1. Thats a dumb presumption since RAINN starts their citation ls on sources with "Sexual violence is notoriously difficult to measure,*" but im not surprised you missed that since you have no interest in finding out about this stuff at all.

2. Reason 4786 why you need to spend time talking to women, or even just reading the #metoo hashtag.

Fwiw. This isnt correct.

https://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventi...alreports.html

The CDC has it at 20% with a fairly narrow rape or attempted rape definition, its over 30% if you keep it to "contact sexual assualt".

Add in selection bias for drivers friends, a wider definition of assualt and the fact that people are likely to share more with their close friends over time and multiple discussions, reminders and topics than a government surveyor on the phone... and you can get to a large number quickly.

I concede that hyperbole and availability heuristics will play a part in drivers 100% figure.

But as ever. Jfc donkey. Go talk to some women.

Well this is stupid.

Fwiw I was talking about from sexual harassment to rape. This includes being flashed, groped propositioned by managers etc. also fwiw many more of them had been raped or molested than I expected.

All in all, I don't give a **** about where this conversation draws the line between harrasment, assault and rape. There is only so far you can lead someone who is doing everything they can to miss the point.

Driver and people like her are clearly the problem. Louis the guy who jacks off at women while they are uncomfortable with it should be protected lest he lose more earning potential unfairly. Glad they have their champions.

My attitude isn't relevant to this discussion of a Minnie Driver quote.

Completely ******ed. I've never denied knowing women who have been sexually harassed, you dumb mother****er. I just don't use my obviously small sample size to make conclusions about the general population because I'm not an idiot.

Nonetheless, I imagine their methodology is superior to you asking your friends. Do you disagree?





You are correct, thank you.

What It Really Means When You Call a Woman “Hysterical”

They also say that in order to facilitate comparisons over time, they use Bureau of Justice Statistics, and that BJS estimates of rape and sexual assault have typically been lower than estimates derived from other federal and private surveys.

Did you think anyone imagined it meant woman were really, really funny?

Um no.

Do you still think women in playboy are asking for it?

Keep sharing your useless Google search results with the world. Does mom still put your artwork on the fridge?

Ok.

Its going to take a long time to get over your mom burn. Im shattered.

Keep imitating the most obtuse, rapey poster in the thread. I'm sure it will work wonders on your social life and personal relationships.

I posted the link for him. When people start putting rape and hysteria in the same sentence well...

My personal relationships are ok thanks for the caring and concern. You seem to have some issues with me though so ill leave you to them.

I guess I assumed that CK's career would be ended by all this, which is the right result imo. I continue to believe that ignoring distinctions is unhelpful for the purposes of advocacy, but any distinctions are immaterial for the purpose of judging whether CK deserves to lose his celebrity status. Wherever the line is for permanently losing celebrity status, he crossed it by a mile.

I'm a little surprised by the celebrity hand wringing over the appropriate public "punishment" for CK. What he did was really awful. And that fact doesn't change just because (i) you like his comedy; (ii) you thought his apology was well-crafted; or (iii) he was nice to you.

Not sure whether I'm making lots of faulty arguments (probably), but I've decided to stop posting in this thread until more people take the time to understand this post.

Yeah that post is easy to understand. It's also no trick to litigate arguments or points, try to hold people to infallible account for everything they say on a subject, draw parallels or whatever other justice needs to be championed by those who only suddenly got interested in this issue when consequences started to become more common. When the victims have been suffering without your intense need for logical justice on their behalf up until now they may not be super patient with some personal need to slow it down now so we get it juuuuust right.

Everyone gets the argument. Everyone. If we are talking about sports, or cooking, or even other political issues that are passionate it is often fine. What people are saying is the emotional intelligence required to understand how to weigh the when and how of making that your issue in the scheme of this situation is faulty. Until you understand THAT you may continue to get reactions that are seen here and elsewhere. If you don't see why this is important in this specific case to victims then you may right to pipe the **** down for a while until you get the bigger picture.

Johnny,

I certainly get the emotional intelligence point. If I were talking directly to a woman who was describing abuse, I obviously wouldn't wordsmith her comments. That's just being a jerk. And if I were a public figure, I certainly wouldn't publicly defend CK, as Matt Damon and others seemingly are doing.

That said, I don't think that a message board requires quite the same level of restraint. A few posters in this thread are trying to shut down (or shout down) discussion in an apparent attempt to prove that they are more woke than other posters. There have a been a few real *******s in this thread who deserve to be drummed out. But most posters in this thread recognize that sexual harassment and mistreatment of women is a serious and unresolved societal problem. I certainly wouldn't want to stifle discussion on topics such as:

1) To what extent should the degree of the bad conduct matter?
2) To what extent should the emotional reaction of the actual victim matter?
3) At what point does bad conduct make a person irredeemable?
4) Should "I grew up in a different era" be any sort of defense to any level of misconduct?
5) To what extent do we need bright line rules in the workplace to prevent bad conduct? Where would a majority of working women want those lines to be?

I should add that I am not complaining that anyone has tried to shout me down. The overwhelming majority of responses to my posts have been reasonable. But that's probably to be expected, because my views on policy align pretty well with most of the posters in this thread.

I agree with what you are saying when it is compartmentalized, except for the assigning of "proving most woke" motives which is a hand wave.

What is being missed here is the topic is specifically what Damon said and the reaction to it. That is the subject matter. If it feels like people are being shouted down or their points on that topic minimized it is because the phenomenon they are lamenting is exactly what they are missing the point on. Explaining it over and over is because it is not getting through and is not the same as shouting down.

I don't give a **** where tilted lands on the subject. When he says he doesn't get what driver is saying about it being tone deaf to bring up the level of pain vs the (lol) consequences and warning to try to make sure we don't overstate what we feel the trauma could be for the victim by using a spectrum against other types of abuse...all when this **** is finally seeing the light of day for the first time, well the explaination is simple. When he then he continues to express that a formula can be devised to figure it out and says he doesn't much care for the meat, just the fringes...yeah--he is now replicating the issue at hand. No consequence to the victims for him to do that here, but you may be conflating replies to his confusion to her response, which he brought up, and the response to his subsequent argument that because they are similar.

In short I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I'm telling them why it may be a good idea to.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that I think people are making bad arguments. I am saying that you can't automatically assume that if someone is accusing you of making a bad argument it means that he isn't passionately agreeing with your conclusion. You might think that he isn't because if the shoe was on the other foot you would let what you considered a faulty argument, slide. But it may be that the reason he does not behave similarly may have nothing to do with how strongly he agrees with your conclusion but rather his zeal against argumentative mistakes. I don't think it is an accident that the posters here who get criticized in this area tend to be mathematically trained. (Remember how when All The Cheese disagreed with the conclusion that Bill Clinton shouldn't have resigned? He took pains in that post to assert that his conclusion did not imply that he wasn't fully on board with the liberal agenda. I think it is sad that he felt it necessary to do that.)

This is a solid post. I'm not participating in this thread because it's a dumpster fire, but the posts from several posters about how sexual assault victimization rates in women are up near 100% are frankly idiotic. This "you guys would know this if you ever spoke to the wimmins" stuff is equally stupid. If you want a contrary female view, an ex of mine who worked in the field of sexual health said to me that she had never been sexually assaulted, that it was uncommon amongst her friends, and that the "studies" finding victimization rates of like 75% were nonsense. To give you an idea of the sort of thing that goes on, I saw one study where they asked women to talk about incidents from their pasts, and one of the things they asked was whether the woman considered that she had been sexually assaulted. They then promptly categorised a whole pile of stuff as sexual assault, based on pretty loose criteria, even where the women had explicitly said that they had not been assaulted. Pretty lol stuff from people claiming to be advocates for women.

Whether I can be bothered taking on bad arguments where I agree with the conclusion tends to depend on where I think the Overton window is at. Some of the posts ITT, as well as a conversation among friends of mine, have convinced me that even among intelligent people, minimization of the problem of sexual harrassment and assault is alive and well. I therefore let the more hyperbolic stuff ITT slide, although I guess you could argue it harms the cause by making advocates look like lunatics.

It was already clarified but when I stated 100% I was not taking about assault. Obviously how you define harassment will change the scope of the answer. Lol at pretending that is an unknown or debunks anything. Is being flashed by a stranger assault? Is being shown porn when you are not interested harrasment? Is listening to your coworker talk about another woman's body and what they would do to them in the next cube?

Also lol at thinking 100% in this context should be taken literally, but many women have experienced the **** multiple times also. That's exactly the kind of waste of energy to get hung up on when the ****ing point that is being made is clear. Like, I'm sure these same exasperated demands for precision are voiced whenever someone says always or never.


Also, when looking for a woman's perspective on the topic it is about their experience with it. Your ex apparently has none. Pretty much everyone who has not experienced it will be prone to underweigh the frequency and just the fact that she is a female won't make her opinion on statistics as nonsense more valid. That's not what talk to wimins means.

The reason I say talk to women is I recently had a new experience with that. someone at my old company told me that a woman told her there were only two ways to get ahead there as a female, be one of the boys or sleep with one of the boys. I thought that was ridic. I told my wife who had worked there and she agreed with the sentiment. I still talk to several other women who worked there, they all agreed to my surprise. I went to a a party where there were three more women who had worked there and a few men, all the men were surprised that every woman agreed. It is not meant to be condescending or more woke. This experience was in the last year for me.

After that I asked my wife to count the times she was legit sexually harassed at work and she came up with several instances, from a district manager hitting on her and asking her to smoke weed with her to being picked up and carried toward the elevator at a work conference. Also customers. Also she was molested when she was a child by two different relatives. My sister was hit on inappropriately countless times as a server. Her coworker got fired for pulling his dick out and mixing a drink with it. She was raped when passed out drunk with friends in Australia. My mom was flashed on the bus. My ****ing grandmother was flashed when she was in her 80s. I have two exes that were molested as kids, one who was date raped in college, one who was raped and abused by her high school boyfriend. You think any of these women just share these stories with their pals casually? If your ex girlfriend is right that none of her friends have experience any of this which I highly ****ing doubt, there are plenty of women who make up for it out there. The validity of a true 100% of all women is a stupid thing to get caught up on.

I like this post a lot.

Please see my upcoming article about "What It REALLY Means When You Say 'I could literally eat a horse'."

No one in real current life is under the impression that women's organs are running amok in their abdomens and causing them to not act stoically like us men do when we get a slight sniffle.

Shorter version: stop being silly.

Its silly to think no one uses it anymore as a way to dismiss women as illogical, or men speaking on women's issues.

What things really mean are what is meant by the person using terms and saying things. Their intent is what they really mean. Like i could say you are an great poster. And mean you suck.

Also you should read a little bit about the alt right and their use of that term as a tactic to fight feminism.

OK, well that's fine then. Not all posts ITT address you personally. I haven't read much of the thread but I did see this:

rugby's take here is explicitly "Admit that it is plausible that nearly 100% of women have been sexually assaulted or else you're a rape apologist". But it isn't plausible. It's just wrong.

I should say that the percentage of women who have been sexually harrassed is somewhere up close to 100%. I understand the point about not splitting hairs but I also think the tendency to roll all this stuff together can dilute the meaning of assault and in itself constitute not listening to victims.

Dude, she worked in sexual health. She frequently saw women who had been assaulted, often as the first line of assistance. She had men expose themselves to her at work. She worked on the sexual health helpline and had men use it as a way to speak to a woman about sexual stuff while jerking off.

I understand what it is you mean about "talking to women", i.e. taking their experiences seriously, but bear in mind that ITT it has also been claimed that posters need to talk to women more if they're not willing to nod along to the claim that like every woman ever has been sexually assaulted.