NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from my University. Those who know me know I don't talk very positively about the school (except about the History program and the people), and one of the things I don't like about York is its obssessive-compulsiveness with attention. This is one of those examples that was just too good to pass up.

http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.asp?Release=995



Study says 75% of high school students sexually harassed

TORONTO, November 28, 2005 -- Sexual harassment in high schools is at a disturbing level that would not be tolerated in a workplace, says York University professor Jennifer Connolly.

“We tend not to take sexual harassment in high school very seriously. But if we had 75 per cent of the employees in a workplace reporting they were being sexually harassed, it simply wouldn’t be allowed,” says Connolly, a professor of Psychology in York’s Faculty of Arts.

Connolly has been studying bullying and other forms of aggression – such as sexual harassment – for more than a decade, with Professor Debra Pepler of York University and Professor Wendy Craig of Queen’s University.

The studies conducted by Connolly and her colleagues do not include questions about sexual assaults of the type recently alleged at Toronto’s James Cardinal McGuigan Catholic High School. However, they do reveal that teen sexual harassment or bullying is common in schools, according to Connolly.

In a study of eight high schools in Toronto, Kingston and Montreal, seventy-five per cent of high school students reported that they had been sexually harassed within a three-month period, says Connolly. The forms of sexual harassment range widely from unwanted sexual remarks, sexual jokes and comments about appearance to brushing up against classmates in a sexual way, and, increasingly, sexual rumours spread by Internet messaging.

“Sexual harassment in high school has a big impact,” says Connolly. “In the immediate sense, it affects students’ school performance and attendance, particularly for girls. In the longer term, we know that what happens in adolescence sets the foundation for future relationships.”

In the same study, students who experienced a great deal of verbal or physical harassment, bullying or sexual harassment reported a number of effects. Girls reported an increase in depression and a drop in self-esteem, while boys reported higher delinquency (stealing or skipping school, for example) and an increase in substance abuse.

The number of reports of bullying declines in high school, but this is small comfort, according to Connolly, who studies bullying in adolescence, and Pepler, who focuses on bullying at a younger age. In fact, bullies just transfer the abusive power dynamics to a new social context when they get to high school. The new form of bullying tends to be very sexualized in the higher grades and occur between the sexes, in contrast to bullying between members of the same gender in younger age groups.

The language used in high school corridors is especially sexually aggressive, according to Connolly and Pepler; research that is underway now is examining the effects that the media and a culture of violence are having on adolescent harassment and aggression in dating relationships.

Maybe I'm one of those people who "don't take high school harrassment seriously", but I think I can see absurd numbers when I see them (using, ironically, the same analytical skills the History Program taught me). I won't deny that high school harrassment could be a problem, but I have doubts that "75%" of high school students suffer the kind of harrassment that Jennifer Connolly, Debra Pepler and Queen's Wendy McCraig talk about (side note: this Connolly is NOT the actress).

First of all, yes, there's a lot of "sexual language" used by teens- I won't deny that, being in high school once upon a time (it was, sadly, five years ago, but I shall refrain from crying), but very rarely does that language cross the line to "unwanted" remarks, which is what "harrassment" is in the first place. Most of it is mainly just playful banter, and while it may sound "unsettling" for someone of Connolly's age, I do think most of the students know that the remarks aren't supposed to be hurtful.

Second of all- and the key to this is the phrase "seventy-five per cent of high school students reported that they had been sexually harassed within a three-month period". To that I ask, "how often, and to what extent?" Do Connolly et all consider the one-off comments (which is where I think most of "bullying" takes place) as harrassment? Or are the comments considered here just the purposeful, repeated and explict remarks that I'd say better defines harrassment? I mean, yes a rude comment is still rude- that never changes- but unless the comments keep coming to that one specific individual and are especially hurtful to that individual (sometimes even being tailored to that individual), then I don't think it merits inclusion as part of the "75%" of students who have been harrassed.

Third of all- and this is endemic of all reports of this nature- notice how there's no hard numbers. It just says "75%". Well, 75% of what? 10,000? 1,000? 4? It's simply not good enough to mention "eight schools" when there's no numbers to back them up, nor is the format for the survey revealed (i.e., random polls, survey distributed to all, booth, etc.).

Lastly- and this is the real kicker- the article states that the number of reports of bullying declines in high school. Really? It's oddly reminiscent of what Tom Morillo once said after the Columbine massacre: "everyone seems to forget that teen crime is actually down" (granted, it's biased, but it was still interesting). The statement in the article seems contradictory of what the study was trying to say- that there's a "growing problem that needs to be addressed". Well, if the numbers are going down, isn't it a good thing? They seem to be grasping at straws here.

Now, I'm not going to say that every high school student is angelic and doesn't actually cause harm- perhaps I'm naive, but I'm not that naive. The article does contain a kernel of truth in saying that bullying in of itself can't be ignored- it just oversells the problem, and we already knew there was one anyway. I mean, you want to instill the values of respect into the youth of the nation, because you want them to be able to go into society and work together with everyone, not fight each other, and bullying is counteractive in that approach. However, to term it as "harrassment" is excessive, especially when it's expressed at 75%. It may be more accurate to say that 75% of students have been "bullied" at least once in a three month period (if not more- we've *all* had to deal with bullies, even outside of high school), but "harrassed"- implying a continual and gradually hurtful problem- is simply too strong of a word.

Thoughts?

I think I read someplace that 9/10 female college students will be raped at some point, so this seems to support that fact to some degree.

I think I read someplace that 9/10 female college students will be raped at some point, so this seems to support that fact to some degree.

Which place? Sounds like another fanciful study:

No. 1, "at some point" is pretty vague. It could be two years or twenty, and that's too large a discrepancy.

No. 2, I think "9/10" is also too high. Granted, I don't know the lives of every female college student, but I have doubts that 90% of females are going to experience something as severe as rape. Maybe catcalls, maybe "minor" sexual incidents (somebody grabbing their butt, for instance), but not rape.

At least in my high school (way back when), "sexual rumors" and "inappropriate sexual comments" were so common that I'd have been surprised at the 75% number as seeming too *low*. And this was well before IMs (which made rumors and gossip fly more freely), back when maybe 5% of students knew what e-mail was, let alone had e-mail addresses.

Sexual "harassment" is a blanket term that covers pretty much any unwanted advance (even a romantic advance, so long as the person being advanced upon chooses to take it that way). It's not as if the authors of the study are saying 75% of students were sexually assaulted or were subject to chronic sexual harassment.

Which place? Sounds like another fanciful study:

I can't really remember.. but I know it was either the Washington Post or the back of a box of Cracker-Jacks.. also, I think the number was closer to 95%.

At least in my high school (way back when), "sexual rumors" and "inappropriate sexual comments" were so common that I'd have been surprised at the 75% number as seeming too *low*. And this was well before IMs (which made rumors and gossip fly more freely), back when maybe 5% of students knew what e-mail was, let alone had e-mail addresses.

Sexual "harassment" is a blanket term that covers pretty much any unwanted advance (even a romantic advance, so long as the person being advanced upon chooses to take it that way). It's not as if the authors of the study are saying 75% of students were sexually assaulted or were subject to chronic sexual harassment.

Maybe it's just a quibble over the word "harrassment", but I still believe it's being used too liberally. They sure make it sound like it's a chronic problem and/or that it's gotten to such a point where it's "a major incident". I mean, most of the "incidents" are minor and are very rarely major- there's a difference between, say, "making a comment" and groping. Also, how much of the incidents are overblown because of teenage emotions? We learn in our later years how to calm ourselves down and not get worked up over little things, and not every teen is at that stage yet.

I can't really remember.. but I know it was either the Washington Post or the back of a box of Cracker-Jacks.. also, I think the number was closer to 95%.

Didn't mean to put you down...I know you didn't write the study. I just saw the 90% number and thought "man, that's extremely high".

Ha, you go to York too? I'm first year PoliSci (was going to go film though, I like the people there).

I think York wishes it was Canada's Berkeley.

This is from my University. Those who know me know I don't talk very positively about the school (except about the History program and the people), and one of the things I don't like about York is its obssessive-compulsiveness with attention. This is one of those examples that was just too good to pass up.

http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.asp?Release=995



Maybe I'm one of those people who "don't take high school harrassment seriously", but I think I can see absurd numbers when I see them (using, ironically, the same analytical skills the History Program taught me). I won't deny that high school harrassment could be a problem, but I have doubts that "75%" of high school students suffer the kind of harrassment that Jennifer Connolly, Debra Pepler and Queen's Wendy McCraig talk about (side note: this Connolly is NOT the actress).

First of all, yes, there's a lot of "sexual language" used by teens- I won't deny that, being in high school once upon a time (it was, sadly, five years ago, but I shall refrain from crying), but very rarely does that language cross the line to "unwanted" remarks, which is what "harrassment" is in the first place. Most of it is mainly just playful banter, and while it may sound "unsettling" for someone of Connolly's age, I do think most of the students know that the remarks aren't supposed to be hurtful.

Second of all- and the key to this is the phrase "seventy-five per cent of high school students reported that they had been sexually harassed within a three-month period". To that I ask, "how often, and to what extent?" Do Connolly et all consider the one-off comments (which is where I think most of "bullying" takes place) as harrassment? Or are the comments considered here just the purposeful, repeated and explict remarks that I'd say better defines harrassment? I mean, yes a rude comment is still rude- that never changes- but unless the comments keep coming to that one specific individual and are especially hurtful to that individual (sometimes even being tailored to that individual), then I don't think it merits inclusion as part of the "75%" of students who have been harrassed.

Third of all- and this is endemic of all reports of this nature- notice how there's no hard numbers. It just says "75%". Well, 75% of what? 10,000? 1,000? 4? It's simply not good enough to mention "eight schools" when there's no numbers to back them up, nor is the format for the survey revealed (i.e., random polls, survey distributed to all, booth, etc.).

Lastly- and this is the real kicker- the article states that the number of reports of bullying declines in high school. Really? It's oddly reminiscent of what Tom Morillo once said after the Columbine massacre: "everyone seems to forget that teen crime is actually down" (granted, it's biased, but it was still interesting). The statement in the article seems contradictory of what the study was trying to say- that there's a "growing problem that needs to be addressed". Well, if the numbers are going down, isn't it a good thing? They seem to be grasping at straws here.

Now, I'm not going to say that every high school student is angelic and doesn't actually cause harm- perhaps I'm naive, but I'm not that naive. The article does contain a kernel of truth in saying that bullying in of itself can't be ignored- it just oversells the problem, and we already knew there was one anyway. I mean, you want to instill the values of respect into the youth of the nation, because you want them to be able to go into society and work together with everyone, not fight each other, and bullying is counteractive in that approach. However, to term it as "harrassment" is excessive, especially when it's expressed at 75%. It may be more accurate to say that 75% of students have been "bullied" at least once in a three month period (if not more- we've *all* had to deal with bullies, even outside of high school), but "harrassed"- implying a continual and gradually hurtful problem- is simply too strong of a word.

Thoughts?


My daughter is 16 years old and attends a small town high school (4A) in Tuscumbia, Alabama. She is sexually harrassed on a daily basis. I've often wondered myself if she provokes any of this. I know she is "hottie" with her big booty and boobs and long blond hair but....After much pondering, I think it's all unwanted attention. She is a virgin (or so she claims to her mom...) and i believe her. We have a very open, honest relationship. Her sexuality has consisted so far of heavy necking and maybe some fondling. That transpired over 2 years ago. I've taken precautions to not be a MEEMAW (thank you health dept.) She tells me that at school, in the hallways, classrooms, lunchroom and library she is always alert because there are boys who try to touch her behind, grab some boob, press her against the wall, if they can. They ask her "when u gonna give me some of that?" She's had boys send her notes about wanting to have sex with her. It hurts that I am forced to subject her to this by law and the principal seems to have no control. If I complain, I become a "nuisance" parent and she's put on the "b" list with the principal and teachers. I believe the statistics. I'm kinda old at 39 but when my male co-workers say things to me or try to touch me..well..i KNOW how to handle it. She's just a baby I'm sending out into a world I'm not allowed inside of. It sucks. Thanks for letting me vent...JaNUT

My daughter is 16 years old and attends a small town high school (4A) in Tuscumbia, Alabama. She is sexually harrassed on a daily basis. I've often wondered myself if she provokes any of this. I know she is "hottie" with her big booty and boobs and long blond hair but....After much pondering, I think it's all unwanted attention. She is a virgin (or so she claims to her mom...) and i believe her. We have a very open, honest relationship. Her sexuality has consisted so far of heavy necking and maybe some fondling. That transpired over 2 years ago. I've taken precautions to not be a MEEMAW (thank you health dept.) She tells me that at school, in the hallways, classrooms, lunchroom and library she is always alert because there are boys who try to touch her behind, grab some boob, press her against the wall, if they can. They ask her "when u gonna give me some of that?" She's had boys send her notes about wanting to have sex with her. It hurts that I am forced to subject her to this by law and the principal seems to have no control. If I complain, I become a "nuisance" parent and she's put on the "b" list with the principal and teachers. I believe the statistics. I'm kinda old at 39 but when my male co-workers say things to me or try to touch me..well..i KNOW how to handle it. She's just a baby I'm sending out into a world I'm not allowed inside of. It sucks. Thanks for letting me vent...JaNUT

I'm sorry to hear that. I agree, that's a shameful situation and I hope the principal eventually gets a clue.

However, I don't doubt that experiences such as what your daughter went through happen. What I do doubt is that 75% of students have those experiences, or at least ones as severe. Most incidents are usually minor and isolated (such as a one-off comment), and while that doesn't make any of them right, the study's authors are overblowing things like banter into something as drastic as harrassment, and adds nothing to what we already knew (they're not the first ones to say that bullying needs to be addressed).

Ha, you go to York too? I'm first year PoliSci (was going to go film though, I like the people there).

I think York wishes it was Canada's Berkeley.

Fifth Year History (I've been here too long- can't you see my cane :D). My twin brother's a Film minor actually.

LOL- I agree. York tries WAY too hard. I think York was also designed after Berkeley: I mean, how else can I explain the wind tunnel that exists between Stong and Bethune? My brother and I often joke that "York teaches logic but rarely uses it". They really need to change their motto to, "we don't have a clue".

My daughter is 16 years old and attends a small town high school (4A) in Tuscumbia, Alabama. She is sexually harrassed on a daily basis. I've often wondered myself if she provokes any of this. I know she is "hottie" with her big booty and boobs and long blond hair but....After much pondering, I think it's all unwanted attention. She is a virgin (or so she claims to her mom...) and i believe her. We have a very open, honest relationship. Her sexuality has consisted so far of heavy necking and maybe some fondling. That transpired over 2 years ago. I've taken precautions to not be a MEEMAW (thank you health dept.) She tells me that at school, in the hallways, classrooms, lunchroom and library she is always alert because there are boys who try to touch her behind, grab some boob, press her against the wall, if they can. They ask her "when u gonna give me some of that?" She's had boys send her notes about wanting to have sex with her. It hurts that I am forced to subject her to this by law and the principal seems to have no control. If I complain, I become a "nuisance" parent and she's put on the "b" list with the principal and teachers. I believe the statistics. I'm kinda old at 39 but when my male co-workers say things to me or try to touch me..well..i KNOW how to handle it. She's just a baby I'm sending out into a world I'm not allowed inside of. It sucks. Thanks for letting me vent...JaNUT

Based again on my high school experience, if we limited the population to "attractive" girls, I'd have expected a nearly 100% sexual harassment rate. Butt or hair touching, unsolicited shoulder massages, unsolicited kisses...all were pretty common growing up and all are sexual harassment (even guys had to go through taht sort of thing, albeit somewhat less frequently), and that leaves out unwanted verbal advances (which are even more common) not to mention "sour grapes" rumor spreading about hot girls that turned guys down.

25% of students are too unattractive to hit on even when drunk. So I'd safely say I personally could have harrased at least 75% of students at my school.

Which place? Sounds like another fanciful study:

No. 1, "at some point" is pretty vague. It could be two years or twenty, and that's too large a discrepancy.

No. 2, I think "9/10" is also too high. Granted, I don't know the lives of every female college student, but I have doubts that 90% of females are going to experience something as severe as rape. Maybe catcalls, maybe "minor" sexual incidents (somebody grabbing their butt, for instance), but not rape.
No. 1 you like the word fancifull lol
No. 2 if it specified collage students there is an average range
as such I have a feeling "20" years is a big stretch for "collage student"

You seem to have never been to a highschool before. I wouldn't rank it as low as 75%.

You seem to have never been to a highschool before. I wouldn't rank it as low as 75%.
Found this intresting tidbit

In a Minnesota survey of high school students, 80% were aware of sexual harassment occurring in their schools; 75% were aware of sexual harassment between students and 50% were aware of sexual harassment of students by faculty. Susan Strauss, Sexual Harassment and Teens

You seem to have never been to a highschool before. I wouldn't rank it as low as 75%.

indeed. my recollection of highschool is that a significant portion of the words coming out of some people's mouths easily count as sexual harrassment, and that those people tended to do it to everybody.

75% seems low to me. some kids must not recognize harrassment when they receive it

maybe some of the boys dont get sexual harrassment.

Maybe I'm one of those people who "don't take high school harrassment seriously", but I think I can see absurd numbers when I see them (using, ironically, the same analytical skills the History Program taught me).

No, if they had instructed you properly you would know you should check the methods of their actual research, rather than criticizing the result as "an absurd number".

I have doubts that "75%" of high school students suffer the kind of harrassment that Jennifer Connolly, Debra Pepler and Queen's Wendy McCraig talk about.

I have doubts, too... but I'd rather take a critical eye to their scientific work rather than participate in wild speculation.

First of all, yes, there's a lot of "sexual language" used by teens- I won't deny that, being in high school once upon a time (it was, sadly, five years ago, but I shall refrain from crying), but very rarely does that language cross the line to "unwanted" remarks, which is what "harrassment" is in the first place. Most of it is mainly just playful banter, and while it may sound "unsettling" for someone of Connolly's age, I do think most of the students know that the remarks aren't supposed to be hurtful.

In my experience, it is the harassers who talk that way. "What? She didn't want it? No way." More likely, however, you have just been fooled by appearances: I'll suggest that it is conceivable (and likely) that students have many reasons for pretending not to be hurt... because the only thing worse than being sexually harassed is breaking down in public about it. I suspect that the scientific methodology involves anonymous surveys (although I hold deep skepticism about survey data, which would be my primary critique if that is their method), interviews, and possibly focus groups.

But that is what social science is all about: discovering what is really happening. If we could all be satisfied with "appearances," then there would be little point to scientific research.

Second of all- and the key to this is the phrase "seventy-five per cent of high school students reported that they had been sexually harassed within a three-month period". To that I ask, "how often, and to what extent?"

That's better. This is a valid scientific criticism about the conclusions to be drawn from the study. On the other hand, given the comparison to the workplace -- in which the exact same operational test, "incidents in a three-month period" -- would produce a much lower number, the result here still seems significant.

Lastly- and this is the real kicker- the article states that the number of reports of bullying declines in high school. Really? .... The statement in the article seems contradictory of what the study was trying to say- that there's a "growing problem that needs to be addressed". Well, if the numbers are going down, isn't it a good thing? They seem to be grasping at straws here.

Not necessarily. If you read carefully, the article says that sexual harassment is a "growing problem," but that reports of bullying have declined. Possible explanation: students are being increasingly harassed, but reporting it to school officials less, possibly because they are embarassed to report "sexual" bullying, and possibly because they are reluctant to report incidents that occur outside of school or on the Internet.

Again, you have to be a scientist here. Yes, it would appear that the facts are contradictory... but that just means we need to figure out why. I cannot give a resounding endorsement of the work in question without reading it, of course, but I can say that this does not seem "absurd" to me, as a social scientist.

*snip*

The study seems consistent with other research on the topic.

I think I read someplace that 9/10 female college students will be raped at some point, so this seems to support that fact to some degree.

My father did his doctoral dissertation in psychology on sex-offenders, and for the last 12 years he has been the Director of Counseling at a liberal arts college. It's been a while since we've discussed this, but I believe he puts the number somewhere closer to 2/3 or 3/4. Still extremely high, but not that high.

You seem to have never been to a highschool before. I wouldn't rank it as low as 75%.

Agreed.

(although I've been out of high school for nearly 20 years)

No. 1, "at some point" is pretty vague. It could be two years or twenty, and that's too large a discrepancy.

Again, the number stated is too high... but the relevant studies all refer to the college experience itself.

No. 2, I think "9/10" is also too high.

It is. The actual number is probably closer to 2/3.

Granted, I don't know the lives of every female college student, but I have doubts that 90% of females are going to experience something as severe as rape.

Two things here. In most of the relevant studies, they use a definition of rape that is much broader than any viable "legal" definition. Usually, it is something like, "undesired sexual intercourse." This includes women who get really drunk and become incapable of refusing, women who are subtly coerced, violent rape (of course), and other less obvious categories.

Example: I know a woman whose first sexual experience (in college) was as follows. She went to a guy's house with her friend. She had only met the guy once before, and didn't particularly like him, but he was a friend of her friend. At some point, her friend (and her ride) took off, apparently part of an arrangement with the guy, who was "interested." He told this woman that he would take her home in the morning... and there she was, stuck at her house.

He wanted to make out. She said something to this effect: "I don't really make out with guys... I don't do anything with guys." But he continued to pressure her, and she started to think, "Well, okay... I guess we can kiss. I can always say no later..." And as clothes started coming off, she kept thinking, "I can always say no..." Then she felt what she thought was his finger inside her, and said, "Wait, I'm a virgin." He said, "Not anymore."

Was this, legally, rape? No. Was it, ethically, rape? I think so. This man had absolutely no concern for her real wishes... It was evident that she was a virgin, and she was not exactly jumping up and down at the prospect of touching him... He just kept pushing.

It's this sort of thing that the studies are talking about. (This happened almost 14 years ago, and she's still pretty messed up about it.)

I promised two notes. The second: People often misread this statistic to say that, for any given woman, her chance of being raped in college is 2 in 3. This is not the case, if she takes reasonable precautions... like keeping friends with her at parties, refusing to be alone with guys unless she knows them well, and just practicing how to say no and affirming her right to. For other girls, who engage in at-risk behavior like drinking heavily, the chance of rape may be much higher... even up to that 9/10 figure originally posted.

I would like to amend my previous post, regarding the legal definition of rape.

The reason that I don't think the legal definition should get to broad is that at some point it just becomes too difficult to prove, and it opens the door far too wide to unfounded accusations of rape.

On the other hand, I would be willing to consider an exception for virgins. Perhaps the standard of "consent" should be more strict when a man knows that the girl is a virgin.

I mean, most of us have had sexual experiences in which "it just sort of happens" ... and it's not rape. But given the known significance of "the first time" for a woman, I think that the law could reasonably require explicit consent when the man knows (or a reasonable person might suspect?) that the woman is a virgin. In other words, "not saying no" does not constitute consent for a virgin... only saying "yes" does.

I'm not interested in a debate on this one, since I'm not entirely convinced myself... but I wanted to throw it out there.

*sigh*

Please, please, please let us not get into another debate about rape.

Well, in High School (after class) some guy grabbed my ass. I punched him in the Solar Plexus and told him that if he ever touched me again I'd rip his nuts off.
So, yeah, I can almost buy the 75% sexual harrassment thing, but it would be easily solved by mandatory self-defense classes.

Perhaps this professor forgets that 23.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

I'll respond to everything rather than just focusing on one post.

No. 1, I admit I have no way of verifying this because most of you probably don't know me but I've never been a harasser myself. I'm just going by my experiences.

No. 2, the article makes no mention of the methodology OR the numbers. All I see is "75%" and "eight schools surveyed", so I'm questioning how the professors got their numbers. There's no real indication of the breadth of the survey, so there's no way to know if the study is *actually* indicative of high school populations or if it's been "tailored".

No. 3, I have been to high school. I think most of us have. I'm 24 today so it wasn't so long ago. Granted, I didn't talk to every high school student so there's something I don't know about, but I can safely say that the harassment that the professors are talking about is NOT what most high schoolers (or most people for that matter) experience.

Again, I want to say that my main point of contention is not just the numbers but the use of the word "harassment". I consider "harassment" to be:

a) deliberate
b) persistent and consistent
c) hurtful

I use that definition because in workplaces, harassment policies *always* insist that employees try their hardest to resolve things amongst themselves and that only if problems are persistent should they be reported. I will admit, it *is* possible that the majority of incidents go unreported for a fear of being labelled "a rat" (or any other fear possible), but I still don't think the majority of students go through something *that* serious.

This doesn't make any of the incidents any more right- like I said, a rude comment is still a rude comment; but the minor incidents (i.e., the inappropriate remarks and grabbing) are more akin to bullying than outright harassment, and, again, we already knew there's a problem with bullying- there's no reason to highlight that again.

I'll also say it again- do the students understand *what* harassment is? It's very possible that a lot of the students said they were "harassed" because they're overexaggerating their experiences- something that's not unheard of for high schoolers. I admit it's not something "hard" that I can work with, but that possibility is still there.

Another point I realized the article failed to mention is who exactly is doing it. Is it just a handful of students (which is usually the case) or are there hundreds of them? Because- as I suspect- if it's just a handful of students, they're easier to handle, and if there's a problem with them, then it's the principals who are not doing their jobs. The last part of the article appears to point to a possible "scapegoat"- the media- when it's often actually not that serious.

I think I read someplace that 9/10 female college students will be raped at some point, so this seems to support that fact to some degree.

I believe the statistic actually is

"9/10 Female college students will get drunk and will will have sex with a drunk guy while at a party, go home, sober up the next morning and scream rape but can't remember the guys name, what he looked like or where the party was. The guy in question will be trying to remember if he slept with a brunette or a blonde but will eventually just check it up as another night of getting laid"

My father did his doctoral dissertation in psychology on sex-offenders, and for the last 12 years he has been the Director of Counseling at a liberal arts college. It's been a while since we've discussed this, but I believe he puts the number somewhere closer to 2/3 or 3/4. Still extremely high, but not that high.

Naw, it's a pretty solid fact.. although I think you're right to some degree.. I think the studies in question hold that 3/4 of college women are forcibly raped at some point by the time they graduate, while slightly less than 1/4 reporting non-forcible statutory rape, i.e. situations where consent cannot legally be given (drugs, alcohol, psychoactive spores, etc.)

*sigh*

Please, please, please let us not get into another debate about rape.

But I just made popcorn. :(

Naw, it's a pretty solid fact.. although I think you're right to some degree.. I think the studies in question hold that 3/4 of college women are forcibly raped at some point by the time they graduate, while slightly less than 1/4 reporting non-forcible statutory rape, i.e. situations where consent cannot legally be given (drugs, alcohol, psychoactive spores, etc.)

Just thinking out loud here, maybe this all shows (no pun intended) how touchy we are in North America. It seems like just about everything gets considered "harassment" or "rape".

Just thinking out loud here, maybe this all shows (no pun intended) how touchy we are in North America. It seems like just about everything gets considered "harassment" or "rape".

GRRRRR.

"Harassment" can be vague, but is usually crystal-clear.

Something isn't just considered "rape." It either is "rape" or it isn't. If it is rape it is a abominable crime.

Sorry, but your blase attitude about sexual harassment and rape pisses me off.

GRRRRR.

"Harassment" can be vague, but is usually crystal-clear.

Something isn't just considered "rape." It either is "rape" or it isn't. If it is rape it is a abominable crime.

Sorry, but your blase attitude about sexual harassment and rape pisses me off.


Ha. The amount of stuff that is considered rape (such as sex between two drunks) is getting ridiculous.

Ha. The amount of stuff that is considered rape (such as sex between two drunks) is getting ridiculous.

It is not a laughing matter.

"Date rape" is very real and very violent rape. Just because a woman has drinks with a man does not make her rape "ridiculous."

GRRRRR.

"Harassment" can be vague, but is usually crystal-clear.

Something isn't just considered "rape." It either is "rape" or it isn't. If it is rape it is a abominable crime.

Sorry, but your blase attitude about sexual harassment and rape pisses me off.

I'm sorry for pissing you off, but I still think the terms are used *way* too liberally. Perhaps that's just the Italian in me, but I still think we're way too sensitive as a society, especially since I doubt there's *that* many people with malicious intent.

I'm sorry for pissing you off, but I still think the terms are used *way* too liberally. Perhaps that's just the Italian in me, but I still think we're way too sensitive as a society, especially since I doubt there's *that* many people with malicious intent.

Rape has a very specific technical legal meaning.

Properly used, so does sexual harassment.

I agree that people are sometimes careless in their use of the words, however.

Rape has a very specific technical legal meaning.

Properly used, so does sexual harassment.

I agree that people are sometimes careless in their use of the words, however.

Seems like we're on the same page, at least in principle. I should mention that I'm not doubting the severity of harassment or rape- they're both very serious crimes- I'm just skeptical about the frequency listed here.

It is not a laughing matter.

"Date rape" is very real and very violent rape. Just because a woman has drinks with a man does not make her rape "ridiculous."

It most defintely does because it is not rape. Both parties are drunk, if it is rape of the woman then it is most defintely also rape of the man. 'Date Rape' exists as Rape, but most defintely not to the tune of 66% or 90% of College aged women. I most defintely agree 90% of college aged women will complain of a 'unwanted sexual experience' where they downed a few too many keystones and got in bed with a guy who also downed a few too many keystones.

This doesn't make any of the incidents any more right- like I said, a rude comment is still a rude comment; but the minor incidents (i.e., the inappropriate remarks and grabbing) are more akin to bullying than outright harassment, and, again, we already knew there's a problem with bullying- there's no reason to highlight that again.

I go to high school. There are a hell of a lot of remarks that I supose some people might take as "harassment". I make a fair few of them myslelf, although very few of a sexual nature. Before anyone jumps at me the jokes are between me and my female friends, they understand I dont mean it and no one is hurt. I dont consider this harassment, however grabbing is a whole nother story. Anyone who grabs a woman randomly near me (especialy one of my friends) is not going to do it twice. I will try to explain to him (or I supose in theory her) about why it is wrong and if they seem unable to grasp this concept I will beat it into them. That being said women who don't stand up for themselves annoy me.


Naw, it's a pretty solid fact.. although I think you're right to some degree.. I think the studies in question hold that 3/4 of college women are forcibly raped at some point by the time they graduate, while slightly less than 1/4 reporting non-forcible statutory rape, i.e. situations where consent cannot legally be given (drugs, alcohol, psychoactive spores, etc.)

3/4 college women are forcibly raped....... No I don't believe that.

there's no way to know if the study is *actually* indicative of high school populations or if it's been "tailored".

Sure there is. You just have to do your homework and actually look up their published study. While I don't know off-hand where this one is published, it should not be too hard to find. Moreover, I have seen similar studies, including some by professor Connolly, published in the Journal of Applied School Psychology, certainly a reputable peer-reviewed publication.

The point here is that if you want to criticize, you have to do that. You cannot go around making criticisms just because the numbers "seem" "too high."

No. 3, I have been to high school. I think most of us have. I'm 24 today so it wasn't so long ago. Granted, I didn't talk to every high school student so there's something I don't know about, but I can safely say that the harassment that the professors are talking about is NOT what most high schoolers (or most people for that matter) experience.

Unfortunately, they are scientists and require data more substantial than your anecdotal (and, under the circumstances, possibly biased) observations. As far as scientific method goes, you cannot "safely say" much of anything.

Again, I want to say that my main point of contention is not just the numbers but the use of the word "harassment". I consider "harassment" to be:

a) deliberate
b) persistent and consistent
c) hurtful

It may be that the study above used just this operational definition; or perhaps not. You won't know unless you find it and read it. Criticizing the conclusions without criticizing the method may be fun, but it's not science.

I use that definition because in workplaces, harassment policies *always* insist that employees try their hardest to resolve things amongst themselves and that only if problems are persistent should they be reported.

Universal claims are easily disproved... like this. Counter-example: I have worked for companies that insisted that every incident be reported. (In fact, I suspect that you are mistaken, since their apparent reason for this was to cover their own ass legally. As long as they tell you to report it, if you don't it's not on them.)

This doesn't make any of the incidents any more right- like I said, a rude comment is still a rude comment; but the minor incidents (i.e., the inappropriate remarks and grabbing) are more akin to bullying than outright harassment, and, again, we already knew there's a problem with bullying- there's no reason to highlight that again.

An "inappropriate" GRAB would most certainly be considered sexual harassment in the workplace--why not in schools?

I'll also say it again- do the students understand *what* harassment is? It's very possible that a lot of the students said they were "harassed" because they're overexaggerating their experiences- something that's not unheard of for high schoolers. I admit it's not something "hard" that I can work with, but that possibility is still there.

Maybe... and again you cannot criticize without actually reading the study. Most likely, however, students were never asked if they were "harassed"... If the researchers did that, they would probably not get published in a peer-reviewed journal. The problem is, for the reasons you state among others, that asking someone if they have been "harassed" is not a very good measure of what (if anything) has actually occurred.

More likely students were asked specific questions, such as "have you been grabbed or touched inappropriately," "have other students asked you embarassing sexual questions or made embarassing remarks," and so on.

Of course, I don't know for sure either, since I have not read the study... but I do know what usually passes for social science research.

Another point I realized the article failed to mention is who exactly is doing it.

Most likely, the study did not address that question. (For a variety of reasons, it might be somewhat more difficult to answer. While there are pressures against honesty on a victimization survey, there are even greater pressures against honesty on a survey asking children if they have been bullies. Meanwhile, it is difficult to get an accurate picture by asking the victims... Any given victim may have the impression that only a few people are bullies, because these are the people who bully her/him, while in fact there are very many more overall.)

I believe the statistic actually is

"9/10 Female college students will get drunk and will will have sex with a drunk guy while at a party, go home, sober up the next morning and scream rape but can't remember the guys name, what he looked like or where the party was. The guy in question will be trying to remember if he slept with a brunette or a blonde but will eventually just check it up as another night of getting laid"

For the purposes of this research, if a woman cannot remember what happened, then it is usually not coded as rape unless:

1. There is a reasonable suspicion that she was drugged.
Or 2. She was coerced to drink, or drink too much, against her wishes.

Thus, most "I woke up next to this guy" and "did I have sex last night??" cases do not get coded as rape, and do not count toward the statistic in question.

I'm sorry for pissing you off, but I still think the terms are used *way* too liberally. Perhaps that's just the Italian in me, but I still think we're way too sensitive as a society, especially since I doubt there's *that* many people with malicious intent.

"Malicious intent" is problematic when it comes to rape.

You want to believe that it's only rape if a guy thinks, "I want sex, and I'm willing to hurt you to get it."

Often enough, in date rape situations, a man thinks, "I want sex..." and they just don't bother to think about whether the woman wants it or not. If things aren't going their way, they push... and push... and if/when a woman "gives in" they have sex. (Often, women give in because they are afraid that if they struggle further, they will get hurt, or because the man overpowers them emotionally as much as physically, or for a variety of other complex psychological reasons.)

The point is, if you "struggle" to get a girl to have sex with you, and you "win", then it doesn't matter a bit whether you bruised her or strangled her. You raped her.

It most defintely does because it is not rape. Both parties are drunk, if it is rape of the woman then it is most defintely also rape of the man. 'Date Rape' exists as Rape, but most defintely not to the tune of 66% or 90% of College aged women. I most defintely agree 90% of college aged women will complain of a 'unwanted sexual experience' where they downed a few too many keystones and got in bed with a guy who also downed a few too many keystones.

If they both just "made a mistake," fine.

However, it is really a mistake to assume that if the parties are drunk, then it "couldn't" have been rape.

Alcohol may make it more difficult for a woman to resist: she may be physically impaired, unconscious, or confused.

Meanwhile, alcohol impairs the judgment of horny young men (even more than it is usually impaired). They are more likely to overlook the fact that their "partner" is unconscious, non-responsive, or just not interested.

If, under these circumstances, a man rapes a woman, nothing about the fact that they were drinking magically changes that fact.

It does not even matter if the man honestly thought she "wanted to"... He probably also honestly thinks he can drive, but that would be a crime, too.

I go to high school. There are a hell of a lot of remarks that I supose some people might take as "harassment". I make a fair few of them myslelf, although very few of a sexual nature. Before anyone jumps at me the jokes are between me and my female friends, they understand I dont mean it and no one is hurt.

Let me tell you something. In the years since I have graduated high school, I have become close to a good number of women who chose to tell me about how their male friends harassed them in high school, and how they went along with it... for any variety of reasons. Some of them have told me that it hurt at the time, or made them uncomfortable, but that they didn't know how to respond. Others have told me that they only realized much later, after encountering more mature college men, that such behavior is not "okay" and that they were, in fact, harassed... and now they just feel ashamed that it ever happened to them.

If you want to really be their friend, just don't do it at all. Think before you speak. And if you really want to be a man, say something to other guys (yes, even your friends) when they do it, too.

That being said women who don't stand up for themselves annoy me.

It's hard for guys to accept this, but standing up for herself can be a lot harder for a girl than for a guy, especially when she's trying to stand up to a guy. Ironically, if you do more to stand up for them, in the quiet way that just says to other guys, "Hey, that's not cool. Let's all try to have some respect," you will be surprised to find that not only will women thank you for it... but they will also begin to stand up for themselves more, once they know that "someone has their back." Give it a try.

I think I read someplace that 9/10 female college students will be raped at some point, so this seems to support that fact to some degree.

Dear god, that has fanciful as the crap that was spread 15 years ago that 30% of females were raped by their father; for the next 15 fucking years, we had fathers too scared to give their daughter a hug as it might be conscrewed as being sexual harrassment.

Sorry, these studies, I'll put money on it, as conducted by tuba voiced feminists looking for something to blame for their failure to be successful in life.

Oh, and as for highschool students; please, I've been a co-ed school and I can assure you that the girls can throw it just as hard and vicious as the guys - believe me, I've known some tough girls who could bring boys to tears - so lets not try to play the 'poor defenceless female' routine - its sad, pathetic and demeaning to females who do have a backbone and willing to put guys in their place.

Sorry, these studies, I'll put money on it, as conducted by tuba voiced feminists looking for something to blame for their failure to be successful in life.

Ad hominem... and irrelevant, considering these are successful women publishing in high-visibility peer-reviewed journals. Probably something you'll never do.

Oh, and as for highschool students; please, I've been a co-ed school and I can assure you that the girls can throw it just as hard and vicious as the guys - believe me, I've known some tough girls who could bring boys to tears - so lets not try to play the 'poor defenceless female' routine - its sad, pathetic and demeaning to females who do have a backbone and willing to put guys in their place.

You have to love this argument. It may be that 90% of guys are aggressive (physically, verbally, sexually) and 10% of women are aggressive; and it may be true that historically, the "war of the sexes" has been heavily weighted in favor of men; yet when some of us decide we want to end the "war", work together, and in the process help clean up the wounded (women, usually)...

Oh no!! You come along and tell us that this is "demeaning" to "females" (I always wonder why the most sexist men insist on that word instead of "women"...)!! The only way to respect them... is to put them down?

Nice. I love it.

Ad hominem... and irrelevant, considering these are successful women publishing in high-visibility peer-reviewed journals. Probably something you'll never do.

Being a life long university student living off the back of the welfare system is what I would hardly call "contribution".

You have to love this argument. It may be that 90% of guys are aggressive (physically, verbally, sexually) and 10% of women are aggressive; and it may be true that historically, the "war of the sexes" has been heavily weighted in favor of men; yet when some of us decide we want to end the "war", work together, and in the process help clean up the wounded (women, usually)...

Oh no!! You come along and tell us that this is "demeaning" to "females" (I always wonder why the most sexist men insist on that word instead of "women"...)!! The only way to respect them... is to put them down?

Nice. I love it.

No, Sexual harrassment was defined in the article in a WIDE VARIETY of cases, verbal being ONE, and I assume that it would have been the BIGGEST one - and I'm sorry, but I don't know what rock you've been hiding under, most every female I've ever known has been quite willing to show some assertiveness and put a guy in his place if he over steps the mark.

Putting someone in their place has NOTHING to do with violence and everything to do with self confidence and assertiveness, which believe, girls today do not lack that.

As for me, I don't over step the mark because firstly I'm gay, and have NO interest in females and secondly, I'll take the piss, but at the same time realise if I offend someone, that I quickly apologise.

rape and 'sexually harassed' are two different things. The article says sexually harassed which is quite different from the definition of rape.

Being a life long university student living off the back of the welfare system is what I would hardly call "contribution".

That's a different debate. You mentioned their personal success. Don't change the subject.

No, Sexual harrassment was defined in the article in a WIDE VARIETY of cases, verbal being ONE, and I assume that it would have been the BIGGEST one - and I'm sorry, but I don't know what rock you've been hiding under, most every female I've ever known has been quite willing to show some assertiveness and put a guy in his place if he over steps the mark.

How lucky for you to have grown up in such a statistically unlikely neighborhood.

Putting someone in their place has NOTHING to do with violence and everything to do with self confidence and assertiveness, which believe, girls today do not lack that.

While I too know some very assertive women, statistically women are less assertive than men, at least according to every psychological study I've seen on the subject... although things are changing, fortunately for us all. Given men's historical role in "putting them in their place," of course, some of us feel we have a responsibility to step back a bit as they try to find their rightful place as equals.

Dear god, that has fanciful as the crap that was spread 15 years ago that 30% of females were raped by their father; for the next 15 fucking years, we had fathers too scared to give their daughter a hug as it might be conscrewed as being sexual harrassment.

Have those studies been debunked, or no? Certainly not. I'm pretty sure that every well-conducted survey proves that most female children who grow up around males are molested in some way at some point.. I know that fact makes people squeamish and all, but it's still fact. I'm not trying to paint all men as child molesters, but it'd be pure folly for women not to keep a keen eye on their husbands' behavior around their female children, if they have any.. better to mind the statistics than to have your kids become a statistic, I'd say, and fathers should rightly keep distance to make sure there's no confusion.

The thing about rape and harassment is that they usually aren't reported - and you don't usually talk about them casually if you can avoid the topic.

Now, as to the study in question... there are two major points to consider.

First, sample size. It's drawn from only eight schools, and the relatively narrow field (Kingston, Toronto, and Montreal high schools) could lead to something of a bias that way.

Second, how the students were questioned. Did the surveyers lay out what constitutes sexual harassment before hand (this would lead to higher reports)? Did they ask a wide variety of questions about what has or has not happened to students in the past few months, with a certain number (grabbing, unwanted sexual innuendo, etc) being filed under the header of "sexual harassment"? How did they get students to participate in the survey - did they ask the schools for a selection of students, did they wander around the hallways, etc.

Now, regardless of these, it's not likely to be too far off the mark statistically (the various factors above would probably only skew it so much), and I can very easily believe 75% reporting having been harassed in the last three months.

Have those studies been debunked, or no? Certainly not. I'm pretty sure that every well-conducted survey proves that most female children who grow up around males are molested in some way at some point.At the same time, remember that doesn't quite mean that most males molest female children growing up around them. It would only take one "funny uncle" out of an entire extended family to make most female children growing up get molested at some point.

That isn't to say you shouldn't be careful, but there's a fine line between being careful and paranoid.

That said, I always thought I remembered a survey conducted some decades ago or so showing that - given the right target and the opportunity to get away scotch free without anyone knowing - something like 50% of women and 75% of men would commit rape, but when I look around casually online, I only find surveys saying that roughly 50% of men would commit rape. Memory plays tricks with statistics.

At the same time, remember that doesn't quite mean that most males molest female children growing up around them. It would only take one "funny uncle" out of an entire extended family to make most female children growing up get molested at some point.

That isn't to say you shouldn't be careful, but there's a fine line between being careful and paranoid.

That said, I always thought I remembered a survey conducted some decades ago or so showing that - given the right target and the opportunity to get away scotch free without anyone knowing - something like 50% of women and 75% of men would commit rape, but when I look around casually online, I only find surveys saying that roughly 50% of men would commit rape. Memory plays tricks with statistics.

That's probably true.. funny thing is, most rapists probably don't consider themselves rapists.. in their twisted reckoning, the victim either had it coming or consented in some way..

I agree that 75% is an utterly fanciful number. I'd expect it to be closer to 100%. I don't personally know a single person, male or female, who got through high school without being sexually harassed at one time or another. I don't know a single female who got through 4 years of college without being sexually harassed at one point or another, and at least half of my male friends have been harassed during college.

That's probably true.. funny thing is, most rapists probably don't consider themselves rapists.. in their twisted reckoning, the victim either had it coming or consented in some way..

I say this because when my Criminology class (about 40 students) took an anonymous survey consisting of a checksheet of a few dozen crimes, minor and major, the class unanimously admitted having committed crime of some kind, but only two students admitted they had raped someone in the past. So, unless a small number of rapists manage to victimize 90% of college women single-handedly (unlikely, of course), it seems the great majority of rapists have rationalized their behavior to the point they can deny even being rapists.. adding yet another layer of obscenity to the entire thing.
Exactly. I've encountered several rapists in person, and none of them believed they were a rapist. They all believed that having sex with an unconscious female isn't rape, or that "no" really means "I want to be taken forcefully," or that it doesn't count as rape if you slap her and order her to stop saying no.

I've also encountered many guys who I consider "accomplice rapists." They've listened to buddies brag about having raped. They've heard frat brothers talk about how there's a girl passed out up stairs and each guy can have "a turn" at her. They've heard friends talk about abusing, coercing, and even drugging women to get sex. They don't say anything because they don't want to get accused of being a faggot or a pussy. They brush it aside as "not really rape" or "boys will be boys."

Want to know how to prevent rape and sexual harassment? When your guy friends are making a female (or male) uncomfortable with unwelcome sexual comments, tell them to grow up. If your friend is bitching about an "uptight" girl who "didn't have a sense of humor" about his sexual advances, explain that it's probably because he was acting like a jackass. When your friend tells you about how he plans to get a girl drunk to have sex with her, tell him he's a rapist. When your frat brother tells you it's "your turn" at the drunk girl, tell him he's a rapist, get the girl out of there, and report to the police. When a female friend confides that her date wouldn't stop when she said, "No," tell her that her date was a rapist and encourage her to go to the police.

Most importantly, quit blaming rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment on the victims, and don't let anybody get away with perpetuating the lie that these issues are figments of imagination from hairy-legged feminazis. Anybody who says that kind of crap is either a rapist or the accomplice of rapists.

Bottle, 75% would be for the "past three months." Not the whole four year course. Personally, I was rarely harassed or harassing in high school - I wouldn't say never, but my reserve, aloofness, and indomitable attitude meant that I participated little on either end, and at most points in high school, I probably would've been in the 25% saying they'd had three months without being sexually harassed.

The whole four years, we'd probably see somewhere around 95%.

Now, there is one thing I'm going to blame on something not the rapist, and we might say 'the victim.' It's society's conceptions of masculinity. When you define maleness in large part as being aggressive, when being inconsiderate of women wins men points - both with women who may be seeking a "challenge" or a dominant male, and with men who consider it a sign of strength - and when there is pressure for a man to prove that he does have what it takes to have sex with someone and a distinct lack of voluntary cooperation... then of course you're going to have a society with rape issues. I would say that some blame goes even further around society than Bottle's list of immediate accomplices.

It's not blame evenly shared, of course.

If they both just "made a mistake," fine.

However, it is really a mistake to assume that if the parties are drunk, then it "couldn't" have been rape.

Alcohol may make it more difficult for a woman to resist: she may be physically impaired, unconscious, or confused.

Meanwhile, alcohol impairs the judgment of horny young men (even more than it is usually impaired). They are more likely to overlook the fact that their "partner" is unconscious, non-responsive, or just not interested.

If, under these circumstances, a man rapes a woman, nothing about the fact that they were drinking magically changes that fact.

It does not even matter if the man honestly thought she "wanted to"... He probably also honestly thinks he can drive, but that would be a crime, too.

Either both are held to account of actions following their decision to drink, or neither are. What this means, is that in no way can we consider sexual conduct while under the willing influence of a substance along the same lines as that of sober. I will not exhonerate the woman of the consequences of her decision to drink any more than the man.... Either both bear equally, or neither do, since it is a consequence of acts (drinking) by both.

Bottle, 75% would be for the "past three months." Not the whole four year course. Personally, I was rarely harassed or harassing in high school - I wouldn't say never, but my reserve, aloofness, and indomitable attitude meant that I participated little on either end, and at most points in high school, I probably would've been in the 25% saying they'd had three months without being sexually harassed.

The whole four years, we'd probably see somewhere around 95%.

I can agree with that.


Now, there is one thing I'm going to blame on something not the rapist, and we might say 'the victim.' It's society's conceptions of masculinity. When you define maleness in large part as being aggressive, when being inconsiderate of women wins men points - both with women who may be seeking a "challenge" or a dominant male, and with men who consider it a sign of strength - and when there is pressure for a man to prove that he does have what it takes to have sex with someone and a distinct lack of voluntary cooperation... then of course you're going to have a society with rape issues. I would say that some blame goes even further around society than Bottle's list of immediate accomplices.

It's not blame evenly shared, of course.
And I totally agree with that. However, I don't accept the "societal influence" thing as an excuse. Society pressures me to become an anorexic airhead who uses sex to land a man who will financially support me...so what? My point about rape accomplices basically is all about making individual people realize how THEY are responsible for the "culture of rape."

Blaming things on "society" is a great way to let people pass off responsibility for themselves and their own contributions (though I know that's not what you intended with your post), and I try to avoid using that phrasing whenever possible. "Society" is a diffuse, untouchable, unmoveable force, and people rarely feel willing or able to go up against it. Rather than pinning blame on "society," I pin the blame on the MEMBERS of society who are contributing to the problem. That helps make the problem seem more human and more accessable.

And I totally agree with that. However, I don't accept the "societal influence" thing as an excuse. Society pressures me to become an anorexic airhead who uses sex to land a man who will financially support me...so what? My point about rape accomplices basically is all about making individual people realize how THEY are responsible for the "culture of rape."

Blaming things on "society" is a great way to let people pass off responsibility for themselves and their own contributions (though I know that's not what you intended with your post), and I try to avoid using that phrasing whenever possible. "Society" is a diffuse, untouchable, unmoveable force, and people rarely feel willing or able to go up against it. Rather than pinning blame on "society," I pin the blame on the MEMBERS of society who are contributing to the problem. That helps make the problem seem more human and more accessable.See, I don't see society as diffuse and untouchable. I see it as a collective grouping whose behavior is altered slightly with every individual who changes.

By no means should the "culture of rape" be used as an excuse... but how far it is spread, and how diffuse its contributing tendrils are, should be known. The whole thing needs to be taken out. Social revolution is desirable.

Either both are held to account of actions following their decision to drink, or neither are. What this means, is that in no way can we consider sexual conduct while under the willing influence of a substance along the same lines as that of sober. I will not exhonerate the woman of the consequences of her decision to drink any more than the man.... Either both bear equally, or neither do, since it is a consequence of acts (drinking) by both.

Being raped is not a consequence of drinking.

In the extreme case, passing out drunk is not an invitation for a guy to put his penis inside you.

No. 2, I think "9/10" is also too high. Granted, I don't know the lives of every female college student, but I have doubts that 90% of females are going to experience something as severe as rape. Maybe catcalls, maybe "minor" sexual incidents (somebody grabbing their butt, for instance), but not rape.
This is made worse if you're like me and make the mistake of going into a program that is male-dominated. The flirting is unbelieveable.

Sure there is. You just have to do your homework and actually look up their published study. While I don't know off-hand where this one is published, it should not be too hard to find. Moreover, I have seen similar studies, including some by professor Connolly, published in the Journal of Applied School Psychology, certainly a reputable peer-reviewed publication.

The point here is that if you want to criticize, you have to do that. You cannot go around making criticisms just because the numbers "seem" "too high."

Well, all the evidence I have in front of me is the article itself. I admit I haven't read the study and if I find it I'll read it- but I'm still not going to believe "75%" until I see it.

Unfortunately, they are scientists and require data more substantial than your anecdotal (and, under the circumstances, possibly biased) observations. As far as scientific method goes, you cannot "safely say" much of anything.

It may be that the study above used just this operational definition; or perhaps not. You won't know unless you find it and read it. Criticizing the conclusions without criticizing the method may be fun, but it's not science.

...and I admitted that. My experiences don't really mean much because it's hardly indicative of the whole world. However, consider that Professor Connolly also used the same evidence (since, ultimately, she didn't poll the whole world), and since my experiences don't exactly coincide to what she's describing, I'm still having a hard time believing the findings (although, again, I'm just going by the article).

Universal claims are easily disproved... like this. Counter-example: I have worked for companies that insisted that every incident be reported. (In fact, I suspect that you are mistaken, since their apparent reason for this was to cover their own ass legally. As long as they tell you to report it, if you don't it's not on them.)

I admit exceptions to the rule, but most of the bigger companies have those policies anyway- and they differ from the study's conclusions.

An "inappropriate" GRAB would most certainly be considered sexual harassment in the workplace--why not in schools?

Point taken there. However, how often is that prevalent? I certainly don't see it a lot.

Maybe... and again you cannot criticize without actually reading the study. Most likely, however, students were never asked if they were "harassed"... If the researchers did that, they would probably not get published in a peer-reviewed journal. The problem is, for the reasons you state among others, that asking someone if they have been "harassed" is not a very good measure of what (if anything) has actually occurred.

More likely students were asked specific questions, such as "have you been grabbed or touched inappropriately," "have other students asked you embarassing sexual questions or made embarassing remarks," and so on.

Of course, I don't know for sure either, since I have not read the study... but I do know what usually passes for social science research.

...and again, how many of those students embellished the results simply because they don't know any better? They may have a concept of "appropriateness" but for the majority of them it's not yet fully developed, so, again, I wonder how much of the responses are products of oversimplification. I'm curious if there's an observational requirement there too.

Most likely, the study did not address that question. (For a variety of reasons, it might be somewhat more difficult to answer. While there are pressures against honesty on a victimization survey, there are even greater pressures against honesty on a survey asking children if they have been bullies. Meanwhile, it is difficult to get an accurate picture by asking the victims... Any given victim may have the impression that only a few people are bullies, because these are the people who bully her/him, while in fact there are very many more overall.)

Well, just based on my experiences, I haven't come across many bullies myself, and neither- I suspect- have a lot of people. Many of us are just preoccupied with finishing our days that we don't want to push anyone around, and I think that holds true (to a large extent) in high school.

Note- regarding "malicious intent": that I cover under a willingness to hurt. It does not mean that the attacker actually intends to hurt from the beginning but wouldn't be afraid to use force if needed. The intent here is through not caring for the individual- and that is far less prevalent than "75%" of people.

Let me tell you something. In the years since I have graduated high school, I have become close to a good number of women who chose to tell me about how their male friends harassed them in high school, and how they went along with it... for any variety of reasons. Some of them have told me that it hurt at the time, or made them uncomfortable, but that they didn't know how to respond. Others have told me that they only realized much later, after encountering more mature college men, that such behavior is not "okay" and that they were, in fact, harassed... and now they just feel ashamed that it ever happened to them.

If you want to really be their friend, just don't do it at all. Think before you speak. And if you really want to be a man, say something to other guys (yes, even your friends) when they do it, too.

Well I'm sorry to hear that. I however do not believe that they feel this way, they are good friends and strong strong women, they would let me know if I went too far in any way (I'm sure this will be taken as a "she wanted it" sort of argument but I feel no reason to validify myself further here). As for saying things to other guys, damn right I would (if I thought they were over the line), and I don't appreciate the assumption that I would be a slave to my friends, they would prob hear of it much the louder cause they are suposed to be good people.

It's hard for guys to accept this, but standing up for herself can be a lot harder for a girl than for a guy, especially when she's trying to stand up to a guy. Ironically, if you do more to stand up for them, in the quiet way that just says to other guys, "Hey, that's not cool. Let's all try to have some respect," you will be surprised to find that not only will women thank you for it... but they will also begin to stand up for themselves more, once they know that "someone has their back." Give it a try.

As I said I do stand up for people, but it's infuriating when those people don't grow the backbone to do it themselves. Also I have no sympathy for your "its harder for a girl" argument, hell the women at my school are much more vocal than the men (note I fully realise this is not indicative of anything larger than me, however if they can grow some backbone others should too).

Well I'm sorry to hear that. I however do not believe that they feel this way, they are good friends and strong strong women, they would let me know if I went too far in any way (I'm sure this will be taken as a "she wanted it" sort of argument but I feel no reason to validify myself further here). As for saying things to other guys, damn right I would (if I thought they were over the line), and I don't appreciate the assumption that I would be a slave to my friends, they would prob hear of it much the louder cause they are suposed to be good people.

That may well be. I hope it is. Nevertheless, give it a few years... and don't be surprised if it's not long before you look back and feel ashamed at how you behaved in high school.

Also I have no sympathy for your "its harder for a girl" argument, hell the women at my school are much more vocal than the men (note I fully realise this is not indicative of anything larger than me, however if they can grow some backbone others should too).

This is a hard one for guys to get. I don't know that there is an argument that fully makes the case... again, it is a matter of being open to hearing what women have to say about their own experience, and reflecting on what you hear through the lens of greater maturity.

I think some of the 75% is people taking things as "sexual harrassment" which aren't intended to be. Take my, for example. I'm in high school, and I intentionally call everyone I meet a bitch, and to their face. My friends are bitches. My enemies are bitches. Everyone is a bitch. I'm a bitch. I'm sure there is someone out there who considers this sexual harrassment, and I know there are some people who are offended by this. I say they can STFU and go home and cry. Damn emo kids.

Those who are genuinly harrassed (and I know it happens) can STFU and bring knives to school. It'd solve all our problems. Survival of the fittest, AND elimnation of sex offenders....

Those who are genuinly harrassed (and I know it happens) can STFU and bring knives to school. It'd solve all our problems. Survival of the fittest, AND elimnation of sex offenders....

Welcome to the Hobbesian state of nature where our lives will all be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

That may well be. I hope it is. Nevertheless, give it a few years... and don't be surprised if it's not long before you look back and feel ashamed at how you behaved in high school.

I shall await the gain in wisdom that age will allow me excitedly.

Those who are genuinly harrassed (and I know it happens) can STFU and bring knives to school. It'd solve all our problems. Survival of the fittest, AND elimnation of sex offenders....

Dude chill, in that situation the fittest aren't always the ones to survive anyway.

Have those studies been debunked, or no? Certainly not. I'm pretty sure that every well-conducted survey proves that most female children who grow up around males are molested in some way at some point.. I know that fact makes people squeamish and all, but it's still fact. I'm not trying to paint all men as child molesters, but it'd be pure folly for women not to keep a keen eye on their husbands' behavior around their female children, if they have any.. better to mind the statistics than to have your kids become a statistic, I'd say, and fathers should rightly keep distance to make sure there's no confusion.

Yes they have been debunked - most fathers out there try to do a good job as a parent, role model, provider etc.

Are you saying that men should have NO contact with ANY children? They should simply screw a women, then leave her, and let the female on her own raise the child?

During highschool I was sexually harassed, sexually assaulted and stalked.

Not a fun time.

I think some of the 75% is people taking things as "sexual harrassment" which aren't intended to be. Take my, for example. I'm in high school, and I intentionally call everyone I meet a bitch, and to their face. My friends are bitches. My enemies are bitches. Everyone is a bitch. I'm a bitch. I'm sure there is someone out there who considers this sexual harrassment, and I know there are some people who are offended by this. I say they can STFU and go home and cry. Damn emo kids.
That's not sexual harassment. Telling everyone they have nice tits or something however, would be.

Those who are genuinly harrassed (and I know it happens) can STFU and bring knives to school. It'd solve all our problems. Survival of the fittest, AND elimnation of sex offenders....
Where do you live that weapons are permitted on school property? We weren't even allowed to bring in flourescent pink water pistols. Hell, in our drama class we weren't even allowed to draw a picture of a gun, use posicle sticks to make it somewhat solid and pretend it's a gun for our plays.

During highschool I was sexually harassed, sexually assaulted and stalked.

Not a fun time.

Jesus Christ, what is it with straight guys and their inability not to think with their dick for five seconds? little bloody wonder gay men have women following them - we can hold a damn conversation without our eyes constantly draw to the chest area.

*Gives dakini a hug* Its sad to say this, but a good number of guys are assholes, and we can all thank the macho 'spread your wild oats' mentality that fathers spread to their sons.

Yes they have been debunked - most fathers out there try to do a good job as a parent, role model, provider etc.

Are you saying that men should have NO contact with ANY children? They should simply screw a women, then leave her, and let the female on her own raise the child?

I don't believe they've been debunked, but I'm no statistician, so I'll leave it there.

And of course I don't believe men should abandon their families out of paraphilic paranoia.. Although I enjoyed that episode of South Park very much.. :p The community should keep a wary eye out for that kind of activity, and wives especially, but men are certainly obligated to contribute to their kids' upbringing if possible, financially at the very least. It's just a matter of being watchful.. Fathers shouldn't be prohibited from, say, hugging their kids, as someone mentioned earlier, but there has to be scrutiny.

There was a thread a week ago that had to do with an Airline's policy that kept men away from children.. on a moderately-full flight, there would be scrutiny. Scrutiny solves most of the problem. Stewardesses can watch out for those things.. so I say, don't segregate men from their kids, but don't ignore the problem either.

I don't believe they've been debunked, but I'm no statistician, so I'll leave it there.

I didn't say that all statistics were false, what I am saying is that we should stear clear of sensationalism - there are statistics, then there are numbers made up by so-called 'female empowerment groups' and 'fathers rights groups' to prove or disprove something in favour of their dogma.

And of course I don't believe men should abandon their families out of paraphilic paranoia.. Although I enjoyed that episode of South Park very much.. :p The community should keep a wary eye out for that kind of activity, and wives especially, but men are certainly obligated to contribute to their kids' upbringing if possible, financially at the very least. It's just a matter of being watchful.. Fathers shouldn't be prohibited from, say, hugging their kids, as someone mentioned earlier, but there has to be scrutiny.

There was a thread a week ago that had to do with an Airline's policy that kept men away from children.. on a moderately-full flight, there would be scrutiny. Scrutiny solves most of the problem. Stewardesses can watch out for those things.. so I say, don't segregate men from their kids, but don't ignore the problem either.

For me, I want to be kept as far away from children as possible, they're annoying, they freak me out, and if I have a conversation with one, I tend to talk to them as if they're like a 'small adult' which doesn't always work - hence the reason why I've decided never to be a father - crappy parenting and another one of me is the last combination the world needs right now.

As for hugging, paranoia is the last thing a family needs; a father has a role to play in the family; we wonder why there is a lack of relationship skills in this generation, you only need to look at the lack of good contact between parents and children; the lack of communication, praise for achievement, hugging for consoling, positive re-enforcement, and saying, 'its ok to cry' if a boy cries - maybe then, the cycle of this macho bullshit will stop, and instead, we'll have a generation of males who can talk about their feelings, and when they do need help, they're able to openly seek it rather than trying to find it at the bottom of a bottle.

This is made worse if you're like me and make the mistake of going into a program that is male-dominated. The flirting is unbelieveable.
I've never had a problem in university and my programme is male-dominated. There are 15 people in my programme and I'm one of two girls.

Granted one guy kinda creeps the hell out of me a lot of the time, but he hasn't tried anything. I think my constant mentioning of the boyfriend keeps him at bay.

Jesus Christ, what is it with straight guys and their inability not to think with their dick for five seconds? little bloody wonder gay men have women following them - we can hold a damn conversation without our eyes constantly draw to the chest area.

*Gives dakini a hug* Its sad to say this, but a good number of guys are assholes, and we can all thank the macho 'spread your wild oats' mentality that fathers spread to their sons.
It wasn't all guys, just a couple. I know that not all men are idiots/assholes. Most of them aren't. It's just that some are.

It wasn't all guys, just a couple. I know that not all men are idiots/assholes. Most of them aren't. It's just that some are.

True, but it would be nice for men to treat women like people rather than some sort of prize/trophy that they can show off to their mates, or some convenient 'sex on tap' when required.

True, but it would be nice for men to treat women like people rather than some sort of prize/trophy that they can show off to their mates, or some convenient 'sex on tap' when required.
Yes, it would.

I can only hope that those particular guys never procreate. Or grow up, whichever.

Yes, it would.

I can only hope that those particular guys never procreate. Or grow up, whichever.

Yeah, but unfortunately, they'll find some women with *really* low expectations; you know the type, their biggest dream in their life is to get married, have kids, live, retire and then die - yeah, and she's just the type of specimen who would be happy to fall in love with a knuckle dragging troglodyte - and the worst part, the cycle of chav/white trash continues for another generation.

Yeah, but unfortunately, they'll find some women with *really* low expectations; you know the type, their biggest dream in their life is to get married, have kids, live, retire and then die - yeah, and she's just the type of specimen who would be happy to fall in love with a knuckle dragging troglodyte - and the worst part, the cycle of chav/white trash continues for another generation.

My ex was kind of like that...not the desperate type, but certainly the idealistic type. Idealism always bugged me- the world can NEVER fit into a "perfect" vision, so it's inconceivable to attempt to conform it to that.

True, but it would be nice for men to treat women like people rather than some sort of prize/trophy that they can show off to their mates, or some convenient 'sex on tap' when required.

Wouldn't it be nice to not be gender steriotyped?

Wouldn't it be nice to not be gender stereotyped?

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

Gender stereotypes harm all genders.