New Study Confirms Stigmatization of Men in Canadian Society (March 29, 2018)

[Cloud Cover]

This was released by CAFE last week: https://equalitycanada.com/new-study-confirms-stigmatization-of-men-in-canadian-society-march-29-2018-2/

Apparently the study was reviewed by an ethics board, although my understanding is the "elite" universities often blow snot at it: http://research.athabascau.ca/ethics/research-ethics-board.php

Interesting highlight (to me) from the press release:
"All participants in this research experienced instances where it was assumed that they were a threat to others or irresponsible and incapable with respect to family responsibilities. As a result, they were judged as unfit in their roles as parents or as employees in specific occupations. These judgments were made without any investigation into their actual parenting or work practices."

and of course:
"“Men face stigma, but so do men and women who perform research in this underexplored area. Dr. Robertson deserves credit for this courageous and ground-breaking work. Our charity will aim to use his findings to help us better support men and families in our community.”  Translation: do not research things like this that might change the all men are bad narrative or you will be academically ostracized. 

These assumptions, by the way, are generally embedded into family law in Canada and it is an uphill slog for most men in this country to survive divorce as well as their ex-spouses, particularly when it comes to custody and parenting.

 

[OldSolduer]

I have observed a number of things over 60 years. First, being a man is not what it was in the 50s and 60s. Secondly men have been portrayed in the media as desdbeats, rapists, abusers, stupid, Neanderthal etc. Third, men don’t do much to help themselves about this. Just my opinion.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Just because a study proposal has been reviewed and approved by an "ethics board" does not mean that the quality of the research or the assumptions made prior to the start of the study (or during the study) are endorsed by the board or its governing university.  All sorts of crap gets approved by university research committees and ethics boards.  Mostly all the approval means is that the researchers' methodology won't screw with the study subjects/participants and that the researcher has guaranteed that he/she will abide by rules dealing with human (or animal) research subjects.

I don't hold much stead with what a press release says.  Instead, I prefer reading the journal articles generated by the study.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1557988318763661

. . . This qualitative research explores the experience of 16 Canadian men who believe they were stigmatized due to their sex. . . .

Somehow, I don't have much faith in a study with only "16 participants" as being able to "confirm" stigmatization of men in Canadian society.  At best, and in my opinion, all the study does is relate the feelings of these 16 men who complain that they have been hard done by the system.  As to the quality and conclusions of the research, I would wait to see if it is cited in any letters or articles published in appropriate journals.  It's early days to see any response.

Even the author of the study doesn't claim to reach the conclusion of the press release title.  Maybe the author of that release didn't read the study.

. . . While the accounts given by the research participants satisfied the criteria of stigma outlined at the beginning of this article, given research design limitations it is not possible to state whether this stigma applies to Canadian men generally, or to some as yet undefined subset of the Canadian male population. . . .

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just because a study proposal has been reviewed and approved by an "ethics board" does not mean that the quality of the research or the assumptions made prior to the start of the study (or during the study) are endorsed by the board or its governing university.  All sorts of crap gets approved by university research committees and ethics boards.  Mostly all the approval means is that the researchers' methodology won't screw with the study subjects/participants and that the researcher has guaranteed that he/she will abide by rules dealing with human (or animal) research subjects.

I don't hold much stead with what a press release says.  Instead, I prefer reading the journal articles generated by the study.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1557988318763661
Somehow, I don't have much faith in a study with only "16 participants" as being able to "confirm" stigmatization of men in Canadian society.  At best, and in my opinion, all the study does is relate the feelings of these 16 men who complain that they have been hard done by the system.  As to the quality and conclusions of the research, I would wait to see if it is cited in any letters or articles published in appropriate journals.  It's early days to see any response.

I think that’s the gist of the point I was making. The ethics board, no matter how rigorous, isn’t going to add much weight but least it’s there and that cannot be denied, although it will be ridiculed and attacked.  An open mind would also recognize that this study received almost no no support, no funding ( and it even notes there are no examples in academia of any studies whatsoever about stygmstization of men).
I wouldn’t be so quick to throw cold water on the sample size. There are many studies on women and other groups of comparable size, and, as this study points out-researchers are socially and academically discouraged from examining this study area. This is accomplished by not making allowance to fund these studies,  lack of political support, and few men are willing to push for studies like this,much less participate ( to their detriment). For any future studies (if there are ever any at all), all of those things need to be addressed in small steps.
At the very least something has been published ( in the American Journal of Men’s Health).  That’s a start towards a better system of wholistic, qualitative of research than we now have. It may be the only step, sadly.

 

[brihard]

Right... Not much methodological strength to this. They proactively sought out a (rather small) study cohort that already self identified as having been discriminated against. They found 16 men who basically already had an axe to grind. It doesn't appear any efforts were made to verify or qualify the claims made by the study participants.

As a body of research, this is of extremely limited value except for possibly helping build a questionnaire for a larger and more representative sample.

Maybe it comes from being engaged to a brown skinned woman of North African descent, but as a white male there's a whole lot of BS I just never have to worry about putting up with. While there are things out there that would probably be a bit harder for me too, I've yet to actually run into any tangible difficulties in my life because of them. By and large my life has mostly been playing the game set on 'easy'.

 

[Underway]

Somehow, I don't have much faith in a study with only "16 participants" as being able to "confirm" stigmatization of men in Canadian society.  At best, and in my opinion, all the study does is relate the feelings of these 16 men who complain that they have been hard done by the system.  As to the quality and conclusions of the research, I would wait to see if it is cited in any letters or articles published in appropriate journals.  It's early days to see any response.

6 men is your sample size!  Throw that experimental design out.  It belongs in the trash bin.  You are barely even halfway to a proper sized study (min n=30 samples) to do anything resembling statistical analysis.  Any data correlation would be to likely to be due to chance (though I doubt there will be any data correlation just feel bad stories judging by the research direction).  All questions are valid, all experiments are not.  This is an example of an invalid experiment.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Brihard] , but as a white male there's a whole lot of BS I just never have to worry about putting up with. While there are things out there that would probably be a bit harder for me too, I've yet to actually run into any tangible difficulties in my life because of them. By and large my life has mostly been playing the game set on 'easy'.
[/quote]

Not trolling- would you suggest that people of colour should be given lesser sentences in Canada or special consideration during sentencing due to their lack of white privilege?

 

[brihard]

Not trolling- would you suggest that people of colour should be given lesser sentences in Canada or special consideration during sentencing due to their lack of white privilege?

Nope.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not trolling- would you suggest that people of colour should be given lesser sentences in Canada or special consideration during sentencing due to their lack of white privilege?

Shhhhhh... the Prime Minister's minions might be lurking on this site looking for things to feed the Good Idea Fairy.  :nod:

 

[TCM621]

6 men is your sample size!  Throw that experimental design out.  It belongs in the trash bin.  You are barely even halfway to a proper sized study (min n=30 samples) to do anything resembling statistical analysis.  Any data correlation would be to likely to be due to chance (though I doubt there will be any data correlation just feel bad stories judging by the research direction).  All questions are valid, all experiments are not.  This is an example of an invalid experiment.

This isn't an experiment so much it is a synthesis of 16 case studies. It is absolutely valid. It doesn't prove anything but it shows that it is a valid line of inquiry. Further study with larger sample sizes or different methodologies are needed to actually confirm anything. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Not trolling- would you suggest that people of colour should be given lesser sentences in Canada or special consideration during sentencing due to their lack of white privilege?

I disagree with the assertion that minorities should receive special consideration outside of any social factors which may have led directly to the crime that they are being convicted of. Context matters as it should in any case of common law. If race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc etc etc play a role in the crime than they absolutely should be considered, same as poverty should be considered. This is something that should extend to anyone, including neo-nazi's. If someone commits a hate crime and it can be shown that they did so due to their upbringing in a commune than it's absolutely a mitigating factor, same as if someone is in a gang and commits a gang crime because they're in an impoverished ethnic neighbourhood. If a native gets mad and beats up a white guy who is being a racist than that's valid same as a white guy assaulting a native for the same reason. Heck, even a veteran with PTSD can be seen to have similar issues when they commit a crime. There was a guy in Shilo who got caught with kiddy porn and got off with a lighter sentence because he said his PTSD triggered it. Even in this, that doesn't mean the individual isn't culpable, but it is a potential mitigating factor.

No one is above the law but there are circumstances, which is why common law is an excellent system of jurisprudence.

 

[Underway]

This isn't an experiment so much it is a synthesis of 16 case studies. It is absolutely valid. It doesn't prove anything but it shows that it is a valid line of inquiry. Further study with larger sample sizes or different methodologies are needed to actually confirm anything.

Unless there is proper experimental design to support it, with the appropriate measures in place to deal with bias it might as well be an op ed.  This is why hard science has a hate on for psychology and social sciences.  They infer "facts" from terrible experiments with high bias, limited/no multivariate analysis, low sample sizes and no ability to repeat the experiment.  "Garbage, I tell you. Garbage!" *runs off screaming and pulling out hair*.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45] .

No one is above the law but there are circumstances, which is why common law is an excellent system of jurisprudence.
[/quote]

So in the case of Scott Altman [ https://www.google.ca/amp/torontosun.com/news/provincial/recommended-healing-lodge-sentence-in-fatal-drunk-driving-crash-a-joke/amp] you would have supported the defense's request he spend time in a healing lodge to address his client’s Indigenous background?

Scott killed two people after cutting a car in half doing 187kph in a 50 zone.

His biological father was a violent alcoholic. His stepfather drank.

Altiman moved off the First Nation at age 11 to London and never completed high school. His parents broke up. He lived in poverty. He was sexually abused at age five, Melnick said

Deserving of a lighter sentence then?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So in the case of Scott Altman [ https://www.google.ca/amp/torontosun.com/news/provincial/recommended-healing-lodge-sentence-in-fatal-drunk-driving-crash-a-joke/amp] you would have supported the defense's request he spend time in a healing lodge to address his client’s Indigenous background?

Scott killed two people after cutting a car in half doing 187kph in a 50 zone.


Deserving of a lighter sentence then?

No, which wasn't what I was saying. He clearly drank and drove and killed someone so deserved jail time. However, he had the following mitigating factors below:

- His history includes grandparents placed in residential schools.

- His biological father was a violent alcoholic. His stepfather drank.

- Altiman moved off the First Nation at age 11 to London and never completed high school. His parents broke up. He lived in poverty. He was sexually abused at age five, Melnick said

So, I would suggest that jail time was appropriate as was requested by the crown attorney. The 10 years asked for also seems reasonable based on the mitigating circumstances. the outcome given certainly wasn't fair or equitable based on the crimes.

 

[Altair]

So in the case of Scott Altman [ https://www.google.ca/amp/torontosun.com/news/provincial/recommended-healing-lodge-sentence-in-fatal-drunk-driving-crash-a-joke/amp] you would have supported the defense's request he spend time in a healing lodge to address his client’s Indigenous background?

Scott killed two people after cutting a car in half doing 187kph in a 50 zone.


Deserving of a lighter sentence then?

Didn't he get sentenced to 10 years or something?

 

[Jarnhamar]

No, which wasn't what I was saying. He clearly drank and drove and killed someone so deserved jail time. However, he had the following mitigating factors below:

- His history includes grandparents placed in residential schools.

- His biological father was a violent alcoholic. His stepfather drank.

- Altiman moved off the First Nation at age 11 to London and never completed high school. His parents broke up. He lived in poverty. He was sexually abused at age five, Melnick said

So, I would suggest that jail time was appropriate as was requested by the crown attorney. The 10 years asked for also seems reasonable based on the mitigating circumstances. the outcome given certainly wasn't fair or equitable based on the crimes.

I don't see any of those factors mitigating (making less severe) his actions or behaviour.  At all.
His grandparents were placed in residential schools so that some how mitigates him almost quadruple the speed limit and cut a car in half?

Sorry I don't see it. Put children in a healing lodge, put adults who break the law in jail.

Didn't he get sentenced to 10 years or something?

He did yes. The judge rejected the healing lodge request, unlike what happened to Catherine McKay when she killed a family.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I don't see any of those factors mitigating (making less severe) his actions or behaviour.  At all.
His grandparents were placed in residential schools so that some how mitigates him almost quadruple the speed limit and cut a car in half?

Sorry I don't see it. Put children in a healing lodge, put adults who break the law in jail.

He did yes. The judge rejected the healing lodge request, unlike what happened to Catherine McKay when she killed a family.

I'll agree to disagree to a point. His grandparents being in a residential home clearly didn't impact him, but being sexually abused and being in a household with a violent alcoholic certainly would. You dont believe that those would have some impact on his actions?

Mitigating factors dont excuse the act, which is where I think our disconnect is. They align punishment to actions. He is still guilty and did an absolutely terrible thing. He got 10 years for it and no healing lodge. He will face all of the same restrictions and issues once he is released, so he's certainly not getting any breaks there.

 

[YZT580]

When or maybe where do you stop making excuses for behaviour?  We seem to have developed a Flip Wilson (the devil made me do it) mentality instead of accepting responsibility for our actions.  There are thousands of people who went through the school system and are productive today.  There are probably as many examples of abuse from schools such as Upper Canada or Appleby College or even the local high school.  Lots of lawyers and doctors and military officers have parents who were or are alcoholics.  It has scarred them yes but they are still making a go of it. If we make excuses for poor behaviour we are only encouraging more of it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

When or maybe where do you stop making excuses for behaviour?  We seem to have developed a Flip Wilson (the devil made me do it) mentality instead of accepting responsibility for our actions.  There are thousands of people who went through the school system and are productive today.  There are probably as many examples of abuse from schools such as Upper Canada or Appleby College or even the local high school.  Lots of lawyers and doctors and military officers have parents who were or are alcoholics.  It has scarred them yes but they are still making a go of it. If we make excuses for poor behaviour we are only encouraging more of it.

Who's making excuses? I don't know why saying that environmental conditions lead to behaviour that can mitigate or direct rehabilitation has to mean making excuses or not accepting responsibility. You can find someone guilty and understand specific circI'm stances.  In the veterans thread there was the story of the guy in NS who killed his wife and burned his house down. US his service or PTSD a mitigating factor? Many in that forum certainly thought so. He's still responsible but we understand that there were other circumstances around it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm working my way up to submitting a 'Hurt Feelings Report'.  ;D