Manslamming

Started by Garuss Vakarian, January 13, 2015, 08:07:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Garuss Vakarian

Recently, on twitter. There has started a new hashtag. Something feminist's, and social activists have been dubbing Manslamming. Manslamming dictates, men have such a disconnect to reality and women that they would not notice one in their way and walk into her. Or that they have such little care for her wellfare that they do so not wanting to get out of the way. Expecting the women to get out of their own way, or else. This is also the theory that a majority of the time it is the women that gets out of the mans way.

To start, just becouse 'You' feel that YOU are the one getting out of the way a majority of the time. Does not mean all women are the majority of those getting out of the way, nor does it mean men always want the women to. It only means your curtious and get out of the way out of kindness a lot of the time. Again, personal experiance does not account to the many, and if many agree with you it doesnt mean your right, it only means they agree. Even though there is the claim that their findings show a majority of men walk into women, it doesnt mean that the reason they do it is out of sexism. You can not possibly know whats going on in their head, if you call it sexism it only means you feel it was and feel that they were rude due to your sex. A feeling, is not irifutable fact. Further, the people who tested man slamming specifically put themselvs in the way of unsuspecting males and waited for them to walk into them. So, you put yourself standing directly in their way just to prove a point that they wont walk out of your way? Thats simply putting yourself into their way, making you rude. You expect them to walk out of your way when your just standing their watching? And if your walking directly towards them, eyeing them like some hawk, they are to assume you dont notice them and walk out of your way? I know if I seen some women walking directly in my path watching me carefully, id assume they are paying enough attention to walk out of the way. (Further id probably wanna piss my self, since it would be super creepy. Like out of some horror movie. Starring at me, walking into me, giving me a death stare to tell my im bad becouse our chests/shoulders met with force. lol, thats super creepy.)

Also, women walked into women as well. They tested it on girls, and said ya, girls do it to. Well, if women are also doing it why is it 'Manslamming, a problem men have with running into women.' and not 'people slamming, a problem people have with obnoxiosly running into people.'

Is this really something we have to make a big deal? Women, and men both end up walking into each other all the time in a busy street. In fact, most times one is hard pressed to move aside, it is difficult when there is either a busy street to one side, a building to the other, and people all in between. Not to mention the fact, that most people are on auto pilot. They are not paying attention to where they are going. They are thinking of their day, whats in the future, some book they are reading. Becouse they walk that same route every day. It's the same reason most car accidents happen  close to peoples home's. People are so used to their route, they pay little attention. This is by far no good excuse, it is actualy a terrible habbit within human nature. But, it is an apt reason for why people walk into each other while walking.

Ever been to new york? I have, it is CRAZY! People of all races, sexes, whatever just going every where all the time. Traffic's typically a nightmare, and the side walks are typically bustling crowds that would sooner walk all over you (LIterally) Then allow you to slow them down from getting where they need to go. Everyones on a schedule, and everyone is to self obsorbed to care about you being in their path. Let alone my auto pilot theory. Even at night it tends to be crazy busy. People walking into each other all the time without even a passing phraze, and even if words exchange it's. "Stupid cunt!" "Fuck you you stupid mother fucker." And for a guy like me it was kind of unnerving. Men women, of all collors being rude, mean, all around nasty or distant. In one big crowd. I tried saying sorry to everyone, but time just ticks by in fast foreward, before you can even mouth out an s, he or she is gone or already said fuck off. Id say if there really is a problem, it is that every one in this world are to some level self obsorbed and or crude. I agree there is slamming going around, but it is not exclusive to men. A majority is toxic and rude in the population these days, that I can not argue. But it includes a lot of men and women, not a majority of one over the other. And to try to prove or assume it is a majority of one over the other is not trying to solve a problem, it is simply placing blame and to place blame does not solve issues it starts more.

This is simply my opinion though, whats yours?

Lustful Bride

MY head hurts. @_@ This all makes no sense. (Possible cause im reading this at two minutes to midnight)
It seems people find new ways of being idiots every day.

Oniya

In my experience, it's the ruder person that refuses to give way.  That's something that transcends gender.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Garuss Vakarian

#3
Well, my arguement is why make it a gender issue? I agree it's rude, but everyone is rude at least one point in their day even if they dont know they were. So why make it an issue at all? Let alone of gender. You cant make people less rude, you can only teach people how to be mature and handle it. Ya know? So I agree, it does trancend gender.

Lustful: I couldnt say it any better myself. But doese it ever make sense to make a mountain out of a mole hill? For it is just that, making something big out of something so small.

Pumpkin Seeds

Honestly, googling this topic has turned up far more men talking about manslamming then women.  So from my perspective this seems to be something that people wanting to make feminism seem ridiculous are pushing and holding up.  A woman simply tested a hypothesis with a rather unscientific method, which is easily debunked with criticism.  There is basis for this to hold up in regard to men dominating the space around them more than women, along with some evidence showing women being more apologetic than men.  So men colliding more often with people during a sidewalk passing would make sense and is probably true.  Do I think men intentionally collide with others, not really.  I do think men anticipate having to be less aware of their surroundings and are less fearful of provoking another person with their collision.

gaggedLouise

#5
Quote from: Oniya on January 13, 2015, 10:59:27 PM
In my experience, it's the ruder person that refuses to give way.  That's something that transcends gender.

Nods, as a discussion tactic it makes headlines or at least creates attention. Also, some people really get high on the feeling that "Yay! I'm able to tell everyone right here that X is a criminal/nuthead/sexist idiot - and potentially  the whole world can read I said it if they find their way here - or to a page where someone has repeated what I said!"  :-(

Instant gratification.


***

When it comes to "grabbing" physical space in public - in a room, in the street, in a shop etc - no, I don't think that's very linked to gender. Maybe it was in some places back in the day when men were really dominant in public places, but these days no. I regularly get to see women coming down the pavement with big prams, two or three ladies shoulder to shoulder and moving slowly, in a way that pushes everybody else into the street. Or clustering together with some buddies at a place inside the supermarket (or just inside a slim revolving door entrance at a hospital, a public library or some other public place) where it's already a bit cramped and it's plain just about everybody needs to pass through.

You're faced with the choice of either pushing yourself close and saying "Would you mind moving to the side a bit, people need to get through here?" or something a bit more informal (anyway this is considered both rude and fussy, not to mention sexist sometimes) or trying to edge past on a narrow sideline. I've tried both of those at different times, and often the reaction is just that the band huddles together a bit closer, like a buffalo herd, and seals itself off from outsiders, deliberately not listening but not offering any free space either. When you finally manage to make them register, the response is a surly maidish "oh!" that sounds like you're meant to understand that you acted in bad taste and intrusively by not letting them keep filling that spot forever. Sorry for sounding irritated about it, but these kinds of things are prime examples of grabbing a public space, signalling "You cannot NOT make us stand here!" and making it difficult for others to get close enough to sort it out - and around here I see women doing it every bit as much as men, or more.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

kylie

          Eh.  I'm not a big fan of the course terminology has taken with say, "mansplaining" and now this.  It just strikes me as a rather cheap term, whatever's actually going on or not.  Although I haven't been looking into the chatter on either one a whole lot. 

          At the same time, I can see where some of the impetus comes from.  It makes sense if you compare with other patterns that have long been recognized (and sometimes researched).  Men have rather persistent ways of dominating conversations, if you look through the sociolinguistics readers.  They also tend to rather forcibly "occupy" a great deal of space with their bodies (witness: men sitting on buses).  They also have generally greater bulk and a certain more generalized emphasis on assertiveness and aggression (collision sports, war games and numbers tracked into top of the market-share-seizure management pyramid, crushing handshakes, muscle building imagery)...  And so it isn't wholly shocking that some people get upset at how often they feel trampled, particularly when they happen to be smaller and taught to be more evasive and "nice."  Yeah, sure, one may start to suspect that gee, there is a certain social pattern to how people seem to feel this is okay or unavoidable and natural.

       Whether or not that is called some particular man "being" (implication: actively) sexist, doesn't change the fact that these are still social avenues readily available to men in general  and quite a few, quite often are observed acting in a way that in some way happens to take advantage of it.  And while I don't claim to have ESP, I also think it may well be possible to guess at some behaviors and situations that make it appear much more likely that a particular guy might be riding along in that mode, whether meanly or presumptively or just unthinkingly.  Have the people using this word done much that sophisticated in terms of behavioral analysis?  I haven't read em; I have no idea.

     

consortium11

Quote from: kylie on January 14, 2015, 12:29:30 AM
          Eh.  I'm not a big fan of the course terminology has taken with say, "mansplaining" and now this.  It just strikes me as a rather cheap term, whatever's actually going on or not.  Although I haven't been looking into the chatter on either one a whole lot.

It's starting to annoy me more than the -gate suffix being attached to anything with a hint of a scandal.

That said, of the recent ones I think "Manspreading" is my "favorite" (and I use that term very loosely). As anyone who uses public transport regularly knows (and I commuted during the London rush hour for years...) a lack of consideration for fellow passengers is pretty much a universal issue and certainly not one restricted by gender, age, race or pretty much any other factor. Yet now we "know" (again using the term very loosely) that it's actually an example of toxic masculinity when done by men as they asset their male dominance and is a reminder by men to women that thy are subservient and lesser in the way it has echoes of the way men spread to control society (such as boardrooms, reading lists and panel shows).

Valthazar

#8
Quote from: consortium11 on January 14, 2015, 05:36:16 AMThat said, of the recent ones I think "Manspreading" is my "favorite" (and I use that term very loosely).

"Womanipulation" is my favorite, but that's clearly sexist.  ::)

Manslamming seems like a slightly-humorous type of rant I would expect to see in an urban-leaning magazine for some laughs.  Kind of like "24 Reasons Husbands Can’t Be Trusted To Do Anything Right."  The fact that outlets like HuffPo and NYmag are actually covering this as a legitimate feminist issue is probably leaving feminists everywhere shaking their heads. 

Is feminism's bad press really all that surprising?  Concordia University feminist Alex Manley (who from what I am aware is a man himself) even criticizes charitable donations to No-Shave November by going so far as to claim that "prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it."  Apparently cis-white males can't do anything right.

edit: Forgot link

Beorning

Quote from: Valthazar on January 14, 2015, 10:44:39 AM
Is feminism's bad press really all that surprising?  Concordia University feminist Alex Manley (who from what I am aware is a man himself) even criticizes charitable donations to No-Shave November by going so far as to claim that "prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it."

*reads the article*

Oh, for crying out loud..!

consortium11

Quote from: Valthazar on January 14, 2015, 10:44:39 AM
Manslamming seems like a slightly-humorous type of rant I would expect to see in an urban-leaning magazine for some laughs.  Kind of like "24 Reasons Husbands Can’t Be Trusted To Do Anything Right."  The fact that outlets like HuffPo and NYmag are actually covering this as a legitimate feminist issue is probably leaving feminists everywhere shaking their heads.

It's got to the stage where if I now see what I would once automatically assume was an obvious parody/satire, albeit not necessarily a good one (such as "fart rape") I now google the names mentioned to check it's not actually a serious movement... despite the fartrape example being from an obvious parody/satire blog (again, albeit not necessarily a good one).

Quote from: Valthazar on January 14, 2015, 10:44:39 AMIs feminism's bad press really all that surprising?  Concordia University feminist Alex Manley (who from what I am aware is a man himself) even criticizes charitable donations to No-Shave November by going so far as to claim that "prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it."  Apparently cis-white males can't do anything right.

Movember in general has had the "sexist" (or at least "privileged") card thrown at it for ages. Once you get past the traumatic racist history of beards and their inherent gender issues you then have to face up to the fact that it's "sexist, racist, transphobic, and misinformed" and is part of ""a damaging stream of gender politics""

Oniya

Hey, women have ways that they can 'observe' No-Shave-November, too.  ;D
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Lilias

Quote from: Oniya on January 14, 2015, 11:57:54 AM
Hey, women have ways that they can 'observe' No-Shave-November, too.  ;D

NaNoWriMo makes that very easy. ;D
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Oniya

On a more serious note, I am reminded of a quote from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomeyer.  'Do not mistake politeness for lack of strength.'
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Garuss Vakarian

#14
QuoteHonestly, googling this topic has turned up far more men talking about manslamming then women.  So from my perspective this seems to be something that people wanting to make feminism seem ridiculous are pushing and holding up.  A woman simply tested a hypothesis with a rather unscientific method, which is easily debunked with criticism.

I dont think it is an attempt at making Feminism look bad. I dont think any one 'wants to.' Since men can be feminists to, it doesnt matter if more guys are making this a subject then women. It doesnt make them a bunch of guys trying to secretly discredit Feminism, it makes them confused feminists with bad priorities. I dont think their gender being male makes them less valid as feminists, neither of us being at all equipped to debate wether or not they are truely feminist or not, since we dont actually know them all personally.

Basically, it is possible it's a bunch of people trying to discredit, but just becouse it is possible dont make it true, and further just becouse they are guys does not mean that they are automatically fakes trying to make feminism look bad. I think we have gotten to a point where gender shouldnt matter in terms of belief, being a male doesnt make you any less a feminist if you are. Further, being female doesnt make you any more a feminist then you are. Other wise, if one is stating men have no place in feminism or that they are fakes, or that they would never know. Then It's a no true scotsman fallacy.

Valthazar:
QuoteConcordia University feminist Alex Manley (who from what I am aware is a man himself) even criticizes charitable donations to No-Shave November by going so far as to claim that "prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it."  Apparently cis-white males can't do anything right.

See, thats something I have a big problem with. We have breast cancer awareness! I ware pink whenever it's around. Becouse cancer needs awareness. I also partake in no shave november. Why is it more important for womens cancer then men's? Both is equally dam important if you ask me! All cancer is an issue. But awareness for mens prostate cancer is frowned upon as a privilige for sexist white priviliged males? Thats not very fair. But none of this is Not(Edited) the subject at hand. :P sorry.

No feminisms bad press is not surprising. It doesnt matter how much of a minority the bad ones are. These dumb feminists are the loudest, and becouse no one says stop, they dont. Edit: You can do everything right and no one remembers, anything wrong and no one forgets.

Oniya

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on January 14, 2015, 05:39:20 PM
I dont think it is an attempt at making Feminism look bad. I dont think any one 'wants to.' Since men can be feminists to, it doesnt matter if more guys are making this a subject then women. It doesnt make them a bunch of guys trying to secretly discredit Feminism, it makes them confused feminists with bad priorities. I dont think their gender being male makes them less valid as feminists, neither of us being at all equipped to debate wether or not they are truely feminist or not, since we dont actually know them all personally.

I don't think the point is that 'men are the ones talking about "manslamming"', so much as 'women aren't talking about "manslamming".'  If this behavior is a thing that feminists are concerned about (either legitimately or not), then you would expect to see most of the louder ones waving it around.  It wouldn't make the behavior any more valid as a 'feminist-specific' concern (I still hold the opinion that if you deliberately run into someone when it's avoidable, you are rude), but considering some of the behaviors that have been criticized by the loud branch of feminism, it's curious that they aren't all over this one - unless they saw how easily the experiment could be debunked.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Garuss Vakarian

#16
Probably doese have to do with how easy it is to get debunked. Though I wont pretend to understand what feminists classify as worth time or not, since some things that are not worth ones time is an issue. (Like gaming. As in the games themselvs not talking about the ruder players there in.) None the less, I agree, it's rude in general not to move when it is avoidable. But some times it is not avoidable. Since, typically there is a street with cars on one end, a house or building to the other, and people all in between. Depending on how busy things are it could simply just be an unavoidable ocurence that either party is sorry about. Though aside for me I hardly ever hear sorry uttered.

Though in my personal experiance when a feminist makes a mistake it is comparible to gamers. In the way that, even thogh an many do and say mean spirited or rude things. The rest refuse to acknowledge it, by saying nope thats not real, or nope they are not real gamers. (I hate the no true scotsman fallacy. >_< ) Same goes to feminism, I only ever see denial towards any shady actions or practices there in. Then again no one ever wants to admit fualt, let alone the fualt of a cuase they believe in. Or at the very least they defend what they believe in by saying the person at fualt is "Not a real christian." "Not a real gamer." "Not a real Musslim." 

To explain real fast: The reason it is a fallacy is due to the fact you can not say some one is "Not a real" anything, is becouse no individual person can dictate or classify what it means to be a real 'something' when it applies to what some one can identify as. Any one can be a feminist, a gamer, a catholic, or a muslim. Hence, The no true scotsman fallacy. If you identify as such, then you are. Therefor one can not say. "These assholes are not real gamers ok!" if they are playing the game then they are a gamer. As long as they identify as such. Or, "These terrorists are not true musslims." They identify under the Quran, so they are. Even if their impressions of the book is very dark and literal. (There are passages such as, "Those whom do not follow the name of Muhamad must be tuaght the name of muhamid. If thou none believer refuses to accept his blessed name, then they must fall upon the sword in muhamids name." Something along those lines. :P )

Caehlim

Quote from: consortium11 on January 14, 2015, 11:53:17 AMMovember in general has had the "sexist" (or at least "privileged") card thrown at it for ages.

One of the articles linked there (The Movember as microaggression) had an amazing rebuttal as its top comment from Pete Bombaci the Country Director for Movember Canada.

Peter Bombaci's comment
Hi Ralph,

Pete Bombaci here, Country Director for Movember Canada. I’ve read the above and I want to clarify many of the inaccurate points written about Movember here.

You say that “what once started out as a harmless campaign has become sexist, racist, transphobic, and misinformed.” This is simply not true.

As you admit in your article, Movember isn’t just about raising money. It’s about having conversations. The magic of Movember is that it can unite different people from all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds under one flag: men’s health. You don’t have to be rich to wear a Mo, and you don’t have to be cool to change the world.

Thanks to our amazing Mo Bros and Mo Sistas, we are changing the world, and that includes changing standard definitions of masculinity. Movember isn’t about men being super tough or butch, though many Mo Bros and some of our Mo Sistas are so. Movember isn’t about growing the biggest, butchest, moustache. It’s about growing the best Mo you can personally grow. It’s about personal bests, about getting engaged in men's health, about knowing yourself and taking care of yourself and your communities.

The Movember community is a global one that cuts across race, class and gender because cancer and mental health illness cuts across race, class, and gender. The idea that white cisgendered men shouldn’t raise funds for prostate cancer because they aren’t the ones most affected by it is antithetical to Movember vision. Making sure our fathers, brothers, uncles, lovers, friends, neighbours, coworkers feel safer being vulnerable talking about and taking care of their health, their bodies, and their mental health can only make life better for ALL OF US.

Some folks might argue that Movember isn’t a space for transpeople. This only speaks to the stigma and lack of understanding that transpeople face on a daily basis. We are well aware that some Mo Bros don’t have prostates. Whether it’s because a Mo Bro’s cancer treatment required the removal of his prostate, or whether he simply wasn’t born with one, we don’t discriminate against our Mo Bros for not having a prostate. For us, the truest mark of a Mo Bro is his willingness to change the world. The only binary we recognize is Movember and the rest of the year.

To your claim that Movember is sexist, I would say that Movember was and continues to be inspired by women’s health movements. Beyond that, women are a vital part of Movember as team leaders, teammates, and supporters. Women are substantial fundraisers. Women are, traditionally, the gatekeepers of family health and can be experts at one of our main goals: getting conversations about male health going. SinceMovember is about moustaches, we don’t typically encourage women to grow outtheir leg or armpit hair, though we’ll never turn down a nicely styled Mo,regardless of who wears it. We have one Mo Sista this year from Ottawa who is sporting a Mo every day for the entire month of Movember. Who would dream of trying to squash that kind of determination?

An important face to note here is that you represent Movember as No Shave November. Taking comments from No Shave November participants and portraying them as the opinions of our Mo Bros and Mo Sistas is inaccurate and disingenuous. Movember is not No Shave November and No Shave November is not Movember.

Movember suggests that folks show solidarity with each other by joining the Movember journey, in whatever form that looks like for you: go to a MOVE event; talk to your friends about their health, grow a Mo, or if you can’t, don’t. However, the Mo will always be our King because ultimately, our awareness program is powered by the growth of a new moustache and the obvious question that follows – why the moustache? Because our community members want an explanation for our change in appearance, a new Mo, those with Mo’s arm themselves with knowledge, provided by Movember, about men’s health. The conversations started as a result of
the moustache help to educate, breakdown stigmas, and ultimately change
behaviour. From this program we know that 90% of Movember
participants spend time thinking about improving their health, 75% discussed their health with family, friends or colleagues during Movember, and 66% of participants have had a recent general check-up. Globally in 2012 Mo Bros and Mo Sistas started 2.7 billion conversations about men's health and Movember. We know that pairing this program with funding of world class men's health research and programs helping men live with and beyond cancer and mental illness will help to truly change the face of men's health.

You have also misrepresented our recommendation on PSA testing. Movember suggests: Men should talk to their doctor about prostate cancer testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to PSA testing. Understand the prostate cancer risk factors, discuss these with your doctor and decide if prostate cancer testing is right for you. You can find this here - http://ca.movember.com/mens-he.... You’ll
also find a tool about the PROS and CONS of testing that we developed with the Societe internationale du urology. As Movember has grown we have worked with medical professionals to evolve our men’s health information and the materials available on Movember.com have been approved by national and international experts in the field.

It's honestly disappointing to see Movember misrepresented in
this way Movember. McGill continues to be one of the top supporting teams
and the University has been an integral part of Movember funded research in Canada and on an international basis. We’re very proud of the community there and the work they have done. To date Mo Bros and Mo Sistas in Canada have raised an astonishing $13.5 Million for mental health.

If you would like more information about Movember and or would like to talk through some of this you can call 1-855-4GROWMO and ask for Mo Bro Pete.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Angie

I'm loving this thread, and I wanna toss my two cents in-I'm so sick of being the bad guy. At first glance, I appear to be a cis white male, which apparently makes me fuckin' Sauron. I have gotten so much shit for being male. And quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Of course, that's not the end of the story. There's a reason that "Liege" tag is there, and that's because I have gender dysphoria. Unfortunately, as if the problems of being born in the wrong body (gross oversimplification, work with me here) weren't enough, the same people who were attacking me for the horrible sin of being born white and male don't fucking stop-they get worse. Being a male with gender dysphoria apparently makes me a hybrid of Sauron and Voldemort. But all I want to do is make the world a better place. It sounds so stupid, I know, but I just wanna make the world a little brighter. I just wanna make people smile, make people happy. But no, I'm male, and trans, we can't fucking have smiles, can we?

I'm just rambling, really, and this is kinda the dam breaking at the end of a long, long line of sadness. I know there's people out there who support me, and a lot of them are right here on E. So if you took the time to read this, thank you-I'm just happy to know that someone's listening.

And on the topic of manslamming-are you mad? You can't just barge through people these days. Someone will call the cops for assault. You should see what I do-I do interpretive dance through college hallways so I can get where I need to be!
Avatar is by Lemonfont. Will remove it if he asks me to.

Come check the Cyberpunk Images Thread!

Pumpkin Seeds

Well, for one this is not a reference to a behavior of football tackling people on the street.  This is simply referring to a collision of people, typically a casual bump or jostle of one another.  On any busy street or during any event this happens frequently enough.  There would be no notification of the police.  As pointed out by others, the woman discussing this did an impromptu experiment where she simply refused to be the one to move out of the way and she noted that the majority of people colliding with her were men.  Now, this experiment can only be called an experiment in the loosed interpretation of the word and would not even pass muster for an undergrad exercise in the social sciences.  That being said, I can imagine that this activity would likely reach the same conclusion if done again and again for reasons previously stated.

Judging just from this thread and the few articles I’ve seen with a google search, this does seem to be people’s jumping point to bash feminism.  Honestly even this thread has divulged down to people complaining about how they feel feminism treats them rather than discussing “manslamming.”

Remiel

Pumpkin Seeds has a point.  I can see "Manslamming" being an example of Straw Feminism.  To be fair, there are probably fringe elements of feminism  who see Manslamming as Yet Another Example of the Oppressive Patriarchy Trying to Keep Women Down.  But that doesn't mean we should paint all feminists with that brush. 

Angiejuusan and Garuss, perhaps you could start another thread more germaine to the topic you really want to discuss, something like, oh, I don't know, "Feminism vs. the Straight Cisgender White Male?"

Valthazar

#21
Quote from: Remiel on January 15, 2015, 08:21:31 AMPumpkin Seeds has a point.  I can see "Manslamming" being an example of Straw Feminism.  To be fair, there are probably fringe elements of feminism  who see Manslamming as Yet Another Example of the Oppressive Patriarchy Trying to Keep Women Down.  But that doesn't mean we should paint all feminists with that brush.

Manslamming is being "affirmatively" discussed as part of a broader feminist narrative in prominent outlets like Huffington Post, NY Mag, and The Atlantic - which would imply that at least a constituency of feminists find significance in it.

I would argue that it's part of a recent trend of issues which have polarized feminists.  For example, even in the Matt Taylor thread, openly feminist posters were split on whether his shirt was a legitimate feminist issue, or whether it was simply giving bad publicity to feminism.  The latter variety of feminist would have been quick to label the Matt Taylor controversy as an example of Straw Feminism - despite the fact that many feminists would disagree.  I think it's similar in this instance as well.

consortium11

Quote from: Remiel on January 15, 2015, 08:21:31 AM
Pumpkin Seeds has a point.  I can see "Manslamming" being an example of Straw Feminism.  To be fair, there are probably fringe elements of feminism  who see Manslamming as Yet Another Example of the Oppressive Patriarchy Trying to Keep Women Down.  But that doesn't mean we should paint all feminists with that brush.

Manslamming isn't simply something that appeared on someone's tumblr and which was reposted a dozen times or so. There's obviously the NYMag piece that started it but then you've got the Huffington Post and the Atlantic getting in on the act as well as the usual suspect list of tweets, tumblrs and lesser known blogs/websites.

I'm not sure how one can dismiss the Atlantic, NYMag and the Huffington Post as "fringe" femenism.

Beorning

I just read the piece on NYMag and Huffington Post. They really seem to treat this whole "issue" seriously...  ::)

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Beorning on January 15, 2015, 02:10:10 PM
I just read the piece on NYMag and Huffington Post. They really seem to treat this whole "issue" seriously...  ::)

"Scandals, dramas, tragedy, and mindless ballyhoo
That's turned our brains to goo...
It's what we call the news...."

Angie

#25
Quote from: consortium11 on January 15, 2015, 09:59:00 AM
Manslamming isn't simply something that appeared on someone's tumblr and which was reposted a dozen times or so. There's obviously the NYMag piece that started it but then you've got the Huffington Post and the Atlantic getting in on the act as well as the usual suspect list of tweets, tumblrs and lesser known blogs/websites.

I'm not sure how one can dismiss the Atlantic, NYMag and the Huffington Post as "fringe" femenism.

I can dismiss the HuffPo, but that's for a large number of reasons up to and including "your 'journalism' is pathetic". I should go through Reuters 10 standards of journalism and see how many HuffPo actually follow-I know they can't be as bad as Kotaku (who went 0 for 10) but they gotta be down there.

EDIT: That being said, I'm not sure what game the Atlantic and NYMag are playing, but I'm betting it has to do with something like this: "It's controversy! Never mind that it's weaksauce, we need those page views!"
Avatar is by Lemonfont. Will remove it if he asks me to.

Come check the Cyberpunk Images Thread!

Pumpkin Seeds

Pretty much the controversy one and a weak one at that.  As I said, the evidence presented is weak and the research done on the issue is even weaker.  None of them mention previous work done on the issue of men and dominating space or the issue regarding women being more apologetic than men.  Those are actually researched and supported positions, whereas this woman's little experiment is very weak and hardly supported at all.  So....they are kind of presenting a straw man here for people to burn against feminism so far as I can see.  A simple, "oh look at those silly women."

kylie

#27
         I'm still not clear on what has people precisely soooo annoyed about it, though.  Maybe it's because I don't spend a great deal of time in places where the term is being batted about.  Though here, one suggestion seems to be that rather generally disgruntled men (I'd expect, often enough including rather crassly, broadly anti-feminism in general types) of one stripe or another are a good share of that tossing too.  Though I'm hardly surprised if there are also a few radical feminists going over the top in one corner somewhere...

OR maybe it's because people are trying a little too hard to pin down, shrug off or so-called "debunk" this very thing they're saying hasn't been formulated clearly enough yet.  Well then:  Putting it in that frame if you must...  What if it's not been modeled and discussed "neatly" enough (or long enough, or widely enough) for it to be pushed aside, either? 

         Just because some people aren't very comfortable with how widely it's been talked about...  Doesn't automatically mean there is no empirical truth to it.  And while I may couch things in terms like "behavioral analysis," that isn't intended to imply that one really must have a PhD and studies of 1,000 subjects in order to make a reasonable enough claim about how gender in society often, quite observably, does play out.
     

Valthazar

#28
Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 15, 2015, 05:57:52 PMPretty much the controversy one and a weak one at that.  As I said, the evidence presented is weak and the research done on the issue is even weaker.  None of them mention previous work done on the issue of men and dominating space or the issue regarding women being more apologetic than men.  Those are actually researched and supported positions, whereas this woman's little experiment is very weak and hardly supported at all.  So....they are kind of presenting a straw man here for people to burn against feminism so far as I can see.  A simple, "oh look at those silly women."

Not all aspects of feminism (or any social science) are based on evidence-based research, but a considerable portion is based on critical analyses, which tend to be subjective.  Concepts like "porn culture," for example, are polarizing analyses among feminists. 

"Manslamming" originated from "manspreading" which is far more accepted among feminist circles - although equally as perplexing and polarizing among feminists themselves.  The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in NYC even started a campaign to end "man spreading."  How is it a straw man feminist argument when the MTA is launching official campaigns based on it?

consortium11

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 15, 2015, 05:57:52 PMSo....they are kind of presenting a straw man here for people to burn against feminism so far as I can see.  A simple, "oh look at those silly women."

A straw man is generally when someone from the other side of a debate tries to set up an easily defeated position that doesn't actually match what you're trying to say and then declares they've won because they've defeated that position.

I'm not sure it can be used to dismiss poor arguments from your own side. Unless we're arguing that all the people discussing manspreading as a serious femenist issue are actually false-flaggers trying to make femenism look silly then it isn't a straw man argument, it's just a bad argument and is a completely legitimate example for if people want to point out the rather silly things that often get mainstream feminist attention and support.

Laughing Hyena

To make this brief and might be off topic but: Assholes are unisex.

Oniya

Quote from: Laughing Hyena on January 15, 2015, 10:26:40 PM
To make this brief and might be off topic but: Assholes are unisex.

That was about what I said - just shorter.  :D
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pumpkin Seeds

#32
Actually, hard sciences are likewise not entirely based on evidenced based experimentation and practice.  Much of that work is done first as qualitative study and then later as quantitative.  Just wanting to clear up that little oversight there.  I also never said feminism was based on evidenced based practice, just simply that this entire thing is based around that idea when this woman decided to do her experiment. 

I am using straw man in the sense that people want to beat up a poorly held argument or issue, which is really just an observation and then apply this to other avenues of feminism.  Such as, in this case, man spreading.  While a horrible term, this notion of men dominating the space around them has been observed for quite some time in social sciences and is really an obvious thing.  Erving Goffman is the first social scientist I’m aware of to publish something on this behavior, but is by far not the last to do so. 

AndyZ

In my experience, throw enough bad arguments at something and it tends to destroy the argument even when other issues continue to exist.

I believe I can say with certainty that issues do exist with the divide, and that this is not one of them.

It's the same way that girls who make up traumatic stories ultimately make things far worse for the girls who actually do have those traumatic things happen to them.

Now, my question would be: how can people work on selectively removing stories that are bogus without cheapening the movement in the process?

I do feel that it's better to point them out quickly.  A bad story has a way of festering.  For example, by the time people learn that Kony is long gone, the last thing they want to do is look to aid in all the current problems Uganda faces.

I would hypothesize that it would be better to have someone who is a member of the group doing the addressing.  For example, if we had someone in the KKK who was causing issues, they're just too racist to talk to people who aren't white.  I can hardly speak for men, but I can personally say that I have zero issue with someone speaking up for me if they have the opportunity to do so.

Beyond that, I welcome suggestions.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Pumpkin Seeds

I always find it interesting that people are more interested in disproving false rape accusations than proving real ones.

Silk

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 18, 2015, 06:14:26 AM
I always find it interesting that people are more interested in disproving false rape accusations than proving real ones.

Because the vast majority of the time rape charges are guilty until proven innocent. Especially outside of law settings, just the claim of rape is enough to destroy some peoples lives and careers even if it's a false claim.

Pumpkin Seeds

That is a completely false claim.  The amount of rape cases that go unreported, unprosecuted despite evidence far outnumber the amount of rapes cases that are proven false.  False reports of a rape are the same number as burglary, but nobody is screaming that burglary cases are overwhelmingly false.  Far more women have their lives ruined by being raped and then being unable to prosecute that rapist. 

Silk

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 18, 2015, 06:42:56 AM
That is a completely false claim.  The amount of rape cases that go unreported, unprosecuted despite evidence far outnumber the amount of rapes cases that are proven false.  False reports of a rape are the same number as burglary, but nobody is screaming that burglary cases are overwhelmingly false.  Far more women have their lives ruined by being raped and then being unable to prosecute that rapist.

And your source for those statistics, because there is a hell of a lot of controversy over such definitions of rape, (example one study claims that 20% of girls in college are the victim of rape, until you find that they classify that if they are under the influence of alcohol during sex, it's automatically rape.)

Also how do we know what  the unreported rates are? Thats a estimate at best and a guess at worst.

Burglary unlike rape isn't tied to a global passtime, and more often than not has substantially higher evidence that the event that took place was in fact a crime.

And because women have their lives ruined by rape makes it ok for men to be "legally" ruined by false accusations flung around by it? It's gotten to a point in the UK that the police have had to enact legislation to punish false rape claims due to the high volume of cases under wasting police time and slander.

Also when it comes to rape there is a lot of susceptibility over what constitutes as evidence. Proof of sexual intercourse? Doesn't necessarily mean rape, just because it was regretted afterwards doesn't mean it invalidates consent of the time (which is where issues of alcohol comes in). Which is the key issue when it comes to rape cases, since the majority of cases tend to devolve into one persons claim over another. Which then the law has a obligation to take the null hypothesis of it not happening.

By reducing the amount of false rape cases that are being thrown into the system will only increase the legitimacy of real ones as there will be less overall suspicion of a false claim being made. Because when I hear groups of girls talking about how they can blackmail a guy to do what they want or cry rape because they had intercourse previously, or when my brother get's arrested at his doorstep over a baseless rape claim, and lost his job as a teacher as a result. Something is hella wrong.

Omnius

I have seen both. An ex girl friend of a friend of mine tried to tell other people he raped her after they broke up (she was cheating on him) I have also seen times where despite bad things going on for multiple years and and being arrested several times nothing manages to stick.

Pumpkin Seeds

So bad in the United Kingdoms?  According to research done Crown Prosecution Service in 2011 and 2012 in Wales and England showed that 35 cases of women alleging rape were then prosecuted for making a false allegation.  This is out of over five thousand cases.  The report goes on to state in conclusion that while the myth of rape allegations is that they are rife with false reporting, this is simply not the case. 

Also, doesn’t work well to ask for statistics and then give a personal anecdote.  I can easily counter that with my experience of having over ten women in my emergency department PECed for attempted suicide due to rape.  Half of those women were actually girls under the age of 16 and one was forced into prostitution by their mother.  That is within my few short months of working in the Emergency Department and with me taking random patient assignments.

I am also not denying that a man having his life ruined by false accusation is a tragedy.  Certainly I feel for those men and condemn those women for doing that as this does indeed hurt the process for women making true accusations.  Yet I do not agree that every time rape is mentioned someone rushes forth to perpetrate the myth that false allegations are rampant.  That is simply placing more pressure on the women stepping forward as they now have to fight off a false myth that they are probably making a false report.

Silk

Except I didn't claim my personal anecdote to be anything besides a personal example, when you are talking about national based statistics.

eternaldarkness

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 18, 2015, 06:14:26 AM
I always find it interesting that people are more interested in disproving false rape accusations than proving real ones.

Better a million guilty men go free than even one be unjustly prosecuted.

The reason I say this is simple:  in our culture, rape has been given so much power and elevated to such levels of unspeakable horror beyond its actual impact that it is almost better to be accused of murder than of rape. Just being accused of rape, even if you are later found not to be guilty of it, will ruin your life forever (if you are a male). We have given rape far too much power, and need to collectively, as human beings, take a step back and really look at how we are viewing the crime itself.

Cycle

Quote from: eternaldarkness on January 18, 2015, 03:50:01 PM
We have given rape far too much power, and need to collectively, as human beings, take a step back and really look at how we are viewing the crime itself.

I disagree.  We are not treating rape too seriously.  We are not treating murder seriously enough.


Valthazar

Quote from: Cycle on January 18, 2015, 04:04:11 PMI disagree.  We are not treating rape too seriously.  We are not treating murder seriously enough.

I agree with you.  But even our legal code makes rape penalties more serious.

You could murder someone, and then move on with your life 25 years later - essentially living anywhere you want, starting fresh, and explaining that your past is behind you (and actually garner respect for a new beginning, and a new outlook).  We only need to look at the numerous ex-gang members who have become prominent public speakers and authors.

However, if you are convicted of raping someone, our culture relegates them to social pariah status for life - assigning them sex offender status till their death.

Cycle

Quote from: Valthazar on January 18, 2015, 04:07:50 PM
You could murder someone, and then move on with your life 25 years later - essentially living anywhere you want, starting fresh, and explaining that your past is behind you (and actually garner respect for a new beginning, and a new outlook). 

Yes, we should relegates murderers to social pariah status for life too.  Time to update the laws.


AndyZ

There's a good reason we used to go by the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.  Honestly, I'd rather go back to it.

If we're going to be honest with ourselves, we have no idea how many of the rape charges put forward are wholly or partly falsified.  However, every falsified rape charge cheapens the traumatic impact that actual rape victims go through.

In the same way, idiotic claims about sexism cheapen what actual feminists are trying to fix.  Your average cismale is going to hear the one in five number and be horrified, then do some research and figure that he knows quite a few men who have had sex while drunk, most likely more than 1 in 5.  He'll then figure that it can't be that big of an issue if they have to inflate it that way.

My question is what we can do to get rid of these kinds of things so they stop cheapening the feminist movement.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Pumpkin Seeds

So I suppose a woman that has been raped should simply deal with her victimization and get over this because rape just isn’t that bad right?  Really, rape just is an elevated crime that men and women should just get over because really, is it so bad?  Seriously that is the most ignorant statement I have read in some time.  Our culture has done nearly everything in recent history to keep rape from even being acknowledged and only recently made raping a spouse illegal, though still difficult to prosecute.  Our culture has not demonized rape, but placed it mainstream with people openly making jokes about raping women and rapping about the act on popular musical charts.  Rape is a common term for gamers to use when describing their dominance over another player and is featured regularly for television plots and entertainment.

Men are still rarely acknowledged as even being able to be raped and women are often seen as “wanting it” or falsifying their reports.  Women drop charges against their rapists constantly or don’t press them at all because most rape is acquaintance rape and they don’t want to get the man in trouble.  Women are told to live in fear of men, to avoid drinking at parties, to avoid having too much fun, to avoid cameras on phones, to dress appropriately, to avoid going out late, and to restrict their entire lives because of rape.  So do not give me this righteous garbage of a million men going free to avoid unjustly prosecuting one, because just as many of those women live in fear or suffer because of those million. 

Also, if we are unable to give numbers on false reports then why bring them up as cheapening the entire feminist movement?  Seems to me that the falsified reports in the United Kingdoms report were as close to nil as one can get, but the myth still propagates.   The reason for the myth is because men are not afraid of being raped, but afraid of being accused of rape.  So they push this image of women lying and using the power of rape over them, when in fact this rarely happens.  Just as now.

AndyZ

Let's say that a shepherd village has wolves running around.  Wolves are really bad for a shepherd village, because they'll eat sheep and the village will be devastated by a loss of livelihood.

Let's also say that one kid who was watching the village sheep decides that he's bored and wants to pretend that he's seen a wolf.  He'll rile up the townsfolk and they'll get weapons ready, but there's no actual wolves.  The people of the village are not going to like being tricked, and their response of how bad wolves are will be notably diminished when they discover how easy it is to fake a wolf attack.

While the reflexive response of someone who's seen a wolf is going to be to throw everything at the problem to stop it, the reflexive response of someone who hasn't seen a wolf but has seen people falsely crying wolf is to disbelieve anyone who cries wolf.

Such is the problem that forms.  We all rightly claim that one rape is too many, but not everyone claims that one false cry of rape is too many.

But the problem is, look what happens.  We don't get to dedicate all our resources to stamping out wolves because we have people crying wolf, and we have to go into the deep effort of determining what really happened.

That's why it's so important, when wolves are bad, to go after the people who falsely cry wolf.


From what I've seen here, people agree that there are many problems that women have which should be addressed, and "manslamming" is not one of them.  This is likewise akin to crying wolf, because people will wonder whether this is truly the extent of problems that women face if it's what they're hearing about.  When that one gets disproven, it damages the feminist movement as a whole.

Every false cry of wolf makes it harder for anyone to deal with actual wolves.


I will say that as far as television, I would be quite pleased if everyone stopped watching Lifetime because they got sick of its portrayal of women and it went off the air.

Also, as a biological male, I'd much rather be actually raped than be accused of rape, and I'm still a virgin and it holds religious meaning for me.  I can much more easily deal with the emotional trauma than with the stigma of being thought a rapist and all the legal crap that comes from it.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Shjade

Problem whenever someone brings up the boy who cries wolf story in this context:

The moral of that story is that if YOU lie, no one will believe YOU later.

It's not "If YOU lie about wolves, no one will believe ANYONE about wolves."

In other words, if you're using someone having made a false rape claim as an excuse to first assume anyone who makes such a claim is making it up, you're not just acting out of some kind of healthy skepticism formed by a history of someone having lied about being raped at some point in the past. You're not working off of "innocent until proven guilty," either.

You're just choosing who you think is guilty without proof first. Specifically, you're deciding the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, whereas his accuser is guilty (of lying) until proven innocent.

This is known as hypocrisy.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Silk

It's still a matter of once burned twice shy. Think of it from the context of a police officer who almost ruins and often does, ruin someones life because someone lied to them to make use of their obligation to investigate. Also considering how often rape is paraded around as a word by people "See "Eye-rape"" while at the same time comparing it to a crime worse than some of the greatest war atrocities in history. It's going to leave people confused as to what the hells going on a lot of the time with some real loose statistics to back it up. A friend of mine kind of sums up a lot of the current situation for rape in my opinion.

If the woman is drunk and the man isn't he raped her because she couldn't give consent, If the man is drunk and the woman isn't, he raped her because obviously his inhibitions are hampered by the alcohol. If they're both drunk or neither are, he raped her because he's obviously physically superior and since women are forever oppressed by the patriarchy that it is impossible to give consent even when they're giving consent. Each with comments which support each stance in some way or form. Hell even things like "Teach men not to rape" initiatives are a form of manslamming because it goes on the premise that guys don't realize rape is a bad thing, I mean really? Seriously? The problem is those that do commit rape don't care if its a wrong thing, and the ones who do care that its a wrong thing don't do it anyway.

AndyZ

Quote from: Shjade on January 19, 2015, 02:29:55 AM
Problem whenever someone brings up the boy who cries wolf story in this context:

The moral of that story is that if YOU lie, no one will believe YOU later.

It's not "If YOU lie about wolves, no one will believe ANYONE about wolves."

While the original stated moral was similar to what you said, it contains the added issue that others are likely disbelieved.

Quote
In other words, if you're using someone having made a false rape claim as an excuse to first assume anyone who makes such a claim is making it up, you're not just acting out of some kind of healthy skepticism formed by a history of someone having lied about being raped at some point in the past. You're not working off of "innocent until proven guilty," either.

You're just choosing who you think is guilty without proof first. Specifically, you're deciding the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, whereas his accuser is guilty (of lying) until proven innocent.

This is known as hypocrisy.

The problem of he said/she said extends far beyond rape cases.  The concept of bearing false witness is hardly new.  When it arises, we call upon the prosecution to prove the crime, not the defendant to prove their innocence.  That is what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

Lying is not a crime unless you're under oath, a fact which gets abused by politicians.  When you're under oath, it's perjury, but we don't automatically send people to jail if the person is found innocent and they testified against that person.

Does that make sense?
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Valthazar

Quote from: Silk on January 19, 2015, 02:54:49 AMThe problem is those that do commit rape don't care if its a wrong thing, and the ones who do care that its a wrong thing don't do it anyway.

+1

Oniya

Quote from: Silk on January 19, 2015, 02:54:49 AM
The problem is those that do commit rape don't care if its a wrong thing, and the ones who do care that its a wrong thing don't do it anyway.

Well, it would be helpful to get rid of the idea that 'no means try harder later' mindset that some people have. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pumpkin Seeds

Also there would be dispelling the confusion about getting a woman drunk to have sex with them, what constitutes rape, and that a woman only has to say no once.  Most rape is acquaintance rape meaning that the pair know each other.  Teaching a man about what constitutes rape and what is inappropriate not only helps them with their own relationships, but also helps them identify problems with their friends and might make them more proactive in stopping other issues.

Cycle

Quote from: Silk on January 19, 2015, 02:54:49 AM
"Teach men not to rape" initiatives are a form of manslamming because it goes on the premise that guys don't realize rape is a bad thing, I mean really? Seriously?

Yes.  There are such men.

You're fortunate not to know one.  But others are not as lucky.


Thesunmaid

I actually recently saw someone yell at my husband simply for holding the door for them. He will routinely do this for men or women if they are walking behind him and they need to walk through the same door whether they are carrying things or not and their age matters very little as well. This woman who has a kid in one hand (a little boy..poor kid) and shopping bags in another decided to take the time to stop and growl at him accusing him of assuming she was weak and could not open the door herself. He replied."No I assumed you had enough to carry with out trying to push the door open and I would have done it even if you were a big burly trucker because its the polite and nice thing to do."And then walked away to me and my son who was waiting for him a few feet away. My son will also hold doors for people whether they are men or women because we have taught him its rude to let a door slam in someones face no matter what their gender is.

This just sort of drives me insane..

and as for the rape thing...if the woman is sober shouldn't the woman also say."No honey you are drunk lets wait till you sober up?" Men are not always raring to go and ready for sex either and an erection is not a sign of wanting sex. I really wish people would stop assuming men are all lecherous pigs...women are all insane victims and just get on with their lives.Women can be perverts too...men can be sensitive and cry at sad movies..why is this so hard to get past?

Yes there are rapists but just assuming that anyone with a penis is just itching to rape someone is ridiculous.Just like assuming woman who end up pregnant are trying to "trap." a guy...yes some women do this...but the majority don't.

Some mornings its just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
Current Status for posts: working on them Current Status for RP:Tentatively looking

kylie

     Was more under the impression that "Teach men not to rape" was more, as opposed to the common "defenses" of ahem, "Did she know him? - What did she wear? - Did she fight tooth and nail and get her nose and multiple ribs broken trying to stop him? - Oh no, really, must not have been rape then."

I really don't think it is generally intended to be read as, all men are rapists just itching to happen and they should all be locked up on a long-term basis trying to stop it.  However, there is an observable cultural story about how it's totally the responsibility of women to be fully in control of the situation.  When it's often men who are doing everything under the sun to ignore what they say, make sure they lose control, and after the fact also make sure women get blamed for it all.
     

Shjade

Quote from: Cycle on January 19, 2015, 09:26:49 AM
Yes.  There are such men.

You're fortunate not to know one.  But others are not as lucky.

Supporting this, here, have an entire study about self-reporting rapists who are quite open about their sexual activities as long as the forms don't actually use the word "rape" in them.

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Yeeeeah.

AndyZ: it would only make sense if that disbelief occurred in the sense of "we have to believe he's innocent until proven guilty," as opposed to, "she's a lying whore doing this for attention fuck her and everything she stands for."

One is a question of maybe trying to make sure justice is found. The other is attacking someone on the presumption they're a liar.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Pumpkin Seeds

Suppose this would be time to return toward “manslamming.”  There has been no consensus that manslamming is indeed a non-issue, Andy.  There is not enough supporting evidence at the moment to warrant any serious consideration, which there really hasn’t been any serious consideration to my knowledge.  To my view this has thus far been a couple of papers doing a bad job writing on the subject and then a great many anti-feminists picking it up to draw controversy, fear of feminists and make the feminist argument out to be ridiculous.  Manslamming has enough theoretical bases to be potentially true.  Lack of evidence does not make something untrue, just untested. 

Also, as a sidenote the fact that you would say that being raped is preferable to being accused of rape simply shows a lack of insight and that as a man you were never taught to fear being raped.  To say that you would rather a physical assault, potential death, being forced to endure someone else’s whims without your own input or concern and in large part treated as a thing instead of possibly suffering a reputation hit (because we’re just saying accused) is telling of where you think your danger lies.  This is also dismissive of a very serious issue and part of your issue with cheapening the feminist movement. 

Manslamming is a social curiosity, just as manspreading.  This is simply noticing a social attitude and behavior that is part of a larger societal custom.  Manspreading became an issue when it was noticed that men were taking up more space on public transport systems than women to the point they were occupying the space of female passengers.  As a passenger on the same transportation device where we both paid the same money, I should be able to enjoy the same space on that transport as my male co-passengers.  Men do occupy more space than women intentionally.  This is not a man thinking, “fuck that bitch I’m entitled to more space.”  This is simply men being taught to be more dominant, to occupy more space as a show of their dominance and doing this without thinking.  Just as when I sit down, I am not think that I need to be dainty and demure so as not to offend.  I simply was taught and used to a way of sitting, which does conform to the societal view of women not occupying as much space and not intruding on the space around them.  So when you have two groups raised to do that, there is an issue with public transportation and women being pushed to the side on something they paid to ride.

Feminists will get things wrong, certainly.  Feminists will jump off the handle sometimes, come up with convoluted ideas and make irrational claims.  This is just like any ideological group of people.  There are mistakes.  The only reason these mistakes would cheapen a movement that is legitimate is when people take those mistakes and make them out to be something more than what they are.

Caehlim

Quote from: kylie on January 19, 2015, 12:27:51 PMWas more under the impression that "Teach men not to rape" was more, as opposed to the common "defenses" of ahem, "Did she know him? - What did she wear? - Did she fight tooth and nail and get her nose and multiple ribs broken trying to stop him? - Oh no, really, must not have been rape then."

It's not that I don't think that's worth communicating, I just don't think that phrase does communicate it. Unless one is already aware of this meaning, there is nothing in the phrase which inherently communicates this. A sheer grammatical and literal reading renders the phrase seemingly prejudicial and inflammatory. Some of those who use it will misunderstand the phrase and some of those who hear it will misunderstand the phrase.

Since the objective is cultural change, education and communication, this phrase just seems inadequate to its task. It's more likely to stop conversation than start it, it puts people in a defensive rather than self-reflective mode, does not acknowledge all victims of rape (due to gender), does not acknowledge all perpetrators of rape (due to gender) and implies a lack of agency from women.

My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Pumpkin Seeds

Well, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people.  A title such as  "How to respect a Lady" does not quite convey the same important as "Teach men not to rape."  Now, I could see changing the title toward "How to Not Rape", but the rape of men was probably still little understood and acknowledged at the time.  I'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here.  The obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.

AndyZ

Quote from: Oniya on January 19, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
Well, it would be helpful to get rid of the idea that 'no means try harder later' mindset that some people have. 

I have a hypothesis on this.  It doesn't make it right, but it might be why, and if so, it offers a possible solution.

After my first date, I attempted to kiss the girl, and she got all shy and backed away.  So I figured, okay, no kissing.  When she wants to kiss, she'll let me know.

No such notice was given with various other dates, and her roommate eventually flat out asked me why I didn't try to kiss her.

My hypothesis would be that it's considered socially unacceptable for the girl to make the advances, which leaves boys realizing that they have to keep attempting to do so or it won't happen at all.

Now, granted, most people aren't going to be like me where no once means never until I get notice otherwise, but that's the issue.

Perhaps part of the aid there would be in helping girls to understand that it's acceptable to ask out, to make the first move and so on?

Quote from: Shjade on January 19, 2015, 03:41:36 PM
Supporting this, here, have an entire study about self-reporting rapists who are quite open about their sexual activities as long as the forms don't actually use the word "rape" in them.

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Yeeeeah.

AndyZ: it would only make sense if that disbelief occurred in the sense of "we have to believe he's innocent until proven guilty," as opposed to, "she's a lying whore doing this for attention fuck her and everything she stands for."

One is a question of maybe trying to make sure justice is found. The other is attacking someone on the presumption they're a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination

Would you prefer to only not have this for rape cases or not to have it at all?

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 19, 2015, 03:56:51 PM
Suppose this would be time to return toward “manslamming.”  There has been no consensus that manslamming is indeed a non-issue, Andy.  There is not enough supporting evidence at the moment to warrant any serious consideration, which there really hasn’t been any serious consideration to my knowledge.  To my view this has thus far been a couple of papers doing a bad job writing on the subject and then a great many anti-feminists picking it up to draw controversy, fear of feminists and make the feminist argument out to be ridiculous.  Manslamming has enough theoretical bases to be potentially true.  Lack of evidence does not make something untrue, just untested. 

Also, as a sidenote the fact that you would say that being raped is preferable to being accused of rape simply shows a lack of insight and that as a man you were never taught to fear being raped.  To say that you would rather a physical assault, potential death, being forced to endure someone else’s whims without your own input or concern and in large part treated as a thing instead of possibly suffering a reputation hit (because we’re just saying accused) is telling of where you think your danger lies.  This is also dismissive of a very serious issue and part of your issue with cheapening the feminist movement. 

Manslamming is a social curiosity, just as manspreading.  This is simply noticing a social attitude and behavior that is part of a larger societal custom.  Manspreading became an issue when it was noticed that men were taking up more space on public transport systems than women to the point they were occupying the space of female passengers.  As a passenger on the same transportation device where we both paid the same money, I should be able to enjoy the same space on that transport as my male co-passengers.  Men do occupy more space than women intentionally.  This is not a man thinking, “fuck that bitch I’m entitled to more space.”  This is simply men being taught to be more dominant, to occupy more space as a show of their dominance and doing this without thinking.  Just as when I sit down, I am not think that I need to be dainty and demure so as not to offend.  I simply was taught and used to a way of sitting, which does conform to the societal view of women not occupying as much space and not intruding on the space around them.  So when you have two groups raised to do that, there is an issue with public transportation and women being pushed to the side on something they paid to ride.

Feminists will get things wrong, certainly.  Feminists will jump off the handle sometimes, come up with convoluted ideas and make irrational claims.  This is just like any ideological group of people.  There are mistakes.  The only reason these mistakes would cheapen a movement that is legitimate is when people take those mistakes and make them out to be something more than what they are.


Oh, I meant accused in the sense that everyone believes it and that I have to go to jail and do all the stuff when I didn't do it.  If the choice was between unsuccessfully accused and unsuccessfully raped, I don't really know what I'd pick either.

The point I was trying to make, and will try to make in another way, is that any movement is most easily associated with its fringe elements.

If I say "Republican," you don't immediately think, "Lower taxes, less government, and so on."  The brain instantly goes to "Hatred of women, taxes only for the poor, banning abortion even in the case of rape, and so on."  That's just how categories work.

When Todd Akin mistakenly said how women can't get pregnant when raped, people like Rush Limbaugh came forward and said otherwise so as not to taint the entire party.

Similarly, a lot of Christians have openly said how they disagree with what Westborough Baptist Church is doing.

Not every group does this, but I find it's helpful when a group does.

Certainly some feminists do, like Steampunkette did in her Feminism thread stating that she didn't stand with TERFs.

In my experience, the feminist movement has no clear leader, and tends to be as varied as Christianity in the way it's seen and practiced.  I feel as though this causes problems for feminists the same way that so many point to Todd Akin's words as apparent proof of what Republicans believe.

How can we fix it?

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 19, 2015, 08:03:37 PM
Well, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people.  A title such as  "How to respect a Lady" does not quite convey the same important as "Teach men not to rape."  Now, I could see changing the title toward "How to Not Rape", but the rape of men was probably still little understood and acknowledged at the time.  I'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here.  The obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.

In my experience, there are two categories to which you can put people.  The ones who care and want to understand, and the ones who don't care and don't want to understand.

You're just not going to reach the latter.  Everything you do will reach the former, and probably harder than you intended it to.

I've told the kissing story to other girls and many find it amusing, but the more you tell men not to do stuff, the ones who care will shy away even further from what you wanted than what you intended, and the ones who don't care aren't going to be affected at all.

I don't consider "We just haven't set it enough" to be a viable tactic.  If it did work, we could cut down on all crimes by just repeating not to do them over and over again.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Caehlim

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 19, 2015, 08:03:37 PMWell, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people.

I just can't picture most men hearing the phrase thinking, "I need to discover more about this." Especially the people who need to hear it the most, the ones with flawed ideas of consent who are going to think "Well that doesn't apply to me", even though it really does.

The problem is that with the exception of a person who knowingly chooses to commit rape (who clearly have such moral problems anyway that they're not going to be reached), the people who can be stopped easily through education are the ones who don't think they're rapists to begin with. They're more likely to dismiss this statement even though they need to hear the message the most.

QuoteI'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here.

I agree, but I think that's only because it's emphasized in all the wrong ways. The victim shaming that can occur is vile and needs to stop. But there are ways in which the agency of women isn't respected that it should be (speaking here in broad cultural trends). We don't respect the agency of women in waiting for active consent (the whole "she doesn't know what she wants" repugnant idea), we don't respect their agency as persons in not objectifying them and we don't respect their ongoing needs in the aftermath of such an assault.

QuoteThe obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.

I utterly agree with this goal. I just think we need to find better ways of communicating it. (Not that I unfortunately have a better suggestion, it's a tough issue to find the right words to express what needs to be communicated and I'm not good with soundbites).
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

kylie

#63
     
Quote from: Caehlim on January 19, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
It's not that I don't think that's worth communicating, I just don't think that phrase does communicate it. Unless one is already aware of this meaning, there is nothing in the phrase which inherently communicates this.
Seems to me what we have in both your comments about this and some of the generalized complaints about “manslamming” are people who aren’t experiencing themselves as under attack, complaining mainly about the choice of words when people who do try to create rather short and quick terminology both to comfort each other and start trying to flag and explain the situation in shorthand.

      Honestly, I feel like I have been about where you are and I've moved on and seen there's a bigger picture.  It wasn't (or at least, certainly wasn't mainly or simply) aimed at where you are coming from to begin with.  It's part of another whole, serious – and also familiar to the point of fed up! - conversation about what's regularly going on.  Where what's regularly going on, unfortunately has and often still does flow: "Oh wait, but what did she do to cause this which will could be pinned on her?  Let's just talk about so many contradictory and often conservative ways to make her life appear more controlled, and not talk about what was done to her from the outside."  And while it's perhaps flippant, when you are in that conversation - which is far too damn common and has way too many people supporting it - it is important to say, oh ya know, what if it's really often men's responsibility to just knock it off already?  Cause it is.

Quote
A sheer grammatical and literal reading renders the phrase seemingly prejudicial and inflammatory. Some of those who use it will misunderstand the phrase and some of those who hear it will misunderstand the phrase.
If you aren't in the conversation and aware of what's going on to begin with, I suppose.  But that's true of a whole lot of things.  Maybe it's not easy to find a sound bite that conveys nearly the same message in a slice of time that people, even people who already understand the situation, will allow?  I dunno.  Sometimes that's a comfort issue with a whole lot of subjects, I guess. 

      But to demand that people never should never ever get even slightly snarky in a way an outsider unfamiliar with the issue at hand and how it's talked about have been playing out, when that speaker and many of her crowd are obviously being demeaned and trampled on again and again with the same bullshit...  Is perhaps a little much.

Quote
Since the objective is cultural change, education and communication, this phrase just seems inadequate to its task.
Maybe if you believe it's also coming up in a forum mainly aimed at people who don't know the issue to begin with.  Though the point that men need to be responsible to begin with when in so many cases they are found to be aggressors and ridiculous excuses are made that toss blame on women instead?  That should not be all that hard to grasp.  I'm not sure if it's more outrageous that in fact some people still don't even know, or how many try not to accept that is a going cultural story with vast circulation. 

      But at some point it does get ridiculous and if people really don't get it by now, then expecting a perfectly suave and even toned language about something so actually noxious?  I dunno.  Besides, not every working writeup and social media tag is intended so seriously as an external PR campaign.  Some of us have seen how far trying to use "neutral" language has gone and not gone on a number of issues, not just this one...  We even get recent movements in rightist politics to co-opt the format for very nasty intentions: "Oh look, I can use such 'nice, civil, neutral tones and terms' so surely what I say must be fair and just' and underneath it in the reasoning and prescriptions the buried message is, "You know really it's all your problem eat shit and die."   Anyway.  Not sure where all this back in OP (if there is even just one body of material here) was originally aimed, but often language like you're picking through here with "manslamming" is intended partly if not mainly, as support for people who already get the issue at hand in a very visceral way.  And they have already seen how rigid and duplicitous conventions that enable the abuse - including certain two-faced conventions of "civility" even - can get.

------

I'd also second a whole bunch of what Pumpkin said.
     

Caehlim

#64
My original Post
I'm avoiding making an immediate response to your post while I consider whether my own internal biases are playing into it.

Edit: Okay, taken a bit of time to think about this.

Quote from: kylie on January 19, 2015, 09:54:07 PMWe even get recent movements in rightist politics to co-opt the format for very nasty intentions: "Oh look, I can use such 'nice, civil, neutral tones and terms' so surely what I say must be fair and just' and underneath it in the reasoning and prescriptions the buried message is, "You know really it's all your problem eat shit and die."
QuoteAnd they have already seen how rigid and duplicitous conventions that enable the abuse - including certain two-faced conventions of "civility" even - can get.

This was an idea I actually only came across recently the other day from one of the feminist groups on my facebook and it was something that really quite struck me, particularly since I haven't considered it before. Being civil is just something I always try for personally, I never really considered the politics of it before but I can see how civility is usually easiest for the privileged party. I honestly don't know how to process this information since I'm fairly certain that I have a strong subconscious bias towards civility. Honestly it's hard not to see "anger" as meaning "unreasonable", even knowing the unfairness of it.

QuoteSeems to me what we have in both your comments about this and some of the generalized complaints about “manslamming” are people who aren’t experiencing themselves as under attack, complaining mainly about the choice of words when people who do try to create rather short and quick terminology both to comfort each other and start trying to flag and explain the situation in shorthand.

That is true, but I tend to feel the same about causes where I or groups representing myself are under attack personally.

...

Yeah, after looking through your points. I probably could stand to understand people's frustrations more and view these sorts of comments with a less literal or critical eye.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Shjade

Quote from: AndyZ on January 19, 2015, 08:25:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination

Would you prefer to only not have this for rape cases or not to have it at all?
I'd prefer it only happen in court, where cross-examination is actually relevant to this topic.

Not immediate public reaction.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

kylie

#66
Quote from: Caehlim
This was an idea I actually only came across recently the other day from one of the feminist groups on my facebook and it was something that really quite struck me, particularly since I haven't considered it before. Being civil is just something I always try for personally, I never really considered the politics of it before but I can see how civility is usually easiest for the privileged party. I honestly don't know how to process this information since I'm fairly certain that I have a strong subconscious bias towards civility. Honestly it's hard not to see "anger" as meaning "unreasonable", even knowing the unfairness of it.
Yeah, I'm not trying to say don't be critical or don't ever wish for people to be nice.  I generally like things to be reasonable at least.  If it doesn't make sense as explanation at all, then well at that level of course it doesn't make sense either.  And there are certainly times and angles were that also needs to be said.  Thus for a very small example, I say I'm not the biggest fan of the term "manslamming" itself, even though I think I pretty well understand where it comes from and I lean toward at least some of the spirit that can go with it.  Though probably not so much of the more separatist trends that people have been so tireless about picking on (and sometimes incorrectly assuming to represent 'the heart of all feminism,' as it were).

        It's just that when people shout "Be civil, please," one has to be able to look and poke at exactly what sort of behavior is being demanded there under that title.  If it's something fundamentally exploitative or unbalanced or putting all the weight on people with less power to "live up to" something or other, then that's something to be critical about too.  There's a long tradition of people in power claiming that if their opposition is "angry" or "upset" (and better yet, 'angry young people' cause they're so often young ones who get stuck with little to lose), then they must naturally be in the wrong.  And that is not so reasonable.  It's sometimes quite twisted.  And now we also have these rightist parties trying to emulate the language of liberal diversity and even "due process."  When diversity and equality are the last thing they actually want to uphold, except where they think the going process actually favors holding onto whatever they can and excluding others from getting a slice as much as possible.
     

AndyZ

Quote from: Shjade on January 20, 2015, 10:19:49 PM
I'd prefer it only happen in court, where cross-examination is actually relevant to this topic.

Not immediate public reaction.

So, when two people give different accounts of a situation, how do you decide which is true?
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Oniya

Among other things, examination of the physical evidence, correlation with other eyewitness accounts, consistency of the stories (does the story change significantly over time) and so forth.  This is why lawyers and judges go to school for so long and get paid the big bucks.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

AndyZ

That was meant specifically to Shjade, Oniya ^_^

I will consider myself paid back for answering your rhetorical question ;-)
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Shjade

I don't know why you'd say it's meant for me when Oniya answered you perfectly well (other than to avoid dealing with the obvious).

If you're dying for me to add to it, I'll point out attacking one person or the other over things you've assumed to be true or false about their differing accounts does no one any favors, including you.

My turn for a question: why are you fixated on making yourself the arbiter of justice with regard to determining the truth of rape accusations?
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

AndyZ

Quote from: Shjade on January 23, 2015, 04:15:11 AM
I don't know why you'd say it's meant for me when Oniya answered you perfectly well (other than to avoid dealing with the obvious).

If you're dying for me to add to it, I'll point out attacking one person or the other over things you've assumed to be true or false about their differing accounts does no one any favors, including you.

Well, I figured your answer would be different, especially in regards to this.

Quote from: Shjade on January 20, 2015, 10:19:49 PM
I'd prefer it only happen in court, where cross-examination is actually relevant to this topic.

Not immediate public reaction.

I have some difficulty in meshing these two perspectives.

QuoteMy turn for a question: why are you fixated on making yourself the arbiter of justice with regard to determining the truth of rape accusations?

Oh, I'm just amused to no end by people demonstrating my point of how bringing up nuances inevitably leads to a sidetrack of issues.  Eventually I just got tired of trying to figure out what we could do to settle the issue.

See, with many people, they have a particular plan of "X doesn't work so we need to try Y."  For an off-topic example, people say that the voting system doesn't work, and we need to consider alternatives.  We can then suggest alternatives, like in the video below.


When you said that you would rather only have people's accounts questioned in court, I imagined that you might have an awesome alternative method of getting to the truth.  While Oniya's answer is perfectly valid, it doesn't work in this context.

Let me give a very obvious example to this effect:

A: "We should abolish our system of government and all be anarchists."
B: "So how would we deal with all the people stealing and killing each other?"
A: "That's what our courts and police are for!"

See, when one calls for completely removing something from the equation, they should either have ready substitutes for those problems, or simply accept that they can't handle those problems with their idea.

I would have an exceptionally difficult time determining consistency of the story without cross-examination.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Shjade

Quote from: AndyZ on January 23, 2015, 04:59:34 AM
When you said that you would rather only have people's accounts questioned in court--
I'm just gonna have to stop you there.
I didn't say people's accounts should only be questioned in court. I said they should be cross examined in court.
It's a pretty specific term.

And, even if it weren't, unless you're directly involved in arbitrating the event, you have no business "cross examining" a rape victim's account.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, following your straw man rather than what's actually being said.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

AndyZ

Okay.  I would have figured that cross-examination was just the court's way of questioning people's accounts.  Could I ask you to elaborate on the differences between the two, and why one is acceptable and the other not?
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Atarn

Ah, the topic of rape. Where I weep for humanity^^.

To the "Better a million yadda yadda liberty slogan!"-peeps, this is exactly what happens. You know that drivel everyone touts about "Oh His Life Was Ruined By False Accusations!!!" Yeah, not happening. At all. The stigma of rape lies squarely on the victim male or female, and it's society's fault, our fault, for letting that happen. And it's perpetuated by the fact that like Pumpkin said earlier, a lot of people are more concerned about bringing out the "false rape!" argument than "Oh fucking hell rape is horrible we need to do something, anything, to stop it!" But that never ever happens in these debates. You et a debate about the issues of rape, and I can guarentee you that the first or second post will be "Well what about those poor innocent men who were falsely accused?" (Also, never an issue if the rapist is a woman because of...Erhm, reasons?)

A sudden storm in
    summer, the brightest
    star at night; an
    opportunist rogue,
    confessor of sins
    a master of hearts
    a dominant lover

Cycle

#75
Quote from: AndyZ on January 23, 2015, 06:18:52 AM
Okay.  I would have figured that cross-examination was just the court's way of questioning people's accounts.  Could I ask you to elaborate on the differences between the two, and why one is acceptable and the other not?

Cross examination in court, in the U.S., is done by attorneys following very specific sets of rules:  e.g., the rules of evidence and the code of civil procedure.  You can't just ask any question and demand an answer.  And the witness can have their own attorney present to raise objections to invalid lines or methods of questioning, which means if you employ an improper line of questioning, you will be stopped.

The media doesn't have to follow those specific set of rules.  Nor does the general public.

Quote from: AndyZ on January 19, 2015, 08:25:04 PM
After my first date, I attempted to kiss the girl, and she got all shy and backed away.  So I figured, okay, no kissing.  When she wants to kiss, she'll let me know.

No such notice was given with various other dates, and her roommate eventually flat out asked me why I didn't try to kiss her.

My hypothesis would be that it's considered socially unacceptable for the girl to make the advances, which leaves boys realizing that they have to keep attempting to do so or it won't happen at all.

Now, granted, most people aren't going to be like me where no once means never until I get notice otherwise, but that's the issue.

Perhaps part of the aid there would be in helping girls to understand that it's acceptable to ask out, to make the first move and so on?

Wait.  Why is your proposed "aid" to educate "the girls" on how they should behave? 

Why isn't the "aid" to educate "the boy" that he needs to take his cues from her, which may be subtle, and determine when to try again?

In other words, why try to change someone else and not yourself?

As for why she behaved the way she did, I think the answer is simple.  Kissing on a first date is less common.  Kissing on a fifth or sixth date is more common.  This is because that's what dates do:  they bring people together and make them feel more comfortable with each other.  And once people are more comfortable with each other, they are more receptive to being kissed.  Presumably your dates with her were successful.  Thus, by the time you reached later dates, she became more receptive to a kiss from you than she was on your first try.  She likely even signaled this to you.



Shjade

Quote from: Cycle on January 23, 2015, 07:33:00 AM
Wait.  Why is your proposed "aid" to educate "the girls" on how they should behave? 

Why isn't the "aid" to educate "the boy" that he needs to take his cues from her, which may be subtle, and determine when to try again?

In other words, why try to change someone else and not yourself?

As for why she behaved the way she did, I think the answer is simple.  Kissing on a first date is less common.  Kissing on a fifth or sixth date is more common.  This is because that's what dates do:  they bring people together and make them feel more comfortable with each other.  And once people are more comfortable with each other, they are more receptive to being kissed.  Presumably your dates with her were successful.  Thus, by the time you reached later dates, she became more receptive to a kiss from you than she was on your first try.  She likely even signaled this to you.
Saw this earlier today (...yesterday? oh gosh I need to sleep z.z), extremely relevant to this particular story/situation, with regard to the difficulties some men have in finding attractive women unapproachable/difficult.


Source article here on the Daily Dot. The piece as a whole is a bit more inflammatory than it probably needs to be, but it still makes valid points.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Pumpkin Seeds

Accused is different from convicted.  Successfully accusing someone does not mean they were successfully convicted.  Being wrongfully convicted and being raped is still odd for me and probably would depend on the various levels.  Considering though that rape can and does lead to death, I might still consider rape worse.  As I said though, this is a reflection of what you as a man feel is a danger to you and what I as a woman feel is a danger to me.

Feminism is not simply a political movement, but is also an ideological approach.  From literature to sociology and politics, feminism is more than simply a movement.  There are going to be fringe elements to feminism and there are going to be controversial studies done that lead to even more unwelcome theories and statements.  Shying away from the uncomfortable does not strengthen feminism and there is simply going to have to be acceptance that the media will highlight the idiotic.  Like finding a redneck a tornado, the media enjoys honing in on those that will garner attention which tend to be the ones spouting nonsense.  Silencing people does little to strengthen feminism.  Having actual dialogue and healthy debate does strengthen feminism along with research and solid findings.  Manslamming, as was pointed out, may indeed be a thing.  There just hasn’t been enough research yet to solidify a theory. 

AndyZ

Quote from: Cycle on January 23, 2015, 07:33:00 AM
Cross examination in court, in America, is done by attorneys following very specific sets of rules:  e.g., the rules of evidence and the code of civil procedure.  You can't just ask any question and demand an answer.  And the witness can have their own attorney present to raise objections to invalid lines or methods of questioning, which means if you employ an improper line of questioning, you will be stopped.

The media doesn't have to follow those specific set of rules.  Nor does the general public.

Shjade, would you agree with this answer?

Quote
Wait.  Why is your proposed "aid" to educate "the girls" on how they should behave? 

Why isn't the "aid" to educate "the boy" that he needs to take his cues from her, which may be subtle, and determine when to try again?

In other words, why try to change someone else and not yourself?

Are you implying that anyone who has something happen should first stop and consider what they did wrong, as opposed to how they can spread awareness to everyone?

If you want to go this route, I guess you should push for the saying of "No only means not today," but doing so would carry its own problems.

Quote
As for why she behaved the way she did, I think the answer is simple.  Kissing on a first date is less common.  Kissing on a fifth or sixth date is more common.  This is because that's what dates do:  they bring people together and make them feel more comfortable with each other.  And once people are more comfortable with each other, they are more receptive to being kissed.  Presumably your dates with her were successful.  Thus, by the time you reached later dates, she became more receptive to a kiss from you than she was on your first try.  She likely even signaled this to you.

Oh, true, but it still puts her at the disadvantage where the male has all the power in the relationship and can decide how far things are going to do.  She's ultimately left up to my whims for if/when I want to do things, because she's not empowered to make her own advances.

Quote from: Shjade on January 23, 2015, 07:45:08 AM
Saw this earlier today (...yesterday? oh gosh I need to sleep z.z), extremely relevant to this particular story/situation, with regard to the difficulties some men have in finding attractive women unapproachable/difficult.


Source article here on the Daily Dot. The piece as a whole is a bit more inflammatory than it probably needs to be, but it still makes valid points.

Which creates a vicious cycle, the only way out of which I can see is if females do more things which would create equality.  By this list, acting overly flirty and the like.  Culture gets changed by enough people doing something unusual that it becomes the norm, or by demonstrations like in television where people grow up seeing something and decide that it's now socially acceptable.

The only reason it seems odd to see men in skirts here but not in Scotland is because it's done in Scotland but not done here.

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on January 23, 2015, 08:05:11 AM
Accused is different from convicted.  Successfully accusing someone does not mean they were successfully convicted.  Being wrongfully convicted and being raped is still odd for me and probably would depend on the various levels.  Considering though that rape can and does lead to death, I might still consider rape worse.  As I said though, this is a reflection of what you as a man feel is a danger to you and what I as a woman feel is a danger to me.

Feminism is not simply a political movement, but is also an ideological approach.  From literature to sociology and politics, feminism is more than simply a movement.  There are going to be fringe elements to feminism and there are going to be controversial studies done that lead to even more unwelcome theories and statements.  Shying away from the uncomfortable does not strengthen feminism and there is simply going to have to be acceptance that the media will highlight the idiotic.  Like finding a redneck a tornado, the media enjoys honing in on those that will garner attention which tend to be the ones spouting nonsense.  Silencing people does little to strengthen feminism.  Having actual dialogue and healthy debate does strengthen feminism along with research and solid findings.  Manslamming, as was pointed out, may indeed be a thing.  There just hasn’t been enough research yet to solidify a theory. 

Granted that I don't have the same fear of death as an average person, but I would expect that "raped" implies "raped and not murdered."  It's very easy to expect that your average person would much prefer "wrongfully convicted" than "raped and murdered."

We had a lot of people who were rather vocal before with their info on how it wasn't actually a thing, but they seem to have vanished.

As far as manspreading, I'm very reminded of the thing where some airlines were considering making obese passengers buy two seats.  If we accept that men are on average larger than women, it's not difficult to see how they'd take up more space.

If I were to hypothesize on "manslamming," then the people who don't mind getting bumped into are the ones who are more likely to bump into others.  This would be people who are used to crowded areas and don't want as much personal space.

Amusingly, I'd expect just the opposite for "manspreading."  Someone who spreads out that much obviously wants a lot of personal space and doesn't like getting crowded in as much.

They are similar, though, in that you're apt to get bumped a lot in either case.  In that instance, people who don't care about getting bumped and such are more apt to have these behaviors.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Cycle

Quote from: AndyZ on January 23, 2015, 08:52:28 AM
Are you implying that anyone who has something happen should first stop and consider what if they did something wrong or if they may have misunderstood the situation, as opposed to how they can spread awareness to everyone?

Subject to the clarifications above, absolutely yes.


Quote from: AndyZ on January 23, 2015, 08:52:28 AM
Oh, true, but it still puts her at the disadvantage where the male has all the power in the relationship and can decide how far things are going to do.  She's ultimately left up to my whims for if/when I want to do things, because she's not empowered to make her own advances.

I don't see how this follows from what I wrote.  In the explanation I wrote, the woman is empowered to make her own advances.  And she likely did.  The man just might not have understood the advances.


AndyZ

Quote from: Cycle on January 23, 2015, 09:57:34 AM
Subject to the clarifications above, absolutely yes.

Oh, with those clarifications, I've already done so.  However, it doesn't really help people who go by different processes of thought than I do.

You already know I'm nine kinds of weird.

Quote
I don't see how this follows from what I wrote.  In the explanation I wrote, the woman is empowered to make her own advances.  And she likely did.  The man just might not have understood the advances.

Not everyone has the social graces and talents to spot such nuances.  If we go by the stereotype that a woman has to just subtly hint at something and can't outright say it, she ends up at the mercy of the man who gets to decide when and if to continue.

I may have given the indication that I was upset with this girl, but I was happy for the input that she did want me to try again, even if it came from the roommate.

By contrast, a lot of people have absolutely no idea how common is common, and they may well interpret any number of things as signals to continue.

Nor am I saying it's something all women do.  I even heard a thing on the radio station a couple days ago about one girl calling up and asking how to ask a guy out.  I applaud her for taking that initiative.  Considering how shy I was in high school, I'm not sure I'd have ever made the first move.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Oniya

There was a point in history where social graces were something that were taught just as much as math and English.  Considering the manners that I see in the little Oni's middle-school, we could probably stand having that reinstated somewhere.  -__-
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Cycle

Quote from: AndyZ on January 23, 2015, 10:08:00 AM
Not everyone has the social graces and talents to spot such nuances.  If we go by the stereotype that a woman has to just subtly hint at something and can't outright say it, she ends up at the mercy of the man who gets to decide when and if to continue.

See, here is the thing.  He may not be able to spot such nuance, but why does she have to change how she communicates with him?  Maybe a solution is for him to learn how to spot nuances.

Also, pointing out that he may need to learn how to spot nuances, is not the same thing as saying she must only communicate through nuances and that she can't--as in, is forbidden from--outright saying it.  It is simply pointing out that nuances are a form of communication that is used, which apparently he didn't understand.  There is a distinction.

Should he continue to not understand and insist that she change her behavior?

Or should he try to understand?


Silk

Quote from: Cycle on January 23, 2015, 11:25:04 AM
See, here is the thing.  He may not be able to spot such nuance, but why does she have to change how she communicates with him?  Maybe a solution is for him to learn how to spot nuances.

Also, pointing out that he may need to learn how to spot nuances, is not the same thing as saying she must only communicate through nuances and that she can't--as in, is forbidden from--outright saying it.  It is simply pointing out that nuances are a form of communication that is used, which apparently he didn't understand.  There is a distinction.

Should he continue to not understand and insist that she change her behavior?

Or should he try to understand?

But this also leads to other issues of the need for "no means no" instead of "This implies this, or this or this or this, or maybe yes or maybe no" if you want your intentions respected, then it's a matter of respect for them to be clear and without misinterpretation in the first place. When I want a chocolate bar that's sitting on the side, I don't then keep making a mass of benign actions that may be interpreted differently, I ask if I can have the chocolate bar.

AndyZ

She doesn't have to change; I would just encourage it if she's using lots of nuance that he's not picking up.

One of the big difficulties is that it's not so easy for people to just naturally pick up on social skills.  Another is that most don't really recognize their skill level.

I would consider myself the exception in that I actively seek feedback, and that I accept "no" from the get go.  How common is it going to be to have people who pick up on some, any, sign that they perceive, which is going to irritate the girl to no end when she already said no?

We also end up with the issue that only people who are actively seeking a solution usually end up finding one.

For many guys, this is a done deal.  If you don't have the social expertise to read the subtle hints she gives you, just keep trying until she says yes.  Many guys openly admit that they don't pick up on body language, to the point where it's stereotypically considered to be a female trait to be able to do so to any serious degree.

Thus, no becomes "try harder later," which is already stated as a problem.

I personally believe it would be easier for society to make it more socially acceptable for girls to invite the next step (which has already been stated as a problem) than to try to teach all the men to pick up on all the subtle nuances of body language.

Quote from: Silk on January 23, 2015, 12:29:15 PM
But this also leads to other issues of the need for "no means no" instead of "This implies this, or this or this or this, or maybe yes or maybe no" if you want your intentions respected, then it's a matter of respect for them to be clear and without misinterpretation in the first place. When I want a chocolate bar that's sitting on the side, I don't then keep making a mass of benign actions that may be interpreted differently, I ask if I can have the chocolate bar.

Silk, that's because you're awesome.

I quite literally on Christmas 2013 had my mom whisper to me to give a chocolate bar to my sister because she wanted it but would not ask for it, and I didn't happen to be looking in her direction when she did some sort of body language thing.

Given the choice, I would much rather "I'll tell you when I'm ready" than "Watch my signals and make your best guess."
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Cycle

Quote from: AndyZ on January 23, 2015, 12:35:40 PM
For many guys, this is a done deal.  If you don't have the social expertise to read the subtle hints she gives you, just keep trying until she says yes.  Many guys openly admit that they don't pick up on body language, to the point where it's stereotypically considered to be a female trait to be able to do so to any serious degree.

Thus, no becomes "try harder later," which is already stated as a problem.

*facepalms*

How do you even get to this conclusion from what I wrote...

I pointed out that women can send signals to men encouraging them to try a kiss on a later date. 

You and Silk read this as: a man should just keep trying to kiss her over and over regardless of what she says???

No.

A man should be aware of the lines of communications that are open.  And if those signals are not positive, then leave her alone.

If you don't get a positive signal, stop. 

If you don't understand the signals, stop.  And learn.

If you can't learn, then good luck.


Deamonbane

What... is there a book somewhere with all the signals written out? Like a step by step. 'Women's Signals to Men and What They Mean for Dummies'?
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Pumpkin Seeds

If there is, then I want the Men's Signals to Women.

Shjade

Quote from: Deamonbane on January 23, 2015, 01:32:49 PM
What... is there a book somewhere with all the signals written out? Like a step by step. 'Women's Signals to Men and What They Mean for Dummies'?

Yes.

It has one page with one sentence on it:

"Pay attention to the person in front of you, not what you want to do to her."


Andy? Stop trying to make this about me. Thanks.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Deamonbane

Right. Helpful book too.
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

AndyZ

Quote from: Cycle on January 23, 2015, 12:47:26 PM
*facepalms*

How do you even get to this conclusion from what I wrote...

I pointed out that women can send signals to men encouraging them to try a kiss on a later date. 

You and Silk read this as: a man should just keep trying to kiss her over and over regardless of what she says???

No.

A man should be aware of the lines of communications that are open.  And if those signals are not positive, then leave her alone.

If you don't get a positive signal, stop. 

If you don't understand the signals, stop.  And learn.

If you can't learn, then good luck.

Cycle, I think I see where I'm confusing you.

Sometimes I present an argument made by other people in an attempt to let you disprove it.  Sometimes it's something I believe, and sometimes not.  Most often there is a parallel to the discussion at hand which I can demonstrate.

I'm sure you've seen me do this.  Please don't assume that they're my personal beliefs.

I had a discussion with someone I consider very intelligent yesterday regarding what it would take for me to kill myself, even though I'm obviously not going to do it and it's a mortal sin by my religion.

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that everyone does or even should share my belief structure.

Just felt that'd help to clarify.




Now, one option is to just tell all boys this:

Quote
A man should be aware of the lines of communications that are open.  And if those signals are not positive, then leave her alone.

If you don't get a positive signal, stop. 

If you don't understand the signals, stop.  And learn.

If you can't learn, then good luck.

Let's consider how well that will work.

Now, we already know that some people are willing to learn and improve and others are not.  The latter will simply ignore that message, and the former will try their best.

It's unfortunate that we can't just tell say things and expect people to stop doing them.  If it worked, I'm sure someone would have carved out some rules like "Don't murder" on a stone tablet somewhere and the world would be a much better place without people murdering each other.

There's a term "preaching to the choir," and my interpretation is that it talks about how we must address the people who are interested in learning and improving.

I believe I can speak for Silk and I know I can speak for myself when I say that I think it'd be really nice if that worked, but it does not.

I would also consider it rather demeaning to women to say that it's all on men.  However, I realize that that's your belief, and if you find a woman that is perfectly happy giving signals and not actually speaking her desires, I do not hope for any ills upon either of you.

I would also add, and clearly denote that it's not sarcastic just in case it comes across that way, that I hope you wrote a book on body language.  I've studied up on it to some degree, but most of what I've read does not hold true across an entire gender.

Quote from: Shjade on January 23, 2015, 04:29:44 PM
Andy? Stop trying to make this about me. Thanks.

It's really coming to my attention lately that I expect more of some people than they're capable of providing.  I apologize and will leave you be.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Cycle

Quote from: AndyZ on January 24, 2015, 04:04:36 AM
Sometimes I present an argument made by other people in an attempt to let you disprove it.  Sometimes it's something I believe, and sometimes not.  ...  Please don't assume that they're my personal beliefs.

If you present an argument that you do not believe in or disagree with, you should say so.  Because if you don't believe in it, why should anyone bother to "disprove it" for you?  You can do it yourself.

But the problem I have with your response above wasn't that it was an argument, but rather a complete twisting of my words.  I did not say what you claim I said. 

Quote from: AndyZ on January 24, 2015, 04:04:36 AM
I would also consider it rather demeaning to women to say that it's all on men.  However, I realize that that's your belief, and if you find a woman that is perfectly happy giving signals and not actually speaking her desires, I do not hope for any ills upon either of you.

Now, give then green highlighted statement, the above is your belief.

Now, give then red highlighted statement, you believe that I said it is all on men.  This is patently false.  Read what I wrote.

Now, give then orange highlighted statement, you believe that I am looking for or with a woman that never speaks her desires and only gives signal.  This is flat out wrong.  You don't know the first thing about my personal life.  Not who I work with.  Not who I spend my time with.  Not who I am intimate with.


You're right.  There are people that won't listen.  You keep twisting my words around to something else instead of hearing what I am saying.  What I was trying to show you--i.e., the importance of trying to learn to understand another person through more than just direct communication--could have helped you.  Now all I can say is, good luck.


AndyZ

Ultimately it's because I'm just not very intelligent.  I try to fight against that, but I'm sure it's obvious.

Other people see and understand things which I don't, even when they're so blindingly obvious that they figure I must be mocking or insulting them when I ask about them.

So, like, I child, I usually just end up asking "Why?  Why?" over and over again, breaking things down and trying to make it fit into my brain.

When I was little, I was completely baffled by the idea that I was not only allowed but supposed to take candy from strangers on Halloween but never any other time.  It made no sense to me that it's good to do so one day out of the year and bad to do so any other day.  It's just self-evident to everyone else.

What I try to do is compare and contrast the various ideas with which I'm presented.  What really baffles me is how often the two answers don't match up between two separate individuals, but I can only guess as to why that is.

People keep thinking that I'm trying to distort their arguments, but I'm just trying to whittle at things by trying to figure out what is and isn't, and why.

Mark Twain said that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, or something like that.  I've found, though, that if I don't open up and ask questions, I just end up being perpetually ignorant.

On some threads, people are okay with it and realize I'm not trying to upset anyone, but around here, I upset people, and I'm sorry.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Cycle

#93
For what it is worth, AndyZ, I don't think you are not very intelligent.  Rather, from seeing what and how you write, I would say you are rather intelligent. 

But you seem to see things in more binary terms:  this is good, that is bad.

Most issues, and virtually every person, operate more as gradients.  Instead of black and white, there are greens, red, yellows, magentas, cyans, etc.

In this specific context, I was trying to encourage you to try harder to pick up a woman's signals.  That's it.  I wasn't saying that is the only women can, should or must communicate.  Nor was I suggesting that until a man gets an outright "no!" and a fist to the nose, he should just bull on ahead assuming that everything he did was welcomed.

Now, why was I trying to encourage you to do that?  Because you mentioned that you had an experience where you didn't realize the woman was more receptive to you giving her a kiss later, even if she didn't want a kiss the first time you tried.  That's all. 

You can't extrapolate from one recommendation an universal rule applicable to all people, in all environments, addressing every type of interaction, without regard for exceptions or variations.

Yes, that means you are going to have to keep assessing every situation you meet and likely having to figure out a new way to deal with each situation.  And yes, that makes life harder than easier.  But succeeding in life isn't supposed to be easy. 

You are trying.  So you're already more than half way there.


Silk

Quote from: Cycle on January 24, 2015, 10:58:13 AM
For what it is worth, AndyZ, I don't think you are not very intelligent.  Rather, from seeing what and how you write, I would say you are rather intelligent. 

But you seem to see things in more binary terms:  this is good, that is bad.

Most issues, and virtually every person, operate more as gradients.  Instead of black and white, there are greens, red, yellows, magentas, cyans, etc.

In this specific context, I was trying to encourage you to try harder to pick up a woman's signals.  That's it.  I wasn't saying that is the only women can, should or must communicate.  Nor was I suggesting that until a man gets an outright "no!" and a fist to the nose, he should just bull on ahead assuming that everything he did was welcomed.

Now, why was I trying to encourage you to do that?  Because you mentioned that you had an experience where you didn't realize the woman was more receptive to you giving her a kiss later, even if she didn't want a kiss the first time you tried.  That's all. 

You can't extrapolate from one recommendation an universal rule applicable to all people, in all environments, addressing every type of interaction, without regard for exceptions or variations.

Yes, that means you are going to have to keep assessing every situation you meet and likely having to figure out a new way to deal with each situation.  And yes, that makes life harder than easier.  But succeeding in life isn't supposed to be easy. 

You are trying.  So you're already more than half way there.

But again this is the two way street scenario, it's down to both parties to make their needs wants and what have you aware to the other party. If there is ambiguity, there is a chance of miscommunication, which could lead to a undesired result, not saying it's all men or all women, were BOTH responsible for that clear communication.

Let's use an example, If I could speak Japanese, and went to Japan, but when I went into the shop I only spoke English because I was not comfortable with my Japanese and expected the person I was speaking to to be able to understand my body language and my English, the end result is that the person I was speaking to mistook what I wanted and got something else instead, is it really the other persons fault that due to my insecurity that I didn't speak Japanese to them and as a result, didn't get the result I wanted?

Cycle

Quote from: Silk on January 24, 2015, 11:17:40 AM
If there is ambiguity, there is a chance of miscommunication, which could lead to a undesired result, not saying it's all men or all women, were BOTH responsible for that clear communication.

I agree with this. 

And in the example presented, I believe the woman did take steps to communicate to the man that she wanted him to try to kiss her again, via the roommate.  Certainly she could have employed faster or more direct methods as well--including just kissing him herself.

In the store example, I think that would be akin to the shopper asking another person who was fluent in both English and Japanese to tell the store owner what the shopper wanted.


eternaldarkness

Quote from: AndyZ on January 24, 2015, 10:25:41 AM
Ultimately it's because I'm just not very intelligent.  I try to fight against that, but I'm sure it's obvious.

Other people see and understand things which I don't, even when they're so blindingly obvious that they figure I must be mocking or insulting them when I ask about them.

So, like, I child, I usually just end up asking "Why?  Why?" over and over again, breaking things down and trying to make it fit into my brain.

When I was little, I was completely baffled by the idea that I was not only allowed but supposed to take candy from strangers on Halloween but never any other time.  It made no sense to me that it's good to do so one day out of the year and bad to do so any other day.  It's just self-evident to everyone else.

What I try to do is compare and contrast the various ideas with which I'm presented.  What really baffles me is how often the two answers don't match up between two separate individuals, but I can only guess as to why that is.

People keep thinking that I'm trying to distort their arguments, but I'm just trying to whittle at things by trying to figure out what is and isn't, and why.

Mark Twain said that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, or something like that.  I've found, though, that if I don't open up and ask questions, I just end up being perpetually ignorant.

On some threads, people are okay with it and realize I'm not trying to upset anyone, but around here, I upset people, and I'm sorry.

Question everything, and never, ever stop asking questions. Asking questions is how you learn, and only corpses learn nothing.

Garuss Vakarian

#97
Quote from: Shjade on January 23, 2015, 07:45:08 AM
Saw this earlier today (...yesterday? oh gosh I need to sleep z.z), extremely relevant to this particular story/situation, with regard to the difficulties some men have in finding attractive women unapproachable/difficult.


Source article here on the Daily Dot. The piece as a whole is a bit more inflammatory than it probably needs to be, but it still makes valid points.

Shjade: Neat article piece, but sadly such things can never be truly known. Not only is such a world probably beyond our life time, but the benefit's claimed could very well not happen. Perhaps even the opposite can happen? The empowerment women feel  makes them less inclined to do the flirting.  Who truly knows? (After all, look on the boards, and it is easy to see more females lean towards being subversive then assertive. In relationships I mean. Top bottom, who takes the lead, who says hi to whom first. Most want pandered to not to be the panderer. To be the one who is seeked, not the seeker.  so to speak. Yes some are switch, some are dom. But most either say only sub, or sub proffered. Not to say all women want a MR.Grey, just saying most like it when they are the ones being courted. lol . )

Glad to see this has actually stayed relevant. By the point where I last checked it, it seemed everyone was content with opinions sent. It is always cool to see things are talked about. Opinions aside, I find it pertinent for there to be a subject to begin with. Kind of like with that Hatred controversy. Opinion doesn't matter, it was a very good thing that it was a subject to begin with. If no one talks about it, then it is scary, because if it is not controversial then it is not considered relevant. And as using Hatred in my example, such levels of violence in media should always be relevant. So should high levels of hate, bigotry, or ignorance be relevant. As eternal Darkness so appropriately said. Always ask questions. And to it I will add: Never conform to what others say just because it is a popular opinion, or because you feel one side is more convincing. Stop, look at the evidence, and discover for yourself. Don't let any one tell you what side is right or wrong and what opinions you should share. Some people in the world will like to strike their points of view over your head with a figurative hammer saying their right listen to no other opinion. And if they do, it should make you question their motives more.

AndyZ

Quote from: Cycle on January 24, 2015, 10:58:13 AM
For what it is worth, AndyZ, I don't think you are not very intelligent.  Rather, from seeing what and how you write, I would say you are rather intelligent. 

But you seem to see things in more binary terms:  this is good, that is bad.

Most issues, and virtually every person, operate more as gradients.  Instead of black and white, there are greens, red, yellows, magentas, cyans, etc.

In this specific context, I was trying to encourage you to try harder to pick up a woman's signals.  That's it.  I wasn't saying that is the only women can, should or must communicate.  Nor was I suggesting that until a man gets an outright "no!" and a fist to the nose, he should just bull on ahead assuming that everything he did was welcomed.

Now, why was I trying to encourage you to do that?  Because you mentioned that you had an experience where you didn't realize the woman was more receptive to you giving her a kiss later, even if she didn't want a kiss the first time you tried.  That's all. 

You can't extrapolate from one recommendation an universal rule applicable to all people, in all environments, addressing every type of interaction, without regard for exceptions or variations.

Yes, that means you are going to have to keep assessing every situation you meet and likely having to figure out a new way to deal with each situation.  And yes, that makes life harder than easier.  But succeeding in life isn't supposed to be easy. 

You are trying.  So you're already more than half way there.

I think I got you.

The example I gave was from 2002, and I thought I made it clear that I'd learned from it.  You didn't pick up on that and wanted to give the notice that I should consider for the future, and I didn't pick up on that you were trying to give a specific instance and not a general principle?

Quote from: eternaldarkness on February 01, 2015, 04:43:03 AM
Question everything, and never, ever stop asking questions. Asking questions is how you learn, and only corpses learn nothing.

When my high school teacher started teaching Socrates, he actually instantly pointed me out as someone who was going to love it, and he was right...to a point, at least.  I have a harder time getting in on the actual stuff discussed but I consider it a rare pleasure when I can have those kinds of debates.

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on February 07, 2015, 04:03:24 AM
Shjade: Neat article piece, but sadly such things can never be truly known. Not only is such a world probably beyond our life time, but the benefit's claimed could very well not happen. Perhaps even the opposite can happen? The empowerment women feel  makes them less inclined to do the flirting.  Who truly knows? (After all, look on the boards, and it is easy to see more females lean towards being subversive then assertive. In relationships I mean. Top bottom, who takes the lead, who says hi to whom first. Most want pandered to not to be the panderer. To be the one who is seeked, not the seeker.  so to speak. Yes some are switch, some are dom. But most either say only sub, or sub proffered. Not to say all women want a MR.Grey, just saying most like it when they are the ones being courted. lol . )

Glad to see this has actually stayed relevant. By the point where I last checked it, it seemed everyone was content with opinions sent. It is always cool to see things are talked about. Opinions aside, I find it pertinent for there to be a subject to begin with. Kind of like with that Hatred controversy. Opinion doesn't matter, it was a very good thing that it was a subject to begin with. If no one talks about it, then it is scary, because if it is not controversial then it is not considered relevant. And as using Hatred in my example, such levels of violence in media should always be relevant. So should high levels of hate, bigotry, or ignorance be relevant. As eternal Darkness so appropriately said. Always ask questions. And to it I will add: Never conform to what others say just because it is a popular opinion, or because you feel one side is more convincing. Stop, look at the evidence, and discover for yourself. Don't let any one tell you what side is right or wrong and what opinions you should share. Some people in the world will like to strike their points of view over your head with a figurative hammer saying their right listen to no other opinion. And if they do, it should make you question their motives more.


Insulated opinion seems to be an issue inherent (though not exclusive) to the Internet.

In Ancient Greece, we had these kinds of talks out in the open, where other people could step up and provide an instant debate.

In colonial America, people would do similar types of things in pubs.  With the printing press, however, newspapers were harder to debate.

With the Internet, people just post their stuff and maybe there's a comments section, but it's rare for the person writing the article to reply to the comments.

I can't help but be reminded of a legal thing I saw in high school which talked about how in a courtroom, the prosecution showed one part of a video, and the defense showed another part, but they wouldn't just show the whole video in its entirety for the jury.  In a good debate, everything gets revealed.

People gave Bill Nye a hard time for having a debate with Ken Ham, but I agree that anyone with strong enough convictions should be happy to compare and contrast in the hopes of both ascertaining the truth and letting each side be displayed without hyperbole.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.