That's a pity that boys were not asked the corresponding questions questions with "male" changed to "female" and "math, science and computer abilities" chaged to "reading and writing". Just to get the full picture.

Yes, oswid... what about the menz????

As a man, I can also tell you that many, many men are also harassed verbally usually in regards to their lack of manness (or gayness). This is something we have to examine from both fronts because I believe the harassment of women and the harassment of men around masculinity comes from the same basic need injected into youth by certain parts of society. I believe we should be looking for a way to deal with this issue by eliminating the need to define oneself as a man by how much you can harass women and homosexuals.

Wow, first comment in.

Yes, men get harassed too for unreasonable gender expectations. Can we talk about girls for five minutes though without having to feel guilty about having left the poor men out? Does the refusal to accept that young women get harassed without insisting on comparable victimhood for men not seem like a problem?

Yes, oswid... what about the menz????

Fantastically productive comment, sgzax. Even if you aren't at all concerned with what boys thought about those issues, polling them concurrently still would've made the numbers on the girls more useful by providing a baseline. As it is, there's nothing to compare it to.

Because the numbers on girls are meaningless without using boys as a 'baseline?' Ridiculous! The study was about the experience of girls. Males are not the generic baseline for scientific studies. Really, stop thinking of yourself as the generic person and women as the other. Please?

What are you even talking about, Identity? Are you interested in discussing feminist issues, including the sexual harassment women experience from a young age?
Sgzax's comment was no less productive than Oswid's.

high school boys are the worst! I was recently telling my roommate about one of my first memories of feminist anger - when a physics lab partner commented that our lab got screwed up because "that's what happens when you let a woman do all the work." I was livid. I punished him by not letting him copy my lab book anymore. That was the absurd part: I was doing all the work because the boys were lazy and not as smart as me. Asshole. I'm still mad about that, 8 years later.

These sort of figures don't *need* a baseline, because it's not about disparate impact. It doesn't miraculously stop being harassment just because boys experience gender-based harassment too.

high school boys are the worst! I was recently telling my roommate about one of my first memories of feminist anger - when a physics lab partner commented that our lab got screwed up because "that's what happens when you let a woman do all the work." I was livid. I punished him by not letting him copy my lab book anymore. That was the absurd part: I was doing all the work because the boys were lazy and not as smart as me. Asshole. I'm still mad about that, 8 years later.

Yeah that's the funny part, Bethany. If girls are so stupid, why are they gaining admission to college/university at such a higher rate than their deadbeat dude peers? And finishing? Guess the guys are too good to compete with the lowly girls.

Yes, I think all of us here know that the patriarchy/gender norms harm both girls/women AND boys/men... and yes, maybe there should be more studies showing both sides of it. That doesn't mean that when a study like this comes out, that we can't pay attention to it or appreciate it without assuming that whoever did the study didn't think it was important to look at how these ideas affect boys as well. Sheesh.

And Jeff, you put it well... if we found out that like, 89% of boys experienced gender-based harassment, would we say that 90% of girls was nothing? Because the "baseline" of 89% makes it seem normal? That doesn't stop it from being harassment.. I hate the old "oh well, it happens all the time" argument for why we shouldn't try to change things.

sgzax, my point is, the implications of the study depends on how the numbers differ between genders, not the "boys are more important so they should be included in everything" that you read into it. If the numbers are identical for boys reporting these forms of sexual harassment, it means something different than if they are much lower than the girls. The later is much more likely, and it would've strengthened the conclusion of the study - why is that a bad thing? The males would be the baseline in this case because the point of the study was to examine how prevalent sexual harassment was for the girls polled. Baseline, as I used it, could be substituted loosely for control group. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt on the semantics once in a while.

identity... now that you've explained what you meant, i still don't agree with you. like jeff said, even if boys experienced gender-based harassment to a similar degree as girls... that doesn't make it NOT harassment.. that doesn't make it any worse that they're experiencing that. in that case, would we just assume that it was normal and ignore it?

"The males would be the baseline in this case because the point of the study was to examine how prevalent sexual harassment was for the girls polled. Baseline, as I used it, could be substituted loosely for control group. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt on the semantics once in a while."

Please explain further why you think boys should be the control group in a study that does not appear to have one because it was a poll/interview study. It still seems that you're implying girls are othered. and boys are the norm...as someone already pointed out, this has been medicine's/psych's/etc mistake for hundreds of years.

The demand for a "control group" in a poll makes no sense whatsoever.
Go ahead, poll the boys too. The result will be "Teenagers of both sexes report harassment from males."

Leslie, of course it's still harassment, never said it wasn't. I just think taking information from both genders would've provided a fuller picture. Like I said, this was a study about sexual harassment of girls, and that should stay the focus, but polling the boys doesn't ipso facto make it about them.

Another way in which the information could've been used is asking the boys the same or similar questions about the girls (do you think girls here are bullied/do you think you bully girls here? etc). This framing would give a better picture of how "acceptable" this kind of behavior is, how aware the boys were of the sexual harassment. If they thought it didn't exist or they saw it as much as the girls did is immaterial in regards to whether it is happening and it is harassment - it is in either case.

However, if the aim is to rectify the situation, the information is useful. If the boys think they're doing nothing wrong, and don't report much sexual harassment, they're clueless about it and need to be informed. If they report the same numbers as the girls, they think it's okay to do, which requires a different tact. Am I wrong in that the boys, regardless of your views on what motivates them, are the source of the sexual harassment?

identity: I understand how that might have added to the study, but I also think that 90% is a mindblowing statistic - it means it's a near universal experience for girls. That all by itself is pretty meaningful to me. (and I think the other 10% just forgot about or didn't notice an occasion of sexual harrassment).

The poll for boys would most likely demonstrate the following: that being perceived as even remotely feminine is a social death sentence for a boy.

This is more powerful than simply not fitting into the stereotypical gender role. It is reinforcement of the idea that femaleness is something to be discarded for boys AND girls.

Femaleness is at best tolerated in many a society; and it is tolerated only when girls and women conform to being sexual and reproductive objects.

Okay, by the time I've written a comment to post there are 3 more jumping on me, so I'll try one more time.

I initially responded poorly to the negative tone, sorry. I also didn't think it was productive to get upset that "menz" were mentioned, I was trying to point out how polling men could've informed the conclusions drawn by the study. I never "demanded" them as a control group, I said you shouldn't just write them off in the discussion. I still think that more information would provide a more complete picture of the situation. If you think my phrasing betrayed some kind of gender bias, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent. I'm the one disagreeing, so I'm getting words put in my mouth and intent read into my comments so I can be everyone's devil's advocate.

but I also think that 90% is a mindblowing statistic - it means it's a near universal experience for girls.

Unfortunately, because I am a teenage girl I can admit that this is true statistic. The funny thing is that the very few boys in my class that have been nothing but respectful to me and my friends are also the ones being targeted by the group of guys who tries to rub up against me and my fellow female classmates everyday.

I have told them repeatedly to stop, when they didn't a group of us cornered them after school where I curtly told him that if they ever came near me again I would break their knee caps.

I know some people on this site would have objections to girls threatening their harasses as a solution but I am at the point where I am pissed off that me and the other 90% were subjected to this sort of treatment in the first place.

I understand how that might have added to the study, but I also think that 90% is a mindblowing statistic - it means it's a near universal experience for girls.

So how would having a corresponding number for what percentage of the boys thought girls experienced sexual harassment detract, rather than contribute to this?

IT WOULDN'T, Identity!!
But would you please focus on the issue at hand rather than immediately shifting the topic of the post to male harassment victims!?

Ninadeer, I say go for it; just be smart and make sure YOU don't get into trouble somehow. ;)

I was teased so much at school that I'm not even sure if any of it would count as sexual harassment. I remember many comments about my ou-of-control acne and the accusation that I was a lesbian (I was never a girly girl) happened in three different school districts. I also remember that guys treated me with so much disgust, I never thought anyone would ever ask me out and ended up dating guys just because I was so flattered that they had even noticed me. Thank god I expected life after high school to be different and eventually grew myself some self esteem.

So how would having a corresponding number for what percentage of the boys thought girls experienced sexual harassment detract, rather than contribute to this?

Sara, I think you misread what I wrote. I feel like I'm being lumped in with the commenters that are concerned with male harassment victims. Please reread what I wrote, I'm trying to explain how surveying boys could be used to help look at female sexual harassment victims.

You are right, I misread what you wrote. Sorry.

Assuming you want to be able to take constructive action based on a study like this, that it isn't just bean counting, including boys is valuable.
Essentially, changing the way things happen in society is applied memetics, and memetics is very much like ecology. If you try to study ecology without looking at whole systems, you get nowhere.
The same with studies like this. If you don't have a map of the social terrain, then any plan or action you develop is going to misfire. You need to know how these things are impacting boys, not because boys are the norm or more valuable than girls or what have you, but because they are part of the social terrain that you are studying. Social changes have to be broad based if you want them to last/function.

(Basic assumption: that harassment of girls and harassment of boys is based on the same underlying memescape. If this is so, you won't have any luck changing the treatment of one group unless you change the treatment of all groups.)

My answer to all questioning "Why boys should be surveyed also?":

The study shows some figures regarding girls. That's perfectly fine until it is being used. For example, by justifying spending taxes to fight this practice of juvenile sexual harrasment against girls only.

It would mean that public money are spent to help women only, not knowing what is situation with men. It would mean that the feminism is not movement for gender equality but the special interest group. Which is not, right?

Specifically, 67 percent of girls reported receiving unwanted romantic attention

I disagree that unwanted romantic attention is sexual harassment, unless it continues after the girl tells the boy she's not interested.

and 76 percent of girls reported sexist comments on their athletic abilities, again predominantly from male peers.

Does this mean that the girls who received sexist comments from their female peers are also considered to have been sexually harrassed?

Where does it say anything about tax money, Oswid?

Classical feminism isn't a woman's lobby; it fought against eliminating unfair gender stereotyping that hurts people. It has done much good for women -- and men, too. Most unfair stereotyping has historically affected women. Not all. It's not whining about the "menz" to say that unfair gender stereotyping is the principal problem, and in certain respects it affects men and boys, too. In certain respects it hurts men more than women. Any contrary position is dishonest. To suggest the the problem at issue is one-sided and that the victims are always female is dishonest and provides a skewed, gender divisive picture of what's going on. Frankly, some of the commentators here (not the hosts) seem to be OK with that.
I will also say that inclusion in the poll of "unwanted romantic attention" renders it meaningless. What the hell does that mean? A boy asks a girl out on a date renders the girl a victim??? Puh-lease! Especially in our culture where the boys are "supposed" to initiate the dating process (another unfair gender stereotype that doesn't help either sex).

My gut tells me the 90% rate of sexual harassment is accurate. But I would also say, as some of the commenters have implied, that a 90% harassment rate *in general* is also accurate. That's why the question of boys' responses is an important one to ask.

Not to knock the study, but the EurekAlert! press release gives me pause. Doesn't it seem a bit high that 49% of respondents were Latina, even for CA and GA? And don't the definitions of sexual harassment seem a bit broad? Consider the problem of girls being "teased because of their appearance." Does that include teasing from other girls? Teased because of wearing un-hip clothes? How was this quesiton presented -- and does it help us assess the problem of sexual harassment if draw the target too big?

Or consider "unwanted romantic attention." Clearly this would get a different -- presumably higher -- response rate than asking about "unwanted sexual attention" or "unwanted sexual advances." What makes romantic attention "unwanted"? Is any attention from a person in whom you are not interested potentially "unwanted"? (Ask yourself, alternately, what would make romantic attention "wanted," and the problem becomes a bit clearer. This is not, I think, just a maybe-they-were-asking-for-it objection.)

Again, I know enough of high-school life to assume the worst. And I know that press releases are not the same as actual findings. But this survey, from what I see of it, seems potentially biased toward finding "the worst" that we know is out there.

To suggest the the problem at issue is one-sided and that the victims are always female is dishonest and provides a skewed, gender divisive picture of what's going on.

Good thing nobody said that.
But plenty of people ARE refusing to talk about harassment towards girls, period.

“90% is a mindblowing statistic - it means it's a near universal experience for girls.� - Bethany

Given how vague the criteria are, I am surprised that % isn’t higher.

SarahMC, if it is not about spending tax money in the end, then why was this research done at all? Just because of authors' curiosity?

Look, I am completely for battling sexism and sexual harassment (juvenile, in this particular case). Unfortunately, this study limited itself by analyzing sexism towards girls only, thus it has VERY limited use.

Moreover, I believe that stating that "unwanted romantic attention" is sexual harassment is overkill. Who is going to show any "romantic attention" if it most likely will be considered as sexual harassment towards victim? Don't forget that it will be applied to girls showing "romantic attention" also.

“and the accusation that I was a lesbian (I was never a girly girl)�

That is sexual harassment, FYI.

Also, I don’t think that you can conclude the criteria used in the study were vague, simply from a little news blurb. You would have to get your hands on the study itself, and look at the detailed methodology with regards to what "unwanted romantic attention" means in the context of the study. Right now you are just guessing/making assumptions.

Another thing, I don’t know if anyone on this thread would care, but: I would say out of the guys I’ve slept with in college so far, they were all non-stereotypically masculine and were teased by other men as teenagers, and they still managed to treat me in ways I found disappointing (read: less than ideal, arguably disrespectfully). I’m not saying that male harassment of males and male harassment of females isn’t part of the same system, but I definitely don’t think the two are totally motivated from the same feelings or directly comparable.

As the writer of the Dollymix post and the press release, I just wanted to toss in that of course it's a good idea to also survey boys. But social science studies function within real-life parameters of funding, time and access. So that may be another survey for another day. Big conclusions come when studies build on each other. This just provides one piece in an interesting and complex puzzle.

And if anyone wants to see the more complete explanation of the survey questions and data, please visit the EurekAlert link for the link to the actual journal. It can be accessed through many libraries and has the full information. I've read it and it's really interesting. There was no way to fit everything into one tiny press release.

"Unfortunately, this study limited itself by analyzing sexism towards girls only, thus it has VERY limited use."

Very limited use for over 50% of the world's population?

Why don't you explain it to us again? We can't seem to get enough men in here already doing that.

Boys have been polled, it's not hard to find the results, usually in the same articles with the results on girls.

I used to get a ton of crap in High School, I wasn't girly, and dyed my hair blue (this was 15 years ago- it was heard of but uncommon as hell where I lived). I also became familiar with feminism around that time, and it honestly did make me want to stand up to it more.
Getting called a dyke never struck me as an insult though, they were calling me gay and that isn't negative in my mind (it's not like stupid, ugly, etc). Once in a while I would correct them and tell them I was Bi, but generally I didn't mind that one much.

Frankly, I think its probably safe to assume that almost 100 percent of both women and men have been "sexually harassed" at some point in their lives, based on the relatively broad definition set forth here. I certainly have -- its hard to get through four years at university these days without receiving some sort of "unwanted romantic attention" or a "demeaning gender-related comment."

But I think the most telling sentence in the whole article is this: "The researchers found that girls have different levels of understanding of sexism and sexual harassment, which may affect reporting data."

Keeping that in mind, my assumption would be that if you asked 600 or however many men about whether they'd been sexually harassed, a much smaller percentage than women would respond "yes," because of the perception (not truth) that 'sexual harassment' is something that only happens to women.

I'm thinking of -- I'm a male by the way -- a particular example in my life, which I won't bore you all with, but suffice to say that I was (and I'm framing it this way for the first time right now) on the receiving end of some EXTREMELY aggressive sexual advances, which did, at the time, make me uncomfortable. But moving forward, I sort of brushed/laughed the whole thing off -- chalked it up to someone having had too much to drink and acting out.

Do I consider myself a victim of sexual assault? Well, I guess now that this post has gotten me thinking about it, yes I do. But would I have said so if someone had asked me as part of a survey? I'm not so sure.

That's why, first of all, matching this survey with a similar study of males isn't necessarily useful. Sexual harassment is so heavily tied up in context -- the male experience and the female experience differentiate so fundamentally that to compare them at all is borderline fallacy.

Or at the very least, if we DID happen to find out that men experience sexual harassment, based on the definition in this article, at similar rates to women, we could not by any means conclude that sexual harassment is no bigger an issue for women than men, because it neglects all the preexisting power hierarchies and contexts in which these things occur.

Or I guess to boil all this down into a few words: numbers rarely tell the whole truth; adding MORE numbers on top of numbers isn't necessarily more illuminating.

So the question above, "what about the menz?" is an interesting one, and certainly worth asking, but not necessarily pertinent here.

What a hot mess.

I'm done with those who would DERAIL conversations concerning harassment faced by women.

Is discussing the ways that the patriarchy hurts men important? Yes, absolutely.

Do we need to bring it up EVERY DAMN TIME we discuss the ways the patriarchy OPPRESSES women? That's an unequivocal NO.

haha emneal:

I wish I had just said what you said instead of that diatribe I did up there.

Gotta pass the workday somehow I guess :)

> Very limited use for over 50% of the world's population?

Exactly. If you believe that my statement is wrong then please provide the example how this study could be used.

>> Very limited use for over 50% of the world's population?

> Exactly. If you believe that my statement is wrong then please provide the example how this study could be used.

Are you seriously asking how this study could be "used"? The data here, paired with contextual information obtained from literally decades of anthropological/sociological/feminist research, is extraordinarily telling in that it describes the extent to which women not only experience sexual misconduct, but perceive themselves as -- maybe victim is the wrong word but I don't have another one at hand -- victims of sexual harassment. I don't see how you could argue against the fact that this data is illuminating, and profoundly so.

As for how to "use" it, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but maybe you could suggest something instead of challenging it on the grounds of what appears to be your preconceived notion that feminism imposes inherent biases against men... which I personally believe to be a load of bull, but hey I guess the reason they have commenting on these things is so we can have this debate, right?

jmbehrens: Great response.

oswid: You seem to imply that what happens to over 50% of the world's population (and matters to those male members of the other 50%) isn't imporant in this case. It's important that we're finally asking girls what is happening to them in their lives and that we now have these results so we can continue to fight the good fight against harrassing behaviors.

Now, can we stop derailing this thread and instead focus on the implication that 90% of girls indicate they have been sexually harrassed?

jmbehrens:

"I'm thinking of -- I'm a male by the way -- a particular example in my life, which I won't bore you all with, but suffice to say that I was (and I'm framing it this way for the first time right now) on the receiving end of some EXTREMELY aggressive sexual advances, which did, at the time, make me uncomfortable"

I'm sure that sort of thing does happen to men. I would say most women have been in that situation /numerous/ times (I know I have). And many women (if not most) have also been pressured (or actually physically forced) into physical contact they did not want. Also, since men tend to be bigger/stronger, and more likely to cause significant violence, this can make it especially intimidating.

re:emneal

(snaps fingers in approval)

Including men in a study on sexual harassment would be interesting. As others have already pointed out, a lot of times sexual harassment is about enforcing existing gender norms. In that context, it impacts both men and women who would challenge those norms.

However, that was not necessarily the focus of this particular study. This study is looking at the ways in which teenage girls perceive sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is almost a universal experience for women, and yet our perceptions of it and what constitutes harassment are affected by numerous cultural and educational factors.

It's interesting data, and I'm sure there are numerous policy implications. Just to name a few off the top of my head: it could be used by school districts seeking to reduce certain types of bullying; it could be used to address the problem of underreporting in rape and sexual assault cases; it could be used by instructors seeking to make math and science more appealing to young women, etc etc. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think of some.

Tori, I'm glad you didn't feel insulted by people calling you a lesbian but my discomfort was not with thinking that homosexuality was bad like they did, it was with the fact that it was used so much as an insult against me. As I think we all know, the nicest words can become insults depending on the context and tone in which they are used (for instance, Obama's pattern of dismissing women with "sweetie"). Not saying that you shouldn't feel the way you feel but that, unfortunately, it was very different for me.

Another critique I would add to those who say that boys should have been studied too is that all too often, when both boys and girls are studied under the same hypothesis, it is the boys who get all the attention over the results - unless it has to do with specifically sexual results like pregnancy or STDs. Suggesting that this is a waste of tax dollars is not only insulting to that half of the world to whom it is incredibly relevant, it is also saying that girls don't deserve to be the subject of social studies or the recipients of tax dollars.

jmbehrens says:
> As for how to "use" it, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but maybe you could suggest something

That's the problem. I don't see how is it possible to use this study. That's why I said that without questioning boys the survey is useless.

Xana disagreed. It seems you also disagree with my statement. Is it logical that I am asking Xara (and now you) for an example of how this study could be used to combat harassment and sexism?

Xana says:
> and instead focus on the implication that 90% of girls indicate they have been sexually harrassed

I agree. But don't forget that the definition of sexual harassment in this study includes "unwanted romantic attention". As I said earlier if we forbid "unwanted romantic attention" then we naturaly forbid any "romantic attention".

oswid:

It's not hard to see how this study can be used.

It could be used to educate /both boys and girls/ about the definitions of harassment, why it's inappropriate, and to let school administrators know that they need to find a way to monitor and curb this own stuff at their own schools. For example, when I was in jr. high I was harassed a lot, but I had no idea that it was probably against school rules, and that had I brought it to the administration's attention they probably would have had to try and do something about it.

I'd imagine a lot of kids aren't educated on these issues.

Is it really that hard to understand where "unwanted romantic attention" crosses from something not worth noticing into sexual harassment, oswid? My god, Noah just gave us a perfect example of that line being (obviously) crossed and then identified by the kind of reflective thought a study like this would inspire but you're still acting like they aren't easily distinguishable? It's hard to take you seriously when you're playing stupid like that.

also oswid:

You have /no idea/ what "unwanted romantic attention" refers to in this study. For all you know, it could refer to cases in which the nature of the romantic attention was explicitly sexual, or when a girl had already made clear she wasn't interested. You have no idea. Why don't you go read the study first, instead of just looking for things to complain about.

oswid: Do I need to write a paper to tell you that a study on sexual harrassment and girls is important in varying societies that think sexual harrassment is the norm? Maybe this study will help people realize that when a girl tells them that "Bobby is bothering her" is more than childhood games and might be denigrating to the child?

I'm done doing the work for you. I suggest you reread the study and then come up with a list of reasons why it might be important and report back to the class. Make sure you bring an annotated bibliography with you to support your reasons.

Ninapendamaishi (from 2:19pm):

That's exactly what I was trying to get at (and realizing now that what I said didn't come across quite right).

What I meant to say was that to line the data for women up against the same data (same poll, questions etc) for men isn't really very useful, because of all those things you mentioned: physical dominance, patriarchy in general, etc.

I was able to "laugh off" my experience of being harassed because I didn't have any fear for my physical safety. Also -- and this is where this issue gets particularly twisted -- I knew (maybe not "knew" consciously but "knew" in the cultural sense) that whatever advances this woman was making toward me would ultimately reflect negatively on HER moreso than ME, while I know that often when a man acts aggressively toward a woman and is rebuffed, the woman is seen as prudish, etc.

So there's a double standard at play that no survey that I've ever seen has been able to describe accurately, although I do still think there are ways to study (and even advance toward overcoming?) those things.

[a side note: I feel like all the stuff I just wrote are things that readers of this blog already know. Is it worth reconstructing the basics of feminism for the sake of the few who maybe don't? I just get the sense I'm preaching to the choir a bit and therefore wasting everyones' time. Thoughts?]

oswid:

I didn't mean to snap, but I still feel as though you're pushing the notion that the lack of attention given to males in this study as biased, which I don't think it is.

As for how to use it... I would imagine it will be used for the same things studies like this are always used for: advancing policy, raising awareness, youth education, just generally adding to the body of knowledge on pertinent issues, and all the other ways people have suggested above

Ninapendamaishi:

> It could be used to educate /both boys and girls/ about the definitions of harassment, why it's inappropriate

You don't need the study for it. The study is done basing on term "harassment" already defined.

> to let school administrators know that they need to find a way to monitor and curb this own stuff at their own schools

With such study it is possible to educate teachers about most common harassments towards girls. If they don't have info about harassment towards boys how are they going to efficiently handle it?

> Why don't you go read the study first, instead of just looking for things to complain about

Because the study is not publicly accessible.

I have an idea what "unwanted romantic attention" means. You see, it is English language. It is not my native language at all but it is not a hard one.

I guess that the person A "experience unwanted romantic attention" if person B's action(s) (or in-action(s)) notify person A that person B would like to communicate with person A much more than they are communicating now. The term "romantic" indicates that this communication is not assumed to mandatory lead to sexual relationships. The term "unwanted" indicates that person A is unhappy with those action(s) (or in-action(s)) made by person B.

> Maybe this study will help people realize that when a girl tells them that "Bobby is bothering her" is more than childhood games and might be denigrating to the child?

That's a good point. Maybe.

> I'm done doing the work for you. I suggest you reread the study and then come up with a list of reasons why it might be important and report back to the class.

Xana :) That's Ok you quit the discussion.

jmbehrens says:
> I didn't mean to snap, but I still feel as though you're pushing the notion that the lack of attention given to males in this study as biased, which I don't think it is.

The lack of attention? This study considers girls as victims and boys as abusers. So I would say that boys are given the full attention in this study. I don't consider the study biased at all. It migth be funny (depends on actual definition of "unwanted romantic attention" in the study), but not biased definately. Anyway, the title of the study clearly states that it is about girls.

The bias will immidiately appear when this study will be used for justification of spending tax money.

And here we disagree. Most probably becuse you tend to radical feminism, and I to i-Feminism... Let's stop this discussion. It will lead to nowhere.

"With such study it is possible to educate teachers about most common harassments towards girls. If they don't have info about harassment towards boys how are they going to efficiently handle it?"

Why do they need information about harassment of boys in order to handle harassment of girls? This study says harassment of girls is a problem. Therefore, harassment of girls needs to be addressed. End of story.

"I have an idea what "unwanted romantic attention" means. You see, it is English language. It is not my native language at all but it is not a hard one."

Yes, but as you should know if you have studied English, there are multiple meanings for any term. You do not know what the term means when the makers of the study use it, in particular.

"And here we disagree. Most probably becuse you tend to radical feminism, and I to i-Feminism... "

What is "i-Feminism"? I do not think there is anything radical about realizing that sexual harassment happens to girls on a widescale and that it needs to be addressed. Realizing that is called being a woman -or an /observant/ male who listens to women. Being a radical feminist is not necessary.

"Let's stop this discussion. It will lead to nowhere."

You're the one who started the discussion off on this tangent. So fine. You drop it.

> Why do they need information about harassment of boys in order to handle harassment of girls? This study says harassment of girls is a problem. Therefore, harassment of girls needs to be addressed. End of story.

This is the way feminism from gender equality movement becomes special interest group.

> Yes, but as you should know if you have studied English, there are multiple meanings for any term. You do not know what the term means when the makers of the study use it, in particular.

That's true. Still nobody sane is going to invent new meanings of terms in the studies. And "unwanted", "romantic", and "attention" are very easy and straighforward terms.

> What is "i-Feminism"?

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?cat.9

Hm, it seems I asked to stop the discussion and continues it by myself. Sorry for it, I just felt very uncomfortable not responding to these 2 points.

"This is the way feminism from gender equality movement becomes special interest group."

Okay, oswid. Reducing harassment of girls and women would move us towards a better and more gender equal society. There are other resources for other studies, which have done done on men. One does not mean the other cannot exist: they are not mutually exclusive. Also, it does not mean that every study done on females has to include males, or vice versa (lo, historically there have been many more studies just focusing on men)

"That's true. Still nobody sane is going to invent new meanings of terms in the studies. And "unwanted", "romantic", and "attention" are very easy and straighforward terms."

Studies, in their terms, have to present much more specific, less vague definitions than are present in common usage of English. What did you study in school? Are you a person who conducts professional studies yourself? If not, has it occured to you that there may be people out there who better understand how to do this than you do?

oswid:

ok yes lets drop it, but I have to respond in two ways:

1. When I said "bias," I meant that your objection to this study seems to be that its incomplete (i.e. that it doesn't flip the roles and observe from the male perspective).

While you're right, it doesn't observe that perspective, that DOES NOT mean the study is invalid or incomplete. My argument is that to study the problem as you suggest (as a side-by-side study of male victims and female victims of sexual harassment), you'd end up with a LESS ACCURATE picture of what is actually going on than by studying the various types of sexual harassment individually or separately.

It's all in the context, and to study the two together assumes they exist in the same context, which they absolutely do not.

2. Yeah seriously what is i-Feminism? I'm honestly interested to know.

2b. I really resent the pejorative use of the term "radical feminism." I could go on diatribe number three for today and tell you all the reasons that term is destructive (the way its been used here), but like you said, we're not getting anywhere here so I'm out of this thread for now. But I would like to know what i-Feminism is.

Whoops ok you got to the i-feminism thing before I got a chance to hit "post," so sorry for asking again.

Another thing, when a political movement focuses on helping roughly 50% of the population, and a group of people who nearly everyone has an immediate family relationship with, is it accurate to call it "interest group" politics? I tend to think of "interest group" politics as referring to movements that benefit a certain percentage of people, but do not really impact a majority of people in a direct way...

jmbehrens says:
> I really resent the pejorative use of the term "radical feminism".

Used by me? I used this term meaning the straightforward definition (found in Wikipedia), without any abuse or fun intended.

A similar poll of boys would be interesting, but not because it would shed any light on the poll of girls. Just ... interesting.

Far more interesting, though, would be an added data set (not that this is realistically achievable, just would be really cool) that identified the perpetrators rather than counting victims. Is the harassment -- whether of girls or of boys -- coming from a broad sampling of the male population, or are the perpetrators a narrow sub-set of the pool of boys?

My own junior-high and high school experience, both as an observer of harassment of women and as a target of gender-role-based bullying [not that I'm implying any moral equivalence between the two!] would suggest the "narrow" rather than the "broad" option. But that was a long time ago, times may have changed, one person's anecdotal experience and distantly remembered observation do not data make, etc.

For anyone who is interested in what "ifeminism" is really about, check out Wendy McElroy's work; she minimalizes rape, defends white privilege, is FOX News' best friend and - as an "ifeminist" - is ANYTHING but feminist. It's a movement built on misinformation, victim-blaming, racist ideology, and is totally anti-feminist.

Oswid, stop derailing the conversation or I'm banning you.

Boondoggling. These "STATS" say very very little.

Let's break this down. My comments are contained in []
67 percent of girls reported receiving unwanted romantic attention
[there's no metric for SEVERITY this COULD be "would you like to go to the movies" or it could be something nefarious we'll never know]
, 62 percent were exposed to demeaning gender-related comments [notice the lack of mentioning the source, and no system for severity, or even a god-damn example?]
, 58 percent were teased because of their appearance (this probably happened MORE from other girls--how do I know? because if it had been males they'd have SAID IT]
, 52 percent received unwanted physical contact and 25 percent were bullied or threatened with harm by a male.
[A. I remember reading that a study that said teen girls in school received x amount of unwanted touching also said that boys received nearly the same amount (a couple % points lower) B. if 25% of girls are being bullied they're still getting off CHEAPLY compared to boys. Once again we're faced with this concept of making people BETTER FOR ALL not just BETTER FOR GIRLS/WOMEN, but acknowledging that a straight, white male can be bullied by another straight, white male doesn't fit in with the feminist paradigm of demonizing ALL MEN/BOYS for the actions of a few. NO MALE VICTIMS (I.E. "HUMANIZING) NEED APPLY!]

52 percent of girls also reported receiving discouraging gender-based comments on the math, science and computer abilities, usually from male peers,

[usually could be 51% or 99% once again we don't know. I'd like to see their definition of gender-based considering that when the AAUW released "short-change girls short-change America" they included teachers scolding and reprimanding boys as "teachers calling on boys" to prove what they wanted-the facts be damned]
and 76 percent of girls reported sexist comments on their athletic abilities, again predominantly from male peers.
[once again comments could have come from 51% of the boys or 99%, and we don't know that they said they sucked "because they're girls". Feminist researchers tend to distort things however they must to get the "point" across. The superbowl DV hoax, 100,000 yearly deaths from anorexia, 1 in 4 college girls vitim of rape just a few of the more obnoxious that have been totally debunked. But they're still being put into government pamphlets.]

Lies are nobody's friend.

If you can and you haven't already, I would look over the actual study, it's a lot more useful than all of the arguing about how it was probably conducted. It's actually much more detailed than you might think just from reading the article snippet about it, as the author said above. It includes how the questions were asked along with the actual wording, a regression including the statistical significance of each question, and data on the extent to which the different forms of sexual harassment were reported (scale of 1-4). It seems very well done, and there's a wealth of information beyond the simplistic rendition of: X% girls experienced sexual harassment. The most informative thing to me was prevalence, as opposed to the binary option of whether or not it had happened.

I do think some credence is lent to the concern about the unwanted romantic attention, the actual wording of which was: "received unwanted or inappropriate romantic attention by a male". The "inappropriate" makes it stronger, but 'unwanted romantic attention' is still ambiguous, and could reasonably include anyone whose been asked on a date by someone they declined. Correspondingly, it is both the highest reported of at least once incidence, and has the highest average using the 1-4 scale.

Wow, people sure seem invested in questioning what constitutes "unwanted romantic attention" for teenage girls and discrediting whatever has been identified as such by said girls. I wonder why that is?

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the thread was derailed with the first comment's refusal to engage with the post, instead insisting it was meaningless without comparable data re: boys. I think an important bottom line here is that boys harass each other, and harass girls. maybe we should be questioning why that is, rather than disputing whether most or all victims are female.

Um, to ignore the trolls and find my way back to the topic...

Reading about this study was really eye-opening for me simply because I suddenly realized how much sexual harassment was considered a totally normal part of my (and my friends') high school experience. It bothered us, it ruined our self-esteems, it led to a lot of pain and tragedy, but everything around us told us there was nothing wrong with it and that any reaction to it would be an overreaction. So that's what we thought, too. We just lived with it. Now I wonder how things could've been different if we'd all known it was inappropriate - and that there was something we could've done to stop it.

I also think that Xana's point about "people [realizing] that when a girl tells them that 'Bobby is bothering her' is more than childhood games and might be denigrating to the child" was an excellent one. I wish parents and administrators would take these claims more seriously as well. Too many adults just tell girls that they need to have a thicker skin or that "boys will be boys" (or "girls will be girls" - young girls do tremendous damage to each other, and a lot of girl-girl mistreatment falls under the umbrella of sexual harassment) instead of taking their claims seriously and doing something to solve a problem that NO ONE should have to deal with.

um
hijacking the thread isn't "what about the menz". hijacking the thread is *responding* to that sort of post. you can't insult someone on the internet more than if you just ignore them. There's PLENTY to discuss and ignoring the DouceDudes. What do you tell the HS girl who's experiencing daily sexual harassment? I think she should consistently report the situation to faculty. Also, How did you, fellow commentators, deal with your sexual harassment in HS?
Example: I had a girl grab my ass in the lunch line on a dare, and I gave her a lecture--just because she's cute and a girl doesn't mean that's not sexual harassment, and I'd never do that to her or her friends.

Yeah, in retrospect she was probably flirting with me (badly) and I killed whatever momentum was there with my pissy lil' Dudenist diatribe; wouldn't be the last time either--that "feminism is not a pick-up line" thread a few weeks ago REALLY pissed me off because I've alienated more women than bedded due to my world view.

Now THAT is threadjacking.

The thing that interests me about this study is that it is (like most studies of this kind) all about the girls' perception. That plus the finding that their perception of sexual harassment was directly related to exposure to feminist ideas means to me that the percentages don't reflect the objective reality and are actually lower than the true occurrence. So over 90% of girls have been sexually harassed. For god's sake.

Pengo, I agree that we should tell HS girls to report harassment but at the same time, I just don't think it's going to happen, and many times that can actually make the situation worse for her. Trust me, I tried it. As for how I dealt with it, I pretended like I didn't care and did my best to continue with my life as if it didn't effect me. Of course, it did anyway, but I still don't have any better ideas on how to deal with it.

And I must say, I was incredibly surprised to find that, after 7+ years (starting in elementary school) of dealing with sexual harassment and bullying from both guys and girls, the girls actually looked up to me for (publicly) brushing it off; in 12th grade, near the end of the school year, I suddenly had all sorts of girls expressing how impressed they were with the fact that I didn't seem to care. I think they had been so beaten down and restricted by social norms themselves, they were simultaneously outraged and impressed that I seemed to evade those norms and put no weight into them.

I hate bullies.

As someone with an, erm "quirky" face I can remember sitting in class with girls making comments, loud enough for me to hear.
So teasing about phsyical appearance is universal and probably about 50/50, in terms of the sex of victims and perps.

"67 percent of girls reported receiving unwanted romantic attention,"

That's so ambiguous as to be pointless.

From love struck boy clumsily trying to kiss his best female friend at one end of spectrum to full on stalking at the other?

I guess every female I know has experienced this in one form or another (not the stalking - the unwanted crush)

Certainly, a very pretty friend of mine dealt with her male friends wanting her ona daily basis. Only one ever overstepped the line in a moment of madness (her flirting didn't help) resulting in the friendship being terminated, much to his distress.

Males MAY experience "unwanted romantic attention" less in that, if, for example, their best female friend tries to kiss them they may respond rather than doin the whole "Yuk! You're my best friend, we can never make out, no matter how close we are" routine!

No way to change that short of genetic engineering.

How do the kids who never get any "unwanted romantic attention" feel?

Btw, is this an American high school experience?

Because thinking back to my days in a British school and college, the idea that 90% of my feamle peers were sexaully harassed is absurd.

I wouldn't even put the figure at 10% and that's being generous.

Certainly in my college classes gosspip was rife as to who was dating who, etc. Tales of infidelity were rife. Sordid tales were rife. Tales of sexual harrasment? Zero.

I can think of no male peers who behaved like that in my school;a few teen pregnancies, one rape case,
one pupil sleeping with an older woman, a bit of group sex going on with some, much crude language and slang terms for girls, boasting of sexual conquests, girls being used (my best friend at the time was popular with girls, after a few rough shags it was onto the next;Mr Romantic he wasn't but the girls must have had some idea of what they were getting into).I can recall no tales or rumours of anyone being victim of one of my male peers sexual harrasment.

Things may have changed since then (the 90s). I've read media stories about young boys demanding oral sex on first dates/at parties etc. They start much younger,so I've read. Not sure how "nasty" young teen boys are as a whole, these days as I'm not in contact with them.

Btw, is this an American high school experience?

Because thinking back to my days in a British school and college, the idea that 90% of my feamle peers were sexaully harassed is absurd.

I wouldn't even put the figure at 10% and that's being generous.

Certainly in my college classes gosspip was rife as to who was dating who, etc. Tales of infidelity were rife. Sordid tales were rife. Tales of sexual harrasment? Zero.

I can think of no male peers who behaved like that in my school;a few teen pregnancies, one rape case,
one pupil sleeping with an older woman, a bit of group sex going on with some, much crude language and slang terms for girls, boasting of sexual conquests, girls being used (my best friend at the time was popular with girls, after a few rough shags it was onto the next;Mr Romantic he wasn't but the girls must have had some idea of what they were getting into).I can recall no tales or rumours of anyone being victim of one of my male peers sexual harrasment.

Things may have changed since then (the 90s). I've read media stories about young boys demanding oral sex on first dates/at parties etc. They start much younger,so I've read. Not sure how "nasty" young teen boys are as a whole, these days as I'm not in contact with them.

Certainly in my college classes gosspip was rife as to who was dating who, etc. Tales of infidelity were rife. Sordid tales were rife. Tales of sexual harrasment? Zero.

The thing to remember is that that is the number of "tales of sexual harrassment" that you, a male student, heard.

That does not mean that there wasn't ample discussion of the subject when no guys were present.

And even if no one was talking about it at all, that doesn't mean there was no sexual harassment. Sexual harassment, like sexual assault, is often associated with a profound sense of shame, self-blame, and self-doubt for the victim, doubly so when the victim is still in secondary school.

Two words:

No. Duh.

Now some more words:

This problem should be addressed around fifth or sixth grade at the absolute latest. Boys and girls ideally should be made to understand that they are both human and should treat each other respectfully. Emphasis on the word 'ideally'.

Also, middle schools and high schools need to step up their supervision of hallway activities. Teachers need to be alert to everything that goes on in their classroom. Because half the problem is that the adults are completely oblivious to something that is acutely painful for a young woman.

Spike The Cat: "The poll for boys would most likely demonstrate the following: that being perceived as even remotely feminine is a social death sentence for a boy.

This is more powerful than simply not fitting into the stereotypical gender role. It is reinforcement of the idea that femaleness is something to be discarded for boys AND girls.

Femaleness is at best tolerated in many a society; and it is tolerated only when girls and women conform to being sexual and reproductive objects."

This comment needs GIANT RED ARROWS pointing at it. Thank you for throwing some sanity in these comments spike.

For anyone who is interested in what "ifeminism" is really about, check out Wendy McElroy's work; she minimalizes rape, defends white privilege, is FOX News' best friend and - as an "ifeminist" - is ANYTHING but feminist. It's a movement built on misinformation, victim-blaming, racist ideology, and is totally anti-feminist.

It's easier than that to understand "ifeminism".

Just move the "ifeminist's" thumb away from the ANT at the beginning of the word.

Yeah not to carry the iFeminism thing further, because I know thats not what this is supposed to be about, but I can't say I was surprised to find that it was basically "libertarian-feminism," which is not only a horrible idea but something of a contradiction in terms, one of those "theories" contrived by overzealous conservative thinkers who would rather subvert the left instead of contributing to real ideological debate.

And this is coming from someone who, while disagreeing with it on most fundamental things, actually has a certain amount of respect for REAL libertarian philosophy. iFeminism isn't that. Just a conservative scam job.

Charity opined:
"I think an important bottom line here is that boys harass each other, and harass girls. maybe we should be questioning why that is, rather than disputing whether most or all victims are female."

Exactly! But for feminists the male victims of bullies are invisible. The topic du jour ISN'T how do we make boys better for all, it's how do we make boys better for girls!

This is the reason the feminist paradigm to "solving" rape isn't going to work. First of all it's like the conservative "solution" for drugs--incarceration. Second of all it doesn't look at the fact that men who commit stranger rape are evil people who (typically) also commit crimes against all races and both sexes--like car-jackings, selling crack to children, pistol-whipping, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.

If somebody would do an analysis of those charged with rape convictions I'd bet my bottome dollar you would find they also have committed other crimes. Whatever bullshit report feminists pull out of their hat(trying to be nice) the overwhelming majority of men do NOT think it's "okay to rape".

Maybe it's time to find out why some men are violent? And to wonder about our culture that rewards these violent men?

Also, most of the things listed in this headline AREN'T sexual harassment (in terms of the connotations you expect like being hit on, groped or what-have-you). Saying you "can't throw for shit" to a girl might be biased and mean, but it's NOT sexual harassment.

Lastly, somebody suggested looking up the report to view the methodology. The only active link I found to access the report needed a subscription to Blackwell Synergy to view it.

Jabes1966, please go to the Feminism101 blog before you spew any more completely misinformed bullshit around.

Thanks!

Jabes, read the study before making such enormous presumptions. The questions were specifically framed so as to elicit responses of male on female sexual harassment.

Jabes, that's like complaining that the NAACP focuses on problems that affect african americans. I mean, duh. That doesn't mean someone who joins or supports the NAACP isn't horrified by appalachian white poverty, too.

Feminism 101? You mean how to be a drone 101? And they're not presumptions there logical assertions, if the headline states "a majority of comments came from males" that could be anywhere from 51% to 99%. And where no gender of the offender is stated I KNOW that means the majority came from females (because the author would have put it in if the majority of offenders was male--it is all about demonizing men after all).

These headline blurbs are shrouded in a bunch of specifically chosen words for emotional impact that impart a very smoky and uncertain picture of the LEVEL of abuse and how much of it comes from males. That's not a presumption that's a fact.

And actually Ismone my complaint is more along the lines of complaining that Cosmopolitan has a big cover story about a mommy miner and what a super great hero she is to do a dangerous job to support her kids and suck up this abuse, but ignores the thousands of men who make the same decision to support not only children, but an adult wife (and not only during "tough times" but during their entire severely shortened lifespan). How can a hazardous dirty soul-destroying job be "fulfilling" for men, but "so hard it makes her a hero" for women? The fact that the abuse and disposability of men counts so little in the feminist paradigm tells a lot about the self-centered navel gazing of feminists.

One of the friends I play warcraft with lives in West Virginia. He says there is very little good work there and most everybody is impoverished.

Anyhoo he used to work at a coal mine. One day a piece of machinery fell on him injuring his back. The foreman started yelling at him to get up (I mean really yelling and getting right in his face) and walk out.

Well, now he found out that he has like three crushed discs and can't work in the mines anymore. He had to have rods placed in his back. His lawyer told him he can't expect much compensation because he walked out under his own power instead of waiting for a gurney.

Here's my question: if the foreman had done that to a FEMALE miner do you think he would've gotten away with it? No fucking way. He'd have had 5 guys on him in an instant.

When society treats men in a beastly fashion don't be surprised when some men turn into beasts!

Of workplace deaths men account for 95%. These average out to approximately 5000 deaths per year. Of that 5000 total 4750 are men, 250 are women. And this is just the tip of the iceberg in the many ways men are treated as disposable commodities in this society.

When feminists feel just as bad for a man having to work in a coal mine (or join the army) for money as they do for prostitutes I will concede that feminism is about equality and an intellectually honest movement. Until that day I will call feminism (at least gender/victim feminism) as I see it.

A dishonest movement that is BLUFFING in their call for equality. Feminists ONLY look at equality at the top (i.e. CEO's, judges, politicians) but never talk about equality at the bottom (i.e. garbage men, commercial fishermen, firemen, sanitation crews, construction crews, paramedics, roofers, etc..). Additionally feminism is about painting all men as evil for the actions of a fucked up few, while NEVER EVER looking at the millions of men who save women, or die trying.

When society treats men BETTER, than BETTER men will make up society.

And there is no active link to the study except a subscription to blackwell synergy (that I found).