Slashdot Mirror
Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem
cold fjord writes: Phys.org reports, "The life sciences have come under fire recently with a study published in PLOS ONE that investigated the level of sexual harassment and sexual assault of trainees in academic fieldwork environments. The study found 71% of women and 41% of men respondents experienced sexual harassment, while 26% of women and 6% of men reported experiencing sexual assault. The research team also found that within the hierarchy of academic field sites surveyed, the majority of incidents were perpetrated by peers and supervisors. The New York Times notes, "Most of these women encountered this abuse very early in their careers, as trainees. The travel inherent to scientific fieldwork increases vulnerability as one struggles to work within unfamiliar and unpredictable conditions."
"There was some feminazi that went on a tear"
"It was all a load of mindless victimology."
Oh yeah, you sound totally informed about whatever thing you're talking about. Not like you're talking out your ass at all. Yep, just some feminazi. No particular person, that'd make you accountable for your claim.
What really gets me is how slashdot eats up shit like this, and only when it comes to feminism.
you joke but you are probably correct here. The issue is not that 71% of all women are being sexually assaulted. Its that 71% of all women "feel assaulted" Somehow in the past 40 years what someones feelings are trump what the actual actions are.
Saying something sexual, is NOT sexual assault.
I disagree. The problem is that most men think that the way they sometimes treat women is not sexual assault, when in reality it is. This should be an eye opener for all men to take another look at themselves.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
You're right; feminists don't in general, push for only that, because legalistic bias isn't the only kind that's harming people. You can see object evidence of how systemic bias hurts women Or objective evidence that certain kinds of cultural media measurably cause those biases. Standing against that, in spite of having nothing to do with the law, is morally justified, and even necessary.
But I'm sure you meant that what they we want is some kinda imagined matriarchy, where special rights are reserved for one half the population. Which is dumb. And while people with all sorts of self-labels say all sorts of dumb things, it is not a suggestion made by anywhere near a large percentage of feminists.
I'm glad to see you have corrected your argument from it's previously incorrect position.
They don't define "unwanted sexual contact." For example, Bora Zivkovic had a habit of hugging women, some of whom didn't enjoy it. That is literally an "unwanted sexual contact." It may be creepy, unpleasant or inappropriate, and it should (and did) stop. But it's not rape.
This study is about unwanted sexual contact, not rape. If you don't know what unwanted sexual contact means, take a course. Hint, pressing your body up against an unwilling partner is unwanted sexual contact.
This study doesn't distinguish between unwanted hugging and forcible rape, and it doesn't break down the 26% figure into more or less violent forms of unwanted sexual contact. It doesn't even give the number of violent rapes.
Aww, does it not discuss legitimate rape? It's a study about sexual assault.
If you have an unknown number of unwanted huggings, at one end of the spectrum, and an unknown number of violent rapes, at the other end of the spectrum, then that's a big grey area.
Not if you are looking at rates of sexual assault. In which case, it's exactly what you were looking for.
I'd like to see a better-quality study.
You're free to fund one, or if you think you can do better - perform it yourself.