« More gigs not working out for Julie Roehm | Main | HBO telling fans: suck on this campaign! »
NYC won't touch anti-groping subway ads
—Posted by David Kiefaber |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I prefer telling them "Your nuts will be cut off by angry women"
Posted by: Zenobia | Jul 21, 2008 1:32:51 AM
Warning or asking people not to do some activity most often increases the activity when the warning mentions how many people do the activity. If readers learn that a large number of people do the warned-against activity, the message being received is, "Hey, a lot of people do this, so I can to."
National park managers in Arizona were concerned about why so many visitors removed fossilized rocks from the paths during visits. They had a sign in place, but it didn't deter visitors. The parks turned to behavioral scientists to understand how to reduce the loss of the rocks form the parks. The sign in use was: "Every year visitors to these parks remove 5 million pieces of fossilized rocks from the paths. "Please don't remove fossilized rocks during your walk."
The "natural experiment" conducted was the following. During some weeks visitors saw the sign above, and other weeks the sign simply read, "Please don't remove fossilized rocks during your walk."
Rock removal dropped when the shorter sign was use -- the sign that didn't imply that "everyone does it."
On similar lines, we all probably know that littering signs are no deterrent against littering. But picnickers and others will change their littering behavior on a dime, but its not in response to signs. Littering behavior is governed by whether people see any littering on the ground. People litter in an already-littered park, and refrain from littering in a pristine environment. It seems that we are sensitive to what is normative in an environment: if others do the "crime" we feel its okay.
Posted by: Traveling Psychologist | Jul 21, 2008 8:47:19 AM
how about "only freaks grope on the subway"?
Posted by: Dana | Jul 29, 2008 2:09:14 PM
I'm all for a campaign against Frotteurs, who are a pathetically shabby lot and deserve to be prosecuted. But I'm also concerned about innocent men who may likely stand a reasonable chance of being wrongfully accused and ultimately suffering unjust consequences. I don't know, it seems like a tough call separating the dirties from the cleans.
Posted by: A. Reader | Aug 6, 2008 10:51:17 PM
women lie too much to be trusted in such matters as this.
Posted by: Hillary | Aug 7, 2008 1:02:02 AM
The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is beginning a new campaign to raise awareness of sexual harassment on the subway in the hopes of reducing the number of incidents. Highlighting the need for such a campaign, WCBS news, WNBC, the Daily News and scores of other media outlets have cited a 2007 study which found that 63% of women reported being sexually harassed and 10% saying they had been sexually assaulted while on the subway.
Based on this shocking statistic, it would seem that there is an epidemic of male molesters running amok in the Big Apple's underground. There's only one problem - the statistic is totally unreliable. As was previously reported more than a year ago by both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, the study's methodology was fatally flawed. As a result, the 63% figure which has been so widely circulated likely grossly overstates the actual extent of the problem. This type of sensationalistic reporting has become so widespread that many don't even question how improbable these statistics sound any more.
Undoubtedly, steps should be taken to deter the victimization of women on the subway. Rather than starting a scare campaign based on bogus statistics, however, it would be more constructive to promote a campaign based in fact, which encourages and empowers women to deter this type of behavior by forcefully confronting it. As noted in the WCBS story, the failure to confront offensive behavior only invites further attacks - whether on women in the subway, or on men in the media.
Posted by: The Hanky Panky Report | Aug 7, 2008 4:22:12 PM
"it would be more constructive to promote a campaign based in fact, which encourages and empowers women to deter this type of behavior by forcefully confronting it."
There's only so much we can do on the womens' side. We can tell women to fight back, carry mace, and not get on the subway. It doesn't confront the real issue, which is men groping women. You might ask "why do we need to tell people not to grope others? Shouldn't they know that?" Because people are groping others, so, clearly they don't know.
"the failure to confront offensive behavior only invites further attacks - whether on women in the subway, or on men in the media."
I don't see how being too ashamed and scared to confront someone violating you is somehow inviting further attacks. This just seems like victim-blaming to me.
Posted by: Astro | Dec 30, 2008 12:42:23 AM
