The murder of Sarah Everard | Couzens sentenced to a whole-life order

[hobbers]

Sorry but where is your source for this?

Most studies ever done on the topic. Here's a recent meta-analysis: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1774589

This is linking family structure with adolescent crime, but obviously young adults who commit crime are typically very likely to carry that behaviour into adulthood.

 

[Roane]

Don't know if it's been said but in the case of this poor lass, Sarah, the person responsible is a serving police officer.

Some of the responses of having more police in clubs etc would not have helped this poor woman. If anything the officer responsible and anymore of his ilk (or those who have been responsible for posting pics or exposing themselves) and those we don't know about would be like predators given an assignment like that.

The only reason I pose this is that there is no simple solution to this issue.

 

[Champ]

With all due respect, I can't be arsed to keep this going as we obviously see it from different points of view which is fair enough. There have been studies done that show that heightened CCTV actually causes increased anxiety and is often ineffectual in securing convictions. Lots of people involved in more 'at risk' areas recommend things like increased manpower to combat crime/antisocial behaviour (social workers, police etc.). There are big moral debates going on at the moment to do with how automated facial recognition needs to be regulated so it's not just me being paranoid, which is a bit of a cheapshot accusation to be honest. The debate surrounding the pervasiveness of CCTV is a lot more complicated than 'it's there to protect' but you obviously don't see it that way, fair enough.

I don't see it that way because I see it from a first hand point of view, and can see quite clearly that it isn't pervasive!

These studies you refer too - I know of one done in Glasgow that highlighted heightened anxiety, this was done late 90's, when CCTV was still not quite accepted like it is now. I'd wager that attitudes have changed now.

Regulation of CCTV is an interesting one, because there really isn't much in the way of regulations, however what you can do with recordings and how you keep recordings are regulated, by GDPR laws, and are very stringent and strict. The same would apply to facial recognition.

But, your probably right, this is probably for another thread, but whilst these attitudes still persist regarding CCTV, then the streets will never really be as safe as people would like, mainly because the man power in the police force/social care just doesn't exist any more.

 

[Grinner]

Don't know if it's been said but in the case of this poor lass, Sarah, the person responsible is a serving police officer.

Some of the responses of having more police in clubs etc would not have helped this poor woman. If anything the officer responsible and anymore of his ilk (or those who have been responsible for posting pics or exposing themselves) and those we don't know about would be like predators given an assignment like that.

The only reason I pose this is that there is no simple solution to this issue.

Well then we need to employ women to keep an eye on the cops keeping an eye on the women.

 

[The Corinthian]

I don't believe it's a question of upbringing or parenting myself.

I think there's a couple of other areas that contribute though.

Firstly, the ease of access to pornography by teenagers and young men, (especially the violent type). I think the amount of porn consumed by young men, teenagers is definitely a contributing factor. The over consumption leads to unrealistic expectations of women, and the inability to form real, meaningful relationships. This mentality of every woman being 'up for it' is from porn.

Another area we should consider is hyper-sexualisation of society, particularly of young women.

 

[hubbuh]

I don't see it that way because I see it from a first hand point of view, and can see quite clearly that it isn't pervasive!

These studies you refer too - I know of one done in Glasgow that highlighted heightened anxiety, this was done late 90's, when CCTV was still not quite accepted like it is now. I'd wager that attitudes have changed now.

Regulation of CCTV is an interesting one, because there really isn't much in the way of regulations, however what you can do with recordings and how you keep recordings are regulated, by GDPR laws, and are very stringent and strict. The same would apply to facial recognition.

But, your probably right, this is probably for another thread, but whilst these attitudes still persist regarding CCTV, then the streets will never really be as safe as people would like, mainly because the man power in the police force/social care just doesn't exist any more.

So for you it's as simple as more CCTV = less crime?

 

[Grinner]

I don't believe it's a question of upbringing or parenting myself.

I think there's a couple of other areas that contribute though.

Firstly, the ease of access to pornography by teenagers and young men, (especially the violent type). I think the amount of porn consumed by young men, teenagers is definitely a contributing factor. The over consumption leads to unrealistic expectations of women, and the inability to form real, meaningful relationships. This mentality of every woman being 'up for it' is from porn.

Another area we should consider is hyper-sexualisation of society, particularly of young women.

Porn absolutely. Most of it is terribly damaging to anybody who watches it habitually.

 

[hubbuh]

Don't know if it's been said but in the case of this poor lass, Sarah, the person responsible is a serving police officer.

Some of the responses of having more police in clubs etc would not have helped this poor woman. If anything the officer responsible and anymore of his ilk (or those who have been responsible for posting pics or exposing themselves) and those we don't know about would be like predators given an assignment like that.

The only reason I pose this is that there is no simple solution to this issue.

That's a bit of a leap. Obviously there are men out there that purposefully work their way into positions of power so they can use that influence to exploit and abuse people, but you surely don't believe the likes of this guy are rife within the police. Not to say there aren't issues within the police that need sorting, of course.

I don’t think it’s that bad an idea. Especially the bit about being easy to spot. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to blend in or not be spotted in a club/bar. I was at a bar in Islington on NYE 2019 on a night out. I noticed a really out of place looking guy came in and i decided to watch him for a half hour or so. He kept walking up to people trying to dance but never had a drink. Looked to me like he was ‘surfing’ (trying to pick pocket)
Anyway at some point I just had enough and grabbed him and waved over some bouncers. They’d obviously been watching him too because they basically dragged him across the floor and chucked him out. Point being, He was so busy preying on victims he didn’t spot me or the bouncers watching him.

Good on you. Sickening to imagine the number of weirdos that go out and don't drink for the sole purpose of taking advantage of girls that are a bit out of it.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Most studies ever done on the topic. Here's a recent meta-analysis: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1774589

This is linking family structure with adolescent crime, but obviously young adults who commit crime are typically very likely to carry that behaviour into adulthood.

Does this study also link in with the fact single parent families are more likely to be less economically advantaged?

 

[The Corinthian]

Porn absolutely. Most of it is terribly damaging to anybody who watches it habitually.

I once knew someone who headed up a telecoms company providing 4G services to the sub-continent, particularly India. He said that the usage for 4G in that part of the world is overwhelmingly used to download and watch porn. Consider that this is a part of the world which has traditionally held conservative (i.e. modest) values, who now have free access to porn. It's definitely going to warp the mind and mentality of people watching it on a habitual basis.

 

[Roane]

That's a bit of a leap. Obviously there are men out there that purposefully work their way into positions of power so they can use that influence to exploit and abuse people, but you surely don't believe the likes of this guy are rife within the police. Not to say there aren't issues within the police that need sorting, of course.

My point wasn't about men or police officers generally.

Just that in Sarah's case her killer/attacker was a policeman (with previous it seems re the exposing).

As a response to Sarah's murder I just can't get my head around the whole need more policing notion.

With regards to guys like that being rife in the police, of course murder and mutilation (as appears to be the case here) is not rife, as far as we know. However issues with police officers and power etc are more common than we think and I feel do need addressing.

 

[Eugenius]

I haven't mentioned women being abducted once? And you're narrowing your argument to fit your narrative. Again, the statistic is 97% of women have been sexually harassed (or worse) at some point in their life. That's shocking.

The Muslim example doesn't work (to be honest any race/religion doesn't work). We're talking about men being more conscious about how their behaviour can make women feel.

If by giving a woman more space, or making yourself known, or even just crossing the road to make her feel safe, you feel attacked, then I think you need to take a long look in the mirror.

1) No I've always specifically referred to the discussions around physical safety - any sort of violence.

2) I think it works fine as analogy. You can't just lump in all of a group of people on the basis of actions of a minority.

3) Is it not possible to feel offended to be perceived as a potential criminal purely on the basis of your gender? I would say most people with any hint of awareness would naturally not walk in other people's personal space or stare at them or do anything that would be reasonably perceived as threatening (regardless of male or female).

 

[sullydnl]

I don't believe it's a question of upbringing or parenting myself.

I think there's a couple of other areas that contribute though.

Firstly, the ease of access to pornography by teenagers and young men, (especially the violent type). I think the amount of porn consumed by young men, teenagers is definitely a contributing factor. The over consumption leads to unrealistic expectations of women, and the inability to form real, meaningful relationships. This mentality of every woman being 'up for it' is from porn.

Another area we should consider is hyper-sexualisation of society, particularly of young women.

The issues we're talking about long pre-date the ubiquity of pornography and (depending on how you view its history) the hyper-sexualisation of society though. I mean it's not like sexual assaults didn't exist in previous generations, or (as far as I'm aware) were any less common.

That said, I do think the impact of pornography on young men (and probably women too, in a different way) is an issue, something I wouldn't have said a decade ago. Where previously I would have seen it as a lazy attempt to blame media consumption for deeper societal issues (in the way films, TV, music and video games have been blamed in the past, present and no doubt future), I now think that porn is probably different. We've seen enough research into the effects heavy consumption of porn can have on adults and their relationships for me to think that near-unlimited access to the most violent porn the internet has to offer has to have some impact on teenagers who at that point don't have the frame of reference that normal, healthy relationships would later provide.

 

[Conor]

It needs to be education from a young age by trained people, in school. Leaving it to parents only leads to perpetuation of misogyny in families. Even with regular tutelage it will be hard to eradicate, because you will always have idiots at home, influencing the children more than 'boring' lessons in school, but that is surely the best way to do it.

For all the men out there already holding these views, I just don't think much is going to change their views. Punishment based deterrents are the only thing that's going to stop incidents occurring, and they won't even change opinions, just scare people away from acting.

 

[VorZakone]

So was the perpetrator already in sight of law enforcement? Something about indecent exposure or am I mistaken in this?

 

[hobbers]

Does this study also link in with the fact single parent families are more likely to be less economically advantaged?

Some of them do. Economic instability is of course one of the contributing factors behind it, though by no means the only factor.

 

[Bobski]

There was a socially distanced discussion at work today in our office. That point about crossing roads to make women feel less threatened came up and the strongest voices against it came from women, insulting and infantilizing were among the terms used. Small sample size of course.

 

[Ecstatic]

There was a socially distanced discussion at work today in our office. That point about crossing roads to make women feel less threatened came up and the strongest voices against it came from women, insulting and infantilizing were among the terms used. Small sample size of course.

I believe these woman complain about one thing at 3 pm, and the opposite at 4pm - Classics

 

[The Corinthian]

The issues we're talking about long pre-date the ubiquity of pornography and (depending on how you view its history) the hyper-sexualisation of society though. I mean it's not like sexual assaults didn't exist in previous generations, or (as far as I'm aware) were any less common.

That said, I do think the impact of pornography on young men (and probably women too, in a different way) is an issue, something I wouldn't have said a decade ago. Where previously I would have seen it as a lazy attempt to blame media consumption for deeper societal issues (in the way films, TV, music and video games have been blamed in the past, present and no doubt future), I now think that porn is probably different. We've seen enough research into the effects heavy consumption of porn can have on adults and their relationships for me to think that near-unlimited access to the most violent porn the internet has to offer has to have some impact on teenagers who at that point don't have the frame of reference that normal, healthy relationships would later provide.

On your first paragraph - I agree that these issues have predated access to porn, and oversexualisation of society. However, without having any evidence to hand, I do think these happen much more often than they used to. Maybe they were happening at the same rate as before, and we think they're more frequent now due to the speed at which news travels. Generally I find, media, TV, music videos are a lot more sexual in nature than in previous generations. Yes, sex sells, and has been selling for eons, but maybe as there are more mediums of media now, we're exposed to it a lot more than before.

1) No I've always specifically referred to the discussions around physical safety - any sort of violence.

2) I think it works fine as analogy. You can't just lump in all of a group of people on the basis of actions of a minority.

3) Is it not possible to feel offended to be perceived as a potential criminal purely on the basis of your gender? I would say most people with any hint of awareness would naturally not walk in other people's personal space or stare at them or do anything that would be reasonably perceived as threatening (regardless of male or female).

The analogy doesn't work because 97% of Non-Muslims aren't attacked by Muslims. 97% of Non-Muslims don't need to take additional precautions when leaving the house against Muslims.

Even putting the percentages to one side, it's an irrelevant point to make.

On the bolded part, why would you feel offended? I'm a male, I don't feel offence if a woman says it makes her feel safer if I keep my distance and make myself known when walking. Why would it? No one is saying all men are at fault here, but the least we can do is listen, and do our bit to help correct a problem.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Does this study also link in with the fact single parent families are more likely to be less economically advantaged?

It'd be interesting to know this. Didn't the Broken Windows theory turn out to be bollocks in the end? Missing crucial contributory factors.

 

[calodo2003]

If you want to stop men becoming criminals a good place to start is promoting 2 parent family structures.

My god, as if the ‘all lives matter’ etc. tangents weren’t bad enough...

 

[Classical Mechanic]

There was a socially distanced discussion at work today in our office. That point about crossing roads to make women feel less threatened came up and the strongest voices against it came from women, insulting and infantilizing were among the terms used. Small sample size of course.

The same thing happened when Jeremy Corbyn started talking about women only carriages on trains. Turns out that most women didn’t want it for similar reasons to your colleagues.

 

[VorZakone]

The same thing happened when Jeremy Corbyn started talking about women only carriages on trains. Turns out that most women didn’t want it for similar reasons to your colleagues.

Why didn't they want it? What was the reasoning?

 

[Redlambs]

I wondered how long it would take for the single parent family shite to rear it's head again.

We need to think long and hard about what it would take to make women feel and be safe, not agenda drivel.

 

[Champ]

So for you it's as simple as more CCTV = less crime?

No,
But it helps. Statistics prove this.

 

[hubbuh]

No,
But it helps. Statistics prove this.

Yep, don't think anyone would dispute it can help.

 

[Synco]

It'd be interesting to know this. Didn't the Broken Windows theory turn out to be bollocks in the end? Missing crucial contributory factors.

I've read the link, the study is a review of 48 studies. As I understand it, their main finding is a statistical correlation: The results "strongly suggest the existence of a positive association between growing up in a single-parent family and crime by adolescents".

They also make some additional statistical observations, like this association being stronger in more recent studies, and a few more.

Throughout the piece, they make caveats about a lack of sufficient data for further reaching inferences. They conclude that several theoretical models ('social control theory', 'social control/parental absence model', 'economic strain model') "cannot (fully) explain the results of this review", but they don't attempt any explanation of their own. At the end they say that no policies can be recommended on the basis of their findings, as further research on different types of single-parent families is needed.

Does this study also link in with the fact single parent families are more likely to be less economically advantaged?

They mention it as part of the recital of standard theoretical models ('economic strain model', see above).

Open for correction as usual, it's not my field. But I'd say that anyone basing any sociological explanations or political conclusions on this study is misrepresenting it.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I've read the link, the study is a review of 48 studies. As I understand it, their main finding is a statistical correlation: The results "strongly suggest the existence of a positive association between growing up in a single-parent family and crime by adolescents".

They also make some additional statistical observations, like this association being stronger in more recent studies, and a few more.

Throughout the piece, they make caveats about a lack of sufficient data for further reaching inferences. They conclude that several theoretical models ('social control theory', 'social control/parental absence model', 'economic strain model') "cannot (fully) explain the results of this review", but they don't attempt any explanation of their own. At the end they say that no policies can be recommended on the basis of their findings, as further research on different types of single-parent families is needed.

They mention it as part of the recital of standard theoretical models ('economic strain model', see above).

Open for correction as usual, it's not my field. But I'd say that anyone basing any sociological explanations or political conclusions on this study is misrepresenting it.

Thanks for the summary!

 

[Raven]

Context matters. The likes of Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr are going on stage in front of a huge audience of men & women and saying things that people know not to take at face value as everyone can see it's part of a performance. And even then they regularly receive criticism and rely on their skills as performers to tread that line. But ultimately everything they say is under the full glare of public spotlight, to be dissected and judged by a mainstream audience and critics of the art form. Similarly sitcoms realise there's a need to separate the abhorrent things characters say with the intentions of the writers, as a show like Always Sunny does by making it clear that the character's opinions are to be mocked rather than agreed with. All of which is again done under full public scrutiny and as part of a performance.

I don't think that's the same as some creep having "locker room banter" as in that case it isn't part of a performance and the comments absolutely aren't being presented for public scrutiny, as the speaker knows what they're saying wouldn't be deemed acceptable if it was and would reflect directly on them. Also a lot of the time (as with Trump's comments, for example) there isn't actually a constructed joke at the centre of the "banter". It's just saying unpleasant shit about women they want to avoid being judged on.

That shouldn't be judged in the same light as professional comedians performing on stage, I think. In much the same way that someone telling people in private that they've assaulted someone wouldn't be viewed in the same light as Johnny Cash singing about shooting a man in Reno to watch him die.

So you're saying people need to be famous comedians to tell offensive jokes? I've told offensive jokes and bantered about touchy subjects and it's almost always been received how I intended, which is either for a laugh or to insult that view point.

I'm a fundamentally left wing person and I hate racism, sexism and really any for of bigotry but I still think people should be allowed to tell jokes and have a laugh.

We should be focussing on identifying the root causes of crimes like these so we can prevent boys and young men from developing into these violent psychopaths. Instead we have a huge section of society banging on about 'locker room talk', again. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this type of banter leads to violent sexual crimes?

The last point I wanted to make on the topic is that in my experience, women talk about men in disgusting ways as well. It's almost as if sex takes up a huge part of the human mind and people talk about it regularly, even have a laugh and a joke about it.

I just wanted to note as well that I used to watch a nice bit of rugby when I was younger and played a bit in school as well but the culture around it is too creepy for me. There were a number of rumours floating around about some high profile rugby players being sinister towards women around my city, which made me pretty pissed off. Then a couple of years back the Paddy Jackson scandal happened and it was absolutely no surprise to me. It's been a long way to try and explain my point but I just wanted to acknowledge you're point and let you know I agree with it in some circumstances but to try and control what people have a laugh and joke about is way too far for me.

 

[Grinner]

Context matters. The likes of Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr are going on stage in front of a huge audience of men & women and saying things that people know not to take at face value as everyone can see it's part of a performance. And even then they regularly receive criticism and rely on their skills as performers to tread that line. But ultimately everything they say is under the full glare of public spotlight, to be dissected and judged by a mainstream audience and critics of the art form. Similarly sitcoms realise there's a need to separate the abhorrent things characters say with the intentions of the writers, as a show like Always Sunny does by making it clear that the character's opinions are to be mocked rather than agreed with. All of which is again done under full public scrutiny and as part of a performance.

I don't think that's the same as some creep having "locker room banter" as in that case it isn't part of a performance and the comments absolutely aren't being presented for public scrutiny, as the speaker knows what they're saying wouldn't be deemed acceptable if it was and would reflect directly on them. Also a lot of the time (as with Trump's comments, for example) there isn't actually a constructed joke at the centre of the "banter". It's just saying unpleasant shit about women they want to avoid being judged on.

That shouldn't be judged in the same light as professional comedians performing on stage, I think. In much the same way that someone telling people in private that they've assaulted someone wouldn't be viewed in the same light as Johnny Cash singing about shooting a man in Reno to watch him die.

There's a thread in The General I just saw bumped where a few posters have stated that there are some women that they would personally like to punch in the face because they don't like them. Some of the posters who I've seen in this Everard thread doing handwringing about locker-room banter have posted in the punching thread and not apparently been bothered by the threats of violence towards women.

Should I close that thread and give warnings to posters who want to be violent towards women, or should I just conclude that it's an example of locker-room talk and let it be? What about the thread where loads of us remark on the not traditionally attractive famous women that we fantasize about? It wasn't long ago that we had an epic asses thread that was very popular, I think there was also an epic cleavage thread.

 

[sullydnl]

So you're saying people need to be famous comedians to tell offensive jokes? I've told offensive jokes and bantered about touchy subjects and it's almost always been received how I intended, which is either for a laugh or to insult that view point.

I'm a fundamentally left wing person and I hate racism, sexism and really any for of bigotry but I still think people should be allowed to tell jokes and have a laugh.

We should be focussing on identifying the root causes of crimes like these so we can prevent boys and young men from developing into these violent psychopaths. Instead we have a huge section of society banging on about 'locker room talk', again. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this type of banter leads to violent sexual crimes?

The last point I wanted to make on the topic is that in my experience, women talk about men in disgusting ways as well. It's almost as if sex takes up a huge part of the human mind and people talk about it regularly, even have a laugh and a joke about it.

I just wanted to note as well that I used to watch a nice bit of rugby when I was younger and played a bit in school as well but the culture around it is too creepy for me. There were a number of rumours floating around about some high profile rugby players being sinister towards women around my city, which made me pretty pissed off. Then a couple of years back the Paddy Jackson scandal happened and it was absolutely no surprise to me. It's been a long way to try and explain my point but I just wanted to acknowledge you're point and let you know I agree with it in some circumstances but to try and control what people have a laugh and joke about is way too far for me.

Regarding the bold, no I'm not. I'm saying there's a huge different in context between a comedian onstage telling jokes and someone having locker room "banter" and that context will always see the two things be judged entirely differently. You suggested we're opening a can of worms whereby professional comedians wouldn't be able to do their job, I was just pointing out that it obviously wouldn't mean that as we already judge them entirely different ways. And by extension, that someone who rightly got called out for saying something in one context couldn't then say "but Jimmy Carr says things like that all the time", as if that means anything he says in whatever context should be judged as if he's a professional comedian performing on stage.

 

[fergieisold]

The problem with a lot of the fallout from this crime is people are somehow trying to make the link between crappy males making women feel unsafe/uncomfortable on the streets through misogynistic behaviour and the kidnap and murder of a young women. One things clear from everyone I've asked - women do perceive a threat from men on the streets, this is something blokes can do something about if it's their mates making stupid comments to random women etc.

 

[sullydnl]

There's a thread in The General I just saw bumped where a few posters have stated that there are some women that they would personally like to punch in the face because they don't like them. Some of the posters who I've seen in this Everard thread doing handwringing about locker-room banter have posted in the punching thread and not apparently been bothered by the threats of violence towards women.

Should I close that thread and give warnings to posters who want to be violent towards women, or should I just conclude that it's an example of locker-room talk and let it be? What about the thread where loads of us remark on the not traditionally attractive famous women that we fantasize about? It wasn't long ago that we had an epic asses thread that was very popular, I think there was also an epic cleavage thread.

My point was that context matters.

In the post you quoted, that meant people saying stuff in the locker room not being judged as if they were professional comedians saying those things as part of an on-stage performance.

In terms of the point you made, that means people talking about who they'd like to punch in the "most punchable faces" thread not being judged as if they were just generally talking about how much they want to punch women in the face.

In terms of how threads like those are moderated, that's up to the caf really. I'm sure there are places where those sort of threads would be deemed inappropriate. Just as I'm also (fairly) sure that if someone came into this more serious thread within the caf and started posting about which of the protesters they wanted to punch/feck it would be viewed differently, because of the context.

And extending all that to the bigger conversation, that a lot of the things people say are part of "locker room banter" aren't appropriate for that context either. The classic example being Trump's famous comments, which would make you look like a creep even in the locker room. As would, say, talking about which female co-workers you want to punch in the face.

 

[Raven]

Regarding the bold, no I'm not. I'm saying there's a huge different in context between a comedian onstage telling jokes and someone having locker room "banter" and that context will always see the two things be judged entirely differently. You suggested we're opening a can of worms whereby professional comedians wouldn't be able to do their job, I was just pointing out that it obviously wouldn't mean that as we already judge them entirely different ways. And by extension, that someone who rightly got called out for saying something in one context couldn't then say "but Jimmy Carr says things like that all the time", as if that means anything he says in whatever context should be judged as if he's a professional comedian performing on stage.

And what would you consider the proper context for someone like me to have a laugh and joke? Would I need to go and join a comedy club or something perhaps? Or do you believe that I shouldn't be allowed to express my sense of humour at all?

I'm someone who believes that you should be able to have a laugh and a joke about anything. I'm certainly not going to be modifying my sense of humour because of this. Like I said, we need to identify the root cause of shit like this, not sit around pointing fingers at people who have a different sense of humour to ourselves.

I noticed you didn't provide any evidence regarding 'locker room talk' and violent sexual crimes even after bolding my question on it. Did you forget to provide that or do you simply have no evidence to back up this notion?

Would you also like to comment on the disgusting shit women say/joke about men or are you just going to ignore that part of my post? If so, why?

 

[hobbers]

Regarding the bold, no I'm not. I'm saying there's a huge different in context between a comedian onstage telling jokes and someone having locker room "banter" and that context will always see the two things be judged entirely differently. You suggested we're opening a can of worms whereby professional comedians wouldn't be able to do their job, I was just pointing out that it obviously wouldn't mean that as we already judge them entirely different ways. And by extension, that someone who rightly got called out for saying something in one context couldn't then say "but Jimmy Carr says things like that all the time", as if that means anything he says in whatever context should be judged as if he's a professional comedian performing on stage.

This really sounds like nonsense. Most "locker room talk" is meaningless banter by definition. The edginess of Joe Bloggs' jokes, that he makes in a closed friend group, are not supposed to be, or are going to be, judged any other way than in that same context which Frankie Boyle's and Jimmy Carr's jokes are judged.

No amount of taste and thought-policing is going to make the streets any safer at night. There is no link between any level of "locker room talk", or the edginess of comedy, and men who commit sex attacks/rape/kidnap/murder. Just like there's no established link between levels of violent crime and other media, be it film, music or video games. It's clearly a futile road to go down given the thread's subject matter.

 

[sullydnl]

And what would you consider the proper context for someone like me to have a laugh and joke? Would I need to go and join a comedy club or something perhaps? Or do you believe that I shouldn't be allowed to express my sense of humour at all?

I'm someone who believes that you should be able to have a laugh and a joke about anything. I'm certainly not going to be modifying my sense of humour because of this. Like I said, we need to identify the root cause of shit like this, not sit around pointing fingers at people who have a different sense of humour to ourselves.

I noticed you didn't provide any evidence regarding 'locker room talk' and violent sexual crimes even after bolding my question on it. Did you forget to provide that or do you simply have no evidence to back up this notion?

Would you also like to comment on the disgusting shit women say/joke about men or are you just going to ignore that part of my post? If so, why?

It depends on what you're actually saying and who you're saying it to, for both men and women.

For example, jokes are made on the whatsapp group with my closest friends that wouldn't be made in, say, a locker room with a broader group of friends. And jokes made there wouldn't be made casually among colleagues at work. And jokes made among colleagues at work wouldn't be made in the professional context of our work.

My point was that comedians on stage aren't judged in the same way as people in the locker room, in much the same way that people in the locker room aren't judged in the same way as people on a professional call. We judge things differently depending on the context and saying something is wrong for one context doesn't therefore mean people can't say it in other contexts.

The overarching point of all of this is that things are said in certain contexts (like the fabled locker room) that aren't appropriate for that context either. As I said above, the classic example being the Donald Trump comments, which weren't appropriate for the context of the conversation he was in with Billy Bush or a locker room.

Regarding that other bold, the point I was going to make was that this entire conversation has long since broadened out past violent sexual crimes to include other more "minor" harassment against women too. It doesn't just become wrong when it turns violent, nor is the argument about addressing the things men say limited to preventing sexually violent acts. They want to stop things ranging from those violent acts down to (for example) catcalling in the street, which is something that contributes to women feeling unsafe in public and results in on-the-spot fines in some countries. So framing it as "where is the proof that locker room talk leads to violent sexual attacks" is rather missing the point.

That said, we have research forming the basis of government policy that tells us that sex-offenders who receive treatment to address their thinking and behaviours are less likely to offend again than those who aren't treated (7.2% vs 17.6%) or those who commit other crimes generally (as per a 1994 study robbers were re-arrested at a rate of 70.2%, burglars at 74%, and motor vehicle thieves at 78.8%, etc.). So we know that a) challenging behaviours and thinking does have an impact and b) that sex-offenders (against public perception, perhaps) aren't destined to offend or keep offending. We also have research that tells us that men who sexually assault women are more likely to hold misogynist views (duh) and that people who commit rape often don't identify their own actions as rape (e.g. date rape).

Given that even prosecutable sex crimes are evidently influenced by the prior behaviour and attitudes of the offenders and that addressing those behaviours and attitudes can even stop people at that level re-offending, I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that creating a culture where people are happy to call out unpleasant behaviour and attitudes in others might have an impact on more minor forms of harassment too. And that intervention could include something as simple as calling someone out if they keep saying unpleasant shit about women as part of inappropriate "banter". I mean even basic common sense will tell you that someone who has been rounded on by his friends for saying inappropriate things may well stop saying inappropriate things. Success.

 

[Grinner]

My point was that context matters.

In the post you quoted, that meant people saying stuff in the locker room not being judged as if they were professional comedians saying those things as part of an on-stage performance.

In terms of the point you made, that means people talking about who they'd like to punch in the "most punchable faces" thread not being judged as if they were just generally talking about how much they want to punch women in the face.

In terms of how threads like those are moderated, that's up to the caf really. I'm sure there are places where those sort of threads would be deemed inappropriate. Just as I'm also (fairly) sure that if someone came into this more serious thread within the caf and started posting about which of the protesters they wanted to punch/feck it would be viewed differently, because of the context.

And extending all that to the bigger conversation, that a lot of the things people say are part of "locker room banter" aren't appropriate for that context either. The classic example being Trump's famous comments, which would make you look like a creep even in the locker room. As would, say, talking about which female co-workers you want to punch in the face.

your assumption seemed to be that all locker-room banter was of the 'creep' kind when it clearly isn't. As I recall, the claim that what Trump said was locker-room talk was made by lots of women too. Now he should have been judged at far higher standards than anybody else but wasn't.

As for the Caf, we went strict on that kind of stuff because Google demanded it, not because suddenly everybody became clued-up on the error of their ways. I'm sure if Niall posted that the Google restrictions no longer applied you'd see a lot of that stuff return. Posters were saying they would leave the Caf because they couldn't post epic asses, and we had a breakaway forum from similarly disgruntled members. It became a real cesspit of shite but I think it closed down eventually.

 

[Buster15]

I don't believe it's a question of upbringing or parenting myself.

I think there's a couple of other areas that contribute though.

Firstly, the ease of access to pornography by teenagers and young men, (especially the violent type). I think the amount of porn consumed by young men, teenagers is definitely a contributing factor. The over consumption leads to unrealistic expectations of women, and the inability to form real, meaningful relationships. This mentality of every woman being 'up for it' is from porn.

Another area we should consider is hyper-sexualisation of society, particularly of young women.

It is far too easy to blame the ease of access to porn on the internet.
But history tells us that male attacks on women were happening way way before that.
Jack the ripper for example.

 

[Martial'sEmergingSmile]

The Times are apparently genuinely supporting a 'temporary' curfew of men.

Just saw the Sunday Times editor Emma Tucker on the news saying that their editorial stance is supportive of a curfew on all men - temporarily, she stressed - and that they'll be publishing a series of articles as part of that campaign.

Some of the articles here that they've already published, currently a trending event topic on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/i/events/1372509390075465728

Caitlin Moran opinion piece today:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Strange that what started as a flippant, throwaway comment is now getting actual support.

 

[sullydnl]

The Times are apparently genuinely supporting a 'temporary' curfew of men.

Just saw the Sunday Times editor Emma Tucker on the news saying that their editorial stance is supportive of a curfew on all men - temporarily, she stressed - and that they'll be publishing a series of articles as part of that campaign.

Some of the articles here that they've already published, currently a trending event topic on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/i/events/1372509390075465728

Caitlin Moran opinion piece today:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Strange that what started as a flippant, throwaway comment is now getting actual support.

Worth noting she does describe it as a "thought-experiment" in multiple attached tweets.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date