Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

Appropos of nothing but the last post before ​the guideline #1 violation.

Cheers, s.price! Best, OLH

Old lady H wrote:

J Squared, I can't even begin to answer most of what you have in here, except to say I'm sorry. A formal apology from myself to your self on the damage done to you. Yes, it is totally unfair to brand anyone with anything, but, my generation, the boomers, literally set our world on fire. The results are still playing out, for both good and bad.

"Dominant" used to also be used in a much softer meaning. My right hand is dominant. Football is a male dominated sport. It doesn't have to mean my hand is evil, or that there is an active conspiracy to keep women off of football teams. It just is. (Actually, when you get down to tiny schools in Idaho, there are a few girls on the teams!)

I do not, and never have, identified as a feminist, or any other ist. I'm not a linear thinker, and always end up looking at all the spectrum of possibilities. As a kid, back when I was bright, I even had trouble on multiple choice tests because I could work out ways to get many answers. I had to learn to bow to the "what does the teacher want" game.

And so it goes. My comment about the pendulum applies also to the polarisation of everything, as well as ongoing inequities. Real life is messy. Without the mess, we lose the humanity of it.

From your comments, I am guessing you are more conservative than I on some, perhaps many, things. But, you know what? Bet we could talk. And, learn enough to truly respect each other and our differences. Thanks, for that.

Best, Helen

I don't identify as conservative or liberal, so I bet we could talk just fine about many things in person.

you sound level headed in your view of the word "dominant" .. and yes, it absolutely "doesn't have to mean it's evil"
my point of spelling out that definition... is that so many gender/womens studies courses in universities throughout the country do not exhibit your levelheadedness..and are doing their best to warp that language in recent decades to give it the more "controlling" meaning that contributes to the "patriarchy is the problem" issue.

i'm not bitter about any of my past... but rather, concerned about the veritable tidal wave of radicalisms that is rolling through areas of the country much more population dense than Idaho..

here's a cogent essay written just this week by a woman that's right on the pulse of this subject.  I reccommend loading this site in firefox Incognito mode with extra adblockers... as the screwed up minds behind amazon/google have blacklisted this site's automatically generated ads and filled it with shitty spam smut in an attempt to decrease it's readership
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/05/11/what-really-made-women-go-nuts/
you can even see down in the comments, that her exchanges with the readers on the site are also full of good stories and there's basically no trolling.

you might also find some solace in this content, which aims to fight against the Polarization of everything and to shed light on the mess of being a Real Human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat 
it's inspired me, for sure..

ubu wrote:

And just because we're on the topic, Jordan Peterson is a pud.  He has an extraordinary ability to wrap the most mundane ideas is 20 layers of pseudo-philisophy that somehow appeals to a certain demographic. I know nothing about the other guy in the video, but with Peterson doing the intro I wouldn't put much weight on the rest of the material.

i'm not even going to bother responding to your first sentance, so I un-quoted it.

i'll just say if all you're going to do is call him names... you're no better than these idiots, so why should we listen to you??  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsi61OtkE4
do you think your two little comments have contributed anything meaningful to this discussion?? why would anybody put weight into your 4 petulant little sentences?

I ask the readers of this thread to compare your comment...to the contents of these playlists...and judge which is more "mundane"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h -Maps of Meaning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYYJlNbV1OM&list=PL22J3VaeABQApSdW8X71Ihe34eKN6XhCi -Personality and it's Transformations
i've gone through these classes several times.  perhaps you should too.  you might learn something, ubu.

Ryan Swanson wrote: Somewhat apples to oranges here, but is it possible that we as a society has changed the perception and definition of PTSD? For example, I have multiple friends who served in the middle east, and were in many combat situations seeing many different things that one would quite possibly consider traumatic.  When they got back stateside, they had to sit through one on one lectures from some sort of mental health "expert" (who knows when they are employed by the government) that told them they all have PTSD.  It wasn't a "tell me how that makes you feel" or a "it's going to be ok", it was a "you are fucked up now, and we have medication for you."  All but one said they were fine, and that the shrink was full of crap.  The one that said he wasn't fine said he didn't realize he was sick till getting back.  A year-ish later, he took his life.

Again, apples to oranges, but seeing as post traumatic stress disorder seems to be the buzzword(s) of this thread, maybe someone can give me another perspective.

honestly it should just be called PTS.

Post-Traumatic-Stress is NOT A DISORDER.
it's a natural hard-wired biological response of the brain to surviving situations that the brain has perceived as being traumatic to a sufficiently severe degree.
psychiatrists have taken decades to try and figure this out, many of them had no idea how to "treat" it.

one of the reasons i've linked so much Jordan Peterson above... is that he completely understands how to treat it and help those who have it to understand / deal / and work through it.

Talking about sexual harassment matters, I have also read an article that might be useful for anyone at https://www.lemberglaw.com/what-is-workplace-sexual-harassment/. It's time to stop this crime. We need to be brave enough to speak up whenever we experience or witness such harassment.

I am confused as to why there is so much butt hurt about a study. It seems that this is an exploratory study. The people carrying out the study could find very little sexual harassment. It also seems as if they are soliciting reports from everyone, not just confining it to female respondents.

 It is one thing to criticize the methodology of a study. Another to whine about why it shouldn't be done and how women have ruined your life.

This thread has served a purpose it that I now know which members of this site I definitely do not want to climb with.

J Squared wrote:

honestly it should just be called PTS.

Post-Traumatic-Stress is NOT A DISORDER.
it's a natural hard-wired biological response of the brain to surviving situations that the brain has perceived as being traumatic to a sufficiently severe degree.
psychiatrists have taken decades to try and figure this out, many of them had no idea how to "treat" it.

Hmmm... can I take that and try to relate to it?
How about viewing it like this and accomodating both possible ideas:

1) PTS as you put it might be something like disturbed/disruptive behaviors or ideations.  More or less trait hyper-vigilance.
2) PTSD - the former taken to the level that is maladaptive to the point of Dysfunctional/Disordered behaviors or ideations that lead to such behaviors that are persistent over time and between environments.
The latter is what lies outside of normal parameters and is not part of the normal population or distribution, which is kind of the point of the DSM criteria.

Does that kind of work to form a model of things that works in your mind?

Tony B wrote:

Hmmm... can I take that and try to relate to it?
How about viewing it like this and accomodating both possible ideas:

1) PTS as you put it might be something like disturbed/disruptive behaviors or ideations.  More or less trait hyper-vigilance.
2) PTSD - the former taken to the level that is maladaptive to the point of Dysfunctional/Disordered behaviors or ideations that lead to such behaviors that are persistent over time and between environments.
The latter is what lies outside of normal parameters and is not part of the normal population or distribution, which is kind of the point of the DSM criteria.

Does that kind of work to form a model of things that works in your mind?

first i'll say... my response was to his quote about "has societies perception of PTSD changed".  not "what do the psychologists define PTSD as in the DSM"

but...

how do you actually separate #1 from #2 

most people don't seek help until they've already experienced post traumatic stress behaviours persistent over time.
you could argue for a "state of hyper-vigilance" for maybe the first day or two after the traumatic event.

sure doesn't seem like "outside normal parameters" considering the timescales that pretty much all PTS sufferers experience it on..
the majority of people have long-term, unresolved issues.  is that not why the DSM was created in the first place??
any unresolved trauma that is PTS worthy to the brain... will fester and worsen if it's never addressed (due to the entropic nature of the universe and the feedback loop nature of the brain).
what arbitrary length of time shall you assign where suddenly it's a "disorder" and "not part of the normal population"

the default state of the brain is one of "hyper vigilance".  the miracle is that anyone is calm at all.

I think that it may be useful to think of Post Traumatic Stress as a spectrum. People may be at different places in the spectrum depending on the severity of the experiences that caused it. But a given individual may be at different places in the spectrum depending in time elapsed since the event/s, exposure to additional stressors, and what is happening to them on a given day.

I thought that the term PTSD was going to be phased out in favor of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

J Squared wrote:

how do you actually separate #1 from #2 

most people don't seek help until they've already experienced post traumatic stress behaviours persistent over time.
you could argue for a "state of hyper-vigilance" for maybe the first day or two after the traumatic event.

sure doesn't seem like "outside normal parameters" considering the timescales that pretty much all PTS sufferers experience it on..
the majority of people have long-term, unresolved issues.  is that not why the DSM was created in the first place??
any unresolved trauma that is PTS worthy to the brain... will fester and worsen if it's never addressed (due to the entropic nature of the universe and the feedback loop nature of the brain).
what arbitrary length of time shall you assign where suddenly it's a "disorder" and "not part of the normal population"

the default state of the brain is one of "hyper vigilance".  the miracle is that anyone is calm at all.

Uhhh...  No.
You are correct that many people don't seek help initially, though some do, as the immediate effect of trauma can be quite acute and apparent.  It is generally not called PTSD right away.
The default state of the brain is normal vigilance, not hyper vigilance, and yes, it might be immediate, and it may or may not become persistent.
Yes, most people have long term unresolved issues, but some are more severe than others, and some people's reactions are different.  In short, some folks move on with their normal life without intervention and some do not.
The DSM was created in order to standardize what is diagnosable and what it is called.  Without a shared language or clinical criteria, people can not communicate well, which means that study and consensus are difficult, among other things.
Not all "PTSD-Worthy" events fester and worsen.  There are various things involved: Biological differences, cognitive predispositions, life circumstances, personalities, etc...  Studies have focused on things like "resilience" and why one person can move past trauma or tragedy on their own, but others may require support or intervention.  
In terms of the "arbitrary length of time' shall be assigned, well, I did not assign it.  The DSM-V does, however, define that period as "One Month," but as surely as some moths are 28 days and others 31, no clinician would reject a diagnosis at 26 days and make a patient wait 2 more and check back it.  So it's a guideline.  Have you read the diagnostic criteria?

Here you go:
https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/ptsd-overview/dsm5_criteria_ptsd.asp

In terms of your last statement, no, patently not.  "hyper" means something.  That's like saying "everyone is a genius" but the fact remains that while it can be sticky to define,the title is reserved for outliers, not everyone.  

Nate Ball wrote:

An incredibly patronizing metaphor. This is the women's forum after all. You know, that room the admins created specifically for talking about these issues. The statistic is obviously incorrect; the implication is what's important. It's almost like y'all are latching onto a single point and trying to make the discussion about that instead of the broader context that surrounds it. Golly, why would you want to do that?

A woman gives a statistic in the forum for women on a thread about a survey that is trying to create statistics about women's struggles. And you just throw it away, saying "the statistic is obviously incorrect."  

It is not obvious to women who have been harassed or worse things.  How is it obvious to you?

man, Tony B.. yer splitting some intense hairs here and getting rather off topic.  this ain't a clinicians forum...

J Squared wrote: man, Tony B.. yer splitting some intense hairs here and getting rather off topic.  this ain't a clinicians forum...

I don't think of it as splitting hairs at all.  I was responding to your post which seemed to be very very confused over what PTSD is and kind of read as if you thought we all had some form of it, whilst suggesting renaming it.
That demonstrates a lack of understanding of what it is, so I tried to explain.
And I can't explain a clinical thing very well without clinical terms.  I guess you can disclaim a clinical thing ignorant of the conditions of it and then just say it doesn't exist, and I can't stop you, but... Brushing off information with deliberate ignorance isn't a a very compelling method if you are trying to convince people of the initial position you took about the term.

wonderwoman wrote:

The statistic is obviously incorrect.  See my post buried on page 14.  Here are the cliff notes:

“I do not believe that 50% of the population has PTSD from sexual harassment.  I meant that women, who are more often subject to sexual harassment, make up 50% of the population.”

Why are you changing your facts?  We must try to be brave and do not let people bully us.

Tony B wrote:

I don't think of it as splitting hairs at all.  I was responding to your post which seemed to be very very confused over what PTSD is and kind of read as if you thought we all had some form of it, whilst suggesting renaming it.
That's kind of demonstrating a lack of understanding of what it is, so I tried to explain.
But see, I can't explain a clinical thing without clinical terms.  I guess you can disclaim a clinical thing ignorant of the conditions of it and then just say it doesn't exist, and I can't stop you, but... brushing off knowledge with deliberate ignorance isn't a solid form of disagreement.

see, you're the one that seems to be confused here. I almost want to call what you're doing mansplaining, as you've decided that since I didn't follow your tangent, I must be ignorant.

i'll say it again since you didn't seem to read it.  my post where I gave my opinions on post traumatic stress and it's name... was in a response to a question that was about "the public perception of PTSD". I was also trying to link it with wonderwoman's sentence about "roughly 50% of the population (i.e. women) is walking around with some form of PTSD". my initial response was not about "what is the clinical definition of PTSD".  anybody can go look that up.
whatever the clinical definition in the DSM for PTSD is at the time... is something that only matters between clinicians and maybe their patients at best. it is tangential to the public perception. (if you think "the public" has ever read even a page of the DSM then ho boy..)

i'm not trying to "disclaim a clinical thing".  you're just having a completely different argument.
perhaps you should think about "not being able to explain a clinical thing without clinical terms".  especially here, in this womens forum thread about the practicalities of sexual harassment/assault in climbing...

wonderwoman wrote:

Okay.  Please stop sticking up for me, now.

This is not about you.  It's is about a survey that is trying to collect numbers on sexual harassment and put numbers to the pain.  I believe that is important for women.

One thing you see here in this conversation is that men have been trying to discredit any numbers about these topics.  There was discussion and numbers of PTSD but now what do we know about the PTSD that women suffer?  Now people are just arguing about what to call it. None of the numbers that women have brought are being respected, just thrown away and called obviously wrong.

Will the same thing happen with the survey?  I am thinking it could be so.

JSH wrote: If you're curious about how growing up and living in a patriarchal society may have shaped you in ways you aren't aware of, this is the very best resource:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

It does not test for implicit bias towards race, but I imagine its results are similar.

The link also includes tests for implicit bias towards race.  I took a few of the tests while I was waiting for long running processes to complete.  Pretty interesting, and reasonably credible.  Thanks for sharing!

GO

STOP.  do NOT pass GO.  do NOT collect 200$

did you know that some of the creators of the IAT (the Implicit Assumptions Test) have finally released a statement that discredits the IAT ?? that it doesn't actually do what it purports to do, that it's reliability factor is nowhere near the clinical standard for an individual diagnostic test, and that they've known this for quite a while now... but never had the guts to come out and say that until recently??
(and that, "unconscious bias re-training" programs have a net ZERO effect on actual behaviour? and often a negative effect?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXPGuWQHqNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP0UjEb9PW0

you ought to learn more about neurology before you start guilt tripping yourself about your "implicit bias"
the brain processes meaning before objects.  perceptions are wired right into behaviours before abstract ideas about the object in question.  the reaction comes first, the abstraction of the idea comes second. (because ideas are more complex and they take too much time, reactionary "implicit bias" systems in the brain are like 2 neurons, they're basically instantaneous... so that you don't die in situations where the microseconds count)

you might also notice your own "implicit bias" in seeing that the IAT link has the word "harvard" in it, so you give it more credibility than it's actually due..

Jordan Peterson: "his arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and crude distortions of subjects"; "he’s buttressing his narrative with pseudo-facts, many of them created for the explicit purpose of promoting white nationalism, especially the whole notion of ‘cultural Marxism’"; "What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself"; "Peterson blows all of the familiar Breitbart- and Rebel-endorsed dog whistles"; "What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/
https://thewalrus.ca/the-professor-of-piffle/

Ryan Swanson wrote:

What in the hell does your anti white american male narrative have to do with this thread?

It's a response to all the Jordan Peterson videos. Lawl. I'm a white, straight, American male... but sometimes I recognize that I have more - wait for it - privilege... than others! But please continue your rant about how I'm derailing this 16-page thread.