Former student sues LSE over its ‘gender bias’

James Jones

Dolorous wrote: »

Right, except this guy gave the course just six weeks before jacking it in completely, he couldn't possibly have given it a chance. Most people can see here that he had a chip on his shoulder from the get-go.

Maybe most people HERE in TTL do see that but most of the comments HERE seem to think otherwise. I thought the one by Phillyguy was interesting:

Sorry- but I took a Sexuality class (I thought I'd get an A!).Very quickly (maybe 3 weeks- maybe more) did I realize that the theme was:"Gay men and women good, Straight men EVIL".The problem is any essay a man writes is then deconstructed as wrong and you get a mediocre to bad grade- and grades matter- a lot.
Its the same with African American studies- I've heard naive students- who wanted to actually learn something different- taking these courses- to be rewarded with low grades and to be treated as targets for classroom diatribes.
Exactly how long does it take for someone to realize they are being discriminated against? Why is three weeks too short? I imagine that was when he got his "deconstructed " paper back-

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

That sounds like a good point Permabear. Playing devil's advocate (genuinely because I know NOTHING about Gender studies/women's studies), could they be focusing on male homosexuality and female sexuality etc because that has traditionally (and arguably still is) seen as 'other' - i.e. that male heterosexuality has been treated as the norm for so long?

If the focus is exclusively on women/gay people then obviously it is biased but it also seems to me that neglecting to analyse and challenge stereotypes of male identity and sexuality is akin to shooting themselves in the foot i.e. they would then also be assuming that male sexuality etc is the 'norm' and is not a social construct etc?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

it's legitimate at this point to ask why, if Women's Studies has been renamed Gender Studies as a gesture of inclusivity, such departments still typically have hardly any male faculty and still offer courses only on topics of interest to women

I didn't say it wasn't legitimate to ask that question. In my previous post, I agreed with you on this. I think women's issues/topics are relevant to men but that's a side point. Again, I'm trying to understand why the bias exists now. One possibility is that some people feel that those groups are still seen as 'other' etc. (Let me make clear - my opinion: bias = bad).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's pretty disgraceful and it would be extremely difficult for Swarthmore to argue that they are not sexist. If that's the course content of those courses, do they have any place in modern society? Should they be confined to the past along with such things as when women didn't have the right the vote?

Even a modern, scientific university such as UL has similar topics on their equivalent course:

http://www2.ul.ie/web/WWW/Services/Research/Graduate_School/Prospective_Students/Graduate_Programmes/Taught_Programmes/Arts,_Humanities_&_Social_Sciences/Gender_Culture_%26_Society

LeeHoffmann

I agree with you on most things you said there Permabear.

This is especially true on today's university campus, where male students are in the minority.

I'm wondering whether there is much of a difference between the number of male and female students? I've heard (as we all have) that girls are out-performing boys in the Leaving Cert but I'm wondering whether the difference is marginal or substantial

Should sexuality be a focus of gender studies? I'm asking because I think female sexuality is still mainly misunderstood and so, this should perhaps be a focus of a gender studies course (in my extremely ignorant and humble opinion). However, I also think that stereotypes of male sexuality should be analysed etc in this context as well. According to wikipedia, men's studies is a sub-category of gender studies - i.e. it would seem that gender studies is not meant to be exclusively focused on women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies#The_development_of_gender_theory

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

Irish universities currently have 57 percent female, 43 percent male enrollment.

This seems marginal to me. I wonder whether there's much difference in numbers between employed male and female academics

Of the students who earned 450 points or more in 2010, 61 percent were girls, 39 percent boys.

That is a substantial difference. Do you know if it carries forward to university results?

"Sexuality studies" are more often focused on sexual orientation, though.

That's a pity

Elle Collins

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I disagree Permabear. I think that views like yours expressed above are actually easy to form because women's secondary place in society is so entrenched as to slip by unnoticed. It is much more difficult to see what is wrong with what's encountered every day to the point where it's considered normal.

Elle Collins

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

This seems marginal to me. I wonder whether there's much difference in numbers between employed male and female academics

There was a huge male > difference in my experience of university.

LeeHoffmann

mine too, but I assume there's great variance between courses and that it evens out overall

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

57% to 43% is not a massive difference imo. Anything around the 70 to 30 split is worrying

Men still make up the majority of academics

Yes but by what margin? It would be good if we could compare the numbers in higher education to the numbers achieving the best jobs.

The picture that comes out of the scant info we have on this thread is that women are better educated but men have the top jobs. That's equality for ya. (and I mean that to work both ways). Permabear, do you have links for the figures you quoted? I'd like to have a read

It implies (for example) that one woman in three will be unable to find an equivalently educated partner.

You seem to think that this is some major problem. Not the genders of the people - I mean, that somebody would have a less educated partner. I don't see that as any real issue, unless there were huge differences in terms of level of education - e.g. if most women were educated to Masters/PhD level while most men had only completed the Junior Cert.

Dudess

Dolorous wrote: »

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

It's not just you D. And women thanking it too.

Baffles me how some women (and men) feel the need to apologise for their gender...

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just wondering - but did you have a problem with this when it was the other way around? Your tone suggests you think it is wrong for two people of differing educational backgrounds to breed be partners.

Regarding men in high paying and prestigious jobs - perhaps we have simply decided that it isn't in societies best interest to maintain those ratios. Whilst you don't come out and say it you seem to believe/suggest that Gender studies methods don't have a role to play in the study of society. I would disagree, whilst acknowledging the current practictioners might not be doing the best job of it. There is a distinct bias in many humanities subjects towards men, and one (gender studies) where there currently exists a perceived bias towards woman, probably reflective of its origins. Is this really a problem? If it is I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think its wrong precisely at the time the gender worm appears to be turning (presumably not in your favour?).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

English Literature would jump out at me as being predominantly about the study of male authors. Should it be renamed Male English Literature? I imagine its entirely possible to go through an English degree without reading books by women, unless your uni offers an elective presumably in collaboration with the Gender Studies department.

Woman in Society - is a short (snappy) title. Really what that should be written out as is something more like Woman in Male Dominated Society which is (probably) more accurate but also more confrontational. Gender can't really be studied in isolation, so studies of one have no meaning without the other. The contrast defining them. I think calling it woman's studies is limiting its scope and too defensive a name. Other posters have pointed out that it isn't limited to one gender anyway.

PS: That's twice I've been caught out by your tone/writing style. So, apologies for taking you up the wrong way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I say this as a man and as an Engineer, not a person well versed in Sociology, but would it be a good idea to have a Gender Studies subject in second level education? And not a Women's Studies subject disguised as Gender Studies but something inclusive of both sexes and all sexual orientations?

Again speaking as a man, I think it would be a great outlet for male teenagers, give them a voice and a platform to examine their valid issues along with female issues. Modern society has had a terrible impact on male youth and maybe this could help reverse the damage and save the lives of all those too many men lost to suicide. It would also give young people a better appreciation of the issues faced by the opposite sex, which can only be a good thing I think.

animaal

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

This seems marginal to me.(

If my sums are correct, it means there are 25% more women than men (43 men for every 57 women). Whether or not it's justifiable, it definitely is significant.

If men were paid on average 25% more than women, would that be considered marginal?

Carlos Orange

animaal wrote: »

If my sums are correct, it means there are 25% more women than men (43 men for every 57 women). Whether or not it's justifiable, it definitely is significant.

If men were paid on average 25% more than women, would that be considered marginal?

Probably not but it might be if women were paid 25% more than men.

Looks more like 33% to me anyway.

LeeHoffmann

If 57% of university students are female and 43% are male, then that means that they are each only 7% off it being a pefect 50/50. If 57% of university students were male and 43% were female, would you see this as a substantial difference or a worrying problem? Perhaps you would, but I wouldn't. The only way you're going to get 50/50 splits is if you enforce them by law.

There is a 14% difference between the sexes in terms of third level education, with women having greater participation. However, there is a 13% difference between the sexes in terms of pay, with men earning more. Apparently the pay gap has widened since the recession hit in 2007. According to the CSO, in 2010 46% of those in employment were women. This means that the employment gap was 8% in favour of men last year. Men had an average of 8 hours more of paid employment per week than women. When the extra hours were taken into account, the hourly earnings showed a 10% difference in favour of men.

While these figures shows general trends, I find that none of them present worrying differences or gaps (apart from pehaps the latter re: number of hours of paid employment - I find this worrying for reasons affecting both genders but that's another issue).

So to summarise...women lead in terms of university education by 14%, men lead in terms of pay by 13%, men lead in terms of employment by 8%. None of these differences seem substantial enough to be worrying imo.


Sources:
http://www.nwci.ie/news/2011/08/22/gender-pay-gap-has-widened/
http://www.cso.ie/newsevents/pr_womenandmen2010.htm
http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/women-better-educated-but-still-earn-less-than-men-143938.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

Some fuzzy maths going on here, IMO.

50% - 43% = 7%. 57% - 50% = 7%. Therefore both are only 7% off the ideal breakdown of 50% male 50% female. This is equivalent to a difference of 14% as obviously the percentages for male and female are proportional to each other. What am I missing here?

If only 39 percent of the students getting over 450 points in the LC were girls, or if only 43 percent of university students were women, it would certainly be seen as a worrying problem. There would be studies, task forces, inquiries, Prime Time specials all asking why girls were underperforming boys in school and not advancing to college in equal numbers. And rightly so, I might add.

I asked would those posters find it worrying - not whether some organisation would decide that research needs to be done to discover the cause of it.

Studies of IQ find little difference in the intelligence of the average male and average female, so when disparities like this are found, there are generally social and cultural explanations.

I thought recent studies suggest that men have the highest and lowest IQ's while women had a higher average IQ? I thought that had been discussed in this thread but I guess two different threads on similar topics have fused together in my mind. I'll see if I can find that other thread

In the 25-34 age bracket in 2010, women's earnings were 88.4 percent of men's, and the difference can almost entirely be accounted for by the greater number of hours worked by men. If we look at older workers, we do see a far more dramatic wage differential.

Can you show me links Permabear so I can catch up on what you're reading? In the links I provided, it said that when the longer hours were accounted for, there was still a 10% pay gap. It made no distinction for different age brackets.

In the 55-64 age bracket, women's earnings were just 57 percent of men's, which does illustrate the bias and discrimination against women that existed in the Sixties and Seventies

Why do you say this illustrated the bias in the 60's and 70's if the gap still exists today? If a woman is e.g. 60 years old, she probably started working about 40 years ago i.e. in the 1970's. When do you think the bias ended? Let's say it ended in the 1990's..why are these women still so far behind men in terms of pay? Why have they continued to be hindered? Do you think that the first twenty years of their employment held them back to such an extent that, even when the bias ended, they could never catch up beyond 57%? [This may read like a contra-argument but it isn't - I'm just probing because I'm not sure what the argument is and would like to know more]

here's the key point: While the educational experiences and professional expectations of young women today are dramatically different from those of their mothers and grandmothers, the tendency within Women's Studies (and/or Gender Studies) to represent women as an oppressed underclass and men as their privileged overlords has not changed much since the '70s.

I haven't said anything to the contrary and agree that gender studies should study both male and female issues etc

Currently, 45 percent of men under 25 are unemployed. Almost 15 percent of males leave school early, and PISA 2009 reported the alarming fact that 23 percent of Irish 15-year-old males have not acquired the literacy skills required to function in a today's society.

Again please link to your sources, not that I don't believe your numbers but I'd like to read it for myself. How do these figures compare to women of the same age etc?
In one of the sources I linked to, it stated that 32% of men between 20-24 and 19% of women in the same age group were unemployed in 2010. If you couple that with the fact that there are more young men who aren't currently studying, you have a much stronger case. 13% more men unemployed + 14% more men not getting an education = significant.

Given your reasoning, there's no great difference between the unemployment rate of 5 percent that we had back in 2006 and the 14.5 percent we have today. Sure, there's only a 9.5 percent difference. That's not substantial enough to be worrying, surely?

What do you think my reasoning is? Your comment makes little sense to me.

Of course a rise from 5 to 15% unemployment is worrying, but you are not comparing like with like. The fact 'of all students, 57% are women and 43% are men' cannot be compared to 'unemployment rose from 5 to 15%' in this way because the former swings around a central median (perfect) point of 50% - i.e. the ideal is 50/50, while the latter does not swing around an ideal median - i.e. 0% unemployment is the ideal point. Therefore, in the former a degree of difference is normal - it's only the extent of the difference that matters i.e. a rise or fall in the proportional percentage of one gender's level of attendance is not necessarily a good/bad thing; wheras in the latter any rise is necessarily negative and any fall is necessarily positive. [Just to be really clear, if 13% less men were studying at university than in previous years, that would necessarily be a bad thing. However, the fact that, 'of all the students that are attending university, 13% less of them are male' is not necessarily a bad thing <---this is an explanation of my point, not an argument)

When analysing a split between men and women, you are always going to see one side performing better than the other. Rather than always getting up in arms about the other side having a better current performance, I think we should look at the size of the difference and whether the difference is increasing. I think you expect this trend to continue and for less and less men to take up third level education, wheras I don't don't have a reason to think that this will necessarily happen. Maybe you have extra knowledge or stats that I don't have that would prove your expectation to be likely? If so, please share.

My point in highlighting those differences (i.e. 14%, 13%, 8%) was to demonstrate that such percentage differences are not always in favour of women and, more importantly, to answer posters who suggested that I'm not bothered because it's only men who are losing out- i.e. that I would be up in arms if the difference favoured men.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

interesting overview, though I'm not sure it covers much more than what's been said on thread
http://www.test-de-inteligencia.es/articulos_inteligencia/sex_intelligence_iq.html

um7y1h83ge06nx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A huge reason for this in Ireland I believe was the lure of construction jobs when the boom was alive and well. Therefore more men than women have trade qualifications (apprenticeships) and more women than men have third level qualifications. And now as the construction industry has collapsed more than any other industry in Ireland, it is more men that are unemployed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

You're trying to dismiss the disparity as insignificant, when it simply isn't.

I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm happy to discuss it. I've given my reasons for why I find it to be a marginal difference. You haven't given me any reason to think it's significant, nor have you discussed or acknowledged my reasons.

You are finally acknowledging my point.

I find this offensive tbh. Whch point is it that you think I am ''finally'' acknowledging? I agreed with you that men's issues should be studied from the start. This:

If you couple that with the fact that there are more young men who aren't currently studying, you have a much stronger case. 13% more men unemployed + 14% more men not getting an education = significant.

is not acknowledging your point because you didn't make that point. I made it for you (please see the underlined).

Surely you see that if a woman has been hindered her whole life by inequitable access to educational and professional opportunities, it's pretty difficult for her to start catching up when she's in her mid-40s, even if discriminatory obstacles have been removed? Educational and professional differences are cumulative, and wages in many professions tend to be based on experience and seniority.

I do see that it's hard for her to catch up. I asked whether it's hard to the extent that she can't catch up beyond 57%? I asked for your thoughts on this but I guess you don't want to give them. Maybe this is a discussion for another thread.

All of the above is at complete variance with the message promoted by Gender Studies departments. Simply, academics have spent so long portraying women as an oppressed and subjugated group that they have become highly resistant to accepting the reality that exists in 2011 rather than the reality that existed in 1971.

Again, I never argued against this

With more people spending longer on the dole early in life, the implications of the current crisis for future incomes (and for men's incomes relative to women's) is going to be absolutely huge.

I agree about the implications of the dole on future income. It's frightening when you think about it.
Do you think that women are going to tear away and run the country in the next couple of decades with men failing to get a decent level of education and being stuck in menial low-income jobs?

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To a certain extent, I think the problem of women's/gender studies departments reflect a broader issue within academia: in any department, it takes ages to change the curriculum and the focus of the faculty - witness the fact that there are still 'Soviet studies" professors in political science departments. Add in the fact that faculty tend to hire those who support or reflect their research perspective, and it is very hard to shift the focus.

Also, a lot of research is driven by funding. So if governments and non-profits are interested in funding research looking at the issues of women in the workplace, for example, to a certain extent, that will drive the agenda.

I would agree that one of the most interesting and challenging questions facing gender studies is the shift in educational attainment between young men and women, and the implications for employment, lifetime earnings, and family life. But given how broad this is, would it not make more sense to explore these issues through an interdisciplinary research group, rather than a stand-alone department? There are economic, political, and sociological implications here - why not bring people together from across these fields?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But, again, I do not think that this is necessarily unique to women's studies. Take security studies, for example. Many of these folks initially supported the war in Iraq. But people who study, for example, ethnic politics or democratization were quite skeptical. Those people were generally excluded from the original debates about the advisability of US military action in the region. An anthropologist or historian familiar with Iraq (or Afghanistan) would almost certainly have taken quite a different approach (indeed, the US Department of Defense actually actively sought out anthropologists to advise them on Afghanistan several years after that misadventure began).

Social science in general often lets the politics get in the way of good research, whether it comes to education (where inner-city school districts are treated as laboratories), security, or gender studies. Try as some might (ahem, economists!), the social sciences are relatively subjective compared to the natural sciences. Politics often drives the research agenda, in no small part because politics are tied to funding. However, gender studies makes a more convenient political punching bag, in part because it does not have the weight of longevity nor a generally accepted analytical/methodological approach the way other more established fields such as anthropology or economics do, but also because the impetus behind the development of a gender studies program is inherently political in and of itself.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This sums it all up for me, I'm late thirties, and have worked in IT for 14 years. I've done ok, and ended up with very specialist qualifications which whilst not technical are very important in IT. I've worked in several management/consulting positions, and now frequently interview/manage men and women who are older than me (usually male, it's a male dominated industry)

I look at women like Ann Geraghty as examples of how women have achieved here

It's not even forty years since the marriage ban, and whilst I have come across anti women behaviour in my career, it's been far outweighed by respect for my qualifications and achievements. I'm not saying I will ever break any new ground or become a leading light, but quietly in previously male dominated professions (my example being IT) I see more and more women rising up through the ranks and assuming senior roles, and it being accepted as entirely normal.


Statistics in the UK indicate that the predominance of women in medical studies will adversely affect the availability of doctors in the future due to the tendancy of women to become GP's/take up family friendly careers.

I'd love to see a gender studies course that looks at career choices and why different genders choose as they do.

I remember 20 years ago being advised to studying engineering, but I hated physics, and didn't. Don'tcha know I ended up in IT, with an endless fascination as to how bridges and tunnels are built

doopa

Stheno wrote: »

I'd love to see a gender studies course that looks at career choices and why different genders choose as they do.

I remember 20 years ago being advised to studying engineering, but I hated physics, and didn't. Don'tcha know I ended up in IT, with an endless fascination as to how bridges and tunnels are built

Can't open the doc to check (crap internet)

www.susanpinker.com/docs/chatelaine.pdf

Basically googled:
susan pinker gender roles employment

Seen her give a really good talk on gender and employment. There is some great stuff on risk as well (which may be related anyway). Though I would caution people to stay away from anyone who attempts to put an evolutionary slant/perspective on it.

DeVore

Sorry some of the maths here is dangerously wack.

You need to read up about standard deviations and hypothesis testing. Its not as complex as it sounds. Here's a good start from Yahoo Questions:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080309233302AABO0fr


DeV.

fatmammycat

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/09/on_tom_martins_

This Tom Martins is engaging in a publicity stunt, it seems. Unpleasant person.

DeVore

Which is as valid as saying Germaine Greer shouldnt be listened to because she's ugly.


A point is not responsible for the person making it.


DeV.

harrietharmman

Tom Martin has now posted a video on youtube of him discussing the case with LSE feminists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6y9_oklmHvU

it's nothing short of brilliant and really entertaining viewing and the ignorance of the students is astounding. My favourite part is where the feminist realises she's lost the argument and just starts shouting insults at him. If his case is half as good as his video then he'll win easily.

Tea-a-Maria

I closed that video halfway through because I could not tolerate listening to that sanctimonious twat any longer!

From the part I did watch,it seems to me that he was looking to provoke the students and grab a few juicy sound bites, rather than engaging in reasonable discussion with them.Hardly the good basis for academic debate now is it?

I'd definitely agree with fatmammycat that it smacks of a publicity stunt.

Wibbs

Watching that the mental shutters were coming down on both sides at times IMHO.

harrietharmman

Wibbs wrote: »

Watching that the mental shutters were coming down on both sides at times IMHO.

I didn't see that. Martin won every discussion hands down - admittedly he's the editor so has a degree of influence over what to include but he simply asking the most fundamental questions about sex discrimination and the students were shown to be ignorant of the most basic of facts as well as extremely offensive and abusive in some cases.

Such ignorance is reflcets more poorly on those running LSE's gender department rather than on the students themselves. It shows that they suffer too from been "educated" in a totally one sided and agenda driver fashion. They're paying good money for the course and have the right to be a decent education and to be able to develop a broad and full knowledge of the complexities of gender issues rather than been force fed the childish "women are good and men are bad" view.

Podge_irl

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm happy to discuss it. I've given my reasons for why I find it to be a marginal difference. You haven't given me any reason to think it's significant, nor have you discussed or acknowledged my reasons.

It's not a marginal difference. A 57/43 split means there is 33% more women then men. It's a 14 point gap, not a 14% gap. Put another way, Men are going to university at a rate of 75% of women. That's actually quite a lot larger then the gender pay gap.

I do see that it's hard for her to catch up. I asked whether it's hard to the extent that she can't catch up beyond 57%?

Absolutely. Not having the requisite education and training in her early career will more then likely have funnelled the woman into a career path that simply doesn't have the same opportunities for advancement. It's very difficult to get out of that as a 40 year old, unqualified woman no matter what barriers have lifted in the interim. The pay gap isn't just because men are paid more for the same jobs (it's rarely ever that), it's because they're in better paid jobs. The men of the same age with the better qualifications, better training and now better experience are still there so there is no way for the 40/50 year old woman to really redress the pay gap. The difference will only be noticed in 20/30 years time. It can clearly be seen at the lower age levels already though.

harrietharmman

Podge_irl wrote: »

It's not a marginal difference. A 57/43 split means there is 33% more women then men. It's a 14 point gap, not a 14% gap. Put another way, Men are going to university at a rate of 75% of women. That's actually quite a lot larger then the gender pay gap.

Indeed, a by the look of things far more of it is down to sexism than the gender pay gap.

it's important not to place too much blame on Universities though. Yes they're very misandrist environments once males get there but their recruitment itself isn't all that sexist - most of the blame lies in the school system.

strobe

harrietharmman wrote: »

it's important not to place too much blame on Universities though. Yes they're very misandrist environments once males get there

What?

Are you serious..?

Sorry, but that's the second most ridiculous declaration I have ever come across.

si_vis_pacem

I think he meant that its important not to put too much blame on the universities for the admissions gap as its mostly down to the nature of the LC which they don't control.



As for the topic itself, more power to him. I'd like to think that feminism has moved beyond men:bad women:good, and many individual feminists have, but theres still core hardliners that really and honestly can't see the flaws in patriarchy theory and similar.

If thats all they were getting across in the first six weeks of the course I don't blame him for leaving. If the first six weeks of any course demonstrated a firm commitment to sexist views I'd leave. its unreasonable to expect people to stay on the basis that "they might get less sexist later." Sexism, particularly when institutionalised, is unacceptable and should be fought tooth and nail.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The one in four stat is people who are victims of sexual assault before reaching 18 - so I'm not sure where you are getting the college survey stuff from. They do define sexual assault fairly broadly so the stat has come under fire before but never for any of the reasons mentioned in your post. The name of the UK and Irish Sites is nothing to do with college students - where did you get this idea from (linky?).

I was curious about the one in four site so I had a look. The irish one has a number of reports. I'm reading the savi one now, and it had a sample of 3118 people, men and women. "overall a third of women and a quarter of men experienced sexual abuse in childhood"
"rape or attempted rape in adulthood was 7.4% for women and 1.5% for men", not allowing for other broader forms of sexual abuse where the figures seem to be much higher

this was done in 2001

bit scary isn't it?