The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Galloism]

Hey, the only reason I'm being so hostile is that I whenever I see someone bring up the issues with women facing sexual harassment and assault, there's always some MRA popping up to ask, "but what about men?" in an effort to derail and delegitimize women's grievances. So, my response is undisguised hostility. To me, they're no better than the goons who ask about prejudice against white people when the subject is about the oppression of minorities.

The whole MRA schtick on this forum is to paint a picture that women are the true power and oppressors in human history despite what history recorded, with the subtext that things would be so much better if women just shut up and do everything men tell them to do. Paradoxically whining about the evils of women while expecting to be babied by women at the same time.

I wouldn't say women are the true power - that's almost certainly rich people - but they are substantially better treated by society in this regard, with both sexual harassment and assault, than equivalent men facing the same issues.

That doesn't mean they should shut up - I don't think white people should shut up about problems they face either - but it's important to understand the relevant context of society and the relevant treatment between groups. It's not oppression in comparison to another group to be better treated compared to that other group. It may be a "it sucks for everyone" thing, which it tends to be, but the way things are often framed as problems for white people (implicitly or explicitly) when black people suffer from them even more, and things framed as problems for women (implicitly or explicitly) when men suffer from them even more is really the same phenomenon.

This doesn't mean "white people" as a group have the power, nor does it mean they don't have problems. Rather some individuals do have power, and many many individuals have problems.

But when you decry how many white people are shot by police, it's not wrong for people to go "uh, black people".

[Des-Bal]

Hey, the only reason I'm being so hostile is that I whenever I see someone bring up the issues with women facing sexual harassment and assault, there's always some MRA popping up to ask, "but what about men?" in an effort to derail and delegitimize women's grievances. So, my response is undisguised hostility. To me, they're no better than the goons who ask about prejudice against white people when the subject is about the oppression of minorities.

When you talk about women's problems as they relate to society you can only do that relative to men's. When we say society ignores and normalizes the harassment of women we can only mean that we should be treating women MUCH better than men rather than just a little bit better. The irony here is that you're the very goon you've so maligned.
That said I'm not especially interested in the excuses behind why you have nothing to say.

The whole MRA schtick on this forum is to paint a picture that women are the true power and oppressors in human history despite what history recorded, with the subtext that things would be so much better if women just shut up and do everything men tell them to do. Paradoxically whining about the evils of women while expecting to be babied by women at the same time.

You're the only person who ever says anything resembling that. You have so surrounded yourself by strawmen that you're losing perspective on what people actually say.

[Galloism]

The whole MRA schtick on this forum is to paint a picture that women are the true power and oppressors in human history despite what history recorded, with the subtext that things would be so much better if women just shut up and do everything men tell them to do. Paradoxically whining about the evils of women while expecting to be babied by women at the same time.

You're the only person who ever says anything resembling that. You have so surrounded yourself by strawmen that you're losing perspective on what people actually say.

Eh, it's fine.

Ridiculous strawmen are the last resort of people who have no legitimate argument remaining, having either had none to start with or having had them systematically demolished.

Gauth actually helps in his own way to continue to bring attention to these issues, even though he'd prefer people suffer and die in silence due to their gender. This is because he shows the social oppression in action, attempting to engage in it himself in a ridiculous and over the top way.

I'm actually thankful for people like Gauth posting ridiculous shit like that. It helps bring attention to my cause of equality, even if he hates it.

[Des-Bal]

Eh, it's fine.

Ridiculous strawmen are the last resort of people who have no legitimate argument remaining, having either had none to start with or having had them systematically demolished.

Gauth actually helps in his own way to continue to bring attention to these issues, even though he'd prefer people suffer and die in silence due to their gender. This is because he shows the social oppression in action, attempting to engage in it himself in a ridiculous and over the top way.

I'm actually thankful for people like Gauth posting ridiculous shit like that. It helps bring attention to my cause of equality, even if he hates it.

Fair enough, sometimes you have to see a roach to realize it's time to clean the house.

[New haven america]

You also have to consider we're talking about "unwanted" conduct not "unsolicited" conduct. The offensive nature is dictated by how the behavior is received not by how it is enacted.

A lot of cat-calling and cyber sexual harassment is pretty unsolicited. I've gotten cat-called wearing jeans, a coat, and RBF at least twice. I usually don't make too much of a fuss about it and just change routes. One time a guy shouted something at me in Spanish, assuming I wouldn't know what it meant, and I asked him if his mother knew he talked like that. His friends laughed at him. But, yeah, usually I just keep quiet and move away from situations like that.

Now if only there wasn't certain expectations or, roles, if you will, in place that expected men to be the ones to make a move/initiate relationships and act aggressive and ones for women that expected them to be quiet, dainty, and submissive.

It's almost like I had a point when discussing the harmful effects of gender roles or something.

[Fahran]

Now if only there wasn't certain expectations or, roles, if you will, in place that expected men to be the ones to make a move/initiate relationships and act aggressive and ones for women that expected them to be quiet, dainty, and submissive.

Yelling suggestive remarks across the street at a woman you don't know hasn't ever really been seen as respectable behavior in polite society and isn't usually viewed as an attempt to genuinely initiate a sexual or romantic relationship. It's just something dumb that some guys do for some reason I'll never fathom.

It's almost like I had a point when discussing the harmful effects of gender roles or something.

I never denied that gender roles have harmful effects. I merely argued that their effects weren't wholly harmful.

[New haven america]

Now if only there wasn't certain expectations or, roles, if you will, in place that expected men to be the ones to make a move/initiate relationships and act aggressive and ones for women that expected them to be quiet, dainty, and submissive.

1. Yelling suggestive remarks across the street at a woman you don't know hasn't ever really been seen as respectable behavior in polite society and isn't usually viewed as an attempt to genuinely initiate a sexual or romantic relationship. 2. It's just something dumb that some guys do for some reason I'll never fathom.

It's almost like I had a point when discussing the harmful effects of gender roles or something.

3. I never denied that gender roles have harmful effects. I merely argued that their effects weren't wholly harmful.

1. And yet it still keeps happening and shows no sigh of letting up. Hm...
2. It's incredibly simple. Most single guys generally lack affection, compliments, or intimacy in their lives because of the gender roles expecting them to be strong, resilient, and initiative so they'll take anything they can get (Hell, the last time I was genuinely complimented by someone was 3 years ago), and as such, they tend to dish out what they would like in return: Random compliments about them from anyone who's willing give it in the hopes that those compliments will be returned as well. However, women on the other hand, are showered with both wanted and unwanted attention and compliments, and their gender roles expect them to just shut up and take it, which leads to shit like cat-calling, where guys who either are either too socially inept or just plain ignorant and confident/dominant, shower random women on the street or in parks with compliments in the hopes that the women might just become instantly enamored with the cat-callers annoying attempts at picking them up that they'll jump right into their arms and live happily ever after.

Either that, or they're just simple douche bags exploiting the fact that male gender expectations require men be confident/dominant and are thus doing whatever the fuck they want regardless of how the other people around them feel.
3. That's weird, considering apparently 4 in 5 women get sexually harassed and men can't even report sexual harassment because they won't be taken seriously, and most of that has to do with what each sex' expected gender roles and behaviors are.

[Costa Fierro]

You're referencing a separate study. The survey I'm talking about targeted both men and women, and included a broader, nation-wide sample. It analyzed behaviors ranging from verbal sexual harassment, to cyber sexual harassment, to unwanted sexual touching, to sexual assault. 77% of women experienced verbal sexual harassment, 51% of women experienced unwelcome sexual touching, 41% of women experienced cyber sexual harassment (all those guys sending unwanted pictures of their genitalia to complete strangers), 34% of women were actually followed, and 27% of women had been sexually assaulted.

Source.

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population. The one in five statistic that is usually touted was done with a sample size over twice that of the online survey (5,446 women were also surveyed) and even then, caution is urged when making the claim because it is misleading and isn't representative of the whole population. Oddly enough, only 1,375 men were surveyed, which leads me to suspect that the results are skewed the way they are because of the massive disparity in numbers.

If people are saying that a study with over 6,500 subjects in it isn't representative of a whole population, what makes you think 2,000 suddenly is?

It impacts the quality of discussion here if we start calling everyone who disagrees with us a virgin or incel, and it's puerile anyhow.

Meh, it makes them look pathetic and unable to handle contradicting opinions, which is fine by me.

[Linux and the X]

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population.

There may be an argument that it's not a representative sample, but it's certainly large enough.

[Ors Might]

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population.

There may be an argument that it's not a representative sample, but it's certainly large enough.

Large enough for what? If it’s not representative then the only conclusion that we can draw is that it happens.

[Linux and the X]

There may be an argument that it's not a representative sample, but it's certainly large enough.

Large enough for what? If it’s not representative then the only conclusion that we can draw is that it happens.

A sample of 2000 is large enough to be representative of an entire country. There's a risk that the 2000 people chosen for the sample may not be representative of the entire country, but the problem there would be with the choice of which 2000 people it is, not that it's 2000 people.

[Ors Might]

Large enough for what? If it’s not representative then the only conclusion that we can draw is that it happens.

A sample of 2000 is large enough to be representative of an entire country. There's a risk that the 2000 people chosen for the sample may not be representative of the entire country, but the problem there would be with the choice of which 2000 people it is, not that it's 2000 people.

A sample of 2000 can represent over 300 million people? That seems a bit iffy to me.

Edit: I should clarify that I make no pretense of understanding statistics and data gathering. I’m stating that as a layman I don’t understand whether or not 2000 is representative of a large country, and if so, how.

[Sovaal]

A sample of 2000 is large enough to be representative of an entire country. There's a risk that the 2000 people chosen for the sample may not be representative of the entire country, but the problem there would be with the choice of which 2000 people it is, not that it's 2000 people.

A sample of 2000 can represent over 300 million people? That seems a bit iffy to me.

Edit: I should clarify that I make no pretense of understanding statistics and data gathering. I’m stating that as a layman I don’t understand whether or not 2000 is representative of a large country, and if so, how.

Depends on where those 2k are drawn from. A lot of surveys are going to imho suffer from selection bias, such as surveying only subscribers to a certain service or newspaper or certain area or oganiza6tion, such as a college town.

[Costa Fierro]

A sample of 2000 can represent over 300 million people? That seems a bit iffy to me.

Edit: I should clarify that I make no pretense of understanding statistics and data gathering. I’m stating that as a layman I don’t understand whether or not 2000 is representative of a large country, and if so, how.

Depends on where those 2k are drawn from. A lot of surveys are going to imho suffer from selection bias, such as surveying only subscribers to a certain service or newspaper or certain area or oganiza6tion, such as a college town.

The 2,000 were collected from an online self-survey.

[Teachian]

A sample of 2000 can represent over 300 million people? That seems a bit iffy to me.

Edit: I should clarify that I make no pretense of understanding statistics and data gathering. I’m stating that as a layman I don’t understand whether or not 2000 is representative of a large country, and if so, how.

Depends on where those 2k are drawn from. A lot of surveys are going to imho suffer from selection bias, such as surveying only subscribers to a certain service or newspaper or certain area or oganiza6tion, such as a college town.

From my (admittedly limited) experience with statistics, sample groups can be a lot smaller than the average person might expect. Though I still think 2k is a little iffy to be representative without a shitton ofmore than a few caveats.

I definitely agree that it’s probably the selection that matters more. Unless the survey goes out of its way to ensure it’s reasonably avoiding over representing a group/viewpoint, it’s a little iffy. Which isn’t always easy nowadays.

[Aclion]

I don't think the guys doing are doing it because they think girls like it.

Why then? Is it like a bad joke?

my guess? Negative attention>no attention

[Costa Fierro]

Why then? Is it like a bad joke?

my guess? Negative attention>no attention

Pretty much. How men are expected to get even the chance of the date amounts to psychopathy or sociopathy, I forget which.

[Fahran]

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population. The one in five statistic that is usually touted was done with a sample size over twice that of the online survey (5,446 women were also surveyed) and even then, caution is urged when making the claim because it is misleading and isn't representative of the whole population. Oddly enough, only 1,375 men were surveyed, which leads me to suspect that the results are skewed the way they are because of the massive disparity in numbers.

It depends on the size of the population, the confidence level, and the margin of error we want to allow. Assuming a population of approximately 372 million, like the United States, we would need only 1068 respondents to obtain statistical data that possesses a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error. You're more than welcome to doubt the entire fields of statistics and the social sciences, but that's a much weaker argument that genuinely questioning the methodology. The sample size is fine.

Source.
Calculate it yourself.

[Fahran]

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population.

There may be an argument that it's not a representative sample, but it's certainly large enough.

Yeah, I'm assuming, given the graphs and scientific trappings, that they had some methodology beyond self-selection because self-selection would undoubtedly bias the sample - with people who care about those issues and more likely to respond that they have been sexually harassed being more likely to self-select. I'd expect the male answers to reflect that though. I'll have to dig into it a bit.

[Fahran]

my guess? Negative attention>no attention

Pretty much. How men are expected to get even the chance of the date amounts to psychopathy or sociopathy, I forget which.

While 28% of men aged between 18 and 30 have been completely celibate in the past year, 72% have not been, presumably a large number of them are in stable romantic relationships and/or dating regularly. That means that majority of young men can get dates, and, presumably, they didn't sexually harass their partners to do so. And, no, I'm not denigrating the 28% of young men who are presumably losing out on the dating "market." That sucks. But it won't be permanent. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of happily married men who engage in cat-calling at times, especially if they're in a culture/place that encourages such behavior and punishes a refusal to engage in it.

[Costa Fierro]

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population. The one in five statistic that is usually touted was done with a sample size over twice that of the online survey (5,446 women were also surveyed) and even then, caution is urged when making the claim because it is misleading and isn't representative of the whole population. Oddly enough, only 1,375 men were surveyed, which leads me to suspect that the results are skewed the way they are because of the massive disparity in numbers.

It depends on the size of the population, the confidence level, and the margin of error we want to allow. Assuming a population of approximately 372 million, like the United States, we would need only 1068 respondents to obtain statistical data that possesses a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error. You're more than welcome to doubt the entire fields of statistics and the social sciences, but that's a much weaker argument that genuinely questioning the methodology. The sample size is fine.

Source.
Calculate it yourself.

Polls and studies are different. A poll means very little because it changes easily and doesn't quantify much, a study does. Ergo I don't believe that a study with 2,000 subjects is capable of being representative of an entire population for the same reasons that people suggest the 1 in 5 statistic isn't representative.

[Fahran]

Polls and studies are different. A poll means very little because it changes easily and doesn't quantify much, a study does. Ergo I don't believe that a study with 2,000 subjects is capable of being representative of an entire population for the same reasons that people suggest the 1 in 5 statistic isn't representative.

Polls and studies aren't necessarily different. A poll is often one aspect of a particular scientific study in the social sciences. So long as the controls are adequate and the sample population is reasonably representative of the population you want it to reflect, you shouldn't have an issue. 2000 subjects is more than enough. I think the better argument, as I stated, has to do with methodology and selection bias - and, short of pulling up the methodology, which I might try later, I can't really discuss those arguments presently.

[Des-Bal]

Polls and studies are different. A poll means very little because it changes easily and doesn't quantify much, a study does. Ergo I don't believe that a study with 2,000 subjects is capable of being representative of an entire population for the same reasons that people suggest the 1 in 5 statistic isn't representative.

The one in five number is questioned because of it's methodology not that it's sample size was too small. You're kind of talking nonsense here.

[Forsher]

It depends on the size of the population, the confidence level, and the margin of error we want to allow. Assuming a population of approximately 372 million, like the United States, we would need only 1068 respondents to obtain statistical data that possesses a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error. You're more than welcome to doubt the entire fields of statistics and the social sciences, but that's a much weaker argument that genuinely questioning the methodology. The sample size is fine.

Source.
Calculate it yourself.

Polls and studies are different. A poll means very little because it changes easily and doesn't quantify much, a study does. Ergo I don't believe that a study with 2,000 subjects is capable of being representative of an entire population for the same reasons that people suggest the 1 in 5 statistic isn't representative.

Fahran should have gone further.

After a certain point... adding more people actually makes the quality of the statistical inference (which is based on mathematical proofs) worse. That is, until you're at the point where we can throw around the word census.

I should be able to tell you more about this but I can't. As far as I remember the problem is that as n -> N, the approximation of using sampling without replacement for with replacement denigrates. In fact, I think it might be because we use a binomial approximation... hmm.

Sample size really isn't all that important. 30 cases is often more than enough.

Needless to say, you can never analyse the headline figures in surveys... you have to adjust for the survey methodology (e.g. is it a cluster sample? is there stratification? multiple phases?).

2,000 people is hardly a large enough size to be extrapolating data as if it's representative across a whole population.

There may be an argument that it's not a representative sample, but it's certainly large enough.

Firstly Costa's just wrong. Secondly, Costa's perpetuating a very damaging and extremely false understanding in being wrong. Thirdly, adding more units to an unrepresentative sample just makes things worse. Larger samples are only useful for reducing sampling error which is the kind of error we can talk about mathematically... it's the non-sampling error that we need to worry about.

Sampling error, for clarity, is just variance due to taking samples. Say, for example, our population consists of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Obviously the true/population mean is 3 but if we took samples of size 3 we'd get several different sample means. The variation in the sample means? That's sampling error.

Non-sampling error is everything else. It's really confusing terminology because this is where we talk about stuff like self-selection or non-response bias that intuitively seem like sampling problems. But it's also where we discuss interviewer effects or social desirability bias. Frame error fits in here too... samples actually come from sample frames, not populations, you see.

A sample of 2000 is large enough to be representative of an entire country. There's a risk that the 2000 people chosen for the sample may not be representative of the entire country, but the problem there would be with the choice of which 2000 people it is, not that it's 2000 people.

Whoops, seems you know all that. I'll leave it in because clearly not everyone does.

[Ostroeuropa]

I didn't say I wasn't talking to you I said I didn't see the point in debating statistics with you because you aren't concerned with them. Nothing about that stops me from pointing out that when you separate out the gibberish most of what you're saying is just schoolyard taunts.

Hey, the only reason I'm being so hostile is that I whenever I see someone bring up the issues with women facing sexual harassment and assault, there's always some MRA popping up to ask, "but what about men?" in an effort to derail and delegitimize women's grievances. So, my response is undisguised hostility. To me, they're no better than the goons who ask about prejudice against white people when the subject is about the oppression of minorities.

This is a shell game feminists Like to play. You claim it's about women's issues but it isn't, it's about male perpetrators. Women victims of women don't get coverage, such as the fact women in prison are more likely to rape eachother than male prisoners and so look, or that lesbian relationships have the highest rates of domestic violence.

Instead what happens is "Women are oppressed by men and here is evidence for it.", then you cry and complain when we rightly point out relevant facts which cast that narrative into doubt, like the fact men also suffer these experiences and women also perpetrate them but male victims receive less support. (A dynamic your approach is attempting to worsen, making it anti-equality).

It's like pretending you're talking about victims of terrorism but all you ever do is demonize Muslims. We aren't m falling for it. If you want to discuss women victims, then discuss them. Don't just demonize men and pretend it's the same thing.

When you go around saying DV is a women's issue and it's caused by men's sexism to women, the stats on male victims are relevant to showing you are full of shit and appropriating the issue in order to demonize men. Like "Terrorism is caused by Islam" isn't being derailed when you point out rates of white terrorism.


We're derailing your sexism and delegitimizing it. Not women's issues. Your position is dependent on not understanding the difference.

Do you think media and politicians and so on talking about white victims of black criminals 24/7 to the exclusion of any other criminal dynamics might be bad for society? Congratulations you understand why feminism is bad, you just refuse to be consistent about it.

Wah wah you're derailing by not allowing us to dominate the news cycle with constant portrayals of minorities as a n existential threat to white people. (Because some of them do things to whitw people which some white people also do to black people, and which white people also do to themselves.)

In the case of DV it's also highly relevant given that the stats feminists quote to demonstrate instances of women victims are crime stats, to note that male victims are often arrested as perpetrators and this can be proven. So mentioning male victims to point out you're presenting women who are abusers as victims of abuse to cast women as facing an issue, when in fact that's the result of anti male discrimination, is also relevant. Pretending that's merely "derailing" is just a cheap way of DARVO, since you're now derailing the discussion into criticism of your opponents conduct rather than dealing with their substantive criticism of the ideas you have presented. )