt drive to impregnate females (a fact) has something (anything at all) to do with rape, which is so ridiculous that I wouldn't be able to counter it.

 

[MtManiac]

Ok, I never claimed anybody said I was guilty of anything; I have no idea where that came from.

My point exactly. What you’ll get is a particular researcher’s results with THOSE 200 participants. Small samples in scientific research are routinely rejected as flawed.

I wonder what surprising results a researcher might find if a small sample of prisoners were asked if they were wrongly convicted? I’m making NO comparison other than saying polling can be seriously flawed. Anonymous surveys don’t guarantee truthfulness.

Statistics assume that every person is being honest. Guess what? You can’t build that into your statistics because you can’t know who is and who is not being honest.

I don’t need flawed statistics to know there are sexual assaults on both sides. I don’t need flawed statistics to know there are false accusations on both sides.

It’s a dangerous world out there and if you are concerned about it, you take whatever measures you will in that regard. That’s why I don’t get dressed up and walk through the ghetto at night; that’s why I stay away from confrontations at bars; that’s why I don’t place myself knowingly in any situation where I might be falsely accused of whatever, statistics be damned.

All I’m saying is that if you’d “LOVE” to understand statistics better, there are lots of resources available for free on the internet. Things like statistical significance, measurable margins of error, etc make drawing a sample of 200 random people and surveying their responses perfectly and scientifically legitimate for extrapolating across a larger population. Statistics certainly don’t assume everyone is being honest; that’s an important variable that they control for, and if they haven’t, it invalidates the entire conclusion. Statistics follow the same rigour and scientific method as pharmaceuticals or nuclear science. And like those areas, they’re also open to challenge by other people who understand the science. That’s the beauty of science. But they’re not open to challenge by people who don’t understand the science, which is why people like David Wolfe, Alex Jones, and Gwynneth Paltrow are capitalists, not scientists.

 

[Pops OB]

All I’m saying is that if you’d “LOVE” to understand statistics better, there are lots of resources available for free on the internet. Things like statistical significance, measurable margins of error, etc make drawing a sample of 200 random people and surveying their responses perfectly and scientifically legitimate for extrapolating across a larger population. Statistics certainly don’t assume everyone is being honest; that’s an important variable that they control for, and if they haven’t, it invalidates the entire conclusion. Statistics follow the same rigour and scientific method as pharmaceuticals or nuclear science. And like those areas, they’re also open to challenge by other people who understand the science. That’s the beauty of science. But they’re not open to challenge by people who don’t understand the science, which is why people like David Wolfe, Alex Jones, and Gwynneth Paltrow are capitalists, not scientists.

Sorry, but many statistics are rife with fraud. Simply relegating people to a category of those “who don’t understand the science,” and claiming that’s why they are “capitalists” is pretty elitist, and not scientific at all, lol!

 

[MtManiac]

Perhaps I misunderstood your prior post. You seemed to be implying that women like Hynde were invulnerable badasses that wouldn't need consideration to feel safe from predatory males - I assumed you meant in a band or otherwise. If I mistook, I apologize. She described her attraction into the biker gang world as very much part and parcel of her rebellious rock and roll fandom, so I'm not sure she would draw such a distinction.

On the biology thing -

Testosterone is a thing. It does prompt behavior. It's still not strictly accurate to say "hormones drive men to rape," no, because there are a number of complexities in that seemingly simple statement - does it stand as a generalization, do all men have the same recipe of hormones? - what does it mean to "drive someone to" an action? - and a determining factor in what is or isn't a rape isn't just the desire of the offender, but the refusal of consent by the victim. Two men could be equally driven by testosterone with no particular self-control, but one encounters a willing woman while the other encounters an unwilling one. The second one might respond with force; the first one is not more virtuous, he's merely spared the test.

I guess I would avoid the language of hormones "driving" someone's actions, since that implies that they have no control and therefore no responsibility. But I do think you need to reckon realistically with the fact that hormones do, say, "lure," "draw" or even "tempt" people to certain courses. Not everyone fights the same temptations.

And on the other side of it, yes, reason and self-control are also real, and people have responsibility to use them. But they don't just exist automatically from birth. Those are qualities we learn and cultivate (or not). Maybe that's part of why we intuitively feel more disgust for a dirty old man than a reckless young one - by his age, he has had the chance to cultivate better virtues.

I think we have a hypocritical culture on a rather massive scale, where we spend so much time promoting instant gratifications of various kinds, and holding up sex as THE number one way to measure your worth as a person, and do next to nothing to teach or promote self-control, then turn around and blame young people for not exercising perfect self-control. Who is supposed to have taught them that? When? How many hours of the week get spent on the self-denial lessons vs. how many hours encouraging self-indulgence?

Sometimes people say that abuse of women has been going on since the dawn of time and we're only just now starting to fight it. Maybe in some ways that's true. But not always in the same forms, at least. In Puritan New England, the famous preacher Jonathan Edwards got entangled in a situation known as the "bad book case." What happened was that some of the young guys in town got hold of a gynecology textbook, read the contents, and proceeded to harass the girls in town with the knowledge they had obtained (Edwards, as the pastor, invoked church discipline to deal with the situation, which then angered some of the prominent families in town whose sons were involved). But what's shocking about the case was that some of the harassers were in their early TWENTIES - and were only just finding out about the birds and the bees from a contraband book.

That says volumes about what a rigidly controlled and repressed society puritan New England was, of course, and I don't think anyone advocates returning to that level of disciplined control of young people's lives. But I'd suggest a healthy society would be somewhere between that and where we are now. Clearly the story illustrates that there may always be some boys who will behave badly. But the harassment in that case is orders of magnitude different from what we find women enduring now.

Most women in our society know to do certain things to protect themselves by a certain age - check the back seat of the car before getting in, don’t give strangers your full name, etc. Most boys or men of the same age don’t “have” to think about these things - but maybe they should be taught to do so. I believe a lot of men have been sexually assaulted by both men and women and have been taught that in the case of women it’s a badge of honor - so that boys and men don’t even recognize sexual assault and therefore don’t realize when they’re assaulting someone else. I’m not excusing reprehensible behavior, I’m saying that some of the problems that feminists have been fighting against for decades also apply to men, and it’s time to hold upbringing, social conditioning, education, parenting etc responsible for how we encourage and maintain gender roles. But it starts with recognizing and admitting who’s been and is being physically victimized and putting a stop to it.

 

[MtManiac]

Sorry, but many statistics are rife with fraud. Simply relegating people to a category of those “who don’t understand the science,” and claiming that’s why they are “capitalists” is pretty elitist, and not scientific at all, lol!

Can you provide any examples with links to published documents supporting that claim? I can provide some supporting mine.

 

[sean_on_bass]

I'm going to hold back and just say that I sat here for a while reading that. I really don't understand what you mean when you ask whether we're expecting men to change biologically. To me the one and only belief you could hold that would cause you to say that would be the belief that a man's genetically inbuilt drive to impregnate females (a fact) has something (anything at all) to do with rape, which is so ridiculous that I wouldn't be able to counter it.

And if i specified rape specifically i would completely agree with you. I was making more a general statement about the appropriateness of men pursuing a woman at all. This thread is about making women comfortable in general, not whether or not it is justified to rape someone and i'm sorry if my comment made it seem like i think rape is justified because of hormones, because i don't thnk that. I was thinking along the lines of much more innocent situations, like walking up to a random woman at a bar and trying to start a conversation, or complimenting a woman on her looks.

 

[EatS1stBassist]

If NO ONE WAS ABLE TO APPROACH ANYONE THE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE A LOT SMALLER MAYBE ONE DAY NON EXISTENT!! OF COURSE ITS NOT COOL TO ATTACK SOMEONE NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT THEY ARE!

 

[MtManiac]

We’ve resorted to all caps - mods, it’s time to close the thread.

 

[EatS1stBassist]

We’ve resorted to all caps - mods, it’s time to close the thread.

actually just to lazy and painful to use lower case. lol! arthritis! see what i did?
all lower case just for you!

 

[Pops OB]

Can you provide any examples with links to published documents supporting that claim? I can provide some supporting mine.

Yoshitaka Fuji, an “expert” in postoperative nausea/vomiting findings drew scrutiny in 2000 continued to publish prolifically for a decade after, fabricated his results in at least 172 published studies says the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists.


In 2009, Scott Reuben, of Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts, was found to have fabricated data and misused grant money—fraud for which he spent six months in federal prison.


Joachim Boldt, a leading German critical care specialist, had nearly ninety studies which have been retracted. Boldt also appears to have fabricated findings in at least one paper, which A&A retracted in 2010.


Brian Wansink, Cornell University behavioral science researcher, has had thirteen To date, thirteen Wansink studies have been retracted. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) retracted six articles he co-authored. JAMA “found that Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.”


2014, Dr. Brad Bushman and Jodi Whitaker, published “Boom Headshot”: Effect of Video Game Play and Controller Type on Firing AIM and AccuracyInvalid Link Removedin the journal Communication Research. It was retracted due to irregularities of variables and unavailability of original research records after the Committee of Initial Inquiry at Ohio State University recommended retraction.


Abderrahmane Kaidi, a cancer biologist and senior academic, is being investigated for research misconduct going back almost a decade. Cambridge University says there is a “prima facie case” that a key paper he wrote in 2010 in the journal Science may be suspect.


You know, I could go on and on, but I expect the response will be something like: “Nobody has ever questioned the studies I cite,” or “Those are fraudulent, but the studies I cite aren’t.”


Scientific fraud IS rife. And it’s quite well documented by the actions of investigative groups.

 

[EatS1stBassist]

Ok...? There are all kinds of things outside of “normal” human biology that can drive a person to inappropriate comments, or behavior, to anyone. Asperger’s, autism, sociopathy, head injury, etc. can result in comments or behavior that a person can’t really be held responsible for. Is that what we are talking about here? With humans who are not diagnosed with such conditions, it is appropriately summed up as poor manners, lack of consideration, boorishness, rudeness, etc. In those cases, you *are* responsible, and as an adult deserve to be held accountable. To which are you referring?

Someone isn’t required to speak to you just because you think they’re pretty. They’re not impolite if they tell you to leave them alone; just leave them alone.

EDIT: if you’re really unclear on where the lines are or whether there’s any gray area, you should probably just stay away from people in general until you get it figured out. Not just women, but everybody.

Bill lighten up!! If there was a thread stopping remark! It would be what you posted here! Most of your posts I like and agree with!! But you are being argumentative!! Maybe something bad has happened to you in your lifetime!! Hope not!

 

[xroads64]

damn, close this thread...bringing out a really gross side of this site

 

[EatS1stBassist]

damn, close this thread...bringing out a really gross side of this site

I agree!!

 

[MtManiac]

Yopoopieaka Fuji, an “expert” in postoperative nausea/vomiting findings drew scrutiny in 2000 continued to publish prolifically for a decade after, fabricated his results in at least 172 published studies says the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists.


In 2009, Scott Reuben, of Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts, was found to have fabricated data and misused grant money—fraud for which he spent six months in federal prison.


Joachim Boldt, a leading German critical care specialist, had nearly ninety studies which have been retracted. Boldt also appears to have fabricated findings in at least one paper, which A&A retracted in 2010.


Brian Wansink, Cornell University behavioral science researcher, has had thirteen To date, thirteen Wansink studies have been retracted. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) retracted six articles he co-authored. JAMA “found that Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.”


2014, Dr. Brad Bushman and Jodi Whitaker, published “Boom Headshot”: Effect of Video Game Play and Controller Type on Firing AIM and AccuracyInvalid Link Removedin the journal Communication Research. It was retracted due to irregularities of variables and unavailability of original research records after the Committee of Initial Inquiry at Ohio State University recommended retraction.


Abderrahmane Kaidi, a cancer biologist and senior academic, is being investigated for research misconduct going back almost a decade. Cambridge University says there is a “prima facie case” that a key paper he wrote in 2010 in the journal Science may be suspect.


You know, I could go on and on, but I expect the response will be something like: “Nobody has ever questioned the studies I cite,” or “Those are fraudulent, but the studies I cite aren’t.”


Scientific fraud IS rife. And it’s quite well documented by the actions of investigative groups.

Oh, I know that scientific fraud is prolific - but you are attacking the entire field of statistics. A couple of examples of fraud don’t make an entire field fraudulent. If that’s the case, then we’d better shut down government altogether.

 

[Pops OB]

Oh, I know that scientific fraud is prolific - but you are attacking the entire field of statistics. A couple of examples of fraud don’t make an entire field fraudulent. If that’s the case, then we’d better shut down government altogether.

I already said I could go on and on. I’m not going to cite the hundreds of them, you’ll just have another comment discounting the massive fraud that is out there. You can ignore what’s out there and even try to dismiss it, that’s your problem. It’s there for everybody to see.

I myself commissioned a University study on plasma disinfection of medical instruments, and it was discovered by outside investigators that research and data fraud was committed.

Go right ahead and tell me how you know the stats you cite are infallibly correct.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

We’ve resorted to all caps - mods, it’s time to close the thread.

Nah, all caps are fine as long as we don’t give in to Godwin’s Law.