Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

Can someone explain what “mansplaining” is? Asking for a friend

J Squared wrote: 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..

You have any citations/links for the above claims?

GO

Ryan Swanson wrote:
Thankfully, I identify as a male that doesn’t reduce women to sexual slaves. Gender #58

Colby Wangler wrote: Can someone explain what “mansplaining” is? Asking for a friend

Sure!

Tell your friend that 'mansplaining' it is:

1) v. A sexist term that is used by ignorant reductionists to attribute something that they they don't like, as well as the motivation for it, specifically to gender.  This is generally done despite not knowing if that assertion is true or not unless the speaker predicates or ends a statement with "because I am a man and you are a woman."

2) v. An overused and bigoted term that people somehow have come to accept in the supposed fight against bigotry.

3) v. Irony at its finest, See #2, above.

J Squared wrote:

 the availability of abortion clinics nearly everywhere

This is completely untrue. Abortion clinics are disappearing at an alarming rate. Where they continue to operate they are frequently more and more restricted in what services they can provide. 

Abortion is already almost out of reach for many low income individuals not lucky enough to live in an urban center. 

GabeO wrote:

You have any citations/links for the above claims?

GO

The only places you will find that is trying to take credit away from the IAT are not good quality, like this site vox.com:

This is not a place that prints the works of renowned scientists.

J Squared wrote:

for the last 40+ years... the introduction and wide spread adoption of: the birth control pill for women, the morning after pill for women, no fault divorce clauses, the availability of abortion clinics nearly everywhere. women seriously entering the workforce at all levels..  

all of which massively empowered the woman when it comes to "being forced into monogamy"

 overall, monogamy is declining more and more.

it's 2018 and you still think men are the slavers with all the power??  you'll find that all of the advancements in empowering women that i've listed above have actually made the men into the slaves...

the average man is just plain LUCKY if a woman decides to let him experience a monogamous relationship at this point...and she can, at any moment.. just say "nope" and cut and leave with the children.
perhaps you might see how that makes the landscape look for men of weak character, and how that might lead to increased sexual assault from those men.

(p.s.  I was raised entirely by women... and out of all those women in my family.. only my grandmother maintained a monogamous relationship for longer than a decade)

This is simultaneously a pitiful and terrifying point of view. No longer having someone subject to you does not equate to subjugation. 

It is arguable how widely available birth control and abortion really are for women - but birth control is also available to men, and men have no direct need of abortion. Men can also divorce their spouses. Men can also enter the workforce. One subset of humans gaining rights does not infringe on the rights of others. Unless you think men have the "right" to some specific type of relationship with a woman. They don't. Women can "nope" their way out of a relationship at any time, (though it's not always simple for all women, when they have an abusive, violent, or controlling partner), so can men. That is because being or staying in a relationship requires the consent of all parties. Someone else having the right to leave you doesn't infringe on your rights, because you don't have the right to be in a relationship with anyone against their will.

Equality only feels like oppression to those accustomed to being in the role of oppressor. 

Em Cos wrote:

This is simultaneously a pitiful and terrifying point of view. No longer having someone subject to you does not equate to subjugation. 

How is a monogamous relationship specifically subjugation of a woman by a man?  

I ask because, as a man, it strikes me that my optimum mating strategy (and thus optimum world) is one in which I knock up as many women as possible and don't have to raise any children, and I can't help but notice that is not the world we live in.  Instead, were I to have children, I would be expected to stick around, and I would not be permitted to knock up as many women as possible.

JNE wrote:

How is a monogamous relationship specifically subjugation of a woman by a man?  

I ask because, as a man, it strikes me that my optimum mating strategy (and thus optimum world) is one in which I knock up as many women as possible and don't have to raise any children, and I can't help but notice that is not the world we live in.  Instead, were I to have children, I would be expected to stick around, and I would not be permitted to knock up as many women as possible.

It's not, or it shoudn't be. I was referring to J Squared's claim that "you'll find that all of the advancements in empowering women that i've listed above have actually made the men into the slaves... "

I thought I made that clear by quoting and bolding. I don't know how to make my point about why this is such a disturbing attitude to have any more articulately than I did in my last post, so I guess if reading it again more carefully doesn't clear things up I don't know what else I can say.

ETA: if you're referring to what I think may be your perception that I was implying that a monogamous relationship is the subjugation in my statement "no longer having someone subject to you", I was not referring to monogamous relationships today, but to the rights J Squared was talking about women gaining. So, in the past, women could not work, access birth control, or divorce their spouses. They were very much subject to the "care" or control of their spouses and to men in general. This was not the very distant past nor is it completely gone today - women's bodily autonomy, for example, is in many ways subject to the whims of (primarily male) lawmakers, just as one example that is still legally sanctioned.
Women gaining rights, such as the examples J Squared put forward - the right to work, divorce, and access birth control - does not in any way infringe upon the rights of men or "make men into slaves". This is the point I was arguing.

Conflating the increase in rights and freedoms for women with the eradication of monogamous relationships is a point being made perhaps by J Squared and perhaps by yourself, but definitely not by me. Healthy, mutually consensual, monogamous relationships aren't going to be impacted by women being free to choose. Consider that if (some) men find it difficult or impossible to enter into a monogamous relationship, simply because women are now more free to choose, then those were not healthy, mutually consensual relationships in the first place, and have no place in free society. And, if (some) men are experiencing that difficulty, it does not mean they are slaves or their rights have been infringed upon, because no one has the "right" to a relationship with anyone, it has to be freely and mutually entered into. Just as no one has the right to sex. And no one has the right to become violent if they don't get these things. 

if you are as floored/disgusted/shocked at what you are seeing here as i am and realizing that REI sponsors this "INCEL" vitriol....the phone number for the REI PUBLIC RELATIONS TEAM: 253.395.3780 (do not press 1, it will just send the caller back to the sales queue) 

Em Cos wrote:

This is simultaneously a pitiful and terrifying point of view. No longer having someone subject to you does not equate to subjugation. 

It is arguable how widely available birth control and abortion really are for women - but birth control is also available to men, and men have no direct need of abortion. Men can also divorce their spouses. Men can also enter the workforce. One subset of humans gaining rights does not infringe on the rights of others. Unless you think men have the "right" to some specific type of relationship with a woman. They don't. Women can "nope" their way out of a relationship at any time, (though it's not always simple for all women, when they have an abusive, violent, or controlling partner), so can men. That is because being or staying in a relationship requires the consent of all parties. Someone else having the right to leave you doesn't infringe on your rights, because you don't have the right to be in a relationship with anyone against their will.

Equality only feels like oppression to those accustomed to being in the role of oppressor. 

Here is why I am still hopeful for the Women's Forum.

Men are saying they are oppressed here because women have a forum but men do not.  Only because men are in the past always being the oppressor.

Em Cos wrote:
Equality only feels like oppression to those accustomed to being in the role of oppressor. 

I am going to embroider this on a pillow. Beautifully put. Keep it up. 

It is true the real oppressor is always the one who feels they are oppressed.

Em Cos wrote: ETA: if you're referring to what I think may be your perception that I was implying that a monogamous relationship is the subjugation in my statement "no longer having someone subject to you"

Conflating the increase in rights and freedoms for women with the eradication of monogamous relationships is a point being made perhaps by J Squared and perhaps by yourself, but definitely not by me.

I agree with what you wrote but which I did not include in the above quote.  In the context of the thread, without the explanation you gave, I hope you can see how one might read "no longer having someone subject to you" to potentially be an attack on monogamous relationships in general, and also therefore why that same individual might not think you were someone who would write the second line I included in the above quote. Additionally, I hope you can understand how that same individual might instead think you potentially held the opposite view, and equated the increase in womens rights with the eradication of monogamous relationships, and furthermore potentially felt as if this was a good thing.  I genuinely thank you for clearing that up.  To be clear, I don't think the increase in freedoms for women in recent decades is any kind of innate threat to monogamy.

GabeO wrote:

You have any citations/links for the above claims?

GO

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831397/ 

"Commonly accepted ranges for internal consistency reliability are widely available, and often a coefficient >0.7 is sufficient for a classroom test used in SoTL (ie, some random inconsistency is not only expected but also allowed because no measurement can ever be perfect). However, life-changing decisions necessitate higher reproducibility of test scores, and internal consistency should be >0.80 or >0.90 on high or very high-stakes assessments "

https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html - here's a very in-depth article with many links and citations on the matter.

now.  do YOU have any citations which show that the IAT has a reliability factor of >0.8 ? given that the IAT is being used in "life changing decisions" i.e. https://www.independent.com/pr/2016/aug/29/sbpd-will-begin-implicit-bias-other-training/ 

in this 400+ reply thread.  the number of posts which contain "citations" is less than 10.
you're free to find the citations !

I'm not "conflating" increased womens freedoms with the decline of monogamy.  they're just both things that have happened in the last 40 years.  the decline of monogamy also has a lot to do with the rise of the welfare state.

JNE wrote: I agree with what you wrote but which I did not include in the above quote.  In the context of the thread, without the explanation you gave, I hope you can see how one might read "no longer having someone subject to you" to potentially be an attack on monogamous relationships in general, and also therefore why that same individual might not think you were someone who would write the second line I included in the above quote. Additionally, I hope you can understand how that same individual might instead think you potentially held the opposite view, and equated the increase in womens rights with the eradication of monogamous relationships, and furthermore potentially felt as if this was a good thing.  I genuinely thank you for clearing that up.  To be clear, I don't think the increase in freedoms for women in recent decades is any kind of innate threat to monogamy.

I agree, but this is not at all what I was addressing. My position, in direct contrast to what J Squared posted and that I was directly responding to, is that an increase in freedom and equality for women does not equate to an infringement upon freedoms for (or enslavement of, as J Squared put it) for men. 

Em Cos wrote:

I agree, but this is not at all what I was addressing. My position, in direct contrast to what J Squared posted and that I was directly responding to, is that an increase in freedom and equality for women does not equate to an infringement upon freedoms for (or enslavement of, as J Squared put it) for men. 

it's just as rediculous as women still thinking they're just sex slaves in america in 2018 (which is what I was responding to when I wrote that).  it's an incredibly simplistic view of an incredibly complex issue.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Wouldn’t it be best to look at populations for this? I’m guessing it is an evolutionary response. 

Male/female are roughly 50/50 for humans. Elk, for instance, is much more lopsided. Bulls/cows is in the 15/100 ratio. Some September, the bulls fight over the cows, and mate with as many as possible. That would be a bit tougher to do in that manner if their populations were equal. 

I also think of it in terms of evolution.  In the context of humans, there is a nine month gestation period and it takes 15+ years to raise a child in pretty much every culture.  This is a significant chunk of the lifetime resources of any individual.  This, I believe, largely determines our reproductive habits.  As far as population ratios, I could see it happening either way: either the population ratios reflect the chosen mating strategy or the mating strategy is partially a function of population ratios.  Can you think of any other annimals which require the same kind of lifetime resources to raise offspring as humans, but which employ a largely polyamorous mating strategy?

JNE wrote:

Can you think of any other annimals which require the same kind of lifetime resources to raise offspring as humans, but which employ a largely polyamorous mating strategy?

Easy. Elephants. The young are raised by a herd of females. I think they're smarter than we are, having all that help! 

Most primates are probably on that list, too. We are perhaps the only higher mammals who insist on going it alone, with no help from our "tribe". I thought of that often, in the wee hours of the night nursing a baby. I'm sure in another part of human history, I would have had a "herd" of females to help, also.

Best, OLH

I do not understand this talk about elephants.

It is important not to just talk, but to take action.  There is good advice here.  Call REI public relations and report mansplaining.  Sew inspirational words onto a pillow.  

This is how women win the struggle.