Making Female Singer Feel Safer

[MtManiac]

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

What are you, some kinda Nazi son?

 

[BassmentPlayer]

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

Statistically irrelevant, but you go ahead and base all your future arguments on all subjects on it.

Yeah, that will work.

 

[MtManiac]

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

Based on your obviously deep experience, you should know that no science is infallible - that’s what science is all about. But it’s also about method, and you should also know that the method itself is sound, and that you therefore can’t say things like all stats are fraud or meaningless.

 

[MtManiac]

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!

Thanks for liking most of my posts - this is a topic I’m passionate about, but I’ve re-read my post several times trying to understand what you’re taking issue with. It was a rebuttal to someone saying basically that rape exists on a spectrum of behavior that includes at one end simply speaking to a stranger - if someone thinks that’s a spectrum, then I’m sorry, but I will argue that crap all damned day.

 

[tradernick]

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

Oh, I'm pretty sure that what's being brought out isn't the gross side of this site in particular. In fact I don't think it has anything to do with this site.

 

[tradernick]

i'm sorry if my comment made it seem like i think rape is justified because of hormones, because i don't think that.

Absolutely not, I never felt that you were saying anything as awful as that.

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.

Here's what I read that inspired my response.

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).

So men's bodies tell them to impregnate women and society says 'you can't just go around impregnating women'. There's a possible interpretation here - that is, that men who sexually assault women (let's take the incendiary word 'rape' out of it, and I apologize, I shouldn't have used it in the first place) are somehow fighting a losing battle against 'what their bodies are telling them to do'. Of course, this is totally false. Men who sexually assault women do so out of a need for power over others, or some other psychological dysfunction.

In any case, I know you're probably not trying to explain sexual assault by referencing programmed mammalian behaviour but the way your post was worded, it could be interpreted that way.

 

[MtManiac]

Absolutely not, I never felt that you were saying anything as awful as that.


Here's what I read that inspired my response.

So men's bodies tell them to impregnate women and society says 'you can't just go around impregnating women'. There's a possible interpretation here - that is, that men who sexually assault women (let's take the incendiary word 'rape' out of it, and I apologize, I shouldn't have used it in the first place) are somehow fighting a losing battle against 'what their bodies are telling them to do'. Of course, this is totally false. Men who sexually assault women do so out of a need for power over others, or some other psychological dysfunction.

In any case, I know you're probably not trying to explain sexual assault by referencing programmed mammalian behaviour but the way your post was worded, it could be interpreted that way.

I sooo wish I had posted this. Perfect!!

 

[StayLow]

The poster of this is banned but the content should be replied to...



This claim is not borne out by the national Criminal Victimization Study. In 2016, women were about equally likely to be victims of violent crime - 20.8 per 1000 women vs. 21.4 per 1000 men. When you limit the numbers to "serious" violent crime (including sexual and aggravated assault, but not simple assault, basically) the rates are 7.5 women/1000 vs. 6.5 men/1000, which would make women about 15% more likely to suffer these types of crimes. The NCVS doesn't track murder because it's based on survivor interviews, so there may be more men killing each other than women. It does show that male victims are more likely to report crimes against them - roughly 44% vs. 40% violent crime, 60% vs. 43% serious violent crime - which probably has largely to do with sex crimes going unreported.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf

EDIT: I looked in more detail at this study - http://westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v04n3/article_pdfs/scott.pdf - that had been linked. While the thesis of the study is that women are likely to fear victimization in a proportion that doesn't correlate to their actual experience of victimization, there are a couple of shortcomings in the study. One is that it seems to dismiss its own finding that a whopping 53% of respondents (all women) reported having experienced some type of violence, 8% of them in the last year. Given that, it's not so "irrational" that 60-75% of women report feeling afraid when alone at night in various settings.

The other is that it gives no consideration to social contact - it only asks if the women have themselves experienced violence, not if they know other women who have. If 8% of women experienced violence in the last year, and each of them has, say, ten friends, then something to the tune of 80% of women know someone who suffered violence in the last year (somewhat less due to overlapping, but you get the idea) and everyone knows someone who experienced it in their lifetime. The fear may not correlate to women's own individual victimization but probably correlates very well to the victimization of members of their social circle. Given that people form their expectations and values socially, it's not at all "irrational" for most women to fear the possibility of victimization.

Nice to see some credible stats.

7.5/1000, less than 1%, chance of real violence. And rape would be a small fraction of that.

Thanks for posting it. Shows what ridiculous BS the "1 in 5 chance of being raped" assertion was that I debunked earlier in the thread.

 

[sean_on_bass]

Absolutely not, I never felt that you were saying anything as awful as that.


Here's what I read that inspired my response.

So men's bodies tell them to impregnate women and society says 'you can't just go around impregnating women'. There's a possible interpretation here - that is, that men who sexually assault women (let's take the incendiary word 'rape' out of it, and I apologize, I shouldn't have used it in the first place) are somehow fighting a losing battle against 'what their bodies are telling them to do'. Of course, this is totally false. Men who sexually assault women do so out of a need for power over others, or some other psychological dysfunction.

In any case, I know you're probably not trying to explain sexual assault by referencing programmed mammalian behaviour but the way your post was worded, it could be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarification and i can see how my quote could be taken that way. My intent was more so to look for the root cause of why men act this way in the first place and why women often do not and i agree there is an element of violence/control in these sorts of inhumane acts, as well as introduce an item for discussion. I should probably edit the post but what's the point if it's been quoted a few times. Hopefully the rest of my post showed that i actually want to bridge the general gap of power among men and women.

 

[MtManiac]

Nice to see some credible stats.

7.5/1000, less than 1%, chance of real violence. And rape would be a small fraction of that.

Thanks for posting it. Shows what ridiculous BS the "1 in 5 chance of being raped" assertion was that I debunked earlier in the thread.

Those are reported cases, are they not?

 

[tradernick]

7.5/1000, less than 1%, chance of real violence. And rape would be a small fraction of that.

Right. Because all violent sexual crime against women is reported.

You know this type of misguided thinking is out there but it's still a smack in the face when you see it. Let's leave aside what constitutes 'violence'. Let's leave alone the myriad ways in which sexual assault can leave permanent scars. Apparently, some people wouldn't call those attacks 'violent'.

EDIT: Beat me to it Bill.

 

[Pops OB]

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

I thought that already happened.

 

[StayLow]

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.

Of course it is. Common sense tells us so. Ego, profit, status and political motives abound. To name a few.

Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results

 

[StayLow]

Right. Because all violent sexual crime against women is reported.

You know this type of misguided thinking is out there but it's still a smack in the face when you see it. Let's leave aside what constitutes 'violence'. Let's leave alone the myriad ways in which sexual assault can leave permanent scars. Apparently, some people wouldn't call those attacks 'violent'.

EDIT: Beat me to it Bill.

No it's not all reported. Neither are the fabrications.

In anonymous surveys there's no effort or stigma in reporting so no reason to underreport, but let's pretend zero are liars or trying to skew results (a huge leap of faith) and let's further pretend only 50% are reported, no lets pretend only 10% reported... it'd still be much less than a 1% chance in a lifetime.

Still terrible. Still very worthy of caution. Still not anywhere near 20%.

 

[Pops OB]

Based on your obviously deep experience, you should know that no science is infallible - that’s what science is all about. But it’s also about method, and you should also know that the method itself is sound, and that you therefore can’t say things like all stats are fraud or meaningless.

BTW, I never claimed “obviously deep experience,” YOU used it. I claim personal experience dealing with a (ONE) fraudulent study.

Perhaps you should try quoting me where I said “things like all stats are fraud or meaningless.” Please. Copy them and post them. Oh, wait, you can’t, because I never claimed or posted anything like that. If you can’t further your point, make up what the other guy says. LOL!

 

[buldog5151bass]

Back on point, if this is a concern for you, don't add a female. Personally, I consider a band rehearsal no different than any other professional or social meeting. Do you worry about the women you work with getting raped at work?

 

[StayLow]

Right. Because all violent sexual crime against women is reported.

You know this type of misguided thinking is out there but it's still a smack in the face when you see it. Let's leave aside what constitutes 'violence'. Let's leave alone the myriad ways in which sexual assault can leave permanent scars. Apparently, some people wouldn't call those attacks 'violent'.

EDIT: Beat me to it Bill.

BTW, this BS has *nothing* to do with *anything* I've posted or believe.

Read my posts in this thread and address what I've *actually* posted if you care to, but don't arbitrarily ascribe such vile sentiments to me.

Keep your straw-man non-arguments to yourself.

 

[1st Bass]

I seem to have lost my copy, but this is a great little book on how statistics work, and how they can be manipulated to present a desired appearance of results, without even changing the data--just the presentation.
Cheap, too.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Stat...h+statistics,stripbooks,247&sr=1-1&ref=sr_1_1

 

[buldog5151bass]

What is the line? Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

[StayLow]

Those are reported cases, are they not?

Did you bother to read what I quoted?

If 7.5/1000 are incidences of violence or sexual assault, obviously actual rapes are a lower number of that.

Fact, not opinion or agenda. Not semantics.

The real numbers are bad enough, for whatever kind of violation or indignity, to men AND women, but let's not multiply the real stats by 10, 20 or 100.