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."
I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Did not this exact same study get a piece on slashdot a few months ago when it was published?
"I find this highly... Illogical."
BTW: What's with the adverb, Spock? A thing is in the category of logical distribution, or it is not. The presumption "Highly" is an illogical value judgement.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"Science" doesn't have a problem. It merely has more data points to analyze.
I've got to think that women are more likely to actually report sexual harassment than men are. Probably wouldn't make up the entire difference, but would still be something to think about.
The study the level of sexual assault of trainees in academic fieldwork environments... was 26% of women and 6% of men reported experiencing sexual assault. According to a study by the CDC, 51.9 percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any type of attacker. More than half (54 percent) of the female rape victims identified by the survey were younger than age 18 when they experienced their first attempted or completed rape. Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator. Study: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
The weak prey on the weakest.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Where can "sexual assault" be defined as "an offensive comment"?
Not in this study. There had to be physical contact for it to be assault.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And that's a recurring problem in these discussions. That the sexists will imagine a strawman version of the methodology in order to dismiss it. Strawmanning these kinds of concerns is one of two tools in their toolbox. The other is "ignore this, there's [other vaguely comparable problem] so it's balanced" as if the correct thing to do isn't addressing both issues.
They are also being entertained at conferences by a lot of vendors with fat wallets. To say beer flows like water at some of these events is an understatement to say the least. It isn't hard to see how this can lead to sexual assault as well. It of course in no way justifies it, but the culture doesn't impede it very well, either.
2) If the men have a significant response rate, then just maybe that means the problem is YOUR QUESTION IS TOO VAGUE, rather than both genders experiencing sexual issues.
The mere fact that this article claims that 40+% of men experience 'sexual harassment', proves that their definition of 'sexual harassment' is not reasonable - the kind of thing only a PC fool trying to prove a problem exists would use.
Similarly, 6% of men experience sexual assault seems on the high side, though not as ridiculous as the 41% claiming harassment.
The only thing going on here is idiots using bad definitions for their poll.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Oh fuck off you SJW idiot. People react negatively because people just like you made the definitions such things as harsh words and looking at people the wrong way. It's become a bit more sensible in most places due to the push-back, but many people still remember the ridiculousness. People like YOU hurt more women than any other factor and you stop the adoption of social constructs that would actually protect women. How do you do this? You bitch and moan about all the wrong things and spend all your time attacking "the bad guys" so you can feel somehow superior.
You don't give a shit about women, all of your shitposting is to pat yourself on the ego.
Phrasing of the questions in a survey is important to fully understanding the problem that is being examined. Here are the study questions. Two of the most relevant questions are these:
32. Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at an anthropological field site?
39. Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at an anthropological field site?
The PLOS ONE document itself is very thorough, and worth reading through to more fully understand the issue.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I'm pretty darn sure that paying attention to somebody else on the allegation that they are better looking than you does not actually qualify as sexual harassment.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Well, if they're like Mr. Nash in the movie A beautiful mind - then I can sort of see this as a problem.
He basically asks the girl to simply skip the pleasant introduction, courting etc. and just go for the sex.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Hey Soulskill! Having issues with memory or is it something related to sex in general?
Same study, same slashdot editor, 2 months ago...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
So, why not just go over there and read the +4 and +5 comments for the last time?
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I rather object to the title, Science doesn't have a problem with anything.....science is a tool. Some scientists, on the other had, very much seem to have a problem.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The article looks at field work, not science as a whole. The results are self-reported, not verified or verifiable. And "harassment" and "assault" are defined so broadly that many normal day-to-day interactions can fall under them. In short, there is no evidence that "science has a sexual assault problem" in any standard meaning of those words.
Much as feminists and other progressives like to establish such a principle, in reality, just because you feel uncomfortable or believe that something was inappropriate doesn't mean anybody has actually done anything wrong.
In science, we call that a biological need to reproduce with the fittest specimens available.
Looking at questions 32-35 in the online survey, question 32 suggests a variety of encounters one of which is referred to as harassment, then retroactively describes them all as harrassment in question 35. It is entirely possible respondents interpreted this series of questions differently than the survey creators. The criterion for harassment is the EEOC guide http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm, but respondents were not informed of that either. Whether or not respondents felt harassed is not explicit in these questions, but part of a criteria the respondents would not necessarily be aware of.
No. It's a recurring problem in these discussions because radical feminists will redefine terms. So it's hard to know at any one time whose definition you are dealing with. Are you dealing with something sane or are you dealing with something that's been "trumped up" in order to push an agenda?
You can't trust any random study to be free from such biases.
Then you end up with the basic magnitude problems that occur when dire claims fail to meet basic sanity with respect to numeracy.
If you're actually numerate, some of these claims are just incredible on their face.
I don't think most of the people pushing them fully understand the implications.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well yes, you are, guilty of deflecting criticism by claiming the definitions are too broad.
That's a common defensive reaction.
Problems should be well-defined. Someone can take that position whether they're doing it defensively or not and still be making a legitimate point. Calling it defensive, notably on a topic where there is moral stigma associated with being defensive about it, is just an ad hominem attack.
There are plenty of legitimate critiques of Parent's message--he appears to be dismissing out-of-hand an issue that affects hundreds of millions of people a year. He also failed to state what definitions he thinks are too broad to be useful. Responding with a question about one or more of those that might make people think about the issue is the difference between trolling and dialogue.
Given the relative percentages... it's likely that the "harassment escalating to assault" numbers for the men is underreported by a factor of 2.5, which would be about on a par with the underreporting of men being raped in the general population. There's a real cultural stigma to reporting by men, who are, by stereotype and therefore societal norms, "supposed to be" on the other end of the power equation.
Being gay is not wrong; it's merely disgusting. And Sean Hannity is an authoritarian lackey of the establishment who presents a false faux "conservative" honey trap to whites.
The sooner we get on with exterminating these war-mongering corporate Republicrat spokesmen on Fox and MSNBC, the better.
Resist "Diversity"!
Poindexter is more likely going to get his ass kicked by Helga, the research assistant who can pick up a tyrannosaurus thighbone.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, we clearly saw the OP redefine the terms, and the first reply chastise the liar.
You can make up a narrative like that for yourself, if you wish, but I was clearly correct in this particular case.
So, shut up.
And so you use that strawman, in response to me saying people like you strawman, and you cite no evidence it's real.
Good fucking job.
You can impugn my character all you want. Calling out people who are perpetuating lies on the internet is seen as perfectly reasonable in other discussions, but so you random ACs will bring the wrath of god if you ever dare to call misogynistic shitfucks on it.
Nerd: Look at the terrible NFL and how they treat women.
Woman: ORLY?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
because science is a concept.
the people conducting what they call science are the problem.
Have a look at the original article the authors even note the major problems of this study. The sample (Only 666 respondents) is not representative. The subject matter is more likely to be responded to by those with strong negative views. The link was referred, making it a snow ball sample, those who know others with strong view are likely to pass it to those people. The group was uncharacteristically composed of women They assumed a different email name signifies a different person. The researchers pointed this out along with the face that there is not way of singling out any group as being worse than any other group. This in combination with the differing understandings of the questions. That said however, there are issues here. It is important to highlight the different understanding and norms between genders and age groups that can cause problems as well as bring attention to the options open to victims to seek help and remedy issues. Note that the survey found that none of the men knew what to do if they felt they had been sexually harassed.
Do you think there is a possibility you have a few things wrong?
If not, perhaps you should brace yourself.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
A few years ago we had a nasty witch hunt for supposed child molesters. Then we went through a sexual assault panic. Now we seem to be getting really crazy in regard to sexual assaults in the work place. The catch is that sexual assaults or insults can be claimed out of whole cloth. Think about two or three people working covertly who sign up for work at a company as if they never knew each other. All of a sudden a false accusation is made and the other two workers back up the lies told by the supposed victim. You know the business can be sued for lots of money. Just how can a target defend against such tactics? Imagine an employee claiming that he saw a grab and fondle incident while the woman tried to break free. Then another employee claiming that she saw the supposed victim fighting off the same executive. The problem is that false accusations are all too common. Remember the Duke sports team that was hammered and scarred forever by a crack addict with false accusations? Or how about the McMartin Day Care incident where people were ruined for life where no violations ever took place. And even the famous George Zimmerman case is important as it proves corruption in the system and an unjust system on top of that. Mr. Zimmerman met every inch of Florida law. The police refused to make an arrest as there was zero evidence of wrong doing. The prosecutor refused to take Mr. Zimmerman to trial as there was no violation of law. Yet the notoriously corrupt Governor Rick Scott ordered a special prosecutor and state police to arrest Mr. Zimmerman and take him to trial. A sane jury found him not guilty. Yet he has been bankrupted and lives in fear and is probably a bit crazy now due to the persecution he has suffered. Keep in mind that simply clenching a fist and stepping forward is enough to justify being gunned down under Florida law. There are areas that the police and courts need to avoid as proof and truth will usually not be found. Now we are told that if a female is the type that says oh no, oh no, oh yes, oh yes during sex that somehow that makes a man a rapist. Obviously the entire situation must be considered and be provable before any arrest takes place.
Sexual Assault has a science problem...
"Moogs! Would YOU buy that for a quarter?" CMK
Okay, the fact that this isn't even an argument that is cohesive makes it kinda hard to deconstruct.
I'll address the only clear point you managed to make though.
It's not wrong to call the recurring clearly arbitrary dismissal of female concerns "sexist". That's what's motivating it.
Isn't the other statistic that 1 in 5 women in the US have been sexually assaulted? So, that's a 20% baseline. I imagine somewhat of an increase in sexual assault if you're working in a field that is predominantly the opposite sex. Plus I'm sure there are some other modifiers for the field that you simply aren't going to be able to change, like the types of people that get into those fields - I don't mean peverts, but maybe higher ambition or drive can contribute to crossing the line between flirtation and a meeting with HR. ---It could also be that educated and motivated females are less tolerant of assault and more likely to report it.--- Or maybe science makes nerds horny (half joking).
X
I've read an article about the same sort of problem but then about ISIS/IS mass raping women and little boys in their war and the lack of public outrage about that. It seems that rape is a culturally accepted practice in the USA. Given the fact of unsolved and unreported rapes withing USA borders and their military, it's hard to find proof that rape *isn't" accepted, even if it's technically a crime.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dont' forget supervisory harassment combinations of male->male and female->female, those also occur.
"you transsexual weirdo"
"I did *NOT* bother "shim"
The others included references and links to a pic from Rocky Horror Picture Show, saying that I was nuts for "cutting off my balls", "He/She", Frank. N. Furter, "you are mentally unhinged by taking estrogen to attempt to upset your body's natural order of things, which yes, includes your mind taking a huge hit. You have mentally unbalanced yourself more than doing something quite insane in a sex change to yourself also."
And a lot more. And this goes on every day ...
Sexual harassment in a thread about sexual harassment? This all started because someone asked "What is APK" and I told them.
Now, back on topic, the headline is mislabeled (so what else is new). It says "Science has a sexual assault problem," whereas the actual survey talks about sexual harassment. And a lot of posters seem to have failed to make the distinction.
One (not exhaustive) definition of sexual harassment I would use is words or acts containing references to sex or sexual identity that either make me uncomfortable, or, or, in APK's case, were intended to make me uncomfortable but failed. Sexual assault, on the other hand, is when I'm lying on a hospital gurney in emergency with paper towels stuffed between my legs to stop the bleeding after being attacked. And for the doubters that sexual assault is under-reported, I didn't report that incident - the doctors did. I couldn't tell them. I just wanted the whole world to leave me suffer alone in peace.
Sexual harassment is not a case of "I'll know it when I see it", because too many of the harassers simply don't get it in the first place. Saying so doesn't make me a feminazi - there are plenty of men who do "get it". And there are other parts of the world where it's a heck of a lot worse, due to a culture that treats women as 3rd-class citizens.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It is perfectly logical to call a tomato a vegetable. Because it is a vegetable (culinarily speaking). It's also a fruit (botanically speaking).
The methodology of this study is pretty shaky, so the numbers are worthless. The fact that they're what you'd expect them to be is meaningless. I'm not saying there's no harrassment issues in science or field work, or that your conjecture is necessarily wrong. I'm saying the selection bias of this survey makes it impossible to draw any conclusions from it.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Now I'm wondering why.
Liberty.
"Most of these women encountered this abuse..."
So, not to discriminate or anything, but what about those 6% men?
Anyway, to the numbers, I'd only say that 26% (or even 6%) of 666 is staggering. The authors should have gone to great lengths to work with law enforcement provide a means to gather anonymized data in such a way that still could be used to discover the offenders. Otherwise I don't think this paper has any more value than some article in a tabloid.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Anyone with brains can write a botnet that doesn't use dns. Sure, it will be taken down quicker, but there are ways around that as well. Sheesh, get over it, this is not 1985 any more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You're such a fool, apk. Stuck in the mid-90s technologically, the '70s socially ... transsexual women have the same status in law as genetic women. And in society? We're where gays and lesbians were a generation ago - uber-cool to have at least one as a friend. Jealous much?
All I told people to do is what you've been doing to others for years. You can dish it out (sort of), but you can't take it, because you're a hypocrite, like most narcissists.
As for the "sockpuppet account" charge, you know it's bogus. When I was outed on slashdot in '06, I took a second account that was more gender-appropriate. And no, you didn't "chase me away" in 2012 - my retinas deteriorated to the point where I couldn't use a computer (or read, or sometimes even see). Contrary to expectations, and thanks to a lot of hard work by several teams of specialists, I can see well enough to use a computer, read, do day-to-day tasks (just don't ask me to drive a car, tell the difference between colours, ask me if a picture is straight, or similar stuff). If I still had the old passwords, I would have gone back to using my old accounts.
But keep on going through every post I make, and using proxies to post 100 times a day about how I'm such a weird freak. All you're doing is reinforcing your reputation as a social maladroit and a hater of people like me who put the "T" in LGBT.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If someone comes up to you and says that they are uncomfortable about something, do you say, 'but the statistics argue that i can be theoretically uncomfotable too'?, perhaps one could say 'I'm sorry to hear that, can we work on fixing that together'? People are pointing to a systemic challenge that they face in life that we can solve by just talking and establishing a communicated common ground and everybody goes up in arms and start yelling dumb neologisms like misandry without even engaging feminism in any sort of meaningful way apart from what has been reverberating Rush Limbaugh style from conservative networks onto the internet and echoing out back from tech circles. Whenever there is an article that might indicate a gendered wrongdoing, slashdot gets their dicks tangled up in a knot faster than a 'first poster' can post a 'first post' post. Rather than trying up to come up with reasons why this article that goes beyond your beliefs is wrong, why not see the problem as it clearly exists? Might make you discomfortable sure, but hell is less discomfortable than what women(as well as LGBT people) report as being in the workplace. Given that this exists within a matrushka doll of gendered power hierarchies where men are empowered (... > expectations > education > career steps > ...).. anyhow.. I am digressing here, just wanted to point out that this is not a problem of research methods or terminology but of being.
Where are you guys getting this 'radical feminists' shit from anyway, given the overuse of certain terms like agenda, sounds like echoes of Fox and 'conservative' radio shitshows. Anyhow, the article or i kan reed has yet to make any 'radical' demands or remarks, I would actually go far as to say that they are fairly conservative liberal arguments that point towards problems in the path toward a superficial gender equity. The study clearly defines its terms and methodology, you can keep beating ghosts, or straw women as some call it, but as with any ghosts, they are your frustrations manifest in your imaginary, so save yourself the trouble and your arms the strain and maybe listen for a change, perhaps there are other people who are right about certain things that you might not know about? People can still learn you know, its not like we are cast in stone after puberty.
You seem to forget that I once worked for the Russians. They taught me a few things, I taught them a few things, fun times.
It's entirely possible to create malware that doesn't use DNS, and it doesn't matter how many entries you put in your hosts file, you're screwed. We investigated this because we had to be ready if someone tried to do this to us, because they could have poisoned a LOT of computers that way. And, of course, because it's always handy to have something special in your bag of tricks :-)
Like I said, it's absurd not to take advantage of the capabilities of modern hardware. Because if you don't some $BAD_PERSON out there will be quite happy to steal all those cpu cycles you "saved."
Your "15 questions" are straw men that take away from the point that you're obsolete, and so is your hosts file "solution", which is why you have a long reputation of being the "hosts file troll".
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well, since you FINALLY asked how you are absurd:
1st definition of absurd from google: Ab-surd: (of a person or a person's behavior or actions) foolish; unreasonable.
Going through every post I make in every thread, posting multiple responses (up to 100 posts a day) attacking me based on my gender (including in a thread about sexual harassment) - I think that most people would qualify your behaviour as both foolish and unreasonable.
Getting all bent out of shape when someone exposes your bullying tactics and then tells other people how to do the same to you - both your original bullying and your response when you get it thrown right back at you are foolish, unreasonable, and just plain childish.
Saying I'm stalking you when it's obvious you're the one doing the stalking - foolish, unreasonable, and more than a bit delusional. Oh, and your paranoia is showing.
Thinking that attacking me because I'm transsexual is going to get you anywhere on a tech site, when tech attracts a higher-than-average number of people in the LGBT community, as well as sympathizers, is foolish. Continuing it day after day when it doesn't work is not just unreasonable, it's stupid and/or insane.
Clinging to arguments for your HOSTS file that are completely orthogonal to today's reality, and that obviously the vast majority don't care about and don't need because they have found better ways to solve their own problems, is foolish on it's face and unreasonable to those looking on, who use their computers just fine without your "solution."
Going on about how "taking estrogen is rotting your brain", that "you're crazy to have cut your balls off" (btw - I'm not a surgeon, and I don't pretend to be one on the innnertubes), when I'm following expert medical advice that has a proven track record of success, well, that's both foolish and ridiculous.
The problem isn't your hosts file - it's your behaviour, which certainly is absurd, and probably disturbed as well.
That leads to another question - why? What is it about me in particular that sets you off worse than anyone else? Is it me, or do you have a problem with women in general (I seem to recall some attacks you made on other women who have challenged you that would indicate that this may be the case)? Do you think that men are superior to women, and that anyone who willingly "trades in" to become a woman is stupid because you have a low opinion of women?
And that, of course, brings us back on-topic - the "science has a sexual assault problem. You don't seem to be capable of the introspection necessary to realize how absurd your behaviour is. How many other women have you felt it's your right to attack, and still continue years later, about their sex, gender, or sexual identity, just because you disagreed with their opinion on a technical issue of absolutely no import to anyone but you?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.