Trust not too much in peer reviewed studies.
Yes, the difference being that those papers where checked and realized they where false, while this was checked and realized it wasn't.
I, of course, am well established and not semi-random, so, when I say "Ladies*, you should pee after intercourse to prevent urinary-tract infections" you should pee after intercourse to prevent urinary-tract infections.
Also, for no reason other than I just saw it on Facebook and it had a cute story about Sojourner Truth:
12 Historical Women Who Gave No F*cks
These are just some of the women who, historically speaking, didn’t give a single f@$@.
---
*Sorry about the heteronormativity.
IIRC, Eva was the source of the "satanist pedophile child sacrifice networks" scare in Sweden in the mid eighties. Naturally, nothing was ever substantiated, which was not unexpected: She claimed the networks had killed off about a dozen children, in a country where no children of the appropriate age had disappeared - in 85 that was simply impossible.
Regarding the peer review process, it is pretty clear by now that with enough of a political interest in the study, say, provided by Margareta Winberg in the government back then, any s#&$ty paper can be approved and cleared. The thing is, none of this changes subpar statistics. In the case of slagen dam, it is pretty obvious.
Another reason why Uppsala Universitet cleared her is probably that she was employed by the dean there, giving her a special form of employment as professor. Terminating this would reflect very poorly on the dean. Ergo... It was better to let the university pay the price in credibility than for the dean to do so.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, of course, am well established and not semi-random, so, when I say "Ladies*, you should pee after intercourse to prevent urinary-tract infections" you should pee after intercourse to prevent urinary-tract infections.
-snip-
---
*Sorry about the heteronormativity.
You could save yourself an apology by simply being more specific about the preventing the cause of the UTI. :P
You can also avoid the cisnormativity by referring to those who would be affected by vaginal UTI's as "people with vaginas," since not all women have vaginas and not all people with vaginas are women.
For those who are interested (and know swedish), here is the report given by those who determined if Eva Lundgren was guilty of scientific fraud. To sum it up: She didn't provide them with the raw data they asked her for, they found that she drew conclusions she had no support for, she did not question the theories she built the reasoning on nor did she provide any reasonable basis for why those theories were seen as sacrosanct, she handled data very poorly. They did not, however, find deliberate fraud, only incompetence and a touch of fanaticism. Among interesting conclusions they drew was that the data she had for "slagen dam" did not in any way support her conclusion that no type of man was more likely to beat - indeed, the data correlates the risk of violence significantly to both alcohol abuse and the man being born outside Sweden, if only competently analysed (Slagen dam was the result of a rather large poll among Swedish women about violence).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trust not too much in peer reviewed studies.Actually without peer review, we'd be far worse off. It's a peer review process that discovered the Scigen fakes. The test of peer review is not whether nonsense is prevented from entering scientific journals, it's whether it remains unrevealed.
The point is well-taken that peer review isn't perfect.
The point should also be well-taken that peer review is very good and one of the best tools we have for sorting sense from nonsense.
If you want absolute certainty, the math department is on the fourth floor. And the theology department is on the sixth. If you want something useful, however.....
To sum it up: She didn't provide them with the raw data they asked her for,
Actually, she did provide them with the data of Slagen Dam. The data she did not provide was personal interviews for another study, mainly from the 80's and 90's, which was completely different from Slagen Dam but that the inquiry chose to look into too. Claiming that she denied them raw data for Slagen Dam is dishonest and relies on people reading your post not actually reading the inquiry.
Among interesting conclusions they drew was that the data she had for "slagen dam" did not in any way support her conclusion that no type of man was more likely to beat
Actually, she made no such claim. Her claim was:
"Föreställningen om att män utövar våld mot en viss typ av kvinnor och att dessa män främst är invandrare, har alkoholproblem eller är lågutbildade är en myt."Translated (as good as I can manage):
"The idea that men exercise violence against a certain kind of women, and that these men are mostly immigrants, alcoholics or have low education is a myth."
Note that key word: _mostly_. Mostly =/= overrepresentation.
Immigrants, alcoholics and uneducated men are overrepresented. The men that are violent are not _mostly_ those groups. "Främst" pertains to a majority, not overrepresentation.
So yeah, that whole part was basically a huge straw man. Her data supports her assertion - that the majority of violence cases are not by these groups.
See this for reference;
Lundgren and others are pointing out that the majority of violent actions target women who are married to swedish-born men who have a job and don't abuse alcohol; because of this, any preventive measures should be broad. That there is a somewhat higher risk of being victimized by a man with alcohol issues thus isn't contradicting Lundgrens conclusion. It is thus two different questions; the distribution of violence victimization in absolute numbers, and the probability for victimization in various groups.
That article attributes it to a "misunderstanding", but I think they give the politically motivated inquiry far too much benefit of the doubt. Seeing how badly it was done in other regards, combined with explicitly excluding anyone who has any understanding of the field in question, in my mind points to a wish to discredit rather than an impartial analysis.
Their other main "criticism" is basically that she assumes things that are well-established scientific theories, namely the contiuum of violence (that different forms of violence exist in the same space, and that you cannot draw a very clear line between different forms of abuse; that, say, an open-hand slap does not have major inherent qualitative differences to a closed-fist punch) and the normalization of domestic violence (that victims of domestic violence internalize this and tend to be broken down mentally to where they don't regard the abuse as abuse but rather as normal). Both of these are well-established scientific theories.
What they say is basically "well, we know all studies rely on assumptions, but couldn't this study have proved those things too?" when they're already well-established. So that is criticism that could be applied to basically every study published ever, no matter how well-researched. And that is criticism that would not have existed if they included any sociologist, psychologist or someone from some other related field. Which they again chose not to do, instead they opted for a philosopher and a political scientist.
Regarding the peer review process, it is pretty clear by now that with enough of a political interest in the study, any paper can be subject of an additional inquiry.
Fixed that for ya. The right-wing was mad about the study, and so enforced an inquiry about it. And despite instituting an inquiry that explicity excluded anyone from her scientific field, and despite the inquiry saying various things it was not authorized to say (which it got criticism for later), and despite basically straw manning her study, they did not manage to find any concrete issue with Slagen Dam.
What a study done by asking Swedish women about men and being subjected to violence can find out IS that immigrants are overrepresented, not that violent men are MOSTLY immigrants. Way to go with the straw man. They had a material that dealt overwhelmingly with Swedish men, and yet those who were not were significantly more violent toward their women. It was the same with alcohol. And yet, Eva Lundgren drew the conclusion that these factors did not affect the risk of violence, and thus, that there was no difference of risk among men. The radical feminists of the time liked to chant this - "all men beat", which is directly from this passage. What Lundgren should have done is of course to split the material into various groups to make the comparisons the material invites. That she didn't shows precisely what the investigators state, that she had a theory and did not in the study question this at all, even if the material did not support it.
Slagen dam is badly done pseudoscience, which was well supported by the investigation. It was cleared because there was no sign that she had deliberately committed scientific fraud... but the scientific value of it is about as much as from an average McDonalds ad campaign. Except those that detail how many farmers they work with, or other similarly useful pieces of data. It was a study that required investigation.
I, of course, am well established and not semi-random, so, when I say "Ladies*, you should pee after intercourse to prevent urinary-tract infections" you should pee after intercourse to prevent urinary-tract infections.
-snip-
---
*Sorry about the heteronormativity.You could save yourself an apology by simply being more specific about the preventing the cause of the UTI. :P
You can also avoid the cisnormativity by referring to those who would be affected by vaginal UTI's as "people with vaginas," since not all women have vaginas and not all people with vaginas are women.
Shiznit, I'm a f#*+ing Teamster for Chrissakes. I'm surprised I didn't start it with "Youse broads..."
To clarify, what she did say was:
"Det går inte att hitta mönster som särskiljer misshandlare från andra män vad gäller alkoholkonsumtion, social utsatthet, utbildning, arbete, födelseort – eller personliga egenskaper och barndom.” (page 17 of Slagen dam)
In amateur translation, it's:
"No patterns can be found that differentiate violent abusers from other men regarding comsumption of alcohol, social vulnerability, education, work, place of birth - or personal traits and childhood."
This was a result of poorly done statistics. Several of the factors DID significantly increase the risk, among them place of birth and alcohol consumption. Claiming that that myth is dead was something she had no support for in the data she had.
This was what was interpreted by the extreme feminists of the early 2000s in Sweden as "all men beat", referring directly to precisely this passage in Slagen dam.
Fun Facebook IM conversation between me, the Commandant of the Scottish Republican Army, and Principessa Francesca:
Me: What is Manspreading, Comrade [XXXX]? I am familiar with mansplaining, but I haven't heard of that. (And if it's dirty, I'm gonna come up there and spank you.)
CSRA: Manspreading is when guys spread their legs and take up space on public transport.
Me: I cross my legs like a girl.
La Principessa: We talked about it with his D&D friend [Freehold DM].
La Principessa: And, yup, that's what [Commie Doodlebug] said.
CSRA: Good boy, the feminists will approve.
Me: Feminist chicks dig me.
La Principessa: You mean when we're not shouting at you.
Me: When feminists are shouting at me, they are secretly turned on.
CSRA: It's because they secretly want a man to tell them what to do.
Me: [Laughs loudly]
Me: Bad [CSRA]!
La Principessa: Ugh. You guys are terrible.
Me: I have taken the red pill.
CSRA: I am the red pill.
Me: Hee hee!
La Principessa: [Commie Doodlebug], you get feminists in SPITE of your bs, not because of it.
[I give the Commandant instructions about what's been going on with the organizing of our anti-police brutality demonstration in Lowell; tell the Commandant that allegedly there were lots of hawt chicks of color at the last planning meeting]
CSRA: Woah, really? This I've got to see for myself.
Me: Or so I've heard. I've been too busy mansplaining and manspreading in NYC to participate. [Self-flagellates] Now I've got to go do the dishes...
[Commandant asks when I am getting back to New England, I say it depends on when La Principessa wants to get up]
La Principessa: WTF do you mean when "I" want to get up? Like I have any say about where you are at any particular moment.
Me: I defer you to all in things, baby. How long does it take for you to get home so I can meet you downstairs at the door? And would you like some tea?
La Principessa: Showoff.
CSRA: This is getting awkward.
La Principessa: I'm getting Penny's [La Principessa's canine companion--Down with dogs!!!] food first. But that takes 5 minutes.
CSRA: Are you texting while driving?
La Principessa: [CSRA], no one asked you. Oh, and please GET OFF [DOODLEBUG]'S LAWN!!!
La Principessa: No, warming up the car.
Me: Yay! [Logs off to go wait outside in the cold]
Yeah, there's a reason for manspreading. Two reasons actually. Nether of them have anything to do with oppressing anyone. Avoiding oppression is the goal there.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Yeah, there's a reason for manspreading. Two reasons actually. Nether of them have anything to do with oppressing anyone. Avoiding oppression is the goal there.
-Name those reasons.
-Explain to me how taking up more than one's fair share of space in public transit "avoids oppression."
Yeah, there's a reason for manspreading. Two reasons actually. Nether of them have anything to do with oppressing anyone. Avoiding oppression is the goal there.-Name those reasons.
Left and right.
-Explain to me how taking up more than one's fair share of space in public transit "avoids oppression."
The engineers ideas of fair space are a little at odds with reality.
Yeah, the pictures that generally accompany those articles are of pretty dickish behavior.
But the fact is, I'm so tall that I take up more room -- especially on a bus where the distance between the seat in front and my own seat is actually less than the length of my femur.
As a result, I am physically forced to manspread, and if I do this in a way that is at all sustainable for a long period of time, it looks like I'm trying to put people off sitting.
As a result, I usually stand, but sometimes that just sucks.
So I have some sympathy, but I also think that talls like me have to try and be efficient with the space we take up. If that means standing when the train is packed, so be it. But if there are multiple seats (i.e. the train's not packed), then cut me a break people!
Yeah, there's a reason for manspreading. Two reasons actually. Nether of them have anything to do with oppressing anyone. Avoiding oppression is the goal there.-Name those reasons.Left and right.
Maybe you should go see a doctor about that?
If you really have physical reasons you need more space on buses or other transport with more cramped quarters, pay for two seats.
That's not really how public transportation works.
If you really have physical reasons you need more space on buses or other transport with more cramped quarters, pay for two seats.
I don't know where you're from. But in every place I've been in the United States, public transportation does not work that way.
I know, but the principle sort of applies. You wouldn't expect to get two seats on an airplane just because you're more comfortable that way. Or even non-public transport trains or buses - Greyhounds and long distance trains.
People really need to find a way to accommodate, at least when it's crowded. If there's plenty of room, sprawl all you want.
The principle does not apply at all. In all of those other options, you have the capacity to pay for multiple seats and can reasonably expect to actually get the room you pay for. Airlines and private busing companies are surprisingly willing to allow it when you throw money at them.
Plus, it tends to be a problem if one of the riders is nearly seven feet tall; a lot of public transportation seating is not designed with that in mind.
That said, if you want to talk about space issues, manspreading is not the primary problem; it's a juvenile complaint. So is the counter-complaint showing how much space women take up, or all of the efforts to show that women are the worse offenders (neither sex is innocent of causing the space problem). Both sides just need to grow up and learn how to share space and accommodate for practical needs... such as a guy who is nearly seven feet tall or a woman with a bunch of shopping bags needing more space. Because this is something people have been complaining about for years, and this is just the latest and pettiest version of it (talking about the coining of "manspreading" and the people behind it, as well as those trying to give rebuttals; not talking about people on here).
And, maybe, public transportation can go from the joke it mostly amounts to in this nation to something with some serious funding behind it. Just increasing the availability of it would do a lot to help ease the space issue in quite a few areas.
Yeah, the pictures that generally accompany those articles are of pretty dickish behavior.
What I see are a lot of tall people. Trying to balance on a bench that isn't deep enough to even reach your thighs so you're not swaying into the guy next to you every time the subway jostles is a pain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the pictures that generally accompany those articles are of pretty dickish behavior.
What I see are a lot of tall people. Trying to balance on a bench that isn't deep enough to even reach your thighs so you're not swaying into the guy next to you every time the subway jostles is a pain.
I ride the nyc subway every day. Manspreading happens. Sometimes it's necessary. Other times it's not. It's up the individual's anatomy, which is something that the complainers really, really don't want to address.
There may be biological reasons for some folks to spread out. It does not apply to the vast majority of those I see spreading those lower wings.
Well, its just how people sit sometimes, especially in poorly designed seats. Taking it as a social statement of male domination/ male privilege is just crying wolf. It becomes all that much harder to listen to a group telling me that there's something there I don't see when they go off the deep end with something like this.
People that are larger take up more space. Obviously a social statement. Look at that guy. In what world is he going to fit in one seat? You'd need a pound of crisco to wedge someone else in there with him no matter how he sat and he's not even fat. Yes, his legs are spread out, the alternative is for them to be folded up into his diaphram because the seat is shorter than his tibia.
People sitting six inches too low to the ground on a seat thats too shallow and too narrow are going to compensate for comfort somehow. Its not sitting at a desk.
If you want to do that too be a real subway rider and say fuggedabout it.
This issue would be solved if everyone would just be like me and cross their legs like a girl.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I find a couple of things interesting about this discussion:
The pro-spread arguments seem to rely on issues of size and testes.
First, this ignores tall non-men. If tall people of all genders were taking up too much space on public transit, I might be more inclined to see this as an issue of poor seat design, with unrealistic expectations of person-size. But I feel like if that were really the issue, anti-feminists would have quickly jumped on the "women do it, too!" train (possibly manspreading in protest) a lot more vocally. If y'all have seen any of that elsewhere (non-man spreading of complaints about it), I'd be open to hearing about it.
Second, the issue is one of excessive spreading, not to mention dudes taking up space in more ways than just manspreading. In that linked article, there is a blog mentioned called "Men Taking Up Too Much Space On The Train," which is either the source of this trend's blooming attention or a ready documentation of it. It is at least 50 pages long at 10 posts per page. Most of those are exemplary photos, with occasional responses to asks, etc., but even a very conservative estimate could put that at something like at least 300 photos. If you look through some pages, you'll notice a few things:
-manspreading by dudes who aren't very large, and who could fit into seats just fine
-manspreading at RIDICULOUSLY excessive angles--like the kind of space I would expect necessary to deal with inflammation or swelling as opposed to standard testes. If this was a medical blog called "Men Taking Public Transit To The Urologist," I might understand, but some of this is ridiculous.
-manspreading that pushes into and invades the space of other passengers (often women). Sometimes lateral, sometimes pushing their legs forward into others' spaces, sometimes taking up physical space while simultaneously talking way too loud on their phones, etc.
-men taking up several seats by putting their bags/legs/feet on them
Okay, though, real talk: is this the most important fight for gender equality today? Nah. But 1) it's possible to care about several things at the same time, and 2) this affects people as a common daily occurrence, and it's pretty clearly gendered. So here's what I'm requesting: be more conscious of it if you're doing it yourself, and recognize that this is an issue of men feeling entitled to take up more space than non-men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, the issue is one of excessive spreading, not to mention dudes taking up space in more ways than just manspreading. In that linked article, there is a blog mentioned called "Men Taking Up Too Much Space On The Train," which is either the source of this trend's blooming attention or a ready documentation of it. It is at least 50 pages long at 10 posts per page.
I don't know. I looked through some of those photos and, before I got bored, I realized that there were many, many photos of dudes only taking up one seat, but, apparently, running afoul of the mores of yuppie feminists who apparently think everyone should sit with their knees pressed together because...well, if I were to guess, because that's the way they sit in college-educated, upper middle class, yuppie (white?) circles.
"Oh, look there's a picture of a dude who's obviously coming from the airport and he has his luggage next to him! What an oppressor! And there's a dude sprawled asleep! How dare these lower-class riff raff with their exhausting menial jobs interrupt my commute to the investment banking firm!"
Down with liberal yuppie feminist gentrifiers!
For mass investment in public transportation and women's liberation through socialist revolution!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If y'all have seen any of that elsewhere (non-man spreading of complaints about it), I'd be open to hearing about it.
taking up extra space by putting bags on the seats
Most of those are exemplary photos, with occasional responses to asks, etc., but even a very conservative estimate could put that at something like at least 300 photos.
Most of the people in the photos doing the manspread are pretty tall. You need to make your femur shorter than the height of the seat somehow and that means putting it out or putting it at an angle.
I can find 300 pages of women doing similar things.
Hell, I can find 300 pages of 1900's or earlier period costume on the subway. It doesn't mean that there's some mass secret movement to return america to a time before florinated water, it just means there's a lot of crazy on the crazy train.
So here's what I'm requesting: be more conscious of it if you're doing it yourself, and recognize that this is an issue of men feeling entitled to take up more space than non-men.
You know what? No.
Men do not have to do everything the exact same way women do. Men are not wrong for being men. Men do not have the societal prohibition on spreading their legs that women do for some pretty obvious anatomical reasons. Not every waking moment of mens lives is dedicated to perpetuating the past zeitgeist of the patriarchy. I just want to sit in a seat designed by vindictive halflings and relax as much as possible anyway. If that means I need to sit in two seats designed by vindictive halflings then thats what I'm doing.
Next time i ride the subway, I'm doing this