What is "Rape Culture"?

[tali89]

Seems kind of irrelevant to me.

Oh, of that I have no doubt. You, Bells, and a number of other posters in this thread have been asking us supposed 'rape advocates' to perform certain thought experiments (such as my boyfriend standing on a street corner to say 'Hello' to other men), and now that Milkweed has demonstrated that the experiment has already been performed (eg. a guy asking others guys for their phone number and not being subjected to anger in most cases), your prejudicial worldview requires you to dismiss such evidence . That's how my detractors are operating on this thread. They choose to flat out ignore pertinent questions, or deem certain requests as 'irrelevant'. For example:

tali said:
You ignored the associated question:

iceaura: Yep.

Iceaura is referring to this question: "By what method did you determine this (that 'most' women in 'society' are subjected to continual private and public harassment)? And have you used the same method to determine the degree of sexual harassment that men are subjected to in the same society?" It's also important to note that I asked him to clarify what society he was referring to, and to quantify 'most', which he hasn't done. Making vague claims with general terms can be advantageous to begin with, as they are hard to challenge. However, in order to maintain the veneer of plausibility, the individual needs to evade all attempts to have them clarify and substantiate their position.

tali said:
So if an episode of sexual harassment experienced by a woman doesn't lead to sexual assault or rape, it's not a big deal?

iceaura: The word "threat" was employed. It's in your dictionary, between "tantrum" and "tubthumping". Reading all the words in the posts is very helpful in responding.

So if someone doesn't explicitly or implicitly threaten to sexually assault or rape someone when they perpetrate sexual harassment, it's not a big deal?

 

[tali89]

I'm sorry, would you direct me to the specific point in the video where he tries that line? Or calls another man "baby"?

So you're admitting that a man asking a female stranger in the street for her phone number would not constitute street harassment?

 

[Tiassa]

¿Innocuously Deluded?

⇖Click|Dance⇗: To make believe it's the first time.​

Every abusive asshole in the world uses that line. "Hey, I was just trying to be nice."

You don't really expect anyone here to buy it, do you?

It occurs to me, sir, that we might be asking the wrong question; that is, from their perspective it might be a question of what there is to buy.

Okay, this follows a broader pattern, one associated with certain schools of thought that do, not simply coincidentally, show some overlap with the issues and expressions we see in this thread.

Start with the bit I've tried a few times about how a rape joke isn't a rape joke because it's a cop joke, or a blonde joke, or a prison joke, or a gorilla joke.

Let's take it a step further: Regardless of the odds against never having encountered such jokes, what if they've convinced themselves those jokes just don't exist?

Or that actual street harassment doesn't exist?

That is, what if it's not a matter of trying to paint street harassment as innocuous greetings, wellwishes, and flirting, but, rather, that they somehow have come to believe the street harassment is just a figment of people's imaginations?

I mean, think about the Kim Davis version. It's been going on in conservative circles for several years, at least; the cynical denunciations of liberal demons called misogyny or homophobia or racism in America have transformed into desperate complaints of violation. And if they really did believe that stuff about liberals just calling something by a name and making it stick, then ... well ... right. I mean, I might argue that what Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel are maneuvering around is the difference between asserting equality or supremacism as a civil right. But what if to them it makes no difference, because they really did convince themselves that it's just about asserting a word, and if they say it enough people will accept it? What if at some point it stopped being a tactical ploy and became a fundamental belief?

After all, we've all been puzzled in recent years by the sudden estrangement of the reality from the driving conservative outlook in American politics. What if it's not stubborn politicking anymore? What if they really believe it, and these weird formulations are a result of that shift?

I mean, look at the latest iteration↑, that saying to random men on the street, "Smile, baby! Did you know 'innocuity' is really a word?"↑ is the same as "a man asking a female stranger in the street for her phone number".

It's an interesting proposition that the two are the same; the question of whether the latter is harassment―we can leave it at curiously invasive if the same man asking the woman for her phone number does the same to men for, say, the purpose of building a contact list when the new product comes out―is actually irrelevant to the question of whether a situationally-controlled experiment in which a man walks up to another man and asks him for his phone number is the same as saying to a man passing on the street, "Smile, baby! Did you know 'innocuity' is really a word?"

One wonders if they've been trying to deny the discussion for so long that they no longer believe it applies to anything real.

Maybe they keep pleading innocuity because they can't imagine otherwise, and all the stuff that is obviously not innocuous is just another dirty feminist-liberal-socialist lie.

I don't know. Maybe.

The problem is that if we're supposed to take them seriously, it would help if they started making sense.

 

[tali89]

I mean, look at thelatest iteration↑, that saying to random men on the street,"Smile, baby! Did you know 'innocuity' is really a word?"↑is the same as"a man asking a female stranger in the street for her phone number".

It's cute how you have a tendency to talk past people in an attempt to slip your misrepresentations by them. Where did I, or anyone in this thread, say that those two phrases were the same? Once you've failed to support that assertion (and I know you will, since nobody claimed the two were the same), you can answer my question, which is whether a man asking a female stranger in the street for her phone number constitutes street harassment. It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question, so you don't need to refer to a liberal blog or anime image. I suspect your response will be similar to what I've seen from other liberals in this thread, which is:

 

[Tiassa]

Where did I, or anyone in this thread, say that those two phrases were the same? Once you've failed to support that assertion (and I know you will, since nobody claimed the two were the same)

Do you ever actually pay attention?

You dont have to test it, others did (see video #2).

(#537↑)​

No, really. Pay attention and stop trolling the discussion with your pretentious indignation.

 

[tali89]

Hmm, nope, I looked at the post you referenced and couldn't find where anyone claimed the two phrases were the same.

Now that you've failed to support that assertion, you can try answering my next question, which is whether a man asking a female stranger in the street for her phone number constitutes street harassment. It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question, so you don't need to refer to a liberal blog or anime image.

 

[Tiassa]

Meanwhile, Back on Topic (Unsurprising Repetition)

​

As I have noted↑ before↑, we all play our part.

But, you know, nobody ever listens to me; after all, I'm just this dude, right?

So here you go. From a woman. Zeba Blay↱ of Huffington Post, to be precise:

This isn't about condemning all men, or saying that all men hate women. This is about nuance. Just as racism is complex, so too is sexism. Gamergaters and Men's Rights Activists are extreme examples of misogynists in our society. As such, they are easy to identify, condemn and dismiss. When we only see misogyny in the extremes, it becomes easier to distances ourselves and our loved ones from the fray.

But what about the more subtle, everyday sexists who go under the radar merely because they might be likable, or charming, or say one decent thing about women? What about the men who may genuinely believe that they don't harbor sexist ideas, simply because they are not "extreme"? Donald Trump has championed women in business, hiring women as some of the top executives in his companies. But he's also been incredibly patronizing to women, once telling a female reporter, "You wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful," and tweeting insults about the appearances of female public figures.

We focus so much on the Elliot Rodgers or Marc Lépines or Robert Lewis Dear Jrs. of this world. But we don't focus on the millions of men who will never kill, who do not condone those actions, but who may subscribe to similar beliefs about women. Beliefs including the idea that women's bodies are not their own, that somehow women who don't want to sleep with them are uptight, frigid, crazy "feminazis." These beliefs may not always manifest themselves in physical violence, but they affect our everyday lives all the same.

This is why it's so important to call out everyday forms of sexism, from catcalling to mansplaining, to even less obvious daily microaggressions against women. In order to combat misogyny, we must acknowledge and call out our own internalized sexism, and the sexism within men that we admire and love.

Sexism is something that anyone can be complicit in, in big and small ways. Distancing ourselves from the problem by pretending only horrible people are capable of perpetuating misogyny will do nothing to make it go away.​

And, you know, this really is something people have a problem with. As Blay explains, "Just as racism is complex, so too is sexism". It's an apt juxtaposition; I learned long ago that people are offended by the notion of background racism. Then again, I come from a generation by which once upon a time it was fashionable to show your black liberation street cred by explaining, "I'm not racist. There are black people, and then there are niggers."

You know, just as some would assert that there are women, and then there are bitches↗.

Even still, though, there is plenty more subtle; we've seen plenty of it―at best―in this thread―indeed, some would deliberately try to hide behind it. And if we are to believe these people, they either live in unusually sheltered worlds or are entirely submerged in the cultural currents.

To wit, why are you asking for her phone number? In the first place, it's invasive even under the best of circumstances. To the other, you might just be innoculously flirting but who says whether or not she's available is any of your fucking business?

Because it's not.

Think of it this way: If what you're looking for is a proper degree to which it is appropriate to randomly intrude into someone's life for mating or related purposes, you're not going to find it.

The difference between simply walking up to a woman and asking for her phone number and, say, telling her how sexy she is, comes down to a matter of degrees; some would attempt to construe the lesser as appropriate.

Yet both rely on the presumption that it's any of his business.

And all of this is ensconced in a presupposition that mating is somehow what women are for in the twenty-first century of the Common Era.

Sure, Steven Brust says life is like an onion, but the metaphor only goes so far, and on this occasion it isn't really enough, and you are not a sagacious Hawk.

She shouldn't have to wear a sign that says, "No Vacancy", just like you shouldn't have to be told that you don't go into a watchmaker's to let a room for the night, or do your grocery shopping at the Motel 6.

Should you have to wear a "One Way" sign to tell gay men to not hit on you?

Do women need to present a threat of mortal violence such as I might face randomly hitting on guys in the street?

And, you know, maybe someday it will be cool. But just like all the other things the "I'm not a _____-ist" bloc wants, you can't have it until we actually achieve equality. And no, gentlemen, we don't get to decide what equality satisfies us.
____________________

Notes:

Blay, Zeba. "You Don't Have To Be A Monster To Hate Women". The Huffington Post. 7 December 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 8 December 2015. http://huff.to/1YW0HIa

 

[billvon]

. . .will be similar to what I've seen from other liberals in this thread, which is:

Once again, when backed into a corner, the only reply Tali89 can come up with is personal attacks and cartoons.

 

[milkweed]

I'm sorry, would you direct me to the specific point in the video where he tries that line? Or calls another man "baby"?

See, the thing is you're just making it up as you go. There are a number of observable differences between street harassment and what you are trying to construe it as.

so telling someone to smile is more overt than this from the video:

0:43 can i get your number
your number
cuz I think your kinda cute

1:04 sir can I get your number
yeah
maybe go on a date or something
Go on a date

And there I stopped. Asking someone on a date shows much more sexual interest than saying "smile". Saying 'cuz I think your kinda cute' is much more to the point than saying "hey baby".

So please tell me who is Making It Up As They Go.

Your using the wrong sized glass.

quote from wiki -- In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[iceaura]

And there I stopped. Asking someone on a date shows much more sexual interest than saying "smile".

Telling someone they are being watched carefully by a strange man who thinks they should smile more is just as intrusive, unwarranted, abusive, and backed by the culturally inculcated threat, as asking for a date.

Depending on circumstance, much more so. You do see that?

And when large numbers and significant percentages of people in a given culture can watch the videos, read the accounts, consider the statistics, and remain oblivious to the problem, we have proof that it is a cultural problem, not a matter of deranged individuals or a pitiable illustration of mental illness.

It's also important to note that I asked him to clarify what society he was referring to, and to quantify 'most', which he hasn't done.

"Most" is a quantification, and I specified exactly which society - yours. Do you not know what society you belong to?

So if someone doesn't explicitly or implicitly threaten to sexually assault or rape someone when they perpetrate sexual harassment, it's not a big deal?

Sure. That's a theoretical possibility.

It is impossible in reality, in your society, because you have a rape culture. All harassment takes place within a context of the threat of assault, and the impunity of the harasser. In your society there is no such thing as harassment without the implicit threat of assault.

That's one reason why female bosses don't get continually harassed by their employees. The vulnerable do not routinely threaten the powerful.

 

[James R]

tali89:

So now you're resorting to posting summary articles from Buzzfeed of all places. Is Buzzfeed a source of scholarly insight for you?

Since you knew nothing about what the term "rape culture" meant, I pointed you to some references. It is pleasing to see that since then you have shown a little more understanding of what you were previously trying to discuss in a total vacuum of knowledge. Of course, you still don't really get it.

Since I've been discussing whether 'rape culture' exists for a significant portion of this thread, along with other strands of evidence that would be suggestive of one, your claim that I would prefer to postpone discussion of the issue is a demonstrable lie.

No. You constantly require other people to provide more and more "evidence" to refute claims that you make with no evidence at all. You have not, as far as I can see, supplied anything of substance to this thread. Moreover, as I noted, you have consistently ignored all evidence presented to you. Most of what you have posted here has only been to try to goad people to respond angrily to you.

Please quantify 'regular' numerically (ie. percentage-wise)....[snip] ... please quantify [this and that and the other thing]

No. I'm not going to take your troll bait and run in around in circles to please you. Go do your own research for once.

Can you demonstrate that it is socially acceptable to stalk and threaten strangers?

That's what you need to do, not me. You can start by explaining why it is ok for the men in your favorite street harassment video to stalk and harass the woman involved. On the other hand, since you have now had months to come up with an explanation and have singularly and repeatedly failed, I know it's pointless to expect any better from you.

I notice that you avoided my observation that there are jokes about Holocaust, and that according to your logic I must live in an anti-Semitic genocide culture.

You tell me what the characteristics of an anti-Semitic genocide culture would be. Once I can see you understand what such a thing would involve, then I'll tell you whether you live in such a culture or not. Given that you haven't grasped rape culture yet, the chances of you being able to extrapolate to something else are slim to none, I'd say.

I'll also point out that you haven't demonstrated that rape jokes are considered 'culturally acceptable'.

What would convince you? What would it take for you to accept that rape jokes are culturally acceptable?

Where did I 'paint myself' as not knowing what a hamburger is?

You failed to understand a simple point once again. Actual or feigned stupidity? I don't know, and don't really care at this point.
---

Indeed, it's all rather creepy exactly how hive-mind like the left-wingers on sciforums are.

Well, for somebody as paranoid about "left wingers" as you are, it's not surprising you're creeped out at the thought of anybody who disagrees with your extremist politics and social views.

If you're going to rush to the support of iceaura, it would befit you to familiarize yourself with what he has actually argued up to this point. He first claimed that people living inside a rape culture usually aren't aware that they live in a rape culture. Then he later observed that people living outside a rape culture often don't realize it as such due to their lack of experience with said culture. So which social scientists are qualified to determine whether a rape culture exists? The ones living inside the rape culture, or the ones living outside of it?

The thing about any ideology is that an ideology always belongs to somebody else. One's own beliefs are almost always just "common sense" or "the way things should be" and not at all ideologically driven, from one's own point of view. Social scientists are people who are trained to look past this man-in-the-street perception and recognise ideologies for what they are. It doesn't matter whether they are living in the culture or outside. The point is, they know what to look for. iceaura, as usual, is right on the money and tali89 is, as usual, ignorant.

Just in case you've forgotten, here are the list of claims you have made that you have yet to provide any substantial evidence for:

- That I live in a rape culture.

- That rape jokes are evidence of rape culture, whereas Holocaust jokes are not evidence of an anti-Semitic genocide culture.

- That I'm lying when I claimed I haven't heard anyone in my culture tell a rape joke, and explain how your assertion is relevant to me eating hamburgers.

- Clarify who is qualified to identify a rape culture, when you have claimed that people both within and outside of a rape culture may have trouble identifying it as such.

- You need to explain why the prevalence of rape is irrelevant when attempting to determine whether a rape culture exists, and why you claimed I was the only one discussing these statistics when it was another poster who posted them to fuel discussion of how common rape is in the United States.

- You need to provide evidence of organized gangs of rapists in places you deem to be rape culture, as well as evidence that officials systematically protect them.

- You need to demonstrate that theft is taken more seriously than rape by the police, and that convicted thieves are given longer convictions than rapists.

- You need to demonstrate that convicted rapists aren't blamed for raping individuals.

You keep posting this list as if it is some kind of trump card for you. You've posted it numerous times. And yet, it is childishly simple to address your points. Look:

1. Numerous reasons have been provided throughout this thread as to why you live in a rape culture. But the piece of evidence that should tell you the most - because it's right where you are - is your own attitude and defensiveness.
2. If you understood what a "rape culture" is, then you would also understand that it is untenable to argue that rape jokes are not indicative of it.
3. The hamburger reference is a simple one that (a) a child would understand, and (b) has been carefully explained to you. Clearly, you're just playing dumb on that. Your claim that you have never heard a rape joke beggars belief.
4. Anybody who understands what a rape culture is has the necessary qualifications to identify one when they see it.
5. Review the definition of "rape culture" to see whether it requires knowledge of statistics on the prevalence of rape.
6. There is no need for anybody to provide evidence of organised gangs of rapists. Rape culture does not depend on the existence of such.
7. Rape culture does not depend on whether theft is taken more seriously by police than rape. That is another irrelevancy. What is relevant is the extent to which police and other authorities take rape seriously.
8. Rape culture does not depend on convicted rapists not being blamed for raping. That is another irrelevancy that you have introduced.

Done.

And then you observed that people living outside of a rape culture can't see and experience what goes on in the rape culture. So essentially, you're claiming that people living within a rape culture don't recognize it as such because they are acclimatized to it, yet individuals outside of the rape culture may also not be able to identify it as such due to their ignorance.

iceaura is right on the money. And you're repeating yourself, as usual.

 

[tali89]

tali89:
tali89: Please quantify 'regular' numerically (ie. percentage-wise)....[snip] ... please quantify [this and that and the other thing]

James R: No. I'm not going to take your troll bait and run in around in circles to please you. Go do your own research for once.

So instead of surreptitiously evading requests to clarify and support your claims, you're flat-out refusing to do so? It's nice to see you've progressed somewhat, as your blunt honesty about your refusal to support your claims makes our discussions less tedious for the audience. By the way, in case you're not aware, you've just lost the veneer of good faith you try to maintain in our discussions.

I might also note that I'm a little disappointed. You've been absent from this discussion for weeks, and I thought that this was perhaps because you were gathering the relevant data and sociological studies to support your claims. Unfortunately you've chosen to return to this thread to continue with your misrepresentations of me, without paying attention to the discussion that occurred in the meantime.

Most of what you have posted here has only been to try to goad people to respond angrily to you.

It's rather revealing that you think I'm trying to make other people angry, particularly since you have accused me of sounding angry in past discussions. Does my asking you to support your assumptions make you angry, James? Indeed, why do 'rape culture believers' on this thread become so defensive whenever I ask them to provide evidence to substantiate their worldview? They are displaying the sort of response I'd expect from a dogmatic theist who was questioned on the infallibility of their scripture.

You keep posting this list as if it is some kind of trump card for you. You've posted it numerous times. And yet, it is childishly simple to address your points. Look

In regards to your attempts to address 'my' points, I'll observe that it was iceaura who made those claims, and that I was simply asking for evidence to substantiate them. So it seems that in a rather humorous turn of events, you've chosen to argue against iceaura rather than me. It might be worth catching up on what has been discussed in this topic during your absence before you comment, in order to avoid similar embarrassments in the future.

 

[tali89]

and I specified exactly which society - yours.

Err, no, you didn't specify a society, which is why I asked for clarification instead of making assumptions based on incomplete information (a key difference between you and I, it appears).

Now that you've specified the culture you were referring to, you'll need to explain how you managed to gather the data to determine that 'most' women in my culture are subjected to 'continual public and private harassment', when you don't even know where I live. Good luck with that.

tali said:
It's also important to note that I asked him to clarify what society he was referring to, and to quantify 'most', which he hasn't done.

iceaura: "Most" is a quantification,

'Most' is a vague term, and could mean anything from 50.1%-99.9%, which is why I asked for further clarification. Once you decide to stop filibustering, you should specify a percentage, and provide evidence that 'most' women are subjected to 'continual public and private harassment' in my society.

In your society there is no such thing as harassment without the implicit threat of assault.

Can you explain where the implicit threat is in telling someone to smile?

That's one reason why female bosses don't get continually harassed by their employees. The vulnerable do not routinely threaten the powerful.

You have sociological studies to support that claim?

 

[James R]

tali89:

You didn't read my previous post or didn't get the message. I'm not going to jump through your hoops. If you ever post anything useful on this or some other topic, then I may address it as I see fit, or not. Not that I expect you ever to produce something worth reading.

I have been absent from this thread for several weeks. During that time, you have continued to repeat yourself and whine and goad other posters in your usual fashion. I have missed nothing important from you. You have nothing interesting to say.

I note that you addressed none of the substance of my previous post.

You are a troll, and trolls deserve very little attention and no respect.

 

[tali89]

Hehehe, thanks James, I needed a chuckle. I hope your day improves.

 

[Secular Sanity]

I'm tired of Tiassa's dumbass cat-and-mouse shit. Let's get back on topic, shall we?

I appreciated the man's question (at about 40:25 into the video), what is this debate really about?

Is it about the prevalence? Is it about the validity of the statistics? What is it really about?

Rape culture: menace or myth?

There are links between masculinity and violence. Is this something that we promote and celebrate?

If we do live in a rape culture, do women contribute, and if so, how?

Is rape extrinsically motivated?

If so, what prevents most men from raping?

 

[milkweed]

Hmm, nope, I looked at the post you referenced and couldn't find where anyone claimed the two phrases were the same.

Now that you've failed to support that assertion, you can try answering my next question, which is whether a man asking a female stranger in the street for her phone number constitutes street harassment. It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question, so you don't need to refer to a liberal blog or anime image.

You are so very good at pointing out the deflections and evasion tactics. I so often get sucked into these. Keep it going, I am learning a few things.

 

[James R]

Here's an article about rape jokes, for those who believe they aren't prevalent in their rape culture.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...sell-christmas-presents-tasteless-advertising

Excerpts:

Thirty-eight per cent of adults in the UK hear jokes about sexual assault or sex offenders regularly, according to a new survey by OnePoll. The nationally representative study of 1,000 British adults found that a quarter of men and 11% of women said they had made this type of joke themselves.

The poll disproves the notion that these attitudes towards sexual violence are dying away. It found that 71% of 18-24-year-olds have made a rape joke or flippantly used the word rape, and 88% of respondents in this age group were familiar with the term “frape”, or Facebook rape, which is usually used to describe the act of logging into somebody else’s Facebook account and posting using their profile. Thirty-six per cent of people aged 25-34 reported that they frequently hear the word rape used to mean “beat in some form of competition”.

The results come amid a flurry of recent high-profile cases where companies have been forced to apologise after using rape, or appearing to allude to sexual assault, in festive advertising. A Singapore-based online retailer, SuperGurl, acknowledged it had “made a mistake” after advertising its Black Friday sale with the slogan “rape us now”. The department store chain Bloomingdale’s apologised for its holiday advert, which featured a young man creepily eyeing a laughing young woman beside the slogan: “Spike your best friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking.”

This follows on from controversy last Christmas about a rape-themed Christmas T-shirt available for sale online, and a reference to chloroforming your partner in a 2012 Virgin Mobile US Christmas advert.

It isn’t a coincidence that these cases seem to spike in the holiday season, when consumer culture reaches fever pitch. Such adverts, alongside the use of female bodies to sell unrelated products, promote the idea of women as consumable objects, there for the taking, with their own autonomy and choice conveniently left out of the picture. The fact that rape is seen as an acceptable topic to joke about, and use as a hook to sell products, reveals our social normalisation of the concept – a phenomenon also described as “rape culture”.

....

The idea that those who object to rape culture represent a threat to free speech is, ironically, a form of silencing in itself. There is a significant difference between expressing concern about rape jokes or images objectifying women and suggesting that all such content should be “banned”. Indeed, it is unlikely that any kind of censorship would be particularly successful, as the problem lies as much with underlying attitudes as it does with the adverts or jokes themselves.

The feminist endgame is not to publicly punish everybody who makes a rape joke, or ban every advert that uses rape as a titillating way to sell products. It is to create a society in which it would never occur to anybody to do either in the first place.​

 

[Secular Sanity]

Here's an article about rape jokes, for those who believe they aren't prevalent in their rape culture.

Countries that have been described as having "rape cultures" include Pakistan, India, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

You’re from Australia, right, James? What’s it like there? Are the stats the same? Let me guess, is it 1 in 4 or 5?

 

[James R]

Countries that have been described as having "rape cultures" include Pakistan, India, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

You’re from Australia, right, James? What’s it like there? Are the stats the same? Let me guess, is it 1 in 4 or 5?

To give you one statistic, about 1 in 5 women in Australia has experienced sexual harassment in the workplace at some time. For men, it is 1 in 20.

Another stat, this one on street harassment:

Research by The Australia Institute in 2015 of 1426 females found that 87% were verbally or physically attacked while walking down the street. 40% of women feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods at night. In addition to verbal harassment, physical street harassment was also a relatively commonplace occurrence, with 65% of women experiencing physically threatening harassment.
​

Here's one from New York City:

In 2007, the Manhattan Borough President’s Office conducted an online questionnaire about sexual harassment on the New York City subway system with a total of 1,790 participants. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents identified as women. Of the respondents, 63 percent reported being sexually harassed and one-tenth had been sexually assaulted on the subway or at a subway station. Due to collection methods used, the report “Hidden in Plain Sight: Sexual Harassment and Assault in the New York City Subway System” is not statistically significant, but it suggests that a large number of women experience problems on the subway system.
​

More on street harassment here:
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/statistics-academic-studies/