Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Gavin Chipper »

While the case of Sarah Everard is indeed tragic (assuming the remains that have been found are hers), the media coverage of it can't go unmentioned here. Rather than being seen as a one-off murder, it's turned into a narrative of women not being safe in general, unsurprisingly headed by lunatic-in chief Jess Phillips. Obviously it's a bad thing if women do feel unsafe while out, but there's no evidence that they are in fact less safe than men as far as I can see.

Men are more likely to be the victims of homicide than women. In fact 73% of the victims are male according to the statistics. That's nearly 3 to 1. Have you got anything to say to that, Jess "Society has 'just accepted' dead women" Phillips? Also, while women may feel less safe than men, young men tend to express few fears about their safety, but experience more personal crime than any other group. I also think there was more than a whiff of Missing white woman syndrome in this case.

Obviously this sort of thing can polarise people, with one side accusing others of being "SJWs" and the other using other insults like "gammon" or whatever, but really this is so oversimplifying. People should be able to speak out regardless of which side of this fictional divide people will accuse them of being on.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd »

Do you really believe that women have no more reason to feel unsafe when out alone (particularly at night) than men do?

I'm not coming at this from a Jess Phillips angle at all. I'm slightly confused by your 'culture wars' framing of what seems to me to be a perfectly straightforward issue. If it's that side of things you're taking aim at, fire away, I'll bugger off as I have no interest, but if you really think that lone women at night have no more reason to feel unsafe than lone men at night, I find that bizarre.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:34 pm While the case of Sarah Everard is indeed tragic (assuming the remains that have been found are hers), the media coverage of it can't go unmentioned here. Rather than being seen as a one-off murder, it's turned into a narrative of women not being safe in general, unsurprisingly headed by lunatic-in chief Jess Phillips. Obviously it's a bad thing if women do feel unsafe while out, but there's no evidence that they are in fact less safe than men as far as I can see.

Men are more likely to be the victims of homicide than women. In fact 73% of the victims are male according to the statistics. That's nearly 3 to 1. Have you got anything to say to that, Jess "Society has 'just accepted' dead women" Phillips? Also, while women may feel less safe than men, young men tend to express few fears about their safety, but experience more personal crime than any other group. I also think there was more than a whiff of Missing white woman syndrome in this case.

Obviously this sort of thing can polarise people, with one side accusing others of being "SJWs" and the other using other insults like "gammon" or whatever, but really this is so oversimplifying. People should be able to speak out regardless of which side of this fictional divide people will accuse them of being on.
When's the last time you actually felt unsafe walking alone? Mine was a week ago. You can see it on my Strava

https://www.strava.com/activities/4895731327

I walked down to the Tesco on the A30 - I always cut through a pleasantish short wooded section to avoid the busy roundabout, and I did on the way down. There was a guy behind me and something about his footsteps made me incredibly nervous - 100% probably my paranoia but it made me spooked enough to take the road route on the way back, which I never do.

The guy was almost certainly entirely innocent, but it didn't stop me being scared.

Could the guy have avoided it? Yep, he could have stopped a bit and dropped back, or any of the other suggestions that have been made on twitter. Should he have needed to? Probably not, but it is a fact that women do feel vulnerable, and with good reason; and a guy who recognises this and acts to avoid creating that situation is worth his weight in gold.

Feeling scared walking alone is sadly the norm for women.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:34 pm Men are more likely to be the victims of homicide than women. In fact 73% of the victims are male according to the statistics. That's nearly 3 to 1.
I'm staying out the actual debate (for now) but it's misleading to imply that this is any more than vaguely relevant.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Callum Todd wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:29 am Do you really believe that women have no more reason to feel unsafe when out alone (particularly at night) than men do?

I'm not coming at this from a Jess Phillips angle at all. I'm slightly confused by your 'culture wars' framing of what seems to me to be a perfectly straightforward issue. If it's that side of things you're taking aim at, fire away, I'll bugger off as I have no interest, but if you really think that lone women at night have no more reason to feel unsafe than lone men at night, I find that bizarre.
I think that women have different reasons for feeling unsafe than men. In the absence of specific statistics, it still seems perfectly believable to me that women are far more likely to have unwanted attention than men and are more likely to be harassed. And this needs to be addressed. I definitely would not deny this.

However, I am very sceptical of this particular news story being a jumping off board for this discussion. What happened here was a very rare case of an abduction and murder and seems at best only vaguely and speculatively related to anything anyone is talking about. And I think it's irresponsible of the media to start conflating these different things. If many girls and women feel unsafe now, what do you think this coverage is going to do? Make things better or worse? I'm willing to guess that it's going to make things much worse and make women feel even less safe than they do now.
Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:49 am When's the last time you actually felt unsafe walking alone? Mine was a week ago. You can see it on my Strava

https://www.strava.com/activities/4895731327

I walked down to the Tesco on the A30 - I always cut through a pleasantish short wooded section to avoid the busy roundabout, and I did on the way down. There was a guy behind me and something about his footsteps made me incredibly nervous - 100% probably my paranoia but it made me spooked enough to take the road route on the way back, which I never do.

The guy was almost certainly entirely innocent, but it didn't stop me being scared.

Could the guy have avoided it? Yep, he could have stopped a bit and dropped back, or any of the other suggestions that have been made on twitter. Should he have needed to? Probably not, but it is a fact that women do feel vulnerable, and with good reason; and a guy who recognises this and acts to avoid creating that situation is worth his weight in gold.

Feeling scared walking alone is sadly the norm for women.
It probably wasn't that recently to be honest, but it has happened. I haven't been on a train for a while (for obvious reasons), but the shortest route from the nearest station to my house is along a disused rail line and at night it can be pitch black in places. And you do sometimes get dodgy-seeming people down there. And I have sometimes got a bit nervous.

But that was just to answer your question. It wasn't to belittle your own experiences or those of other women. And I'm not denying that it would be a good thing for men to recognise what can make women nervous about them and take actions to avoid it, such as doing what you say.
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:16 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:34 pm Men are more likely to be the victims of homicide than women. In fact 73% of the victims are male according to the statistics. That's nearly 3 to 1.
I'm staying out the actual debate (for now) but it's misleading to imply that this is any more than vaguely relevant.
As a response to some of what has been said about the abduction and (probable) murder of Sarah Everard, then I'd say it's more than relevant.

The general response seems to be that women everywhere are in danger and that it's incredibly common for them to be murdered (well this is at least what Jess Phillips is saying, and people don't seem to be contradicting her). I think a far more responsible course of action would be to point out that this sort of abduction and murder is in fact incredibly rare, and while women may be harassed more than men (which is not to be ignored), it does actually very rarely turn violent, and it is not the case that women are more at risk of physical attack than men - the opposite in fact. Do we want to whip up hysteria or keep our feet on the ground?

Edit - It's been pointed out to me that the specific homicide statistics (73% against men) aren't relevant because it says nothing about the types of attack. It doesn't say that of random murders 73% are against men. However, I would still point to the Guardian article I linked to about random attacks so I think the general point still stands even if one particular strand of evidence was weak.

Edit 2 - But my main point is that the media have jumped on this story about x to start talking about y. And in this massive conflation they're just scaremongering. I think it's pretty bad to be honest.

Edit 3 - It's at least relevant to the Jess Phillips narrative of us being used to dead women. When dead men are more common.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:58 am
Callum Todd wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:29 am Do you really believe that women have no more reason to feel unsafe when out alone (particularly at night) than men do?

I'm not coming at this from a Jess Phillips angle at all. I'm slightly confused by your 'culture wars' framing of what seems to me to be a perfectly straightforward issue. If it's that side of things you're taking aim at, fire away, I'll bugger off as I have no interest, but if you really think that lone women at night have no more reason to feel unsafe than lone men at night, I find that bizarre.
I think that women have different reasons for feeling unsafe than men. In the absence of specific statistics, it still seems perfectly believable to me that women are far more likely to have unwanted attention than men and are more likely to be harassed. And this needs to be addressed. I definitely would not deny this.

However, I am very sceptical of this particular news story being a jumping off board for this discussion. What happened here was a very rare case of an abduction and murder and seems at best only vaguely and speculatively related to anything anyone is talking about. And I think it's irresponsible of the media to start conflating these different things. If many girls and women feel unsafe now, what do you think this coverage is going to do? Make things better or worse? I'm willing to guess that it's going to make things much worse and make women feel even less safe than they do now.
Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:49 am When's the last time you actually felt unsafe walking alone? Mine was a week ago. You can see it on my Strava

https://www.strava.com/activities/4895731327

I walked down to the Tesco on the A30 - I always cut through a pleasantish short wooded section to avoid the busy roundabout, and I did on the way down. There was a guy behind me and something about his footsteps made me incredibly nervous - 100% probably my paranoia but it made me spooked enough to take the road route on the way back, which I never do.

The guy was almost certainly entirely innocent, but it didn't stop me being scared.

Could the guy have avoided it? Yep, he could have stopped a bit and dropped back, or any of the other suggestions that have been made on twitter. Should he have needed to? Probably not, but it is a fact that women do feel vulnerable, and with good reason; and a guy who recognises this and acts to avoid creating that situation is worth his weight in gold.

Feeling scared walking alone is sadly the norm for women.
It probably wasn't that recently to be honest, but it has happened. I haven't been on a train for a while (for obvious reasons), but the shortest route from the nearest station to my house is along a disused rail line and at night it can be pitch black in places. And you do sometimes get dodgy-seeming people down there. And I have sometimes got a bit nervous.

But that was just to answer your question. It wasn't to belittle your own experiences or those of other women. And I'm not denying that it would be a good thing for men to recognise what can make women nervous about them and take actions to avoid it, such as doing what you say.
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:16 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:34 pm Men are more likely to be the victims of homicide than women. In fact 73% of the victims are male according to the statistics. That's nearly 3 to 1.
I'm staying out the actual debate (for now) but it's misleading to imply that this is any more than vaguely relevant.
As a response to some of what has been said about the abduction and (probable) murder of Sarah Everard, then I'd say it's more than relevant.

The general response seems to be that women everywhere are in danger and that it's incredibly common for them to be murdered (well this is at least what Jess Phillips is saying, and people don't seem to be contradicting her). I think a far more responsible course of action would be to point out that this sort of abduction and murder is in fact incredibly rare, and while women may be harassed more than men (which is not to be ignored), it does actually very rarely turn violent, and it is not the case that women are more at risk of physical attack than men - the opposite in fact. Do we want to whip up hysteria or keep our feet on the ground?

Edit - It's been pointed out to me that the specific homicide statistics (73% against men) aren't relevant because it says nothing about the types of attack. It doesn't say that of random murders 73% are against men. However, I would still point to the Guardian article I linked to about random attacks so I think the general point still stands even if one particular strand of evidence was weak.

Edit 2 - But my main point is that the media have jumped on this story about x to start talking about y. And in this massive conflation they're just scaremongering. I think it's pretty bad to be honest.

Edit 3 - It's at least relevant to the Jess Phillips narrative of us being used to dead women. When dead men are more common.
It seems to me that all you are basing the bolded part on is homicide statistics, which is not the total encompassment of all violence. In your argument, you have failed to include:
97% of women have been victim to sexual harassment.
1 in 4 women are victim to domestic violence in contrast to 1 in 6 men.
20% of women in contrast to 4% of men are sexually assaulted in the UK yearly.

(I'm trusting a Facebook post that a friend made recently on this exact issue, but I'm fairly certain the statistics are accurate).

Sure, men might be more at risk of homicide - but to suggest that men are safer than women when walking alone is absolutely daft. I've female friends who were scared to even walk from university campus to their accommodation alone in an evening for fear of being harassed in some way. I can't recall ever feeling personally at risk when alone, and I'm not exactly someone who could be considered an intimidating presence either.

To go some way to explaining your murder statistics - random murders are pretty rare I'd imagine. A great deal of murders are planned - revenge for a drug debt, or some other issue that makes a party decide that they ought to be "bumped off". Men are much more likely to be involved in gangs, drug operations etc so it rather makes sense to me that men are more frequently the victims of homicide. I'd like to know what the statistics are for opportunistic abduction/murder - taking advantage of someone walking alone. I'd be willing to bet that all of a sudden that "male majority" suddenly vanishes.

I don't think the general idea is "women are extremely likely to be murdered", it's that they're way more unsafe when alone and the statistics I've presented above perfectly represent this. This needs MORE publicity, not less. I can recall absolutely loads of incidents where female friends have asked me, or another male friend to walk with them somewhere because they didn't feel safe going alone. Don't think I've ever asked for similar accompaniment - because to date I've never experienced harassment or other such unpleasantness that made me feel unsafe (in contrast to 97% of women. That's virtually every single one). It's a pretty shocking reflection of society that this isn't isolated to just me and my friends - it is happening everywhere, where women are much more vulnerable. That is what is trying to be addressed - the increased vulnerability. I honestly don't get how you see a story like that and decide you need to put a spin on it that actually men are just as vulnerable. They really, really aren't.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:17 am 97% of women have been victim to sexual harassment.
1 in 4 women are victim to domestic violence in contrast to 1 in 6 men.
20% of women in contrast to 4% of men are sexually assaulted in the UK yearly.

(I'm trusting a Facebook post that a friend made recently on this exact issue, but I'm fairly certain the statistics are accurate).
I would like to see sources.

#3 is just wrong. It conflicts with this page on Rape Crisis. 20% yearly and 20% ever are two very different things.

#1 - seems to relate to a YouGov poll. 97% is being widely quoted in the media but it's 52% in this report and their data sheet. I'm probably missing something here.

I am not saying this diminishes the point but let's not dispense with facts.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:17 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:58 am it is not the case that women are more at risk of physical attack than men - the opposite in fact. Do we want to whip up hysteria or keep our feet on the ground?
It seems to me that all you are basing the bolded part on is homicide statistics, which is not the total encompassment of all violence. In your argument, you have failed to include:
97% of women have been victim to sexual harassment.
1 in 4 women are victim to domestic violence in contrast to 1 in 6 men.
20% of women in contrast to 4% of men are sexually assaulted in the UK yearly.

(I'm trusting a Facebook post that a friend made recently on this exact issue, but I'm fairly certain the statistics are accurate).
No, I'm also basing it on the statistics from the Guardian article, which I made clear. Whereas your statistics are from a Facebook post which you're "fairly certain" are accurate. In any case, I'm not disputing your statistics. I'll skip the part of your post about homicide statistics based on what I've said.
Sure, men might be more at risk of homicide - but to suggest that men are safer than women when walking alone is absolutely daft. I've female friends who were scared to even walk from university campus to their accommodation alone in an evening for fear of being harassed in some way. I can't recall ever feeling personally at risk when alone, and I'm not exactly someone who could be considered an intimidating presence either.
Feeling safe and being safe aren't the same thing.
I don't think the general idea is "women are extremely likely to be murdered", it's that they're way more unsafe when alone and the statistics I've presented above perfectly represent this.
I've acknowledged that women are more likely to receieve unwanted attention or be harassed. But I don't see anything suggesting they are more at risk from violence.
I honestly don't get how you see a story like that and decide you need to put a spin on it that actually men are just as vulnerable. They really, really aren't.
I'll repeat what I said earlier. "But my main point is that the media have jumped on this story about x to start talking about y. And in this massive conflation they're just scaremongering. I think it's pretty bad to be honest." That's the spin here. And I think men are just as vulnerable from physical attack, yes.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:42 am #1 - seems to relate to a YouGov poll. 97% is being widely quoted in the media but it's 52% in this report and their data sheet. I'm probably missing something here.
Genuinely perplexed at where 97% comes from.

Even if you include things like "commented on attractiveness directly to you" and "winked at you" as sexual harassment (which a lot of people do not - see the poll, it's interesting), you get 82%.

Can someone help?
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:42 am
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:17 am 97% of women have been victim to sexual harassment.
1 in 4 women are victim to domestic violence in contrast to 1 in 6 men.
20% of women in contrast to 4% of men are sexually assaulted in the UK yearly.

(I'm trusting a Facebook post that a friend made recently on this exact issue, but I'm fairly certain the statistics are accurate).
I would like to see sources.

#3 is just wrong. It conflicts with this page on Rape Crisis. 20% yearly and 20% ever are two very different things.

#1 - seems to relate to a YouGov poll. 97% is being widely quoted in the media but it's 52% in this report and their data sheet. I'm probably missing something here.

I am not saying this diminishes the point but let's not dispense with facts.
Ok I've been Daily Mailed by the Guardian.

HEADLINE: Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds
SUBHEADING: Exclusive: YouGov poll reveals extent of abuse and lack of faith in authorities’ ability to deal with it

Headline relates to one poll, subheading refers to another poll.

The original poll is only talking about 18-24 year olds, so it could correlate with 52% of women overall from the YouGov poll. But I really doubt it. It's almost definitely a poorly designed poll. To deliberately conflate the two is pretty criminal to me.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T »

Seriously it would be harder to believe that 97% haven't been harrassed. I'm an overweight middle-aged woman and I frequently get stuff shouted at me - especially out on my bike ("nice arse" etc) - it's so common as to be uncommentworthy. If you're out in town at closing time, and you're female, you expect to get harrassed.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:03 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:42 am
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:17 am 97% of women have been victim to sexual harassment.
1 in 4 women are victim to domestic violence in contrast to 1 in 6 men.
20% of women in contrast to 4% of men are sexually assaulted in the UK yearly.

(I'm trusting a Facebook post that a friend made recently on this exact issue, but I'm fairly certain the statistics are accurate).
I would like to see sources.

#3 is just wrong. It conflicts with this page on Rape Crisis. 20% yearly and 20% ever are two very different things.

#1 - seems to relate to a YouGov poll. 97% is being widely quoted in the media but it's 52% in this report and their data sheet. I'm probably missing something here.

I am not saying this diminishes the point but let's not dispense with facts.
Ok I've been Daily Mailed by the Guardian.

HEADLINE: Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds
SUBHEADING: Exclusive: YouGov poll reveals extent of abuse and lack of faith in authorities’ ability to deal with it

Headline relates to one poll, subheading refers to another poll.

The original poll is only talking about 18-24 year olds, so it could correlate with 52% of women overall from the YouGov poll. But I really doubt it. It's almost definitely a poorly designed poll. To deliberately conflate the two is pretty criminal to me.
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/ ... EAPHF_1ZXo Here are some nice statistics for your reading (well, they aren't nice at all, but have a good read).
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:18 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:03 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:42 am

I would like to see sources.

#3 is just wrong. It conflicts with this page on Rape Crisis. 20% yearly and 20% ever are two very different things.

#1 - seems to relate to a YouGov poll. 97% is being widely quoted in the media but it's 52% in this report and their data sheet. I'm probably missing something here.

I am not saying this diminishes the point but let's not dispense with facts.
Ok I've been Daily Mailed by the Guardian.

HEADLINE: Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds
SUBHEADING: Exclusive: YouGov poll reveals extent of abuse and lack of faith in authorities’ ability to deal with it

Headline relates to one poll, subheading refers to another poll.

The original poll is only talking about 18-24 year olds, so it could correlate with 52% of women overall from the YouGov poll. But I really doubt it. It's almost definitely a poorly designed poll. To deliberately conflate the two is pretty criminal to me.
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/ ... EAPHF_1ZXo Here are some nice statistics for your reading (well, they aren't nice at all, but have a good read).
Thanks. Here's another good one.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:17 pmSeriously it would be harder to believe that 97% haven't been harrassed.
Well it's about as far off. 52% of women say they have been harassed according to the pretty trustworthy YouGov poll. That would be by their own definition of sexual harassment, which varies from person to person. Catcalling of a woman by a man is only considered to be sexual harassment by 44% of people.
Tim Down
Acolyte
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:45 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Tim Down »

I'm not going to debate this but please, just listen to women. They're not lying.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:21 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:18 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:03 pm
Ok I've been Daily Mailed by the Guardian.

HEADLINE: Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds
SUBHEADING: Exclusive: YouGov poll reveals extent of abuse and lack of faith in authorities’ ability to deal with it

Headline relates to one poll, subheading refers to another poll.

The original poll is only talking about 18-24 year olds, so it could correlate with 52% of women overall from the YouGov poll. But I really doubt it. It's almost definitely a poorly designed poll. To deliberately conflate the two is pretty criminal to me.
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/ ... EAPHF_1ZXo Here are some nice statistics for your reading (well, they aren't nice at all, but have a good read).
Thanks. Here's another good one.
That's the same webpage as I linked. Which has the same statistics on, which serve to back up what I am saying.

In any case, I can't believe that your response is not to say "yes, this is a very real issue", but to try and rebuff what is being said and downplay things. It's tone-deaf. It shouldn't even matter whether it's 97%, 52% or even 10%, it's still way more than it ever should be. Virtually every study seems to give the same impression - that women feel more at risk than men, are more at risk than men. That is a huge issue. You've even had a first hand account posted on this very thread of a female community member's experiences, and yet you still choose to opt for the "downplay" route.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:27 pm
Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:17 pmSeriously it would be harder to believe that 97% haven't been harrassed.
Well it's about as far off. 52% of women say they have been harassed according to the pretty trustworthy YouGov poll. That would be by their own definition of sexual harassment, which varies from person to person. Catcalling of a woman by a man is only considered to be sexual harassment by 44% of people.
Is that 44% of women, or 44% of people as a whole? There's an important distinction.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:54 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:21 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:18 pm

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/ ... EAPHF_1ZXo Here are some nice statistics for your reading (well, they aren't nice at all, but have a good read).
Thanks. Here's another good one.
That's the same webpage as I linked. Which has the same statistics on, which serve to back up what I am saying.
Yes - if you'd read my post, I linked you to that exact page, which had a statistic which you'd quoted from a Facebook post, which had misquoted the original statistic.
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:54 pm In any case, I can't believe that your response is not to say "yes, this is a very real issue", but to try and rebuff what is being said and downplay things. It's tone-deaf. It shouldn't even matter whether it's 97%, 52% or even 10%, it's still way more than it ever should be. Virtually every study seems to give the same impression - that women feel more at risk than men, are more at risk than men. That is a huge issue.
Well, believe it. Facts come first. Narrative comes later. "Tone deaf" means nothing to me. If you have a point then the facts will support it. Why do you feel the need to lie, inflate, conflate, obscure reality?
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:54 pm You've even had a first hand account posted on this very thread of a female community member's experiences, and yet you still choose to opt for the "downplay" route.
What have I downplayed? It's actually pretty offensive for you to say that to me, when I haven't downplayed anything. Did I say "oh it's only 52%... move on"?
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:57 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:27 pm
Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:17 pmSeriously it would be harder to believe that 97% haven't been harrassed.
Well it's about as far off. 52% of women say they have been harassed according to the pretty trustworthy YouGov poll. That would be by their own definition of sexual harassment, which varies from person to person. Catcalling of a woman by a man is only considered to be sexual harassment by 44% of people.
Is that 44% of women, or 44% of people as a whole? There's an important distinction.
People as a whole. The YouGov study doesn't break it down, although I did see a diagram they produced which did break it down by gender and age but I can't find it again now.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:27 pmCatcalling of a woman by a man is only considered to be sexual harassment by 44% of people.
Out of interest, do you consider it to be harrassment?

As I previously said, it's so commonplace as to be uncommentwortyh - it is a normal part of being a woman. But it bloody shouldn't be.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:52 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:27 pmCatcalling of a woman by a man is only considered to be sexual harassment by 44% of people.
Out of interest, do you consider it to be harrassment?

As I previously said, it's so commonplace as to be uncommentwortyh - it is a normal part of being a woman. But it bloody shouldn't be.
I think it's unacceptable but probably wouldn't consider it to be sexual harassment if it was an isolated incident. I know it's commonplace. I've been with girls and women who have been catcalled and I've even been in a car with someone who did some catcalling - and yes I did tell them they were an idiot. On the other hand I have been catcalled (by both men and women) but of course I am in the fortunate position of that not feeling at all threatening.

I'm a little surprised it is as low as 52% of women who have been sexually harassed - instinctively, from conversations with women who I'm close enough to have discussed it, it would be higher. And that's excluding the definitions that could be considered marginal, like catcalling, men looking at their breasts, men directing sexual jokes towards them etc.
Tim Down
Acolyte
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:45 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Tim Down »

Just listen to women. Fiona's here and telling us how it is. They are saying that they are routinely sexually harassed, and nearly all of it goes unreported largely because nothing good will come of it for the victim (often the reverse). While I'm sure it's true that only a statistically small number of incidents lead to murder, that doesn't make the routine sexual harassment of women irrelevant - quite the reverse - and the fact that women are talking about it publicly at the moment is a good thing, because it stands a chance of changing men's behaviour. It's not enough to stand back and assume that you're not part of the problem.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Tim Down wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:18 pm Just listen to women. Fiona's here and telling us how it is. They are saying that they are routinely sexually harassed, and nearly all of it goes unreported largely because nothing good will come of it for the victim (often the reverse). While I'm sure it's true that only a statistically small number of incidents lead to murder, that doesn't make the routine sexual harassment of women irrelevant - quite the reverse - and the fact that women are talking about it publicly at the moment is a good thing, because it stands a chance of changing men's behaviour. It's not enough to stand back and assume that you're not part of the problem.
What exactly is this in response to? Who isn't listening to Fiona? I could just as easily accuse you of ignoring the 750 women in the poll by the reputable polling company that gives us data with which to inform us, so we don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:03 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:57 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:27 pm
Well it's about as far off. 52% of women say they have been harassed according to the pretty trustworthy YouGov poll. That would be by their own definition of sexual harassment, which varies from person to person. Catcalling of a woman by a man is only considered to be sexual harassment by 44% of people.
Is that 44% of women, or 44% of people as a whole? There's an important distinction.
People as a whole. The YouGov study doesn't break it down, although I did see a diagram they produced which did break it down by gender and age but I can't find it again now.
I've found it - it's from a 2017 poll:

Image

Interestingly more men consider wolf-whistling to be a form of sexual harassment than women.
Tim Down
Acolyte
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:45 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Tim Down »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:28 pm
Tim Down wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:18 pm Just listen to women. Fiona's here and telling us how it is. They are saying that they are routinely sexually harassed, and nearly all of it goes unreported largely because nothing good will come of it for the victim (often the reverse). While I'm sure it's true that only a statistically small number of incidents lead to murder, that doesn't make the routine sexual harassment of women irrelevant - quite the reverse - and the fact that women are talking about it publicly at the moment is a good thing, because it stands a chance of changing men's behaviour. It's not enough to stand back and assume that you're not part of the problem.
What exactly is this in response to? Who isn't listening to Fiona? I could just as easily accuse you of ignoring the 750 women in the poll by the reputable polling company that gives us data with which to inform us, so we don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence.
It's in response to the very existence of this debate, which I think is unhelpful.

The statistics may tell you how many women consider themselves to have been sexually harassed by men. What they don't tell you is how that harassment dramatically affects their behaviour, curtails their freedom and generally acts to keep them subjugated by men. Society needs to change and I don't think quibbling about precisely how many women have been harassed is going to get us far.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Tim Down wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:12 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:28 pm
Tim Down wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:18 pm Just listen to women. Fiona's here and telling us how it is. They are saying that they are routinely sexually harassed, and nearly all of it goes unreported largely because nothing good will come of it for the victim (often the reverse). While I'm sure it's true that only a statistically small number of incidents lead to murder, that doesn't make the routine sexual harassment of women irrelevant - quite the reverse - and the fact that women are talking about it publicly at the moment is a good thing, because it stands a chance of changing men's behaviour. It's not enough to stand back and assume that you're not part of the problem.
What exactly is this in response to? Who isn't listening to Fiona? I could just as easily accuse you of ignoring the 750 women in the poll by the reputable polling company that gives us data with which to inform us, so we don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence.
It's in response to the very existence of this debate, which I think is unhelpful.

The statistics may tell you how many women consider themselves to have been sexually harassed by men. What they don't tell you is how that harassment dramatically affects their behaviour, curtails their freedom and generally acts to keep them subjugated by men. Society needs to change and I don't think quibbling about precisely how many women have been harassed is going to get us far.
Well I emphatically disagree with that. The difference between 97% and 52% is not a quibble. 1% of the women in that poll said they'd be flattered to have a man take a picture up their skirt. If I say that 50% of women would be flattered to have a man take a picture up their skirt, you'd hopefully say that's absolute bollocks and correct me on it.

It actually weakens the awareness argument if you lie, inflate or exaggerate the facts. It undermines the whole point.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:23 pm
Tim Down wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:12 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:28 pm

What exactly is this in response to? Who isn't listening to Fiona? I could just as easily accuse you of ignoring the 750 women in the poll by the reputable polling company that gives us data with which to inform us, so we don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence.
It's in response to the very existence of this debate, which I think is unhelpful.

The statistics may tell you how many women consider themselves to have been sexually harassed by men. What they don't tell you is how that harassment dramatically affects their behaviour, curtails their freedom and generally acts to keep them subjugated by men. Society needs to change and I don't think quibbling about precisely how many women have been harassed is going to get us far.
Well I emphatically disagree with that. The difference between 97% and 52% is not a quibble. 1% of the women in that poll said they'd be flattered to have a man take a picture up their skirt. If I say that 50% of women would be flattered to have a man take a picture up their skirt, you'd hopefully say that's absolute bollocks and correct me on it.

It actually weakens the awareness argument if you lie, inflate or exaggerate the facts. It undermines the whole point.
Okay, I'm coming back to this now. It was 97% of women aged 18-24 - so you can call out the slight misrepresentation if that is your prerogative here. My personal prerogative is focusing on the worryingly large percentage of women who have experienced sexual harassment. Happy now? You got your little statistical victory. It's still too high if it's 52%.

Tim's exactly right on this.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:37 pm Okay, I'm coming back to this now. It was 97% of women aged 18-24 - so you can call out the slight misrepresentation if that is your prerogative here. My personal prerogative is focusing on the worryingly large percentage of women who have experienced sexual harassment. Happy now? You got your little statistical victory. It's still too high if it's 52%.

Tim's exactly right on this.
Well the point is that I don't believe that the source of the 97% is at all reliable. As I said earlier:
Jono wrote: The original poll is only talking about 18-24 year olds, so it could correlate with 52% of women overall from the YouGov poll. But I really doubt it. It's almost definitely a poorly designed poll. To deliberately conflate the two is pretty criminal to me.
I do agree that it's too high at 52% (or probably slightly higher for 18-24 year olds). It's too high at 0.1%.
James Haughton
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by James Haughton »

(TW: No specific incidents are discussed, just general discussion about upsetting topics)

Gevin, what is wrong with you? Why, at a time when women see their worst fears played out on national news and are being forced to relive all the traumatic instances of sexual harassment and violence that they have faced, are you concentrating on some sort of 'Victims of Murder' Olympics? Sexual harassment and violence are rife in this country and it's a crime that men commit, and are able to get away with, the vast majority of the time. You just need to listen to all of the harrowing stories that women have so bravely volunteered over the past few days. Those stories demonstrate why women have to live with such fear whenever they are outside. It's certainly made me consider how privileged I am to be able to do something as mundane as going for a walk without such fear. Frankly, it says much more about you than anyone else when you take 'men, please stop objectifying us and committing violence against us' as an attempt to dismiss male-on-male violence. It's not a zero-sum game; in fact, it's completely the opposite.

Going off the statistics that you posted, 93% of convicted murderers between March 2018 and March 2020 were men. Men finally taking the initiative to curb the violence and harassment that they inflict on women would also alleviate the causes of male-on-male violence. Toxic masculinity, objectification of women, the fact that disgustingly few sexual assaults result in a conviction, etc. It leads to a society where men feel they do not have to care about other human beings, and they can do what they want without consequences. So to criticise and try to deflect away from the discussion that is taking place now is also an attempt to stop discussion of how we deal with violence generally, including that violence against men that you claim to care so much about.

Jon, what makes you the judge of which polls we can trust on sexual harassment and which we can't? And why argue over numbers when there are much more serious topics to be discussed? Also, one of the lessons we should be taking from this discussion is that we should never treat instances of catcalling, or any other form of harassment, as isolated. If we do, then we're just telling the harasser, the victim, and anybody who sees and/or hears about the incident that harassment is tolerated in society. Also, I doubt people who attack women just leave it at that, I bet many commit other offences too.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd »

I originally typed the following earlier before my response (the first comment responding to Gavin's relative 'OP' in this thread) but deleted it as I thought none of it needed to be said as it was obvious to everyone. But just in case it isn't, here's a few things that I thought everybody knew:

Men are more involved in both sides of violence than women, obviously. But I'd expect that 3-to-1 ratio you quote to be seriously flattened, if not reversed, if you just account for 'random' attacks of the sort that happen to people walking home alone at night. Men are vastly more likely to come across violence in other ways (gang violence, pub fights, fights over traffic incidents, fights at the football/other sports, etc, etc.) than women so that obviously inflates the figures.

I would be amazed if men are still more likely to be a victim of random violence than women while walking home alone at night. Imagine for a moment, if you dare, that you were the sort of low-life who wanted do such a thing as attack someone at night. You're attacking at night because you're a coward. You want an easy target. Women (generally, obviously) are easier targets than men.

And none of this is acknowledging the elephant in the room that is the fact of one specific type of attack that women might fear that men have next to no reason to worry about. That alone is enough to account for the difference in feeling of unsafeness, and then some.

So, yes, obviously nearly all statistics on violence are dominated by men. But - in general - women clearly have more reasons to fear being attacked while alone at night than men do.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything at all about the case in the news at the moment or anyone's analysis of it; I haven't read one word about it or any of the reaction to it. My post is solely intended as a response to Gavin's use of decontextualized statistics on violence to infer meaning about the specific scenario of danger felt when walking alone at night.

Edit: Corrected spelling of Gavin (x2)
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

James Haughton wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:20 pm
Gevin, what is wrong with you? Why, at a time when women see their worst fears played out on national news and are being forced to relive all the traumatic instances of sexual harassment and violence that they have faced, are you concentrating on some sort of 'Victims of Murder' Olympics? Sexual harassment and violence are rife in this country and it's a crime that men commit, and are able to get away with, the vast majority of the time. You just need to listen to all of the harrowing stories that women have so bravely volunteered over the past few days. Those stories demonstrate why women have to live with such fear whenever they are outside. It's certainly made me consider how privileged I am to be able to do something as mundane as going for a walk without such fear.
There's probably quite a lot wrong me me - I dunno. But anyway, we've had a murder, and it's become about sexual harassment of women. It just seems a massive non-sequitur to me. A lot of my actual annoyance can be traced back to Jess Phillips specifically, and maybe I wouldn't have started the discussion if it hadn't been for her.
Frankly, it says much more about you than anyone else when you take 'men, please stop objectifying us and committing violence against us' as an attempt to dismiss male-on-male violence. It's not a zero-sum game; in fact, it's completely the opposite.
I haven't done that. I don't really think male-on-male violence needs to be a massive discussion point here anyway. I see this as the murder of a human being who happens to be a woman. And I think that's a fairly neutral stance.
Going off the statistics that you posted, 93% of convicted murderers between March 2018 and March 2020 were men. Men finally taking the initiative to curb the violence and harassment that they inflict on women would also alleviate the causes of male-on-male violence. Toxic masculinity, objectification of women, the fact that disgustingly few sexual assaults result in a conviction, etc. It leads to a society where men feel they do not have to care about other human beings, and they can do what they want without consequences. So to criticise and try to deflect away from the discussion that is taking place now is also an attempt to stop discussion of how we deal with violence generally, including that violence against men that you claim to care so much about.
I think the general discussion about sexual assaults etc. is a perfectly reasonable one to have. But I find it strange that we've launched into it as a result of this murder, which very few details are known about. And also I take objection to the claim, stated as fact, that women are more likely to be attacked at random than men (even if it is mainly men doing the attacking). It's a factual claim, and it needs backing up. So regardless of the accuracy of any statistics I might bring up, the burden of proof isn't really on me.

Callum Todd wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:45 pm I originally typed the following earlier before my response (the first comment responding to Gavin's relative 'OP' in this thread) but deleted it as I thought none of it needed to be said as it was obvious to everyone. But just in case it isn't, here's a few things that I thought everybody knew:

Men are more involved in both sides of violence than women, obviously. But I'd expect that 3-to-1 ratio you quote to be seriously flattened, if not reversed, if you just account for 'random' attacks of the sort that happen to people walking home alone at night. Men are vastly more likely to come across violence in other ways (gang violence, pub fights, fights over traffic incidents, fights at the football/other sports, etc, etc.) than women so that obviously inflates the figures.
Sure, but I've already backed out of the 3 to 1 ratio thing being massively relevant.
I would be amazed if men are still more likely to be a victim of random violence than women while walking home alone at night. Imagine for a moment, if you dare, that you were the sort of low-life who wanted do such a thing as attack someone at night. You're attacking at night because you're a coward. You want an easy target. Women (generally, obviously) are easier targets than men.
I wouldn't be that amazed. According to the statistics here, men are more likely to be attacked by strangers than women. Obviously that doesn't tell the full story because there still might have been some sort of argument etc. before the attack so it might not have been completely unprovoked. However, I would still point to the question of where the burden of proof is.
And none of this is acknowledging the elephant in the room that is the fact of one specific type of attack that women might fear that men have next to no reason to worry about. That alone is enough to account for the difference in feeling of unsafeness, and then some.
Sure. I don't doubt this. But the main thing that started all this was a murder. It's possible that she was sexually assaulted too, but we don't know that (as far as I know) and I think it's a bit strange to use this murder by a probable psychopath with few details as a way into this particular discussion.
So, yes, obviously nearly all statistics on violence are dominated by men. But - in general - women clearly have more reasons to fear being attacked while alone at night than men do.
Because of rape yes. Because of murder, I'm not convinced. And this story, primarily, is about a murder.

Edit - This article is Australian and short on numbers, but I think it's relevant here anyway.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

James Haughton wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:20 pm Jon, what makes you the judge of which polls we can trust on sexual harassment and which we can't?
I don't consider myself the judge of which of the two polls we can trust. You can make your own judgment. It's the YouGov Eurotrack poll, or it's the UN Women UK poll. You can read about the YouGov approach to its randomized and statistically-weighted polls here. The UN Women UK poll has its methodology written into the document:
In January 2021, UN Women UK commissioned a UK-wide survey on sexual harassment, reaching more than 1,000 respondents.
Although the UN Women UK poll was carried out by YouGov, there's no mention of randomisation, so probably none, and there's no correction for selection bias, so we are totally in the dark about how they sourced their respondents. My guess, based on the figures, is that the UN Women UK poll was elective, i.e. you had to click "take this poll about sexual harassment" which you are more likely to take if the subject is close to home.

There's also the issue that the 97% figure is nowhere to be found in this document - 80% seems to be the closest I can find. Make of that what you will.
James Haughton wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:20 pm And why argue over numbers when there are much more serious topics to be discussed?
I don't get this logic at all. Why discuss anything at all? Why are we discussing sexism in the UK when it's much worse in Pakistan?

Also, why would you have a debate over what amounts to an epidemic without being fully armed with the extent of the problem? What should we do, sit here and agree that sexual harassment is bad? Who's arguing that it's not?

Why am I here trying to quantify and define? I'm here to educate myself, which is why I've read these documents. I didn't know this morning that 52% of women had been sexually harassed. As I said earlier in the thread, I suspected it would be higher, based on my own experiences. I didn't know that 44% of people considered catcalling to be sexual harassment, or that men are more likely to consider it sexual harassment than women. This discussion has led to me knowing more than I did before. Why are you so threatened by that?

Here's a quote from the UN Women UK about defining what amounts to sexual harassment:
These differences could assist in explaining why certain acts of sexual harassment are so frequently unreported. A unanimous definition and understanding of sexual harassment could be part of the solution.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:46 pm
In January 2021, UN Women UK commissioned a UK-wide survey on sexual harassment, reaching more than 1,000 respondents.
There's also the issue that the 97% figure is nowhere to be found in this document - 80% seems to be the closest I can find. Make of that what you will.
Just another point on the UN Women UK Poll. Like I said, I can't find the 97% figure - only 80%, which relates to this question:

Image

Note that the question here is not (as in the YouGov poll) "have you experienced sexual harassment" but instead it's "which of the following have you experienced..." where the list includes things that the YouGov poll tell us a significant proportion of women do not consider to be sexual harassment.

It's quite arrogant and pretty offensive to dictate to women what they should consider as sexual harassment.
Thomas Cappleman
Series 72 Champion
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Thomas Cappleman »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:34 pm While the case of Sarah Everard is indeed tragic (assuming the remains that have been found are hers), the media coverage of it can't go unmentioned here. Rather than being seen as a one-off murder, it's turned into a narrative of women not being safe in general, unsurprisingly headed by lunatic-in chief Jess Phillips.
I think the general discussion about sexual assaults etc. is a perfectly reasonable one to have. But I find it strange that we've launched into it as a result of this murder, which very few details are known about.
The point people are making is: who cares, at least enough to make the expansion of what's being talked about the focus of your complaints?

Sure, much of what's being talked about isn't directly relevant to this case. Clearly things that men can do to make women feel safer wouldn't help in a situation where a woman wasn't safe, as happened here. And yes, the media isn't ideal (who knew?) and so may conflate things together in less than perfectly exact ways.

But why does that matter? You've agreed that these are good things to discuss. And maybe some other case could be a more relevant point to trigger this level of discussion on it. But this happens to be the one that has made people do so, as shown by it spurring so many people (men and women) to talk about it and to want to find ways to be better. (And no it's not "headed" by Jess Phillips - I've seen loads of people talking about it, and this is the only place I've seen her mentioned in the conversation). So given that this is the issue that's being discussed now (there's loads of issues in the world - it happens to be this one's turn) why not engage with it as it is?
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:32 pm There's probably quite a lot wrong me me - I dunno. But anyway, we've had a murder, and it's become about sexual harassment of women. It just seems a massive non-sequitur to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56368531

"The Met Police is to be investigated over its handling of an allegation of indecent exposure against the officer suspected of murdering Sarah Everard."
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James »

Sorry Gev, what is your point here? A story about violence against a woman is being used as a jumping off point to talk about violence against women?

You really think a murder of a woman is no reason to have a broader conversation about violence or abuse suffered by women?

That would be like saying the George Floyd murder was about police brutality, no need to have any further conversations about race relations.

No one likes moaning about how the media sensationalises stories and can instigate moral panics more than me but I don't see that happening much here. Jess Phillips may have been a bit hyperbolic but I think your response has been even more disproportionate.

For what it's worth I think your heart is in the right place. It would be great if women were able to feel safer when walking alone a night for instance, but as much as the media does effect perception by scaremongering, I don't think the biggest cause of that particular fear women have is because they read about it in a newspaper, it's their lived experience. Similarly you won't reduce that fear by barking statistics at them. People who are afraid of dying in a plane crash are rarely reassured by simply pointing out that you're more likely to die in a car accident.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Thomas Cappleman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:24 pm But why does that matter? You've agreed that these are good things to discuss. And maybe some other case could be a more relevant point to trigger this level of discussion on it. But this happens to be the one that has made people do so, as shown by it spurring so many people (men and women) to talk about it and to want to find ways to be better. (And no it's not "headed" by Jess Phillips - I've seen loads of people talking about it, and this is the only place I've seen her mentioned in the conversation). So given that this is the issue that's being discussed now (there's loads of issues in the world - it happens to be this one's turn) why not engage with it as it is?
I suppose I think it matters at least partly because of the assumption (by many people) that women are more likely to be attacked and killed than men. And I think falsehoods, or at least unsubstantiated claims, need to be questioned. And also that on the Channel 4 News that I watched, this seemed to be pretty much the main story rather than the murder itself, which seemed back to front. And on the Jess Phillips thing, she might not be heading it in any official capacity, but she was prominent on the BBC news website and was ranting on Channel 4 News as well.
Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:50 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:32 pm There's probably quite a lot wrong me me - I dunno. But anyway, we've had a murder, and it's become about sexual harassment of women. It just seems a massive non-sequitur to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56368531

"The Met Police is to be investigated over its handling of an allegation of indecent exposure against the officer suspected of murdering Sarah Everard."
Fair enough, but I think the discussion has been a bit disproportionate from some people.
Mark James wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:52 pm Sorry Gev, what is your point here? A story about violence against a woman is being used as a jumping off point to talk about violence against women?

You really think a murder of a woman is no reason to have a broader conversation about violence or abuse suffered by women?

That would be like saying the George Floyd murder was about police brutality, no need to have any further conversations about race relations.
No. I think a discussion is fine. As I've said, I think my opinion of the coverage probably was coloured a bit by listening to Jess Phillips specifically who was using it not as a discussion point but as a reason to get hysterical about it.
No one likes moaning about how the media sensationalises stories and can instigate moral panics more than me but I don't see that happening much here. Jess Phillips may have been a bit hyperbolic but I think your response has been even more disproportionate.
I don't think so. I've spent the last few posts trying to wrap this up to be honest, only to find more people posting largely the same thing to me.
For what it's worth I think your heart is in the right place. It would be great if women were able to feel safer when walking alone a night for instance, but as much as the media does effect perception by scaremongering, I don't think the biggest cause of that particular fear women have is because they read about it in a newspaper, it's their lived experience. Similarly you won't reduce that fear by barking statistics at them. People who are afraid of dying in a plane crash are rarely reassured by simply pointing out that you're more likely to die in a car accident.
Sure, simply stating statistics might not help that much (although it might a bit), but neither will shouting "Aaaaargh, no women are safe! It's really dangerous out there for each and every one of them!" It's about balance. And before anyone accuses me of straw-manning, I've already said that my opinion of the coverage was coloured by Jess Phillips. So I'm not sure there's much more to be said.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6239
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

Statistics are not relevant.
Most cases of rape and indecent assault are not reported.
We should accept that women are more likely to be victims of sexual assault and unwanted attention it doesnt need to be questioned but should be highlighted.
Most of the things that need to be done ro prevent women getting assaulted or feel uncomfortable should be done or not done by men.
Watch PronisingYoung Woman to understand it better.
Some of the people commenting on here are like the dickhead i spoke to with last week conplaining about there not being a white history month or international mens day.

I guess unless something happens to someone you care for you certainsections of society are oblivious

Rant over
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I think you're looking at the discussion too simplistically.
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James »

I don't see how saying your opinion has been coloured by Jess Phillips is supposed to be a defence against accusations of strawmanning. It's her you're strawmanning. In the link you provided (which you deemed necessary to label her as lunatic in chief which is way more hyperbolic than anything Jess said in that clip) she doesn't say anything close to "Aaaaargh, no women are safe! It's really dangerous out there for each and every one of them!" (Also a wildly hyperbolic characterization of anything anyone has said on this issue).

Can you point to an actual quote of something Jess Phillips said that made you think she's being hysterical? I didn't see her channel 4 appearance so maybe she said something there?
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6239
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

Mark James wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:06 pm I don't see how saying your opinion has been coloured by Jess Phillips is supposed to be a defence against accusations of strawmanning. It's her you're strawmanning. In the link you provided (which you deemed necessary to label her as lunatic in chief which is way more hyperbolic than anything Jess said in that clip) she doesn't say anything close to "Aaaaargh, no women are safe! It's really dangerous out there for each and every one of them!" (Also a wildly hyperbolic characterization of anything anyone has said on this issue).

Can you point to an actual quote of something Jess Phillips said that made you think she's being hysterical? I didn't see her channel 4 appearance so maybe she said something there?
Had to look up strawman as id never heard of it.
Weirdly i have heard of auntsallying
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Mark James wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:06 pm I don't see how saying your opinion has been coloured by Jess Phillips is supposed to be a defence against accusations of strawmanning. It's her you're strawmanning. In the link you provided (which you deemed necessary to label her as lunatic in chief which is way more hyperbolic than anything Jess said in that clip) she doesn't say anything close to "Aaaaargh, no women are safe! It's really dangerous out there for each and every one of them!" (Also a wildly hyperbolic characterization of anything anyone has said on this issue).

Can you point to an actual quote of something Jess Phillips said that made you think she's being hysterical? I didn't see her channel 4 appearance so maybe she said something there?
I'm not straw-manning her. That's the point. I linked to the BBC article because that was the nearest one to hand, but I can't remember exactly what she said on Channel 4 News and I can't find it on All 4. But it came across as pretty ranty and incoherent to me. However, on the BBC article she's quoted as saying that society has "just accepted" dead women as "one of those things". Which is complete nonsense, arguably hysterical, and to be honest worthy of what I levelled at her. My labelling of her also comes from what I think of her generally as well. Just like I might say stuff about Boris Johnson, which I doubt you'd ask me to back up with anything specific.

But as seems not to be clear to people, I think it's fine to debate these issues. But there are ways of doing things. I don't think scaremongering is the way to do it. And I think presenting statistics (that appear to show that men are more likely to be killed in random attacks anyway, or at least don't show the opposite) would help keep people's fears in check.

I was asked if these are reasonable things to discuss, why not now? Well, sure do it now, but I think the way it's been done in some places seems to conflate catcalling etc. (which I'm not condoning obviously) with abduction and murder, or if not conflating then putting them on some sort of continuum. It has come across as scaremongering to me. It might not to you, but we can agree to disagree.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6239
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

Jess Phillips being hyperbolic about violence towards women....... Baroness Jenny Jones...... hold my beer
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

What is really upsetting me about this whole thing is the inconsistent messaging coming from authorities, and the terrible messaging that's come from particularly Sadiq Khan (London, the city I've been mayor of for 5 years and unlike everywhere else I'm the Police & Crime Commissioner for, isn't safe) and Mark Drakeford (a 6pm curfew... as if a murderer is going to respect that).

I do feel there's a middle ground somewhere in the middle of the issue, which is that whilst there is undoubtedly a (to use the feminist term) "rape culture" that goes on amongst many people of my generation, it is hyperbolic to imply you are going to be murdered or raped every time you go for a walk (Khan). Nor is it right, however, to say that there isn't a problem and this is an isolated incident (Cressida Dick). Whether 1%, 52%, or 97%, that's too fucking many women.

What I am slightly upset about is the inconsistency about protesting in the pandemic - is it allowed (BLM, XR, Rangers celebrations) or not (anti-masks, Everard)?

Like the Floyd case, though, let us not pretend for one minute this is the "start" of a new movement. This has been an issue for ages and one that is constantly raised in the general public. Black Lives Matter did not begin with George Floyd. Feminism does not begin with Sarah Everard.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James »

For what it's worth I don't much like Jess Phillips either as a politician. Maybe we just have a difference of opinion on what constitutes hysterical which is fair enough.

I just felt your posts came across very dismissive of the issue. When you use the word hysterical and then bring the male statistics in it sounds like you're saying, look at these crazy women, don't they know men have it worse. It comes across as whataboutery. Like Meakin said its reminiscent of the complaining about international men's day kind of argument. That might not have been your intention but it's how it comes across.

And if alleviating fear is your goal it's a crap statistic to bring up. Men getting attacked more doesn't mean women won't still get attacked. And couldn't it be considered scaremongering towards men? Should men not be more afraid now they know they're more likely to be attacked than women.

Also it's far more likely to be attacked or abused by someone you know than a stranger. Would you ever alleviate fears by saying, "no need to worry about walking down that dark alleyway ladies, statistically you're far more likely to be attacked when you get home".

The best stats to bring up to alleviate fears if you can is to say this year there was less attacks than last year. The goal of Jess Phillips albeit hyperbolic rhetoric is to light a fire under politicians, legislators, educators etc. to try and get policies in place to reduce those numbers. It's to get society to examine it's attitude towards women. I mean a woman was murdered and your big concern was how that was being used as a jumping off point to discuss the broader issue of sexual harassment. You called it a non sequitur.

You really don't think there's a connection between societal attitudes towards women and sexual harassment and then a proclivity for it to progress to violence? (Catcalling is definitely on that spectrum). Do you not think that if we educate men to treat women with respect, to respect boundaries and consent, to recognise their agency and humanity that eventually we'll see a reduction in violence towards them?
Matt Rutherford
Acolyte
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham's Eastern Fleapit

Re: Politics in General

Post by Matt Rutherford »

Mark James wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:07 pm For what it's worth I don't much like Jess Phillips either as a politician. Maybe we just have a difference of opinion on what constitutes hysterical which is fair enough.

I just felt your posts came across very dismissive of the issue. When you use the word hysterical and then bring the male statistics in it sounds like you're saying, look at these crazy women, don't they know men have it worse. It comes across as whataboutery. Like Meakin said its reminiscent of the complaining about international men's day kind of argument. That might not have been your intention but it's how it comes across.

And if alleviating fear is your goal it's a crap statistic to bring up. Men getting attacked more doesn't mean women won't still get attacked. And couldn't it be considered scaremongering towards men? Should men not be more afraid now they know they're more likely to be attacked than women.

Also it's far more likely to be attacked or abused by someone you know than a stranger. Would you ever alleviate fears by saying, "no need to worry about walking down that dark alleyway ladies, statistically you're far more likely to be attacked when you get home".

The best stats to bring up to alleviate fears if you can is to say this year there was less attacks than last year. The goal of Jess Phillips albeit hyperbolic rhetoric is to light a fire under politicians, legislators, educators etc. to try and get policies in place to reduce those numbers. It's to get society to examine it's attitude towards women. I mean a woman was murdered and your big concern was how that was being used as a jumping off point to discuss the broader issue of sexual harassment. You called it a non sequitur.

You really don't think there's a connection between societal attitudes towards women and sexual harassment and then a proclivity for it to progress to violence? (Catcalling is definitely on that spectrum). Do you not think that if we educate men to treat women with respect, to respect boundaries and consent, to recognise their agency and humanity that eventually we'll see a reduction in violence towards them?
In some issues, the data trumps feelings. This ain't one of them. Data can inform, but for this, it's a cultural issue and data can be nefarious in reflecting that. A good start would be educating boys on how not to act like an arsehole and how to make women feel safer on the streets, for that is the real problem. Attempting to reassure women that they're safer because statistics say so is missing the forest for the trees-the effects it has on them are far wider than the data portrays.
England's most socially-awkward churchgoer
Matt Rutherford
Acolyte
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham's Eastern Fleapit

Re: Politics in General

Post by Matt Rutherford »

Fiona T wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:49 am
When's the last time you actually felt unsafe walking alone? Mine was a week ago. You can see it on my Strava

https://www.strava.com/activities/4895731327

I walked down to the Tesco on the A30 - I always cut through a pleasantish short wooded section to avoid the busy roundabout, and I did on the way down. There was a guy behind me and something about his footsteps made me incredibly nervous - 100% probably my paranoia but it made me spooked enough to take the road route on the way back, which I never do.

The guy was almost certainly entirely innocent, but it didn't stop me being scared.

Could the guy have avoided it? Yep, he could have stopped a bit and dropped back, or any of the other suggestions that have been made on twitter. Should he have needed to? Probably not, but it is a fact that women do feel vulnerable, and with good reason; and a guy who recognises this and acts to avoid creating that situation is worth his weight in gold.

Feeling scared walking alone is sadly the norm for women.
Separately, to the women on the forum, what would men do that would help make you feel safer? Things such as crossing the road, dropping back, removing hoods/face coverings. I'm 6'0/6'1 fat fucker, so I worry about appearing threatening if I'm out at night. What else would help you feel safe? :)
England's most socially-awkward churchgoer
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Mark James wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:07 pm I just felt your posts came across very dismissive of the issue. When you use the word hysterical and then bring the male statistics in it sounds like you're saying, look at these crazy women, don't they know men have it worse. It comes across as whataboutery. Like Meakin said its reminiscent of the complaining about international men's day kind of argument. That might not have been your intention but it's how it comes across.
OK, fair enough. But I suppose it's more about what I thought of the coverage and how it would actually stoke up fear, rather than accusing all these women of being crazy. And the male comparison wasn't meant to be a "What about us?" thing, but more about getting the safety of women in perspective, as random murders are very rare.
And if alleviating fear is your goal it's a crap statistic to bring up. Men getting attacked more doesn't mean women won't still get attacked. And couldn't it be considered scaremongering towards men? Should men not be more afraid now they know they're more likely to be attacked than women.
Well, I was bringing it up on this forum as a comparison rather than annoucing it to the country. But if they mention this statistic, they could still point out that generally random murders are rare all round. But these general statistics have come up on the BBC anyway.
Also it's far more likely to be attacked or abused by someone you know than a stranger. Would you ever alleviate fears by saying, "no need to worry about walking down that dark alleyway ladies, statistically you're far more likely to be attacked when you get home".
I don't think that would be a very good way of putting it if they mention it at all, no.
I mean a woman was murdered and your big concern was how that was being used as a jumping off point to discuss the broader issue of sexual harassment. You called it a non sequitur.
I did, but I think the way it was presented at least was a bit non-sequitury. It jumped straight from one to the other with very little bridging discussion.
You really don't think there's a connection between societal attitudes towards women and sexual harassment and then a proclivity for it to progress to violence? (Catcalling is definitely on that spectrum). Do you not think that if we educate men to treat women with respect, to respect boundaries and consent, to recognise their agency and humanity that eventually we'll see a reduction in violence towards them?
I agree with you that there is a connection. But I think the coverage (that I've seen) could have been presented in a better way to logically bridge that gap.

I don't think we massively disagree really. I came in at full steam venting some annoyance I had and maybe it didn't come across as well as it could in light of recent events.
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:46 pm I don't think we massively disagree really. I came in at full steam venting some annoyance I had and maybe it didn't come across as well as it could in light of recent events.
Definitely. That's cool. As I said I think your heart was in the right place. I was probably a bit on edge myself in relation to the broader topic of violence against women. I have been binging a superb podcast called "You're Wrong About" recently. Many of their episodes cover media sensationalism, moral panics, police incompetence etc. and a lot of the stories touch on how women especially are maligned or not taken seriously. It's actually frustrating at times.

The current episode I was on was about the DC snipers and how it was actually, ultimately a story of domestic abuse. It's suggested that the initial plan was to kill a load of random people and then kill the main guys wife so she just looked like a random victim and distance himself from any motive. His wife had been warning the cops for ages and there was certain bits of information law enforcement ignored or didn't take seriously which could have led to them catching the snipers earlier. And also the media coverage had been wall to wall but kind of slipped out of the headlines once they were caught and the domestic abuse angle was barely covered. I think it kind of touches on the point Jess Phillips was trying to make about how dead women are just accepted.

As for Jess, as I said I'm no fan of hers. She definitely seems to be in hot water today judging by the reaction from the twitter accounts I tend to follow. I haven't seen the Marr interview myself yet though so not in position to judge. But yeah, anyone in labour who didn't wholeheartedly support Corbyn can pretty much fuck off. He and Bernie were humanity's last chance as far as I'm concerned and the fact they didn't get elected means we're finished (how's that for hyperbole?).
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:46 pm
Mark James wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:07 pm I just felt your posts came across very dismissive of the issue. When you use the word hysterical and then bring the male statistics in it sounds like you're saying, look at these crazy women, don't they know men have it worse. It comes across as whataboutery. Like Meakin said its reminiscent of the complaining about international men's day kind of argument. That might not have been your intention but it's how it comes across.
OK, fair enough. But I suppose it's more about what I thought of the coverage and how it would actually stoke up fear, rather than accusing all these women of being crazy. And the male comparison wasn't meant to be a "What about us?" thing, but more about getting the safety of women in perspective, as random murders are very rare.
This point jumped out at me; most of the issue here isn't about random murder though. It's about the cumulative impact on women of a whole range of behaviour, from the extremely low-level stuff such as ogling, all the way up to the extremes. It's that many women get demeaned, disrespected, hypersexualised, and have to live with a constant expectation of some level of abuse every time they step out of the door. Women shouldn't feel the need to carry hairspray as a weapon, to put up with men exposing themselves, to put up with being patronised, and yet here we are.

Murder is arguably mostly irrelevant to the debate; although it brings the problems into sharp focus, it maybe gives the majority of men an easy way out: "I'd never murder/rape a women, that's down to weirdos/psychos/perverts etc, I don't need to worry about my behaviour".
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Jon O'Neill »

I've split this out from the main Politics thread. If anybody can think of a better title then let me know.
User avatar
Mark Deeks
Fanatic
Posts: 2443
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Mark Deeks »

there's no evidence that they are in fact less safe than men as far as I can see.
Exactly!
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6239
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Marc Meakin »

I qould like initiatives to give women only free cab rides frm nightclubs and pubs and restaurants.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

The use of the word "nightclubs" there has led to me to remember an incident from a couple of years ago.

I was walking back from a nightclub at about 2am if I remember correctly, and I would walk along the main road, being battered by the sea gales off the south coast. There was some girl - totally out of it - who ran up to me and started trying to hit on me. Obviously I wasn't interested at all, but her friend, about 20 yards behind her, totally misunderstood the situation and assumed I was attacking her. So that's what this "rape culture" discourse actually means: that she would make that assumption in the first place tells you everything you need to know about women's safety, or at least women's own perception of their safety.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6239
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Marc Meakin »

I read this today.
Not all Men.
If somebody gave you a box of Maltesers but one in ten was a ball of dog shit dipped in chocolate wouldnt you be wary of opening the box
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Mark James wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:30 pm
As for Jess, as I said I'm no fan of hers. She definitely seems to be in hot water today judging by the reaction from the twitter accounts I tend to follow. I haven't seen the Marr interview myself yet though so not in position to judge. But yeah, anyone in labour who didn't wholeheartedly support Corbyn can pretty much fuck off. He and Bernie were humanity's last chance as far as I'm concerned and the fact they didn't get elected means we're finished (how's that for hyperbole?).
I meant to reply to this. But I agree on the Corbyn thing. I don't think he was actually great as a leader, although I think politics should be more about principles and policies than things like superficial charm and coming across well on camera. But I think it was a disgrace the way so many of the Labour MPs tried to oust him that time shortly after he was originally elected as leader. They failed miserably and just made the party look like a mess. And when you look at how close the 2017 election actually was, they could have won that election and the blame is squarely at their feet. I know this is off topic, but that's Jono's fault for changing the thread.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:34 pm I also think there was more than a whiff of Missing white woman syndrome in this case.
And at the risk of stirring the hornet's nest, I want to come back to this in the light of this on the BBC news website. Not accusing anyone on here obviously, but I think some people are guilty of letting the media do their thinking for them and only get outraged when it's the thing to do. People need to think for themselves more.

Edit - And this story hasn't exactly gained much traction either.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:06 amAnd when you look at how close the 2017 election actually was, they could have won that election
Really? They did no better than Gordon Brown.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:19 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:06 amAnd when you look at how close the 2017 election actually was, they could have won that election
Really? They did no better than Gordon Brown.
They would likely have had to form some sort of coalition, but without going through numbers now, I don't think it would have taken much of a swing.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Sarah Everard/Women's Safety

Post by Gavin Chipper »

At the risk of putting myself back in the firing line, while people are completely right to be outraged by this crime, the fact the the media focused so much on this crime and less so on others does suggest that the narrative is something along the lines of "Things must be really bad if even this attractive, white, middle-class woman can get abducted, raped and murdered."

The ultimate form of white privilege is one you only get after your death.
Mark Deeks wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:51 pm
there's no evidence that they are in fact less safe than men as far as I can see.
Exactly!
Well with this I didn't just mean from my point of view sitting here comfortably I can just draw any conclusion I like. It's more that the statistics don't seem to exist to prove it. They haven't been presented widely in any case.
Post Reply