The Guardian cares about strip searches...when women are the victims

[Jarhyn]

So, mysoginistic spin aside, you bring up an interesting g topic.

The fact of the matter is, this kind of reporting DOES have an effect, a pointedly patriarchal one: it implies through selective omission that women are to be treated as fragile victims. This has an overall negative impact on women, at the same time as it places an undue burden on men to "man up" and repress or ignore trauma that happens to them.

Too much empathy can indeed be patriarchal, and patronizing, and a better feminist would seek to report on men being abused in this way as well, as it shows empathy and frees men from the structures of patriarchy as much as it frees women.

As to the differences in numbers, you haven't corrected for police contact in general: of police contacts, more police contacts are had by men. So to get a good understanding, one would have to correct for that. If women are stripped more per contact, then it is still exactly the case that women are more likely to be abused when encountering an officer.

Men are also victims of the patriarchy.

Good lord, you are almost like a caricature hand-crafted by the right wing.

Ah yes, providing actual reasons as to why we SHOULD give balanced reporting like the mysoginistic OP wanted is somehow a charicature.

And I suppose you think it's a right wing charicature to point out that men are victims of the patriarchy with regards to firemen, and construction workers, wherein adding women to those fields leads to better outcomes through various mechanisms?

All over, we find that the exclusion of women doesn't just hurt women, it hurts men too, just as it is apparent that excluding men from discussions about certain harmful things harms both men and women (with regards to sexual assault, genital mutilations, and all sorts of other things).

Being egalitarian helps everyone.

 

[Metaphor]

Something to keep in mind here. The outrage over strip searches is much more so when the searchee is female than when they are male. This article is simply going along with how the average person feels.

Yes, that was indeed my point.

Feminists say that "the patriarchy" does not care about women ("society hates women, just hates us"-- actual feminist quote).

This idea is ludicrous, yet it persists.

You don't get people to care about strip searches if the majority of them happen to men (as is the case). So report about the women it happens to.

You don't get people to care about genital mutilation if the majority of them happen to boys (as is the case). So report about the women it happens to.

You don't get people to care about cancer if the majority of cancer cases and deaths happen to men (as is the case). So report about the women it happens to.

The gender equality network at my workplace recently had a fundraising bake sale--to raise money for FEMALE cancer victims. Despite the fact that men are more likely to get cancer and more likely to die from it. If they actually cared about gender equality (they don't) they'd be raising revenue for the gender disproportionately affected.

Instead they did the exact opposite.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah yes, providing actual reasons as to why we SHOULD give balanced reporting like the mysoginistic OP wanted is somehow a charicature.

Furnish evidence of the "misogyny" in the OP or withdraw the claim.

 

[Toni]

Ah yes, providing actual reasons as to why we SHOULD give balanced reporting like the mysoginistic OP wanted is somehow a charicature.

Furnish evidence of the "misogyny" in the OP or withdraw the claim.

I think the implication that the suffering of girls is seen as more important and pre pitiable than the suffering of boys is a bit misogynistic—and misandrist as well.

There’s a two edged sword that cuts both directions: poor little girls, so vulnerable and so easy to humiliate, to hurt (and control) vs big strong boys are always, always so in control of their feelings they practically don’t have them at all or at least keep them stuffed deep down where they belong like the good little team players they are, taking one for the team . We don’t even have to talk about those strong boys.

Sucks for everybody. The fact that there is misandry doesn’t oblivisate or mitigate the misogyny.

 

[Metaphor]

I think the implication that the suffering of girls is seen as more important and pre pitiable than the suffering of boys is a bit misogynistic—and misandrist as well.

No, it would be neither, because it is not a claim about either men or women but about society's differential empathy for male versus female victims. Even if the claim were false (that society does not in fact pay more attention to the suffering of women and girls than of men and boys), the statement would not be misogynist or misandrist, it would just be false.

Now, it surprises me not at all that the Redfern Legal Centre (who made the FoI request and got the data and fashioned a press release around it) and The Guardian, who wrote a story about it, focussed solely on female victimhood while being completely and utterly silent on the male victims, who outnumber the female victims 3:1.

And the Redfern Legal Centre deliberately crafted the female-focussed narrative, because they definitely had the gender data (it's in the report they commissioned). They knew men were the primary victims but either didn't care or didn't think it was a saleable narrative.

There’s a two edged sword that cuts both directions: poor little girls, so vulnerable and so easy to humiliate, to hurt (and control) vs big strong boys are always, always so in control of their feelings they practically don’t have them at all or at least keep them stuffed deep down where they belong like the good little team players they are, taking one for the team . We don’t even have to talk about those strong boys.

Sucks for everybody. The fact that there is misandry doesn’t oblivisate or mitigate the misogyny.

Jarhyn was not accusing 'society' of misogyny, but accusing me personally (apparently, for merely noting society's empathy gap for men and boys).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, mysoginistic spin aside, you bring up an interesting g topic.

The fact of the matter is, this kind of reporting DOES have an effect, a pointedly patriarchal one: it implies through selective omission that women are to be treated as fragile victims. This has an overall negative impact on women, at the same time as it places an undue burden on men to "man up" and repress or ignore trauma that happens to them.

Too much empathy can indeed be patriarchal, and patronizing, and a better feminist would seek to report on men being abused in this way as well, as it shows empathy and frees men from the structures of patriarchy as much as it frees women.

As to the differences in numbers, you haven't corrected for police contact in general: of police contacts, more police contacts are had by men. So to get a good understanding, one would have to correct for that. If women are stripped more per contact, then it is still exactly the case that women are more likely to be abused when encountering an officer.

Men are also victims of the patriarchy.

Good lord, you are almost like a caricature hand-crafted by the right wing.

Except Jarhyn was able to address a legitimate "men's right" concern without sounding like a woman hating incel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah yes, providing actual reasons as to why we SHOULD give balanced reporting like the mysoginistic OP wanted is somehow a charicature.

Furnish evidence of the "misogyny" in the OP or withdraw the claim.

Wow... so you are complaining about someone being unfair with an accusation over a post where you were unfair in an accusation with The Guardian. Thin skin.

Jarhyn didn't accuse you of misogyny, but rather identified what you wrote as having some misogynistic attitudes. He might have been a little over stated and over-represented your OPs that display a hyper-awareness of subjects involving women as having some misogynistic traits.

 

[Metaphor]

Wow... so you are complaining about someone being unfair with an accusation over a post where you were unfair in an accusation with The Guardian. Thin skin.

In what way was I unfair to the Guardian? Did I misrepresent the story it wrote? If so, how?

Jarhyn didn't accuse you of misogyny, but rather identified what you wrote as having some misogynistic attitudes.

And what evidence does he have that what I wrote has "misogynistic attitudes" (whatever that means)?

He might have been a little over stated and over-represented your OPs that display a hyper-awareness of subjects involving women as having some misogynistic traits.

My OPs, plural? You mean, Jarhyn has assumed I'm a misogynist based on some previous posts, from which he also has not produced evidence of "misogyny"?

Also, "hyper-awareness of subjects involving women"?

I think you're thinking of feminists.

 

[Toni]

In what way was I unfair to the Guardian? Did I misrepresent the story it wrote? If so, how?



And what evidence does he have that what I wrote has "misogynistic attitudes" (whatever that means)?

He might have been a little over stated and over-represented your OPs that display a hyper-awareness of subjects involving women as having some misogynistic traits.

My OPs, plural? You mean, Jarhyn has assumed I'm a misogynist based on some previous posts, from which he also has not produced evidence of "misogyny"?

Also, "hyper-awareness of subjects involving women"?

I think you're thinking of feminists.

Well, I have noticed that a fair percentage of your posts have to do with how unfair/wrong/out of control/misguided/<insert negative word> feminists are.

You have a thread about what a travesty it is that the football league decided to pay women equally with men (and were misinformed about the details and another about how unhinged feminists are and then, there's this one. And that's just this week.

It can come across as posts by someone who really dislikes women. This may not be how you see it but I hope that you will consider that you often use hyperbole in order to decry what you see as hyperbole or exaggeration or mischaracterization by feminists or women that you identify as feminists.

Here's a portion of one of your posts about unhinged feminists:

But the real zinger of the evening is Mona endorsing the killing of rapists. Not by the State (because she doesn't believe in the death penalty), but, by individual women or maybe mobs of them.

MONA ELTAHAWY

...How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill? Not the state, because I disagree with the death penalty and I want to get rid of incarceration and I’m with you on the police. So I want women themselves... As a woman I’m asking, how many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?
Back to NAYUKA claiming white people don't have morality and advocating "burning stuff" (presumably white people's stuff but maybe white people too):

NAYUKA GORRIE

So I’m thinking about, you know, a colony, we live in a colony. We’ve tried for 230-plus years to appeal to the colonisers’ morality which doesn’t seem to exist. I think violence, yeah, I think violence is OK because if someone is trying to kill you, there’s no amount of, “Oh, but I’m really clever.” You know, “I’m really articulate.” No amount of that is going to save you, so, yeah, let’s burn stuff.
I can't do any more of that show. That was my breaking point.

But enough of those batshit feminists. Some different batshit feminists have made a submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission about sexual consent laws and they propose to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases:

“Our preliminary submission proposes that evidence of positive confirmation of consent or explicit permission should be required to negate a charge of sexual assault,” the clinic’s submissions read, noting that “the clear majority” of 43 preliminary submissions were “in favour of adopting an affirmative consent model”.
But it doesn't stop there: apparently persuading somebody to have sex with you is also non-consensual:

Its submission accused defence lawyers opposing the changes of having “a vested interest” in maintaining the status quo, and also expressed concerns over submissions from the Law Society and Bar Association that “consent after persuasion is still consent”.

“What level of ‘persuasion’ (would) members of the bar regard as acceptable?” The clinic’s submission asked. “Are they just talking about flowers and a massage? Or are they talking about financial incentives, veiled threats, bargaining and relentless badgering? Would they be happy with the same level of ‘persuasion’ being used to extract confessions from defendants?”

To me, you are reacting very emotionally in protest of women speaking emotionally about subjects such as rape and violence against women, while not acknowledging that the women have any right to be emotional about rape and violence against women. There is not an ounce, not a hint of sympathy or empathy for women who are frustrated that they are the victims of so much violence at the hands of men and that the millennia of women trying to be nice, to placate, to avoid, to be patient is just not effective at stopping violence against them.

Whether you intend it that way or not, you come across as disliking women and hating feminists. You are criticizing them for hyperbole while engaging in intolerant hyperbole yourself.

Anyway, that's my two cents' worth.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

From the report:

Data put on the public record in 2019 shows that strip searches increased by 46.8 percent over four years and on average, found nothing 64 percent of the time.
...
The findings of this study also draw on the limited data available on the public record, new data obtained under freedom of information, and illustrative case studies provided by the report’s advisory group to assess aspects of how the law operates in practice. The advisory group’s clients’ experiences of being strip searched at festivals, train stations, in the street, in the back of police wagons and in custody highlight instances of poor, abusive and potentially unlawful police practices. This is not to suggest that all strip searches being conducted are unlawful. No doubt there are instances of legitimate police uses of strip search in serious and urgent circumstances where the legal criteria have been met. However, this research is not an empirical study of police strip search practice. The limited available data and the lack of transparent information does not make a comprehensive study of this kind possible. The NSW Police are able to record and release comprehensive data on the use of strip searches, and it is in the public interest that they do so.

HOW ARE STRIP SEARCHES BEING USED IN NSW?

Key facts

Increase in strip searches

• Strip searches were used 2774 times in the 12 months to 30 November 2006 compared to 5,4835 in the 12 months to 30 June 2018, an almost 20 fold increase in less than 12 years.​

Reasons for strip searches

• Police suspicion that a person possesses prohibited drugs accounts for 91 percent of all recorded reasons why police conduct a strip search (financial year 2018-2019). Police suspicion that a person has engaged in drug supply is not recorded as a category of reason for conducting a strip search.​

...
Strip searches of young people

• Almost 3 percent of all recorded strip searches in the field are of children under the age of 18 (financial year 2017-2018). 45 percent of all recorded strip searches are of young people aged 25 years and younger (financial year 2017-2018).​

...
Unlawful strip searches are potentially widespread

The available evidence suggests that police are not always meeting the legal criteria for using strip
searches.

a. Police data shows that routinely, strip searches are not being used in serious and urgent circumstances, indicating widespread contravention of the law. Police suspicion of drug possession accounts for the vast majority of strip searches, but mere possession of a prohibited drug alone does not legally justify a strip search.
...
b. The New South Wales Courts have found that police are not turning their minds to the legal requirements for conducting a strip search, as set out in the statute. When strip searches are conducted in the absence of legal justification, they are carried out by police for a range of non-legal purposes, including punishment and humiliation.
...
c. Case studies provided by lawyers suggest that strip searches are being conducted at music festivals and other sites such as railway stations in relation to often lower-level drug offences (such as possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use), in circumstances where there is no immediate, serious threat to personal safety.

In non-festival settings, people are being strip searched in circumstances where it is not clear why a strip search is necessary, or why the circumstances are serious and urgent. For example, where a person is suspected of shoplifting or stealing a car.​

...
7 Children should be protected

Currently, the police must apply exactly the same legal tests for adults and children when deciding whether to strip search a child in the field. The legal thresholds are not designed to protect children. The only protection for children currently in the law is the prohibition against strip searching a child under 10 and the requirement that a child be accompanied by an independent adult during a search. But LEPRA allows for an independent adult to be dispensed with if it is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances for police to locate an appropriate adult​

Etc., etc., more, of course, in the report, but the point (so far) is to firmly establish that the overwhelming majority of the strip searches are for drugs and not out of any kind of fear of hidden weaponry or the like on the part of the police and no one under ten is allowed to be strip searched, but sometimes it happens, etc., so the focus of the report is highlighting a significant problem in regard to the increased use of a highly invasive power that is not justifiable by the police in North South Whales.

As to the gender concerns, here's where the study first gets into psychological harms of strip searching:

Before considering the purpose of strip searches and when they can be lawfully conducted, we review the established harms of strip searches. Strip searches are an “inherently humiliating and degrading” violation of the right to bodily integrity for any person, and have been recognised as such by the Courts. Strip searches have been characterised as an “enforced nudity” by the state and may be experienced as a form of sexual assault. The Canadian Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Golden noted that “women and minorities in particular may have a real fear of strip search and may experience such a search as equivalent to a sexual abuse”.
...
Peta Malins’ recent qualitative study of 22 people’s experiences of being searched after indication by drug detection dogs at or near music festivals across Australia found that strip searches had the potential to cause lasting trauma and impacts on emotional and social well-being. People who had been strip searched reported significant short and long-term mental health concerns including anxiety and distress and feeling disempowered and de-humanised. The study documents the re-traumatisation of women.

Well, why the apparent focus just on women (as the usual asswipes itt conjecture)? The very next sentence explains (emphasis mine):

Strip searches re-traumatise those who have been subject to sexual and other assaults, and traumas, especially women given the high numbers who have been subject to sexual assault.

In the US, 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female, and only 9% are male.

So, at least in the US, if you strip search one hundred men, the statistics are that maybe nine will have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. If you strip search one hundred women, however, the statistics are that over 90 will have been sexually assaulted.

The point being, of course in regard to the OP stupidity, that it does not matter how many men are strip searched compared to women; it matters how many men strip searched had been sexually assaulted compared to how many women strip searched had been sexually assaulted.

ANYONE who has been sexually assaulted can be traumatized by a strip search, but that concern is overwhelmingly toward women because they are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victims of sexual abuse.

 

[KeepTalking]

In the US, 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female, and only 9% are male.

So, at least in the US, if you strip search one hundred men, the statistics are that maybe nine will have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. If you strip search one hundred women, however, the statistics are that over 90 will have been sexually assaulted.

You might want to check your math here.

That 91% of the victims of sexual assault are female does not indicate that 91% of all females have been sexually assaulted.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ed-more-than-100-girls-including-12-year-olds

The New South Wales police performed strip-searches on more than 100 girls in the last three years, including two 12-year-olds.

Following the NSW police watchdog’s investigation into the allegedly illegal strip-search of a 16-year-old girl at a music festival last year, data obtained under freedom of information laws show she was just one of 122 girls under the age of 18 who have been forced to undergo the controversial practice by police since 2016.

The revelations come as the NSW police watchdog revealed last week that it investigated six separate allegations of misuse of strip-search powers by police last year, and is likely to place the practice under increased scrutiny.
...



The data, obtained by the Redfern Legal Centre, reveals that since 2016 there have been 3,919 strip-searches by police on women in NSW. Young women aged 25 and under accounted for almost half the searches, while the oldest woman strip-searched was 72 years old.

Most shockingly, the data shows that two 12-year-olds and eight 13-year-olds have been strip-searched by police since 2016.
“Girls as young as 12 and 13, some just finishing primary school, are being taken by police to a strange place and ordered by someone with a huge amount of power to take off their clothes,” Samantha Lee, the head of police accountability at the Redfern Legal Centre said.
“There is no doubt these young women would have been scared, some terrified and most having no idea of their legal rights.”
...
(more at link)

I was curious about the focus on women and girls in the article, and I wondered whether strip-searching was a gendered issue that affected women more.

Doing some digging,l I found the report that contains the numbers in the article. And, I was half-right. It is a gendered issue, but in the other direction. Three quarters of all strip searches in the time period were on men, and 59% of strip searches on children under 18 were on boys.

But remember: we live in a patriarchy that hates women, just hates them. Don't let The Guardian's seeming empathetic reporting on female victims distort that truth.

So, mysoginistic spin aside, you bring up an interesting g topic.

The fact of the matter is, this kind of reporting DOES have an effect, a pointedly patriarchal one: it implies through selective omission that women are to be treated as fragile victims. This has an overall negative impact on women, at the same time as it places an undue burden on men to "man up" and repress or ignore trauma that happens to them.

Too much empathy can indeed be patriarchal, and patronizing, and a better feminist would seek to report on men being abused in this way as well, as it shows empathy and frees men from the structures of patriarchy as much as it frees women.

As to the differences in numbers, you haven't corrected for police contact in general: of police contacts, more police contacts are had by men. So to get a good understanding, one would have to correct for that. If women are stripped more per contact, then it is still exactly the case that women are more likely to be abused when encountering an officer.

Men are also victims of the patriarchy.

This is absolutely true and blows the thread out of the water.

Men don't complain as much about other men and that includes victims. It's part of the patriarchy not to come out as a sex assault victim of a man because it makes you less manly. Likewise, probably, for these strip search victims.

Masculinists need to take a hard look at themselves.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, I have noticed that a fair percentage of your posts have to do with how unfair/wrong/out of control/misguided/<insert negative word> feminists are.

Well, yes. When feminists are unfair and wrong, I'm going to point it out.

You have a thread about what a travesty it is that the football league decided to pay women equally with men (and were misinformed about the details and another about how unhinged feminists are and then, there's this one. And that's just this week.

It can come across as posts by someone who really dislikes women. This may not be how you see it but I hope that you will consider that you often use hyperbole in order to decry what you see as hyperbole or exaggeration or mischaracterization by feminists or women that you identify as feminists.

The sex of the person who is a feminist doesn't usually matter to my criticism, unless it's a female feminist making particular claims about the imagined brain-states of men or making claims about what men are like with each other (which by definition they can have had no lived experience of).

Here's a portion of one of your posts about unhinged feminists:
...
To me, you are reacting very emotionally in protest of women speaking emotionally about subjects such as rape and violence against women, while not acknowledging that the women have any right to be emotional about rape and violence against women. There is not an ounce, not a hint of sympathy or empathy for women who are frustrated that they are the victims of so much violence at the hands of men and that the millennia of women trying to be nice, to placate, to avoid, to be patient is just not effective at stopping violence against them.

Whether you intend it that way or not, you come across as disliking women and hating feminists. You are criticizing them for hyperbole while engaging in intolerant hyperbole yourself.

Being anti-feminist, and in particular anti the most delusional radical fringes of it, is not being anti-woman. I'm not going to stop exposing insane ideas because some people think it's a trump card to accuse me of misogyny and then ignore all the arguments they cannot address.

 

[Toni]

Well, yes. When feminists are unfair and wrong, I'm going to point it out.



The sex of the person who is a feminist doesn't usually matter to my criticism, unless it's a female feminist making particular claims about the imagined brain-states of men or making claims about what men are like with each other (which by definition they can have had no lived experience of).

Here's a portion of one of your posts about unhinged feminists:
...
To me, you are reacting very emotionally in protest of women speaking emotionally about subjects such as rape and violence against women, while not acknowledging that the women have any right to be emotional about rape and violence against women. There is not an ounce, not a hint of sympathy or empathy for women who are frustrated that they are the victims of so much violence at the hands of men and that the millennia of women trying to be nice, to placate, to avoid, to be patient is just not effective at stopping violence against them.

Whether you intend it that way or not, you come across as disliking women and hating feminists. You are criticizing them for hyperbole while engaging in intolerant hyperbole yourself.

Being anti-feminist, and in particular anti the most delusional radical fringes of it, is not being anti-woman. I'm not going to stop exposing insane ideas because some people think it's a trump card to accuse me of misogyny and then ignore all the arguments they cannot address.

Well you know the old saying: if you like the results you’re getting then keep doing things the same way.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, yes. When feminists are unfair and wrong, I'm going to point it out.



The sex of the person who is a feminist doesn't usually matter to my criticism, unless it's a female feminist making particular claims about the imagined brain-states of men or making claims about what men are like with each other (which by definition they can have had no lived experience of).

Here's a portion of one of your posts about unhinged feminists:
...
To me, you are reacting very emotionally in protest of women speaking emotionally about subjects such as rape and violence against women, while not acknowledging that the women have any right to be emotional about rape and violence against women. There is not an ounce, not a hint of sympathy or empathy for women who are frustrated that they are the victims of so much violence at the hands of men and that the millennia of women trying to be nice, to placate, to avoid, to be patient is just not effective at stopping violence against them.

Whether you intend it that way or not, you come across as disliking women and hating feminists. You are criticizing them for hyperbole while engaging in intolerant hyperbole yourself.

Being anti-feminist, and in particular anti the most delusional radical fringes of it, is not being anti-woman. I'm not going to stop exposing insane ideas because some people think it's a trump card to accuse me of misogyny and then ignore all the arguments they cannot address.

Well you know the old saying: if you like the results you’re getting then keep doing things the same way.

Well, you're probably not wrong that I haven't convinced a single feminist that feminism has fundamental problems. But, I did not become an atheist from any particular atheist argument or any particular atheist writer or any particular arguments against religious thought. I just had to be exposed to enough of them over time (a few years), and at one point I had gone from a believing Catholic to an atheist.

My antifeminism is mostly a private affair in real life--though a few close friends know of my views. It'd be far more dangerous to reveal anything at work, where feminist orthodoxy is the order of the day.

When a Judith Butlerista feminist colleague revealed she thought men were physically stronger than women because boys were fed more protein than girls, I stayed silent.

When a very senior feminist colleague said, at a Christmas lunch, "nothing has changed for women in fifty years", I stayed silent.

When our gender equality network raised funds for female cancer victims (as if that has something to do with gender equality or somehow enables it), I stayed silent.

When my organisation's own gender equality strategic plan pays lip service to the gender imbalance of human resources (not enough men)--but implements no concrete steps of any kind to rectify what they regard to be a problem--and in the meantime the same strategic plan outlines (and the organisation has put into practise) the very concrete steps of getting more women into IT, including an ongoing, paid, female-only cadetship system--I stayed silent.

I've seen what it's like to oppose feminist ideology from my lived experience in my social networks. If I can do anything to lessen the feminist death-grip on social intercourse, I'll keep trying.

 

[Toni]

Well you know the old saying: if you like the results you’re getting then keep doing things the same way.

Well, you're probably not wrong that I haven't convinced a single feminist that feminism has fundamental problems. But, I did not become an atheist from any particular atheist argument or any particular atheist writer or any particular arguments against religious thought. I just had to be exposed to enough of them over time (a few years), and at one point I had gone from a believing Catholic to an atheist.

My antifeminism is mostly a private affair in real life--though a few close friends know of my views. It'd be far more dangerous to reveal anything at work, where feminist orthodoxy is the order of the day.

When a Judith Butlerista feminist colleague revealed she thought men were physically stronger than women because boys were fed more protein than girls, I stayed silent.

When a very senior feminist colleague said, at a Christmas lunch, "nothing has changed for women in fifty years", I stayed silent.

When our gender equality network raised funds for female cancer victims (as if that has something to do with gender equality or somehow enables it), I stayed silent.

When my organisation's own gender equality strategic plan pays lip service to the gender imbalance of human resources (not enough men)--but implements no concrete steps of any kind to rectify what they regard to be a problem--and in the meantime the same strategic plan outlines (and the organisation has put into practise) the very concrete steps of getting more women into IT, including an ongoing, paid, female-only cadetship system--I stayed silent.

I've seen what it's like to oppose feminist ideology from my lived experience in my social networks. If I can do anything to lessen the feminist death-grip on social intercourse, I'll keep trying.

But it sounds like your’re just staying silent instead of speaking out against unfair policies and practices. I think it’s utterly useless to try to convince anybody anything about diet, period. Keeping quiet is the wise course there. But it isn’t helpful to say that you see how effective strategies to correct gender imbalances in some areas is working and you’d like to see similar attention given to gender imbalances in other areas.

I’m just guessing that the person who says d nothing has changed for women in fifty years is well under fifty herself. But the frustrations are real. My employer is frequently noted as one of the best workplaces in the field in the US—and I watched young men get promotions when they became parents and some pretty snarky speculations about when women who got married were going to be asking for parental leave. And watched a lot of women young enough to be my daughter make the same choice I did to sacrifice career ambitions in favor of their husband’s ambitions. Social change is difficult and slow and not always fair in the short term—or in the long term. I understand the frustrations. I share them.

You’re not asking my advice but I’ll offer it anyway: Speak up when there are disparities in terms of policies. Don’t go for the hyperbole. Understated and factual are more effective. And maybe try to find a way to empathize. Life can be tough. Finding work/life balance is hard and harder when you are raising kids. No one blames the dad if the kid has mismatched outfits or forgot their homework. Dads are still heroes for just showing up, It does indeed seem as though nothing has changed. Except that women get to do more.

Never ever criticize people’s diets. People can be really crazy about food.

 

[Metaphor]

But it sounds like your’re just staying silent instead of speaking out against unfair policies and practices. I think it’s utterly useless to try to convince anybody anything about diet, period. Keeping quiet is the wise course there. But it isn’t helpful to say that you see how effective strategies to correct gender imbalances in some areas is working and you’d like to see similar attention given to gender imbalances in other areas.

You see, your very language betrays what a fundamentally different mindset we have. Gender imbalances that are not due to discrimination don't need 'correcting', because they're just not a problem. Human differences in interests are not a problem.

My objection is far more fundamental than unevenly enforced policy. I don't believe it's a problem that men and women have made different choices on average and the result of these choices is mild occupational segregation. Even if I did believe it was a problem (I don't), I would not think it's a problem for individual organisations to solve or could solve. I disagree with the policy in its entirety.

But, the policy exists. I assume that the organisation "believes" in it. But if you are going to have the policy, at the very least you could live up to your own expressed convictions. But, of course they don't and they haven't. It's possible that it's just harder to attract men into human resources than it is to attract women into IT. Or, as I suspect, it's necessary to pay lip service to gender equality but it's really only the number of women they're worried about.

I’m just guessing that the person who says d nothing has changed for women in fifty years is well under fifty herself.

No: in fact somewhere in her late sixties or early seventies, I would say. Mind, this is a woman who would have been alive when the Australian federal public service (until the mid 1960s) had a formal policy of firing women when they got married (they had a man to take care of them now, obviously). This is a woman who is in the senior executive ranks of the public service. But, she still felt that was an appropriate thing to say to a table of younger women and a junior male colleague (me).

You’re not asking my advice but I’ll offer it anyway: Speak up when there are disparities in terms of policies.

Why should I do that? There would only be reputational risk to myself, and--remember--it's a policy I already don't believe in.

 

[Toni]

You see, your very language betrays what a fundamentally different mindset we have. Gender imbalances that are not due to discrimination don't need 'correcting', because they're just not a problem. Human differences in interests are not a problem.

My objection is far more fundamental than unevenly enforced policy. I don't believe it's a problem that men and women have made different choices on average and the result of these choices is mild occupational segregation. Even if I did believe it was a problem (I don't), I would not think it's a problem for individual organisations to solve or could solve. I disagree with the policy in its entirety.

But, the policy exists. I assume that the organisation "believes" in it. But if you are going to have the policy, at the very least you could live up to your own expressed convictions. But, of course they don't and they haven't. It's possible that it's just harder to attract men into human resources than it is to attract women into IT. Or, as I suspect, it's necessary to pay lip service to gender equality but it's really only the number of women they're worried about.



No: in fact somewhere in her late sixties or early seventies, I would say. Mind, this is a woman who would have been alive when the Australian federal public service (until the mid 1960s) had a formal policy of firing women when they got married (they had a man to take care of them now, obviously). This is a woman who is in the senior executive ranks of the public service. But, she still felt that was an appropriate thing to say to a table of younger women and a junior male colleague (me).

You’re not asking my advice but I’ll offer it anyway: Speak up when there are disparities in terms of policies.

Why should I do that? There would only be reputational risk to myself, and--remember--it's a policy I already don't believe in.

Ah.

The thing is that a lot of young women make choices in their careers because they know they want to have a family and they specifically choose careers that will provide more flexibility over careers that do not. I know of mothers my age who specifically guided their very bright daughters with obvious talents in STEM towards careers where they will have the most flexibility and a good chance to earn a very good income and raise a family if they choose. I don't know of any men aside from my husband who made the choice in career paths to accommodate raising a family and I know exactly zero men--or women who counsel their sons to pursue family friendly careers.

My own personal opinion is that almost all lines of work really could and should be more family friendly and more amenable to work/life balance whether or not you partner up and/or raise kids. At least in the US, stress takes a tremendous toll on people's health and workplace stress is pretty high for just about everyone I know, no matter what their career choice or stage. Maybe you Australians have the balance thing sorted out better. According to Wiki, in the US, the average number of hours people work/year is 1781. In Australia, it's 1669, as of 2016. Take note: Americans are working slightly fewer hours compared with a few years prior while Australians are working more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the US, 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female, and only 9% are male.

So, at least in the US, if you strip search one hundred men, the statistics are that maybe nine will have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. If you strip search one hundred women, however, the statistics are that over 90 will have been sexually assaulted.

You might want to check your math here.

That 91% of the victims of sexual assault are female does not indicate that 91% of all females have been sexually assaulted.

This isn't a math error, this is flunking probability 101.

Hint: In basic math things tend to work both ways. A + B = B + A and A * B = B * A. However, as you go farther down the math road this generally does not persist.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Wow. Clearly hit a nerve (Loren even actually stooped so low as to give me neg rep).

To the math in regard to that particular cite, yes. I misinterpreted. To the POINT behind the math, no, that remains.

The reason to focus on women is because they are the more abused class by a factor that is actually most likely 90 to 10 when you factor in under-reporting, but even if it’s 70 to 10 or 50 to 10, it’s STiLL the reason why even the fucktards itt should be focused on the fact that unnecessary/illegal strip searches in the study effect EVERYONE THAT HAS SUFFERED THROUGH SEXUAL ABUSE and that number is overwhelmingly disproportionately larger for women, because—say it with me—women are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victims of sexual abuse.

Iow, men aren’t being ignored by the Guardian and your precious whiny little egos are as intact as your pathetic little impotent cocks.

Happy now? Unjustified strip searches trigger those who have been sexually abused. Women are the most sexually abused class by a factor so disproportionally large it’s beyond dispute, so it’s perfectly logical that a primary focus would be about women, so shut the fuck up you whiny little fucktards.

How’s that?