Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
I don't think the description you've just given of "pressured" is moot. Pretty much all of what you just offered as options are abusive.
Pressured means the person felt pressured. This it means that there was a feeling that they should consent to something against their wishes.
And that is a problem.
Pressured means the person felt pressured. This it means that there was a feeling that they should consent to something against their wishes.
And that is a problem.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Feeling pressure to...
...do the laundry.
Persuasion is pressure.
The ambiguity is obvious.
...do the laundry.
Persuasion is pressure.
The ambiguity is obvious.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- discovolante
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Being 'persuaded' to do something can make it much more difficult to take the position that what the persuader is trying to do is wrong. 'I was only asking...' etc.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Seriously? You think that feeling you really should do some laundry is IN ANY WAY comparable to the subject under discussion here? As dyqik says, context is everything. Refusal to believe victims even if that's on the level of quibbling about data rather than looking at the bigger picture being indicated is a pretty fair indicator of a general attitude towards us, too.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
The whole point of this thread is quibbling. This is the quibbling safe-apace.Tessa K wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:56 amSeriously? You think that feeling you really should do some laundry is IN ANY WAY comparable to the subject under discussion here? As dyqik says, context is everything. Refusal to believe victims even if that's on the level of quibbling about data rather than looking at the bigger picture being indicated is a pretty fair indicator of a general attitude towards us, too.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
There's quibbling about data and there's making really bad comparisons...username wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:00 amThe whole point of this thread is quibbling. This is the quibbling safe-apace.Tessa K wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:56 amSeriously? You think that feeling you really should do some laundry is IN ANY WAY comparable to the subject under discussion here? As dyqik says, context is everything. Refusal to believe victims even if that's on the level of quibbling about data rather than looking at the bigger picture being indicated is a pretty fair indicator of a general attitude towards us, too.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
I'm showing that the words can have more than one sense. When a number of words with more than one sense are put together in a question with multiple choice answers that also have more than one sense the results are going to be unreliable. GIGO.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
... which is why we're saying context is all. Keep up.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Pressured is the first in the list of terms and most likely to get an ambiguous interpretation*. The more I think about the survey the more it appears designed to garner big numbers. Professional surveyors know how to manipulate likely responses.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
The comparison with doing laundry is pretty off. There's an obvious contextual difference between household chores and receiving violence during sex.
But the thing is, even if we take username's apparent belief that 38% of women have been nagged into being gently slapped, choked, gagged or spat on during sex when they would have preferred not to be - however plausible that reading of the survey may in fact be - I think most of us would agree that that is still a problem.
I can't come up with an interpretation of the data that is more generous than that to men. Any advance on nagging and gentle violence?
But the thing is, even if we take username's apparent belief that 38% of women have been nagged into being gently slapped, choked, gagged or spat on during sex when they would have preferred not to be - however plausible that reading of the survey may in fact be - I think most of us would agree that that is still a problem.
I can't come up with an interpretation of the data that is more generous than that to men. Any advance on nagging and gentle violence?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
You haven't shown anything other than that you don't understand social science.
To criticize question wording like this without it being stupid nitpicking, and revealing of your biases, you first need to show that enough people would not understand it to render the results suspect. You've made no attempt at that.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
By the way, one of the first things to do if you suspect that there's an issue with question wording on a survey is to go and look at the trial phase of the survey, where things like question wording are tested by following up with participants, or are tested as part of live interviews. That might be part of this survey program, or this form of words may have been tested previously in other surveys or methods.
What you shouldn't do is assume that the researchers just write down questions then send the survey out without thinking about it first.
What you shouldn't do is assume that the researchers just write down questions then send the survey out without thinking about it first.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
There are other testimonials lauding more scientific approaches to be fair.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Are you actually theorist?
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Getting pretty gung ho with the ad homs against posters.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Pointing out that the survey company had a commercial motive and that the researchers had a publicity motive is also an ad-hom argument.
I notice you are still ignoring my question. You have thought up all sorts of possible alternative readings of various questions. What you need to do next is think it though, specifically and in detail: so what?
For example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
If an unsupported statement is made about pretesting etc. I am at perfect liberty to look at the offerings of the survey company. That's not an ad hom at a poster, and if a company is in the business of conducting surveys to build stories, in the context of discussing possible flaws in a survey it's pretty relevant.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pmPointing out that the survey company had a commercial motive and that the researchers had a publicity motive is also an ad-hom argument.
It is unambiguously not supported by the data.I notice you are still ignoring my question. You have thought up all sorts of possible alternative readings of various questions. What you need to do next is think it though, specifically and in detail: so what?
For example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
I agree with you. We can't (without access to the raw data) get separate results for different kinds of behaviours.username wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:47 pmIt is unambiguously not supported by the data.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pmFor example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
How about "10% of women have experienced slapping (where a partner strikes you with open hand on any part of body), choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure), gagging (where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item) or spitting (where a partner spits on you) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to."?
Last edited by El Pollo Diablo on Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed quote fuckup
Reason: Fixed quote fuckup
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
No for different reasons as seem at length in previous posts.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:13 pmI agree with you. We can't (without access to the raw data) get separate results for different kinds of behaviours.username wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:47 pmIt is unambiguously not supported by the data.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pmFor example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
How about "10% of women have experienced slapping (where a partner strikes you with open hand on any part of body), choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure), gagging (where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item) or spitting (where a partner spits on you) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to."?
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Hmm. I think, then, that I haven't understood how the different parts of your argument work together.
I agree that we don't know, for example, whether the acts in question were done gently or violently. But I don't think you've ever suggested that they didn't take place at all.
I agree that we don't know in a lot of detail how the acts were unwanted. They could have been sprung by surprise, or they could have been reluctantly agreed to in advance as part of a quid pro quo.
But given the following points, which I've not seen you disagree with:
- 1416/2002 respondents said that they had experienced at least one of those behaviours at least once
- of them, 753 said that the behaviour was unwanted on at least one of the occasions that it occurred
it's hard for me to conclude other than that 753/2002=37.6% of respondents had unwantedly experienced at least one of those behaviours in some form or other in a way that they subsequently described as "unwanted".
For all the points of uncertainty that you have raised, which are all in some way valid, I don't see how any combination adds up to a negation of that result. Am I missing something?
I agree that we don't know, for example, whether the acts in question were done gently or violently. But I don't think you've ever suggested that they didn't take place at all.
I agree that we don't know in a lot of detail how the acts were unwanted. They could have been sprung by surprise, or they could have been reluctantly agreed to in advance as part of a quid pro quo.
But given the following points, which I've not seen you disagree with:
- 1416/2002 respondents said that they had experienced at least one of those behaviours at least once
- of them, 753 said that the behaviour was unwanted on at least one of the occasions that it occurred
it's hard for me to conclude other than that 753/2002=37.6% of respondents had unwantedly experienced at least one of those behaviours in some form or other in a way that they subsequently described as "unwanted".
For all the points of uncertainty that you have raised, which are all in some way valid, I don't see how any combination adds up to a negation of that result. Am I missing something?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Yes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.
Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
But why?
The fact that there is some general uncertainty about how acts were performed and how people felt doesn't mean that we have to completely distrust the entire thing, AFAICT.
Nothing that you've posted suggests that either
(a) respondents reported that behaviours happened when they didn't,
or (b) that respondents said the behaviours were unwanted when in fact they were wanted.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
To echo BOAF - in what way?username wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pmYes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.
Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
Is there some selection bias in the respondents? Is there some bias in the respondents' responses? Is it something else?
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
There are three pages here expressing problems with phrasing, aggregation etc. There's even a thread on good causes and bad stats over there with a link to a great blog post.jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:36 pmTo echo BOAF - in what way?username wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pmYes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.
Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
Is there some selection bias in the respondents? Is there some bias in the respondents' responses? Is it something else?
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.