Sex Statistics...

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I think it's hard to say right now, but most articles/studies I've read say that more and more men are reporting domestic abuse.  It's been sort of a hidden problem - men have been reluctant to report it, I suspect the reasons are similar to why women don't report it - fear of not being believed, the hassle of dealing with police/courts, etc.  I think maybe it's more embarrassing for men to report being abused (Just guessing, not a man, so....)  

I believe we need more studies on males as the abused, not just the abusers.  

But, you cant put a number to it...can you?

I'll help you out with one stat; I don't know a single male who hasn't been physically struck by a women - not one!

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

But, you cant put a number to it...can you?

I'll help you out with one stat; I don't know a single male who hasn't been physically struck by a women - not one!

My sister was in an abusive relationship with her ex for many years.  She delivered blows too.  I don't doubt you.

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I just saw that Judge sentencing Larry Nassar and she mentions statistics that I question regarding women. In particular, HOW does one interpret the statistic that "2/3 of women" are unreported incidents of rape and sexual assault? If they are 'unreported', how do these idiots interpret these as valid statistics. ...especially by a judge!? I automatically dismiss any credibility to those using these conveniently made up stats in their position of authority. If they can't appropriately keep out unproven claims as 'true' without evidence, how do they have a right to be authoritative? 

They send out surveys to women that ask:

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? 

And

Did you report it?

If 66.666 of women answer yes to the first question and no to the second question then they come up with the statistic "two thirds of sexual assaults go unreported".

Easy peasy.

[?Impact]

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They send out surveys to women...

Why to women only?

[Hal 9000]

43 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They send out surveys to women that ask:

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? 

And

Did you report it?

If 66.666 of women answer yes to the first question and no to the second question then they come up with the statistic "two thirds of sexual assaults go unreported".

Easy peasy.

I've got a bunch of sisters, daughters and a wife, but I've never seen (or heard of) that survey. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

But, you cant put a number to it...can you?

I'll help you out with one stat; I don't know a single male who hasn't been physically struck by a women - not one!

The woman who opened the first ever shelter for women 40 or so years ago in England says levels of violence are roughly equal, although women tend to be more seriously injured for obvious reasons.  She thinks men need more support and I believe has opened a man's shelter.  She's been shunned by women"s groups, unfortunately.  

[dialamah]

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Why to women only?

Good question.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I've got a bunch of sisters, daughters and a wife, but I've never seen (or heard of) that survey. 

Oh well, if you've never seen or heard of something, neither has anyone and it never happened.

[Hal 9000]

Just now, dialamah said:

Oh well, if you've never seen or heard of something, neither has anyone and it never happened.

I'm not saying abuse has never happened - have I?? 

I'm saying that I've never seen or heard of this survey you speak of.  And, with that, I'll assume that it doesn't exist.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'm not saying abuse has never happened - have I?? 

I'm saying that I've never seen or heard of this survey you speak of.  And, with that, I'll assume that it doesn't exist.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm

Could you at least try to make a cogent and effective argument?  "I haven't seen it, therefore it didn't happen" is toddler level cognitive behavior.

 

[Hal 9000]

Well, the actual stats of actual incidents are lower than I would've thought.  The takeaway for me when reading that is that according to some standards, I gotta think we've all been victims of sexual harassment or assault to some extent.  I know for a fact that I've been grabbed, kissed, and/or fondled by someone I didn't much care to have a sexual relationship with.  This takes us to the Aziz Ansari incident about whether a "bad date", "regretfulness" or "unwanted advance" constitutes assault.     

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

But, you cant put a number to it...can you?

I'll help you out with one stat; I don't know a single male who hasn't been physically struck by a women - not one!

Well you don't know me but it's never happened to me. Except for my Mom when I was a kid, with the wooden spoon... I was a baaad boy!

[Hal 9000]

18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Well you don't know me but it's never happened to me. Except for my Mom when I was a kid, with the wooden spoon... I was a baaad boy!

I had my mom threaten me with a wooden spoon once.  I was 14, and laughed at her - dared her even, she started trying to hit me with the spoon and it broke on about the third or 4th hit.  I laughed at her, she laughed at how dumb the whole situation was and we still talk about it today - Good times!

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

I had my mom threaten me with a wooden spoon once.  I was 14, and laughed at her - dared her even, she started trying to hit me with the spoon and it broke on about the third or 4th hit.  I laughed at her, she laughed at how dumb the whole situation was and we still talk about it today - Good times!

Apparently your mommy spanking you has stuck with you and perhaps jaded your argument.

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Apparently your mommy spanking you has stuck with you and perhaps jaded your argument.

No, I think the image of a 14YO being hit with a wooden spoon by his mother is hilarious.  I wish It was on video.

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

No, I think the image of a 14YO being hit with a wooden spoon by his mother is hilarious.  I wish It was on video.

I wouldn't call it hilarious, but I also wouldn't spend a lot of time fretting over it. And I doubt it has much to do with "sex  statistics" But maybe it does.

[Goddess]

So I asked the boyfriend last night if he had ever been struck by a woman and he said, No.  He added that the only ones of his friends who had been struck by a woman were guys who deserved a slap in the face because they were acting like Tucker Max toward the woman.

I always marvel that any time women getting equal rights is discussed, there are so many men whose first thought is "Yay!  Now we get to hit women!"

 

[?Impact]

23 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I always marvel that any time women getting equal rights is discussed, there are so many men whose first thought is "Yay!  Now we get to hit women!"

Hitting men is also assault, the character flaw you expose is much deeper than just sexism.

[Scott Mayers]

On 24/01/2018 at 5:03 PM, Hal 9000 said:

I'm not sure you understand the point of the OP.

Thank you. I'm just getting back and only now discover that others here are not merely siding with the status quo.

I'm being accused of being 'unclear' and get asked (as I've often been) to be more succinct. Unfortunately only MORE words seem to be called for given some people can't seem to get the lack of logic on this issue.

[Scott Mayers]

On 24/01/2018 at 5:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know that I do either.  He asks a question, then answers it - "How do you interpret a statistic ?  You don't !  You ignore it."

Then he says that the stats are made up without any evidence provided.   There really isn't much to be said about this clumsy post is there ?

?? I never claimed to ignore the statistic but to dispute it outright as even a legitimate measure of anything. It is being USED to con others into a belief of an almost universal victimization of women (by men) with actual POWER to change laws that discriminate against men and for women without justice nor validity.

'Evidence' for the absurdity of this is a logical one, not an empirical one. I don't have any burden to DISPROVE what is not even logically sound 'empirical evidence'. 

Question: Do you believe that women should be automatically believed in law to any claim made against any man merely for claiming it? 

Question: Do you believe that women making such claims via media should require having any actual proof when the act AUTOMATICALLY CONVICTS the accused via destroying one's reputation regardless of its truth? 

Question: Does ANY claim have an automatic requirement to be believed because the defined act itself, IF TRUE, is horrifying? 

Question: If one is furthermore 'anonymous', should their confirmation of abuse be trusted as representing the reality?

Edited January 26, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Added explanation and bolded "Question"

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

?? I never claimed to ignore the statistic  

Here is your quote:

Quote

I automatically dismiss any credibility to those using these conveniently made up stats i

"Dismiss credibility".  You are effectively ignoring statistics without providing a cite that disproves them.  I am wondering if you researched the claim at all.   I don't know you, so I am still assuming that you are posting with good will but I can only trust so much and after people post a few times with unsubstantiated claims, or refuse to acknowledge/respond to other posts I put people on 'ignore'....

[Hal 9000]

23 hours ago, Goddess said:

So I asked the boyfriend last night if he had ever been struck by a woman and he said, No.  He added that the only ones of his friends who had been struck by a woman were guys who deserved a slap in the face because they were acting like Tucker Max toward the woman.

I always marvel that any time women getting equal rights is discussed, there are so many men whose first thought is "Yay!  Now we get to hit women!"

 

Who or what are you referring to?

[Scott Mayers]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here is your quote:

"Dismiss credibility".  You are effectively ignoring statistics without providing a cite that disproves them.  I am wondering if you researched the claim at all.   I don't know you, so I am still assuming that you are posting with good will but I can only trust so much and after people post a few times with unsubstantiated claims, or refuse to acknowledge/respond to other posts I put people on 'ignore'....

I clearly explained but you don't seem to follow. 

A poll is a weak form of HEARSAY 'evidence'. You might use it to determine people's OPINIONS if the kinds of polls are relatively simple. For instance, I may ask how many people will do a survey (as a poll) when we cold call them? That number discovered can be valid because it is not based on what anyone actually asserts, confirms, or denies other than whether they accept to do the survey. A question regarding whether one has experienced X is NOT such because it has too many ways for it to be false. The ONLY function for those asking such questions as a poll is to CONFIRM what the sponsoring poll WANTS for political purposes. 

As to the particular claim about the 2/3, I am asserting that on a logical basis alone you cannot USE any poll as valid evidence just as you cannot use 'hearsay' validly in court. It's worse when the particular KIND of question involves one answering self-reflective ones that place themselves in a good light. It's anonymous and prevents anyone from validating whether anyone is truthful or not regardless of how the survey could be done. 

It's not ignoring statistics. The claimed statistic by the poll-takers can be 'true' while the content it is asking about is irrelevant. 

The FACT that people are treating the poll as though it were 'scientifically valid' is FAULTY and not in the least scientific nor logically sound for these reasons and more. IF you still think this kind of thinking is rational, I challenge anyone to come forward and tell their own personal story about their personal experiences with Trudeau if they've got one. I'm sure given he asserts a blind trust for anyone female merely claiming some abuse that he'd have to step down upon the accusation or risk being a hypocrite!.

It is a dangerous precedent to TRANSFER the 2/3 claim of victimhood INTO A FACT 

How am I the one burdened to disprove a claim like this? Do I own the burden to disprove one's religious claims too?

Edited January 26, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

Here's an example of how you might be 'fairer': Do the same statistic with the same number of men in the same style as for the women and ask how many men assert they've been abused. Also with each, the sex of the offending abuser should be clarified. It might be the case that 2/3 of men who claim to be abused are also afraid to come forward! Then it would imply that with the very identical statistic, it lacks any suggestive power to favor looking at women DISTINCTLY as the prime victim in abuses.

[Goddess]

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Here's an example of how you might be 'fairer': Do the same statistic with the same number of men in the same style as for the women and ask how many men assert they've been abused. Also with each, the sex of the offending abuser should be clarified. It might be the case that 2/3 of men who claim to be abused are also afraid to come forward! Then it would imply that with the very identical statistic, it lacks any suggestive power to favor looking at women DISTINCTLY as the prime victim in abuses.

But you reject the findings of this study/poll.  Why would you accept the findings of a similar study/poll done in the same way for men?

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Goddess