1/3 of Male University Student Respondents Would Rape a Woman if there were no Consequences, According to Study

Sadly, I read about a new study  in the science journal Violence and Gender, titled “Denying Rape but Endorsing Forceful Intercourse: Exploring Differences Among Responders”, where one third of male responders in the study would rape a woman if there were no consequences.

Quoting from The Independent:

“Amongst other questions they were asked how they would act in a situation where they could have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will “if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences”.

31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation” – which is rape.

Worryingly, most men who indicated that they would commit rape did not even recognise their actions as such.

When explicitly asked whether they would rape a woman if there were no consequences, only 13.6% of participants said they would do so, a marked fall on those who had described that they would commit rape.”

For some reason, the male respondents, when the action was made clear that what would be happening was legally defined as rape, lowered the percentage saying they would still rape a woman.

There seems to be a disconnect among the male respondents about what IS rape.  And somehow this disconnect seems to maintain that it is NOT rape if it is a consequence-free situation.

It appears there is still lots of work to do with education and ethics for university college males.

Link to the study: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.0022

Link to the article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html

The Only Thing Unusual About Ray And Janay Rice Is That Anyone Noticed [deadspin.com]

BTS-Buttonby Diana Moskovitz / deadspin.com

One of my first homicide stories as a young crime reporter was about a woman killed by her boyfriend. One of my last stories as a crime reporter was about a woman killed by her husband. In between, there were too many dead women to count. A few stand out in memory, the ones whose deaths were especially grisly or tragic. But without fail, women slain by the men they loved kept coming across my desk.

It’s amazing how routine abuse can become. That’s why, whenever a woman turned up dead in South Florida, I knew exactly what to do.

First, find the old restraining order she’d let expire. Second, pull the file from the courthouse. Finally, find the letter inside in which she’d told the court her boyfriend or husband promised he would never hit her again. Because he’s a changed man. Because this was a one-time incident. Because I’m at fault, too. Because this is not a reflection of our relationship. He’ll never hit me again, the dead women had pleaded—just like Janay Rice did, on national television.

But this story isn’t about that press conference anymore. It’s about the video that shows Ray Rice with Janay—then his fiancée, now his wife—in an Atlantic City casino elevator. She rushes up to him, and he throws one swift punch. Her body goes horizontal, head slamming into a handrail before she crumples, powerless, to the floor. It happens in seconds, and then come the gut-wrenching moments when Ray Rice stands there, just stands there, over her unconscious body.

Get angry at what Ray Rice did and get angry at what Roger Goodell didn’t do, but please don’t be surprised by any of it. Not by the hit, not by the blatant attempts to make it look like it was the woman’s fault, not by Rice saying he would never do it again, not even by his wife taking him back. From the beginning, the Ray Rice saga has recapitulated everything awful about how domestic violence plays out in America. It has followed the script perfectly.

Click on this link to continue reading the rest of the article:

http://deadspin.com/the-only-thing-unusual-about-ray-and-janay-rice-is-that-1633583402/+laceydonohue

As AIDS Epidemic Matures, Workplaces Adapt [voanews.com]

by Anita Powell / voanews.com

The vast majority of AIDS patients are of working age, according to statistics from U.N. AIDS.

And so, as the working population changes, AIDS activists say the workplace also needs to adapt. Many organizations, including the U.N.’s labor agency, have called on businesses to create HIV-friendly policies for the workplace.

But how that will actually play out in the workplace varies widely from country to country.

Some nations, such as Australia, which has a low AIDS prevalence rate of about 0.2 percent, have proactive, federally funded workplace programs and progressive policies. Australians also enjoy national health care, which provides a safety net for employees.

HIV policies

Brent Allan, who is on the AIDS conference’s organizing committee and is based in Melbourne as the head of Living Positive Victoria, says he challenges all workplaces to set up HIV policies.

“This is a policy that caters to the well-being of their employees. If their employees are feeling good, if their employees are healthy, they’re going to be more productive,” Allan said.

In the United States, David Phillips, who works for the government-run National Institutes of Health, says he has had HIV his entire working life – since he was 17.

Phillips says he welcomes one recent development in U.S. policy, the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which he says offers HIV patients the flexibility to change jobs without losing their HIV coverage under their private Insurance plan.

At the office, he offers simple advice to colleagues and bosses.

“I would say the big thing is to try to keep as much normalcy about the situation as possible. In this day and age, people living with HIV, we have pretty much a normal life expectancy,” Phillips said.

“Pretty much the first day I work with a new boss, I sit them down and I tell them about my HIV story and some other medical issues. It’s really to say, that ‘Hey, we can really perform well.’ It’s not like the old days where you were constantly popping out for doctor’s appointments because people were sick,” he added.

That does not mean, Phillips says, that HIV does not affect workers.

“For most people who’ve had HIV a long time, their bodies have been taxed by coping with the virus and the medications, that many people physically feel 10, 15, 20 years older than their chronological age. I’m very fortunate that at almost 50, I feel like I’m 25 most of the time, and the only thing that’s killing me right now are my feet from walking on these hard convention center floors,” he adds, laughing.

Discrimination

But in other nations, particularly within sub-Saharan Africa, which has the world’s highest AIDS rate of about 4.7 percent, working with AIDS is not always so easy.

AIDS patients, who are overwhelmingly female, often face discrimination. Many African governments provide free HIV medication – but patients often have to take time off work to queue for hours at government facilities.

In the southern African nation of Malawi, Safari Mbewe, the executive director of the Malawi Network of People Living with HIV, says AIDS support systems need to come into the workplace, with voluntary and confidential HIV support programs.

“If we could explore the possibility of having these facilities within the workplace. So each and every company, each and every organization should have a facility within their campus that should take care of their employees. So when an employee needs HIV testing, an employee needs ARVs, they don’t have to go elsewhere, because this is what is affecting the productivity as well,” Mbewe says.

“If it’s done, if everything is provided within the same workplace, it means all the employees would have adequate time to concentrate on their work,” he adds.

Mbewe says he’s heard countless tales of workers being fired for their HIV-positive status in Malawi.

Doesn’t disclose status

And so Mbewe, unlike Phillips, does not disclose his HIV status at work. That makes him a bit of an anomaly: in Southern Africa, it is common for workers to put their health status at the top of their resume.

“I think it’s not important. Because my belief is that the employers should be looking at one’s capability to do the job. So whether one is HIV positive or not, it doesn’t make any difference,” Mbewe said.

The conference has dedicated many hours to the discussion of workplace issues, debating issues of privacy, of policies and of workers’ rights across a spectrum of diverse labor laws and workplace cultures.

But throughout, the underlying message around the world is the same: people with HIV want to work.

http://www.voanews.com/articleprintview/1963316.html


 

Do People Only Use 10% of Their Brains? [mentalfloss.com]

by Hannah Keyser / mentalfloss.com

2013 poll surveying over 2000 Americans found that 65 percent thought that this statement is true. And yet, the simple and unequivocal answer is: No. Despite a myth so prevalent that it is easily accepted as a pivotal plot point in movies or a motivational tactic or even justification for psychic claims, everyone uses 100 percent of their brain.

There are a number of logical refutations of this myth—why would big brains evolve if they’re nothing but dead weight?—but outright proving its fallacy is relatively easy with modern technology. PET and fMRI scans show that even when we’re sleeping, our entire brain is active on some level.

But even before imaging techniques allowed scientists to definitively debunk this myth, how did it arise in the first place? And why has it held on into the era of such increased understanding of how the brain works?

Although it’s impossible to prove as the exact origin of the myth, there is a traceable misappropriation of a vague claim that seems to be the first written mention. In 1907, prominent philosopher and psychologist William James wrote in The Energies of Man that “We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.” He meant—probably—that we all had untapped potential within us, a likely, although hardly inflammatory, assertion. Twenty-nine years later, in the introduction to Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People, Lowell Thomas wrote, presumably referencing that quote, “Professor William James of Harvard used to say that the average man develops only ten per cent of his latent mental ability.”

Again, there’s no overt neurological claim—mental ability does not mean brain mass—but from here the sentiment seems to have spun off; versions of it found use in the science fiction and spiritual communities. It didn’t help matters that in the 1920s and ’30s, prominent psychologist Karl Lashley attempted to isolate regions of the brain by removing areas of the cerebral cortex in rats. When he found they were still able to learn and remember specific tasks, it contributed to the idea that there are large swatches of “inactive” brain mass.

Decades later, the myth has persevered because of the attractive possibilty it seems to present. It absolves us for not reaching our full potential, offers a persistent insecurity for self-help gurus to appeal to, and provides a pseudo-scientific explanation for the limits of human comprehension.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57658/do-people-only-use-10-their-brains

When Belief and Facts Collide [nytimes.com]

by Brendan Nyhan / nytimes.com

Do Americans understand the scientific consensus about issues like climate change and evolution?

At least for a substantial portion of the public, it seems like the answer is no. The Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 33 percent of the publicbelieves “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” and 26 percent think there is not “solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades.” Unsurprisingly, beliefs on both topics are divided along religious and partisan lines. For instance, 46 percent of Republicans said there is not solid evidence of global warming, compared with 11 percent of Democrats.

As a result of surveys like these, scientists and advocates have concluded that many people are not aware of the evidence on these issues and need to be provided with correct information. That’s the impulse behind efforts like the campaign to publicize the fact that 97 percent of climate scientistsbelieve human activities are causing global warming.

In a new study, a Yale Law School professor, Dan Kahan, finds that the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people iswider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Mr. Kahan’s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren’t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views. This finding helps us understand why my colleagues and I have found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts.

Click this link to continue reading the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2

Facebook’s Unethical Experiment [slate.com]

It intentionally manipulated users’ emotions without their knowledge.

By 

facebookdownFacebook has been experimenting on us. A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that Facebook intentionally manipulated the news feeds of almost 700,000 users in order to study “emotional contagion through social networks.”

The researchers, who are affiliated with Facebook, Cornell, and the University of California–San Francisco, tested whether reducing the number of positive messages people saw made those people less likely to post positive content themselves. The same went for negative messages: Would scrubbing posts with sad or angry words from someone’s Facebook feed make that person write fewer gloomy updates?

They tweaked the algorithm by which Facebook sweeps posts into members’ news feeds, using a program to analyze whether any given textual snippet contained positive or negative words. Some people were fed primarily neutral to happy information from their friends; others, primarily neutral to sad. Then everyone’s subsequent posts were evaluated for affective meanings.

The upshot? Yes, verily, social networks can propagate positive and negative feelings!

The other upshot: Facebook intentionally made thousands upon thousands of people sad.

Facebook’s methodology raises serious ethical questions. The team may have bent research standards too far, possibly overstepping criteria enshrined in federal lawand human rights declarations. “If you are exposing people to something that causes changes in psychological status, that’s experimentation,” says James Grimmelmann, a professor of technology and the law at the University of Maryland. “This is the kind of thing that would require informed consent.”

Click here to continue reading the article at Slate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/06/facebook_unethical_experiment_it_made_news_feeds_happier_or_sadder_to_manipulate.html