What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[Politesse]

I can't tell if poli's anecdote is meant to be in favour of such policies, or against them, or neither.

I suppose the conversation here reminded me of it. I'm not sure if this is a domain in which I see things in black-and-white terms.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can't tell if poli's anecdote is meant to be in favour of such policies, or against them, or neither.

I suppose the conversation here reminded me of it. I'm not sure if this is a domain in which I see things in black-and-white terms.

Arguably the most (if not indeed the only) rational perspective.




For example, and slightly away from your anecdote, and as I am probably saying a bit too much, I helped raise two girls. To this day (they're 19 and 22) I'd say that more than 90% of any hassle or bullying they ever experienced (or at least told us about) was from other girls. I'm not even necessarily counting the incident I just posted, because, well, she hit him first. What I'm clumsily trying to say is that people are people. There isn't one type made of sugar and spice and another type made of rats and snails.

In a way I have to cite people other than myself because as a man I haven't had direct experience of being on the receiving end of sexism or sexual harassment, that I can easily recall.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We can certainly draw conclusions from incomplete data. Just because there is some uncertainty does not mean we cannot draw conclusions or act on them.

Conclusions drawn on incomplete or unavailable data carry less weight in inverse proportion to the amount and accuracy of the data upon which that conclusion is based. It's a nuanced version of Hitchens's Razor.

Context free math is simply numbers. Showing something is mathematically possible does not mean it is probable.

Of course; and that is why your claims are so easily disputed. It is mathematically possible that each and every individual case of harassment was perpetrated by one and only one male. The probability that that is so is not very likely. Now, if you have data demonstrating this to be the case, it would certainly help your argument. But until then your own argument is a simple mathematical construct shorn of context, itself.

Intent is irrelevant to the effect on the victim at the time of incident. Intent is important if one is trying to ascertain blame and punishment.

I am not responsible for the feelings of others if I take as much care possible to avoid offense and still they take it. If they take offense where none was intended, should they not also allow for the possibility of miscommunication, apology, and learning?

I'm not saying there aren't men who are jerks towards women. There are far too many of them. But arguing that well over half of men share that jerkiness because well over half of all women have experienced it is a non-sequitur. You are drawing an unsupported inference, not proceeding step-by-step.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, technically, it may have been sexual harassment, but there are several things to consider. I didn't really have a boss per se, since I was more or less a contractor, who worked for a very small mom and pop company. The owners knew this man for over forty years and they would have laughed if I complained. I didn't care enough to be bothered to complain. This worker was a pain in the ass for a lot of reasons, but I'm perfectly capable of dealing with difficult employees. You have no idea how nurses can sometimes bully each other. That man was a tiny annoyance compared to what I've put up with in other jobs. It's not just my age. We had a young aide who was a frequent target of much worse sexual remarks, by a younger maintenance man. She didn't care and even joked with him when he said things to her like, "Peaches! I want to be the cream in your peaches." Imo, she should have reported him, but apparently, she didn't care.

We didn't even have an HR dept. in my former job. For that matter, we had several male residents that sexually assaulted female residents and there were times when it took the owners months before they did anything about these situations. Over the years, three residents were finally asked to move out. We had male residents that sexually harassed the aides. The only time that happened to me, the only RN who worked there, was when a male resident grabbed my arm and said, "I have this terrible weakness for blond women." I ignored him and continued working. The aides had already reported some of the things he said to them. For example, "Baby, you're making me hot." This happened while they were showering the man and he was trying to look down the aide's shirt as she bent over. It took months of reporting this before he was finally asked to move out. I could tell numerous stories about several of these older males. Females in health care are not only harassed by doctors, they are often harassed by male patients. These situations are the most difficult to deal with imo.

The reason I worked there for so long is because I enjoyed the work, loved the majority of the residents as well as my younger female coworkers and I had more freedom than I did in any other nursing job. But, I do agree that male workers should avoid making remarks that might make a female worker feel objectified or threatened. Despite sometimes working with difficult female nurses in a few jobs, I'm happy that I didn't have to work with men very often. Male patients could be challenging enough.

My last girlfriend, of two years, was also a nurse, at a living facility for Alzheimer's/Parkinson's patients. She too experienced much of what you relate here.I get what you're saying.

However, it is the responsibility of the employer or facility management to provide a workplace free of harassment. The incidents you're relaying here certainly sound actionable to me and had that been done may well have started to change the culture.

I'm not arguing that it is the responsibility of the victims to force the change; obviously, management should be proactive in establishing a safe and professional culture in any workplace. Just as obviously, management owns the responsibility for the tolerance of a harassment culture. It's a sad fact that so many business leaders at every level of leadership fail in being leaders on this issue; but it is a fact.

If they are permitting a hostile environment, they should be called to task, in the last resort by HR or legal actions which hit them where it matters -- the bank account.

I'm sorry you've had to experience what you have experienced.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not responsible for the feelings of others if I take as much care possible to avoid offense and still they take it.

And not only that, but who is to then stop you from taking offence to them taking offence? Taking offence usually comes with presumptions, judgments and accusations that can be just as offensive. A reasonable person test is needed. It can't be all based on the subjectivity of the offended. Not when there are people who get offended with simply "hello".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[A female colleague goes into the office of male colleague to "discuss" a situation. The discussion is heated, the male colleague closes the door in order to keep the discussion private. She files a complaint because closing the door was intimidating and she felt it did it to make a move on her. He gets investigated and disciplined.

This does indeed happen. And note that this is far less likely to happen with a male colleague.

And also consider the flipside:

A male manager refuses to ever close the door when alone in his office with a female employee, despite doing so with males. He also refuses to work alone at night alone with a female employee or have a working diner with one, as he would a male one, where often mentor relationships are formed. He gets called out for discrimination.

 

[ruby sparks]

Good to know.

Yeah. Sort of. Even assuming my locker room experiences are representative, maybe 'locker room talk' is a bit of a deliberate red herring, a smokescreen or codeword, and the really bad stuff happens somewhere else*. I would do a smiley at this point but don't want to appear as if I'm being too flippant.







* Male Frat Houses? Female Frat Houses? Stag parties? I'm totally guessing. I have no idea.

The Dark Web. That's gotta be a candidate, surely?

 

[Toni]

I can't tell if poli's anecdote is meant to be in favour of such policies, or against them, or neither.

I suppose the conversation here reminded me of it. I'm not sure if this is a domain in which I see things in black-and-white terms.

Arguably the most (if not indeed the only) rational perspective.




For example, and slightly away from your anecdote, and as I am probably saying a bit too much, I helped raise two girls. To this day (they're 19 and 22) I'd say that more than 90% of any hassle or bullying they ever experienced (or at least told us about) was from other girls. I'm not even necessarily counting the incident I just posted, because, well, she hit him first. What I'm clumsily trying to say is that people are people. There isn't one type made of sugar and spice and another type made of rats and snails.

In a way I have to cite people other than myself because as a man I haven't had direct experience of being on the receiving end of sexism or sexual harassment, that I can easily recall.

Yep, girls can be mean and sometimes physically intimidating but they almost never rape each other and rarely beat each other to death or otherwise murder each other.

This is not nearly equivalent or even comparable to the threats and level of harassment and assault that girls and women routinely face. From boys and men.

 

[laughing dog]

Conclusions drawn on incomplete or unavailable data carry less weight in inverse proportion to the amount and accuracy of the data upon which that conclusion is based. It's a nuanced version of Hitchens's Razor.

You can call it a nuanced version. I think it is pretty much pointless. Most decisions are made on incomplete and less than perfect data - it's called life.

Of course; and that is why your claims are so easily disputed. It is mathematically possible that each and every individual case of harassment was perpetrated by one and only one male. The probability that that is so is not very likely. Now, if you have data demonstrating this to be the case, it would certainly help your argument. But until then your own argument is a simple mathematical construct shorn of context, itself.

No, it is not a simple mathematical argument. It is a suggestion based on experience and observation. It is not a proof.

Any claim can easily be disputed. For example, it is easily disputed that extending the experience from crime to this situation is convincing.

I am not responsible for the feelings of others if I take as much care possible to avoid offense and still they take it.

That is only true if the care you take is sincere and thoughtful and reasonable.

If they take offense where none was intended, should they not also allow for the possibility of miscommunication, apology, and learning?

Yes, but that does not mean they were not sexually harassed. It just means someone ought not to be punished. For some reason, you seem unable to comprehend that nuanced distinction.

I'm not saying there aren't men who are jerks towards women. There are far too many of them. But arguing that well over half of men share that jerkiness because well over half of all women have experienced it is a non-sequitur. You are drawing an unsupported inference, not proceeding step-by-step.

You are drawing a straw man. I never said that well over half of men share that jerkiness. Moreover, men who do not step up and call out these jerkiness were included in my comments,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From what I understand, the vast majority of crime more generally is committed by a relatively small proportion of people in a population. Maybe sexual harassment is different, but it is an empirical question.

And not an easy one to answer, apparently, partly because of difficulties in obtaining reliable estimates and partly because of a shortage of studies.

So with both of those as important caveats to keep in mind, I found this:

We Asked 615 Men About How They Conduct Themselves at Work
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/28/upshot/sexual-harassment-survey-600-men.html

So 1 in 25 men (4%) self-identified (anonymously) as harassers.

12% self-reported engaging in at least some (3) of the actions deemed to be 'objectionable'. When 'telling sexual stories or jokes that some might find offensive' is excluded, this went down to 6%.

The first three on that list all involve behavior that very well might be perfectly acceptable if you know your audience.

The ask dates one is also borderline--if the "no" is presented in a situational context trying again at some later date isn't an unreasonable act, although keeping at it is unreasonable. Some are no doubt harassers but I think this will sweep up some innocents. Thus I would go with the 3% (repeated asking about a relationship--something that will very rarely be appropriate. {Yes, it could be--if someone says no because they already have a relationship and then that other relationship ends...}) as a better count of those who self-identify as harassers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point of this is that these behaviors can cause a harmful environment. And telling dirty jokes can be used to harass people.

Ok, but maybe the telling of dirty jokes of itself is not necessarily that (unless we widen the definition of harassment to what might be considered an unreasonable or unhelpful degree).

Well, groping, in and of itself is not necessarily, sexual harassment either. In my view, these actions are problems to the extent the recipients, not the actors, feel harassed or threatened. The article you cited, also cited that 50% of women at work had experienced some form of sexual harassment at least once. That indicates a problem, and it suggests the problem is not isolated to a small portion of men.

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thus I would go with the 3%...... as a better count of those who self-identify as harassers.

That is arguably a low figure to land on:


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/28/upshot/sexual-harassment-survey-600-men.html

And in any case, the article explicitly gives a figure of 4% as a minimum (self-identifying as harasser) not allowing for possible under-reporting.

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

More stuff I found (not necessarily workplace-related)......


A study from 1969 (hopefully things have improved):

Selected Dyadic Aspects of Male Sex Aggression
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3811495?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

"about 25 percent of men reported committing at least one “sexually aggressive episode” since entering college. Kanin noted that these episodes would “usually not be sufficient violent to be thought of as rape attempts” although “these aggressions involved forceful attempts at removing clothing and forceful attempts to maneuver the female into a physically advantageous position for sexual access.” These episodes clearly meet the FBI definition of attempted rape."


Another (1987) study (reported here but link to study not working. ETA: see post to follow):
https://theconversation.com/how-common-are-sexual-harassment-and-rape-in-the-united-states-67358

"8 percent of men reported having raped or attempted rape. When the scope was broadened to all forms of sexual assault, the percent of men who reported nonsexual contact increased to 25."

And

Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists
http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

"Of the 1,882 men in the total sample, 120 (6.4%) met criteria for rape or attempted rape." (2002)

Then

Wiki says:

"Studies of sexual harassment have found that it is markedly more common in military than civilian settings."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_the_military#Prevalence_and_risk_factors

Which leads to this (from the year 2000):

SELF-REPORTED PERPETRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY U.S. NAVY MEN IN THEIR FIRST YEAR OF DUTY
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434586.pdf

"It was found that over half (67%) of those surveyed (self) reported at least one behaviour that could be defined as (sexual) harassment of a co-worker."

 

[ruby sparks]

I think this 2001 paper may refer to the 1987 study missing from the above post:

Attitudinal, Experiential, and Situational Predictors of Sexual Assault Perpetration
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589177/

"Depending on the definitions and measures used, studies of college men have found that 25% to 57% acknowledged committing sexual assault, with 7% to 15% describing an act that met standard legal definitions of rape (Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987)"

That (from the start of the paper) refers to previous studies.


This from the (2001) study results themselves:

"One third of the college men surveyed reported that they had committed a sexual assault; 8% reported that they had committed an act that met standard legal definitions of rape or attempted rape. These perpetration rates are comparable with those that have been found in other college student studies (Koss 1988)"

So maybe things have not improved since 1969.

That paper is well worth reading through, imo.





On a related note, as far as I am aware, all the above examples and data are from the USA. Which might prompt an interesting question about where the USA sits generally among other countries in this regard, perhaps especially other 1st world countries. The USA regularly lags behind many other 1st world countries when it comes to measures of sexism and gender equality generally. UK does slightly better, though I would guess that NI (my country) lags behind the rest of the UK. Ireland often does very well, often only being rated just below the generally highly-rated Scandinavians.

 

[ruby sparks]

ETA:

Worth noting that performing less well in gender equality/sexism reports is (a) not the same as having higher victim or perpetrator rates of assault, abuse or harassment and (b) based more on hard data (laws, criminal stats etc) than on attitudes. And even if, say, the USA were, overall, worse than other 1st world countries in this respect, I'm not aiming any flak at members of this forum, who I would see as generally above-averagely gender egalitarian in thought and deed, even those guys who might seem to some to underplay the issues, since for the most part I see them as (i) wanting not to be lumped in with undesirables or (ii) feeling that men as a sex are being unfairly maligned, or (iii) feeling that not enough attention is given to men's issues, and not because they themselves do not share egalitarian views.

I have only been to the USA twice. I can't say that I noticed any great difference either time. On the first visit, when I was 19, I worked and socialised alongside Americans (other young men and women) for the summer months. Certainly, American men are often portrayed here in fiction and drama as more confident and brash in their dealings with women than their 'typically reserved' British counterparts, but that may have more to do with misleading stereotypes. It was also commonly said by some that American soldiers who came to Britain in WW2 were more......flirtacious and forward. Again, that reputation may be deserved or not, and in any case being flirtacious and forward is not the same as being sexist and harassing. For example and without wishing to offend any Japanese present, it's my impression from afar that men's behaviour in Japan at that time (the 1940's) was in many ways even more reserved than in Britain, but there were still, I read, large inequalities adversely affecting Japanese women.



Interesting article:

"A survey has found 42% of US men rated themselves as ‘completely masculine’ as against 28% in the UK"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/masculinity-study-america-men-united-kingdom-yougov

Maybe I'm wandering too far away from the topic?

Though looking again at the thread title, I don't think I actually am at all.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, groping, in and of itself is not necessarily, sexual harassment either. In my view, these actions are problems to the extent the recipients, not the actors, feel harassed or threatened. The article you cited, also cited that 50% of women at work had experienced some form of sexual harassment at least once. That indicates a problem, and it suggests the problem is not isolated to a small portion of men.

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

I disagree. The only conclusion I can draw from your response is that it is pure babble.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

It does not even establish that much. The number could be higher than 50% if you consider that each act of harassment could have done by more than one person, that each woman could be harassed more than once, and that women may do some of the harassing, all of which we know happen. And the number could be much much lower than 50% with only very few men doing the vast majority of the harassing.

 

[ruby sparks]

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

It does not even establish that much. The number could be higher than 50% if you consider that each act of harassment could have done by more than one person, that each woman could be harassed more than once, and that women may do some of the harassing, all of which we know happen. And the number could be much much lower than 50% with only very few men doing the vast majority of the harassing.

So far we have 25% of men admitting to a sexually aggressive episode while in college (1969 study), 25-57% admitting to sexual assault in college (1987, various studies), 33% admitting to sexual assault in college (2001 study) and just for good measure 67% of men in the navy admitting to at least one behaviour in their workplace (in one year) which they accept could be defined as sexual harassment (2000 study).

Given that sexual assault might be considered at least as serious as harassment generally, and even erring on the low side, we might not be too far away from saying that at least a quarter of men appear to be culpable of this sort of thing, even if not specifically in the workplace. And that figure would likely rise substantially if we were to include lesser infringements and/or if the admissions are underreported, which would not be surprising. And those aren't lifetime figures, they are I think either in a year or 'while in college'.

1 in 12 (approx) admitting to rape or attempted rape (while in college).

Personally, I'm quite shocked.

 

[Jarhyn]

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

It does not even establish that much. The number could be higher than 50% if you consider that each act of harassment could have done by more than one person, that each woman could be harassed more than once, and that women may do some of the harassing, all of which we know happen. And the number could be much much lower than 50% with only very few men doing the vast majority of the harassing.

If only we had some data to go on.

So far we have 25% of men admitting to a sexually aggressive episode while in college (1969 study), 25-57% admitting to sexual assault in college (1987, various studies), 33% admitting to sexual assault in college (2001 study) and just for good measure 67% of men in the navy admitting to at least one behaviour in their workplace (in one year) which they accept could be defined as sexual harassment (2000 study).

Given that sexual assault might be considered at least as serious as harassment generally, and even erring on the low side, we might not be too far away from saying that at least a quarter of men appear to be culpable of this sort of thing, even if not specifically in the workplace. And that figure would likely rise substantially if we were to include lesser infringements and/or if the admissions are underreported, which would not be surprising. And those aren't lifetime figures, they are I think either in a year or 'while in college'.

Personally, I'm quite shocked.

I wonder.. could a full quarter be enough of a bloc to, I dunno, generate cultural effects from the shared visibility of their behavior?

 

[ruby sparks]

I wonder.. could a full quarter be enough of a bloc to, I dunno, generate cultural effects from the shared visibility of their behavior?

I don't know. My guess would be that things like assault etc would not generally be publicly visible.

But on the other hand, if 25% of police admitted to racism, we might be able to start to call it either too widespread for comfort or possibly even institutional. Or maybe not. But we would be worried if we cared about racism in the police.

I do not think we could necessarily talk about a 'sexual assault culture'. Some might, perhaps. But hey we wouldn't have to quibble about terms necessarily. If 25% is anywhere near correct......for something as serious as admissions of sexual assault....to me that's not good at all. It's certainly more than I would have liked to guess before googling for information.

I note that the self-reporting of assault is much much lower in the report on workplace behaviour. The behaviours there (in that study) appear to be lesser in number and severity. Perhaps the average workplace is safer than the average college, for various reasons. Dunno. The navy being an exception perhaps, according to that study, and bearing in mind that wiki says studies of sexual harassment have found that it is markedly more common in military than civilian settings.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I wonder.. could a full quarter be enough of a bloc to, I dunno, generate cultural effects from the shared visibility of their behavior?

I don't know. My guess would be that things like assault etc would not generally be publicly visible.

But on the other hand, if 25% of police admitted to racism, we might be able to start to call it either too widespread or possibly even institutional. Or maybe not. But we would be worried if we cared about racism.

I do not think we could necessarily talk about a 'sexual assault culture'. Some might, perhaps. But hey we wouldn't have to quibble about terms necessarily. If 25% is anywhere near correct......for something as serious as assault....to me that's not good at all.

First, if we want meaningful data, we should be mindful of how the question is asked and what the definitions given are when they are asked. Overly wide or narrow definitions will swing the numbers in either direction. If we define it as only holding somebody at knife point and penetrating them, then the number will be tiny. If we define it as smiling or saying hello (see the vid I posted earlier) then it is likely all men that are guilty, and Floof's broad sweeping statements in the other thread are justified.

Second, we should be concerned regardless. It isn't acceptable even if it is a miniscule number.

Third, we should be guarded against guilt by association thinking and identity politics thinking. If 30% of men do X, that means 70% don't, and says nothing of any particular man or woman.