Men who Hate Women the book by Laura Bates

[tootiredtobother]

Anyone reading this ? My god, I knew some of it but this book carefully lays it all out, all the Incel, MRA, PUA. groups hiding in plain site on the Internet utterly depressing because of the stark truth in what she writes.

No I haven’t read it, but will do.

I’ve read about incels, MRA, MGTOW, red pill/blue pill.

Someone famous (Germaine Greer?) once said that women have no idea how much men hate us.

I’ve got my copy of Material Girls by Kathleen stock ready to read.

I found it harrowing!

Yes, I've read it, when it first came out. Seriously depressing that this level of misogyny abides. I'd thought, as society progressed in terms of women's rights and civil rights, the upcoming generations of men would be different.

I wondered when I read it why she didn't include or mention trans allies.

OT, my DH got peaked by the James Max interview (which he came across on his own) and he is now reading the Bates book, too.

Is it actually good? I used to find her column in the Guardian really poor.

Yes, it is good. As well researched as these phenomena can be.

I honestly wish I had never read it. Once you know you can't forget :(

It like this statistic - wish I’d never read it tbh. As a mum of 2 boys and a DD it makes for horrifying reading all round.

one in three men would rape

I had to read it in small chunks, couldn't handle it all in one go, it's so depressing. But I do think more people should read it.

@RoyKentsChestHair

It like this statistic - wish I’d never read it tbh. As a mum of 2 boys and a DD it makes for horrifying reading all round.

one in three men would rape

I really take that study with a huge load of salt. It's a very small sample in a type of research where replicability is very poor, and there are some odd things as I understand it about the way they managed the data.

I would want to know more about whether iffy or not before dismissing.

I did find the intro but the actual study need pay for.

'Behaviorally descriptive survey items (i.e., “Have you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?”) versus labeling survey items (i.e., “Have you ever raped somebody?”) will yield different responses, in that more men will admit to sexually coercive behaviors and more women will self-report victimization when behavioral descriptions are used (Koss 1998) instead of labels. Indeed, some men will endorse items asking whether they have used force to obtain intercourse, but will deny having raped a woman'

Is that because it's 1/3 Santa?

Not a figure that I find too high to believe, sadly.

Just thought of something from UK that might be useful..

2018-
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46460434

Different questions but same general area-

'An "alarming" proportion of adults in Great Britain remain confused about what constitutes rape, campaigners say.

A third of people surveyed for the End Violence Against Women coalition said there had to be physical violence for sexual activity to count as rape.

A third of males and 21% of females said it would not usually be considered rape if a woman had flirted on a date.'

British crime survey for year ending March 2020

'More than one in 20 women (6.2%) had experienced rape (including attempts) since the age of 16 years, and 4.8% had experienced assault by penetration (including attempts; Figure 1)...

In the years ending March 2017 and March 2020 combined, nearly half of victims aged 16 to 59 years1 who experienced rape or assault by penetration (including attempts) since the age of 16 years, had been a victim more than once (49%). This proportion was higher for women than men (51% and 22% respectively). Over one-fifth of victims reported experiencing this type of assault more than three times since they were 16 years old (22%)...

In the years ending March 2017 and March 2020 combined, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that the majority of victims who experienced rape or assault by penetration since the age of 16 years had been assaulted by a single perpetrator (66%), with 21% assaulted by two different perpetrators, 8% by three perpetrators and 5% by more than three perpetrators'

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/natureofsexualassaultbyrapeorpenetrationenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

Given the survey with 1 in 3 is hypothetical- would you if you knew there would be no consequences.

Given the figures etc above, I don't see 1 in 3 as just too many as so unlikely as to automatically think something not right with that finding.

@CheeseMmmm

Is that because it's 1/3 Santa?

Not a figure that I find too high to believe, sadly.

Just thought of something from UK that might be useful..

No.

As far as the numbers and the answers, they asked the participants to answer a series of questions and put their answers on a not likely at all to very likely scale. This raises questions about how they convert that to who would or would not rape or coerce, and they could be more or less conservative about it. Is it only the people who give a very definitive answer they say would rape, or teh people who give a less definitive one? There is room to make it look worse or better depending on which they choose.

But the much more important points to my mind are firstly that it's a small study, they asked fewer than 100 men.

And secondly, the problem of replicability. Basically, in a lot of the social sciences and psychology, what they find is that a lot of studies, if they repeat them, find completely or substantially different results. To the point where in a lot of areas it's more than half - most of the published experiments, if they are done again, seem to be invalid. In the area of behavioral psychology only 25% of them seem to be repeatable giving consistent results. Which is to say, 75% are basically garbage.

That being the case, I just would never give too much weight to numbers like one in three. Your gut feeling is as likely to be accurate.

Agree it's always best to have a look at reliability of who did study (ONS Vs online survey by a random on Twitter)

Have a sqiz at how got data

Consider if results seem bonkers from common sense/ what know already etc/cross ref with similar to get feel for if fits well enough generally

@whachatalkinaboutwillis

I honestly wish I had never read it. Once you know you can't forget :(

I got a few chapters in and found it profoundly depressing. Haven't managed to return to it

@CheeseMmmm

Agree it's always best to have a look at reliability of who did study (ONS Vs online survey by a random on Twitter)

Have a sqiz at how got data

Consider if results seem bonkers from common sense/ what know already etc/cross ref with similar to get feel for if fits well enough generally

No, I am not talking about Twitter studies.

I am talking about scientific studies in reputable journals. Even in the most reputable scientific publications, research in psychology and the social sciences generally has very poor replicability, the higher end tends to be under 60%. And behavioural psychology is not on the higher end.

It's created a real scandal and problem in these areas of study.

Which, to go a bit further, comes to what I am asking about the book. To what degree is she relying on these kinds of studies, and if she is using them a lot, is she taking them at face value or being a little more cautious.

When Bates wrote for the Guardian, the biggest problem with her column was making claims about trends and common behaviour based on anecdotes, personal experiences, and questions she asked her Twitter followers. So I'd like to know if she's learned to be more careful or if she is still in the same vein.

ah dont read The Guardian, so had not head of her/column .
hope all data was fact checked, even if some off it it slightly off, im in shock and havent even finished it yet

@tootiredtobother

ah dont read The Guardian, so had not head of her/column . hope all data was fact checked, even if some off it it slightly off, im in shock and havent even finished it yet

It's more complicated than that though - it's not just checking it, it's understanding how much importance to give these kinds of studies, or how to look for other information that may indicate they are good or not good.

Something may appear in a real study in a real journal with a good reputation, but it doesn't mean that it's all that reliable. It's possible to take a lot of information of this type and build the picture you want to, from a variety of different perspectives.

I thing to understand the quality of studies etc she cites, and the context they are used, would need to read book.

In fact looking back at where that posted, is it even in the book? Doesn't say that, I mean I have no idea.

The ons v Twitter thing was taking to extremes btw, and referencing the fact that news outlets on some topics are happy to regurgitate outcomes from them/equally useless sources, obv wasn't clear on that.

Plus most people don't do that/ aren't that interested/ don't know how to understand if methods decent etc.

The USA students 1 in 3 was reported widely in mainstream UK news.

If the media are happy to churn out iffy findings for clicks then it's going to be an uphill battle to get more reliable info out in general!

If the book does contain iffy studies etc then it would have been highlighted all over the place by the not insignificant number of people who go through books like this with a fine tooth comb looking for ways to dismiss/discredit etc.

That's what usually happens!

Esp books with content about women/girls and levels of sex related crime esp rape.

It might be an uphill battle but it's a pretty reasonable question to ask about a book that purports to be about data. Given the absolute shit-show that her newspaper columns involved, especially.

Reviews might or might not tag the problem. When Freakonomics came out, if you remember, an awful lot of people took it at face value and were very enthusiastic. It was only a little later when more cautious reviewers started questioning a lot of his interpretation of the data.