Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

Anyone who has ever taken Statistics 101 knows this is a terrible survey.  By self-selecting it attracts those who have experienced sexual harassment and they are going to disproportionately take the survey skewing the results.  

Brian wrote: Anyone who has ever taken Statistics 101 knows this is a terrible survey.  By self-selecting it attracts those who have experienced sexual harassment and they are going to disproportionately take the survey skewing the results.  

Everyone who has any involvement in surveys knows that self selection is an issue, and that there models to extrapolate non-random sampling into general population. 

Those who only took Statistics 101 should refrain from mansplaining.

amarius wrote:

Everyone who has any involvement in surveys knows that self selection is an issue, and that there models to extrapolate non-random sampling into general population. 

Those who only took Statistics 101 should refrain from mansplaining.

Yea, and this survey is very scientific from a respected research University!

amarius wrote:

Everyone who has any involvement in surveys knows that self selection is an issue, and that there models to extrapolate non-random sampling into general population. 

Those who only took Statistics 101 should refrain from mansplaining.

I only took stats 101.

Can we have more detail. I don't understand how biased sampling like this can be used to forfill the goal of described in [1]
If there goal is to quantify the extent, we obviously can't do it from a biased sample...So what do you do? Infer from the general population? But how do you know the climbing population looks anything like that? Why bother with the biased sample in the first place?

And supposing you do have solid data on sexual harassment and assault in the climbing community, what value does a biased sample like this contribute?

[1] Alpinist, the American Alpine Club, the Access Fund and other climbing organizations across the country are jointly distributing a survey on the occurrence of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the climbing world. Our goal is to quantify the extent of this problem in our community. -- alpinist.com/doc/web18s/new…

Jake Jones wrote:

She didn't offer a definition of feminism.  She didn't minimize his experience, quite the opposite.  Your assertion that she thinks what you suppose "deserves less of your sympathy" is pure projection and fallacy on your part.

"Where do I have it wrong?" is the wrong question.  I can't see where you have anything right.

Actually she did minimize his experience 

Quote:: 

"I will say that there is probably some differences between your experience and that of a woman who has been raped.  No one is going to ask you how much you had to drink, what you were wearing, or if you suddenly changed your mind on consent in the middle of the act, or accuse you of ruining someone's life"

Jake Jones wrote:

I don't think so.  She's outlining the differences in the behavior toward men being raped and women.  And she's right.  That's not minimizing the horrible experience.  That's saying that with the exceedingly rare case in which a man is raped, the victim isn't nearly as likely to be blamed for provocation or made to be the villain.  And this is 100% true.

Valid pt yet there are differences to every experience. Just like my experience in reading the post was different than yours.

Dylan B. wrote:

I hear you. When I first read that portion of the post my alarm bells went off on the possibility of minimizing or dismissing male experience; but on second read it was clear the language was neutral, not minimizing, and reading it in context of the rest of the post (in particular the very next sentence) made that certain.

Same.

señdera la reina wrote:

They are on the same spectrum.  Did you read the article I linked?

That is your opinion only, nothing in the article supports that. And IMO it's a travesty to bring up the author, which, for those who didn't bother to read the article, paints her as a nut job. To me it's a case of the law being behind the social norm (which works both ways, like the blue laws that should've been repealed long ago).

señdera la reina wrote:

They are on the same spectrum.Rape, sexual assault, unwanted touching, suggestive comments, mansplaining, etc. are basically the same thing.

  Did you read the article I linked?  It explains these concepts well.  

1. I read the article you reference searching for the concept you describe and claim exists. It doesn't exist within the article at all. The article doesn't even contain the word "spectrum" or continuum, or make any reference to this idea of equivalency, moral or otherwise. 

2. To claim that because things exist along a spectrum they must be the same things, or basically the same things, or hold equal moral weight and consequence, is totally absurd. By definition a spectrum stretches from either extreme end, so as to encompass all possible outcomes. Think of the spectrum of physical violence possible  between2 people. It might go something like: No contact, poking someone with a finger, pinching them, slapping them, wacking them with a bat, and torturing and murdering them with a premeditated plan. To claim that those actions are the same because they can be placed on a continuum is insanity. 

I'm glad to see that the Women's forum is so popular!

Dylan B. wrote:

I think her point was that these are phenomena of the same nature, but of differing degree. I think the phrase “same thing” was merely inartful writing, especially given repeated references to a spectrum. I’d suggest moving past the miscommunication and focusing on the merits of the question (which, to be fair, you somewhat did with the rest of your post).

Even this highly charitable and non-literal reading of her viewpoint should just result in a common and pretty obvious conclusion:

Of course 

various forms and grades of aggression (or any action) can be of the same nature or stem from the same causes. Most non-sexual violence (everything from poking someone in the ear to stabbing them to death) is a response to feelings of anger or threat. That shared cause does not and should not create a moral or legal equivalence among possible responses.

Most forms of sexual aggression arise from the cause of wanting to have sex. If everyone was a celibate eunuch, they wouldn't occur. That doesn't make giving hand-picked flowers, shouting rude pickup lines, or committing forcible rape the same things, nor should they carry the same moral or legal tarnish. And they don't.

blakeherrington wrote: Most forms of sexual aggression arise from the cause of wanting to have sex.

This is not necessarily true, much sexual aggression is about power. There are a lot of cases that substantiate this point, which are all pretty awful. Think war crimes as an obvious example

r m wrote:

I wondered that, if you could somehow correct or compensate. But I can't think of any means that would have robust assumptions.

I suppose time will tell! I am certainly interested in how this data is analysed and presented.

Yes, I am curious, too. And I hope this would be done rigorously. The poorly-done "studies" make it easier for people who want to deny the existence and/or prevalence  of sexism/harassment/assault/etc. to dismiss the findings by pointing out the flaws of the studies, so I hope this one wouldn't further contribute to such things.

However, even with inherent flaws of self-selection bias in surveys, poorly worded or vague questions, etc. consider this, for example:

When Flash Foxy tried doing a survey of sexism in climbing community ( there is a summary here ) they got 1500 responses, roughly 30% male/70% female. And in this group, 64% of women (vs 29% of men) said they experienced sexism/unwanted approaches, etc.

You could try some assumptions, and adjust the numbers along these lines, but you could also just say, heck, if over a 1000 women reported 64% incidence of unpleasant interactions... you can adjust it any which way, and it would STILL be high, because we are not trying to parse whether the incidence of harassment is actually 52% or 67%. The take-home message is still, it is a hell of a lot higher than it should be.

reboot wrote:

That is your opinion only, nothing in the article supports that. And IMO it's a travesty to bring up the author, which, for those who didn't bother to read the article, paints her as a nut job. To me it's a case of the law being behind the social norm (which works both ways, like the blue laws that should've been repealed long ago).

That does not make any sense.  The author of the article is Callie Rennison, who is the same person that is running this survey.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/11/17/16666290/brock-turner-rape

Are you calling her a nut job? She is a renowned victimologist.  It's in the article, "I’m literally the person who creates the textbook definition of rape."

Men who touch women when dumpsters are nearby are rapists.  Period.  Callie tells it like it is.  Why are people (men AND women) trying to discredit her?

wonderwoman wrote:

This is not the case.  The cause of sexual predation is believing that you are entitled to violate another human being’s body.

well put. 

señdera la reina wrote:

That does not make any sense.  The author of the article is Callie Rennison, who is the same person that is running this survey.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/11/17/16666290/brock-turner-rape

Are you calling her a nut job? She is a renowned victimologist.  It's in the article, "I’m literally the person who creates the textbook definition of rape."

Men who touch women when dumpsters are nearby are rapists.  Period.  Callie tells it like it is.  Why are people (men AND women) trying to discredit her?

I thought the nice folks at Merriam-Webster defined words.

señdera la reina wrote:

That does not make any sense.  The author of the article is Callie Rennison, who is the same person that is running this survey.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/11/17/16666290/brock-turner-rape

Are you calling her a nut job? She is a renowned victimologist.  It's in the article, "I’m literally the person who creates the textbook definition of rape."

Men who touch women when dumpsters are nearby are rapists.  Period.  Callie tells it like it is.  Why are people (men AND women) trying to discredit her?

What? 

Rape has nothing to do with the proximity of a dumpster. 

Rape is penetrating another person without their consent. 

If you take out the trash with your partner, lock eyes, and have a wildly romantic and mutually consensual makeout sesh, being near a dumpster doesn't make it rape. 

If someone inserts their penis (or anything else) into you without your consent, it's rape - even if it happens in a 5-star hotel miles from the nearest trash receptacle. 

señdera la reina wrote:

That does not make any sense.  The author of the article is Callie Rennison, who is the same person that is running this survey.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/11/17/16666290/brock-turner-rape

Are you calling her a nut job? She is a renowned victimologist.  It's in the article, "I’m literally the person who creates the textbook definition of rape."

Men who touch women when dumpsters are nearby are rapists.  Period.  Callie tells it like it is.  Why are people (men AND women) trying to discredit her?

Well trolling on her behalf isnt really doing anything for her street cred either. 

Where the hell did you come up with the dumpster comment?

señdera la reina wrote:

That does not make any sense.  The author of the article is Callie Rennison, who is the same person that is running this survey.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/11/17/16666290/brock-turner-rape

Are you calling her a nut job? She is a renowned victimologist.  It's in the article, "I’m literally the person who creates the textbook definition of rape."

No, your own interpretation/commentary is making her sound like a nut job to those who didn't bother to read what she actually wrote. And if you actually admire this person you should stop interjecting your interpretation in this thread.

Men who touch women when dumpsters are nearby are rapists.  Period.  

^^^
Like this stuff.

Callie tells it like it is.  Why are people (men AND women) trying to discredit her?

She never said anything like that. She stated Brock Turner is a rapist, and I bet most people here would agree with that. Your interpretation is way, way off.

As soon as I see threads like this and hear words like "mansplaining" I know that this "study" is out to prove a point to bolster a held view.  

Far too much bias to participate in this!  Likely even the questions are biased!