Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

Notes on Reality

(1) This doesn't work. Ask Muslims about the unresolved issues troubling the sex segregation justified by assertions of Islamic law occurring in many communities. Indeed, there are somewhere between several and many Christian-identifying religious groups in this country, of small number and influence, that seem nothing more than rape cults, which depend in part on separate spheres for males and females, which are then recombined according to the will of the authority (males) and resultant obligatiations of the subjects (females). Given the number of times and places we can observe such ill outcomes,

(2) This sort of segregation still speaks nothing of equality under the law, and for a reason—it is not necessarily ignorant of nor apathetic toward the iniquity, but, rather, belligerently hostile in service to vested interest.

(3) Falling in love is a wonderful feeling indeed; our minds have diverse criteria, and the rewarding sensations are, indeed, heady. But our brains, when we are in love, function more in response to those issues as if we were, according to various descriptions of the observable electrochemistry and behavior, psychotic, delusional, or addicted. Simply put, falling in love, in terms of brain function, looks like mental illness.

―Considering point (2) above, I would simply remind that we need not merely imagine the results when adiction and injustice commingle; the outcome is never good, and any larger personal psychoemotional redemption or progress occurring in its wake is measured by redefining the baseline, so that the starting point, square zero, is in concept a zero compared to a deficit figure—we revise downward. We might wonder, rhetorically speaking, which side of the vested interest we are on, except circumstance reminds that we don't really need to wonder. The problem is that it's one of those points society really doesn't like to discuss. And there is a psychopathology to why, but the fact that we can identify significant aspects of the psychopathology does not translate to any assertion that the way it is represents a healthy behavior for or within society.​

And then there is this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

G. B. Trudeau. Doonesbury. October 17, 1972.
(via GoComics.com)​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would be best, yes.

One of the most essential requirements in a discussion - and this extends to an internet discussion forum - is parity of influence. Blatant violations of that trust undercut confidence in the system. The result is this.

I have no idea why you miscomprehend my position or your own here, or whether it is genuine or just artistry. I assume your next move will be to assign political or moral views to me that I do not possess. The case is very simple, and it doesn't require the massively overblown issue you are attempting to make of it here: facetious generalisation is unwarranted, on the site and elsewhere. There is no need for your pugnacious and garrulous defense of someone else. Simply stick to your object of preventing violations of site rules via generalisation. I'll attempt to explain this in a manner you might be able to follow below:

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the comments thus far.

This is one of the essential problems in such debates: you can't simply fire off whatever nonsense springs to forebrain without even a grazing pass over the facts. I appreciate that you would like the debate to be couched in such background... but it isn't.

Just a paraphrase, really: I notice that you do this a fair bit as a way of miscasting another person's comments and while I wouldn't go so far, there's nothing wrong with a faithful reproduction of your narrative.

Since you're back on trying to describe me as a Catholic - which in the context I interpret as a kind of attack - my paraphrase follows quite nicely. Anyway, no more distractions.

To conclude: then you should be capable and mature enough to discuss it in precisely that context, without wider affirmation of prejudice. Admittedly, given the loose way you use language, this is unlikely. Since you absolutely insist on making this discussion about yourself, I add that it is the height of hubris for you to accuse other contributors to SF - almost any other contributors - of lying.

It's quite apparent, really. Is your scope based entirely on personality issues?

Well, that would certainly explain the above. Thanks for the clarification. (Strangely, I have decided on the same approach that you cite in the first sentence. Odd coincidence, no?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all - my scope is based on the sum of my observations of your behavior on these forums... which has marked you as part of an incredibly annoying sub-class of the population I tenderly refer to as the "entitlement bitch". You want the outcome you desire, and have this odd tendency to think you are simply supposed to get what you want, regardless of rhyme or reason, and you will whine and complain about it endlessly until you are either satisfied or sufficiently ignored.

Your little crusade ceased being amusing a long time ago.

 

A social polarization into male and female will allow women to define what women are, and it will also allow men to define what men are, based on natural foundations and their own instincts. Men have a different attitude against crime than women. Criminal behavior in modern times is more acceptable because of liberal policies (he-she) that give criminals rights and protections beyond their victims. Only criminals have the right to kill in a liberal world.

Men don't think this way. Men use a chain of command and unless ordered to do so, one is not allowed to war on their own. One can get shot for less than murder. The protection of criminals needed to be conditioned into the people, before injustice could be structured into the legal system.

Quota laws are criminal, in an absolute sense, in that they legally victimize those who did nothing, under the guise this victimization pays for the sins of others, even if individuals did nothing to deserve any of this by their own actions. It works the same way as the thought process of a rapist. The rapist may have an angry grudge against women (violent attitude) and therefore innocent women have to pay for the past, simply because they are woman.

It would be different if rapist could only go after the exact woman who wronged him but nobody else. Crime has a tangible cause and effect between criminal and victim and not an nebulous connection based on many degrees of irrational separation. The only tangible connection between criminal and victim in quota laws is the law and victims of the quotas, This is not seen when feeling is the deciding factor.

The quota system takes it one step further by giving the rewards to those who didn't even suffer in the past. This would be like a rapist saying I saw a woman abuse a man on TV. I am going to accept the compensation for him, by victimizing a random women who did nothing other than be a woman, too. That woman needs to feel guilty for the mistakes of the past, she did not even do, so it adds up for the criminal law.

There is template. The looters during demonstrations make use of this template of quotas by justifying stealing, because of racist generalities, that allow them to victimize innocent shop owners, because there is a fuzzy link between them and the generality that did them wrong. Everyone is supposed to feel compassion due to conditioning by he-she that replaces feeling for common sense. This is not good for the men but may be what women do and it would be up to them to figure if this is natural women. Men tend to do most of the crime such that a simple masculine adjustment could reduce crime.

 

The Obvious Appeal to Decency

In what society, on which planet?

I think part of the reason why your arguments make so little sense is that your posts read like the neurotic rupture of a broad-spectrum misanthrope stuck amid a delusional disorder as your self-love reels and twitches at the prospect of being merely equal to your fellow human beings, especially the ones with a pair of X chromosomes or skin that just isn't pale enough for your tastes.

Stop. Just stop disrupting discussions with these pointless, useless, topically questionable rants offered with absolutely no evidentiary support for the exceptionally inappropriate, astoundingly ignorant, morally violative, and evidentiarily insupportable excrement you insist on inflicting upon other people.

Spoiler

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To be honest... I find Wellwisher's post to be quite offensive... and I'm a pasty ass white guy...

 

Interesting. I'd written you off earlier on much the same basis.

I have not the foggiest idea to what you refer, and I think you're entering some very questionable territory here. Why do you think this is so?

It's really this simple: a member raised an objection in-thread to an overt case of undisciplined and really unmitigated bigotry. You, as an uninvolved third party, have chosen to object to this citation. It would have been far simpler just to grunt out a grudging tea culpa (although why you would be involved at all I have no idea) and move on. No one is detracting from your sociopolitical commentary, and neither are the procedural realities of the forum unimportant, whatever your pretension. Similarly, there's no need for the longwinded ignoratio elenchi, or for the new threats. Just accept it and move along. You're among the first of the staff to explain how imperfect you are. Very well. We are not the last to notice it. Done. Site rules can be found and a specific but older copy here. There are later versions, of course.

This did not go unnoticed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However: it is socially banal to phrase a criticism in such a broad way, as we've seen elsewhere on the forum and which has been enforced previously. There is no reason to diverge from such a standard now - and a reasonable standard, at that - in order to assuage any lingering doubts you might have about your own direction: no one is puncturing that direction, for the obvious reason of the outrage committed against this girl. What is not acceptable is a broad labeling of a community of believers or unbelievers simply because it fits some presumably labile dynamic. That is not acceptable at SF. I hate to be the one to remind the thread users of this - or, if you like, the user committing the specific infraction - but as adults it is simply possible to direct such criticisms in a responsible way. In fact, on reconsideration, it really is part of the dynamic. Catholics are not Nazis, such that group attacks on them are somehow vindicated. There is no overriding social framework that universally endorses such attacks based on special conditions. They're typically thinking, moral people, whatever their extraordinary cases. In the wider view, I might suggest a kind of political rapprochement that could promote better understanding of their community without the need to colour people's view of Catholics generally.

Not at all: that captured your commentary very aptly. I hate to break into fisking, but you do persist in this break with procedure, falling back onto minutiae of unrelated arguments to bolster a position you appear to have taken either unwittingly or fallaciously. Simply put, I am not a Catholic and certainly not "that kind" of Catholic. Similarly, neither is 'Catholic' taken as a "personal insult", and neither am I in fact "carrying on as if I do know you", and neither was "Catholic" used to "to describe Ireland's legal and political landscape and culture". It was essentially a blank pejorative with a lead-in from you - which was not your fault, of course. I am simply and with the greatest tolerance pointing out that the summation of these minor misappropriations is not justification for the earlier bigoted statement: once that can be moved past, I have no objection to a frank discussion of the issue. You may continue to call the above flaming and distraction, but the earlier ad hominem attacks demanded redress, and so it is now. What was the point of raising them in the first place?

 

And the Band Plays On

Because Reality, While Depressing, Insists ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

It would seem the department is reacting as if there is little question the officer is guilty. Kristi Eaton of Associated press notes that at least seven victims have been identified, and also reports that Captain Dexter Nelson of the Oklahoma City Police Department announced that they are "retracting all of his contacts, as many as they can, especially traffic stops".

The investigation began — and Holtzclaw was immediately placed on leave — when police said a woman complained in June that Holtzclaw had sexually assaulted her during a traffic stop on a boulevard about two miles north of the state Capitol. The alleged incident prompted police to check other contacts Holtzclaw had with the public since beginning street patrols about 18 months ago.

Officers identified seven victims and eight incidents before accusing Holtzclaw of crimes including rape, sexual battery and indecent exposure. Police Chief Bill Citty published Holtzclaw's photograph with the hope that other women would step forward. District Attorney David Prater said formal charges could be lodged by Aug. 29. Holtzclaw had not previously been disciplined in his three-year tenure with the department.

Police reports said the victims were all black women between the ages of 34 and 58. Holtzclaw, who played college football at 6-foot-1, 246 pounds, would come across the woman while on patrol. Three were assaulted in his car. One victim was taken to a school in the Spring Lake Division where he worked, according to the affidavit.​

But here's the thing about the coincidence between cultural components and behavioral outcomes: Duh.

A feature article in the Enid News & Eagle newspaper last year quoted Holtzclaw as saying he wanted to join the police department's anti-gang unit "where you knock and go in screaming."

"The gang unit reminds me most of playing football," Holtzclaw was quoted as saying. It reminds me of that adrenaline rush. You are going, going ... chasing bad guys."

Nelson said Holtzclaw's colleagues were upset at the allegations against a police officer.

"Most of us see it as a black eye to our profession and our department," he said.​

As I have noted before, I have certain concerns about "police culture". On behalf of the police in a recent, horrific botchery, I did concede that, "Some of the officers on that SWAT team never stood a chance; they did exactly as they were trained."

And that is what it is. You just threw a grenade in a baby's face, as that prior tragedy goes; okay, so you didn't know, but you didn't know because you didn't look, and that sort of preventable collateral damage is inherent in the training.

On the other end of the equation, even if you didn't know the guy was under arrest, charged with six sex offenses, and seemingly abandoned by the Blue Brotherhood? Even if you didn't know that, are we sure the guy who wants to do the sort of drug raids that occasionally bring us a baby with a grenade exploded in its face because it would be all crazy like football is someone we want on our police force? Speak nothing of Vice, I mean period.

One so inclined was presented with nearly idyllic opportunity in an empowering culture, and this was the predictable result. That is to say, certes it is too early to know where exactly the ... uh ... er ... "rape meme" entered this suspects system. Perhaps he's been doing this since his youth, and only now finally got caught because he went too far, pursuing the rush of raping with a badge. Maybe he had dreams of keeping harems of women waiting for his every luscious, pearly drop in order to stay out of prison, or something.

Or maybe a volatile mix of his general ambition, already shot through with themes of supremacy and domination, with privilege and opportunity finally got burned out of control.

The general components can drive all sorts of crime, from the petty mouthing off to officers arresting you for DUI to smash-and-grabbing to, well, yeah. UW under Neuheisel might have been a high-flying Pacific Conference team under Rick Neuheisel[sup]†[/sup], and Eastern Michigan University might be, "Whozat?" to many, but the ne'er-ranked EMU Eagles are still a Division I FBS team; their NFL roster history is impressive.

And the sainthood of mighty football exists well beyond EMU. As we've seen, it even infects high schools.

To the other, it's easy to pick on football. In this case, it is unclear, as the nature of each program is different, and we have no idea how it all specifically affected this suspect. The broader point, though, is that the combination of aggression, privilege, and opportunity play a tremendous role in how something like this can get so out of hand that we're considering seven victims and six charges already filed. Look, nature will provide, and that really should be enough. That is to say, humanity will always produce individuals capable of and willing to rape. But not every violation is covered by that maxim; indeed, statistically speaking, very few fall under those conditions. The rest is all on us, as societies, as a human endeavor.

Comparing this to the larger challenge facing society in the context of sexual violence, it is a long form of the affluenza mercy sentence. In the first place, the attitudes that build such outlooks that people can be mere things are unacceptable. I mean, sure, it's easy enough to chuckle when it's a guy from one of the top schools in the country so enjoying his privilege and maybe a bong rip or six that he can't figure out the problem with smashing a window in order to snag a couple doughnuts, but the problem is that it's still the same problem. Poor window. Oh, the doughnutity. It's true, we should probably worry about the more damaging manifestations. Still, though, this privilege has to go, and our society really does need to reassess its adoration of violence. And when you mix those together, and provide people with guns and plenty of opportunity to fuck shit up, some of them are actually going to do it.

By addressing the attitudes, we cannot eliminate the phenomenon entirely, but, rather, start trimming away some of the stupid stuff people choose because they're too stupid to figure out the problem with what they're about to do.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] In other words, an ethical disaster. Here's a fun quote from that time, about Jerramy Stevens—yes, that Jerramy Stevens—being arrested on rape charges: "They were mad that we had arrested him, because they had to deal with the media fallout. After all, he was going to be a superstar." They had the evidence. He was bragging about raping a virgin freshman. He said her name. He was carrying her underwear. But, hey, he was going to be a superstar.

Works Cited:

Eaton, Kristi. "Oklahoma Police Officer Accused In 6 Sexual Assaults". The Huffington Post. August 22, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. August 23, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ficer-assault_n_5700936.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

Armstrong, Ken and Nick Perry. "Convicted of assault and accused of rape, star player received raft of second chances". The Seattle Times. January 27, 2008. SeattleTimes.com. August 23, 2014. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20080127&slug=rbstevens270

 

No, that's not what's going on. Almost every gun owner in the US favors - in principle - restrictions on gun ownership and employment by the violent and criminal. That famous and publicized minority faction of the "gun lobby" is viewed by them as as a kind of necessary evil, actually. What we see in the US is strong opposition to gun restrictions of any kind being imposed and controlled by people who have advanced threatening arguments based in defended delusion and offensive presumption, who appear to be basing their proposed gun restrictions on fundamentally dangerous grounds and fundamentally threatening viewpoints. Attempts to link gun ownership, the simple circumstance, with bad character and foolish views, support this reflexive opposition - and by now so many gun control advocates have dug such a deep hole in the middle of this that the near future holds little hope of reason bridging it.

If you do things like attempting to conflate gun ownership and misogyny, people are going to dig in their heels against any agenda you have. Reasonable people.

 

The term women's rights is a word game based on the manipulation of language. It does not mean rights, but it actually means benefits for one group that someone else pays for. Rights of one do not take away the rights of others, via laws and taxes. What is being pitched as rights is different from rights. This scam is made possible with language games that overlap sentiment with semi-logic and distortion filters.

If abortion and choice is a right and women want equal rights for all, why don't men have this right too. Equal rights would mean the father has as much choice as the women. Equal rights is a language game. When I was younger, education was divided into male and female paths with language the traditional path of women. Men were more about science and math which are not as subject to emotional manipulation and mind games. Science can't manipulate the same way using language.

For example, say you gossip about someone. This is not possible without language. The gossiper may appear to present facts, but with an inflection of the voice (she looks good in that dress (ha ha), or by leading the analysis with biased opinions (snoot), to alter the filter of the mind. This is how one data point can appear to become the rule and not the exception.

A real scientist or traditional man would use all the data and not make one data point the only important point on the curve, using a subjective filter to make it appear larger than all the rest. If you gossip about someone you do not like, one will not also present all their good points, too. This would allow one to form an objective opinion, and will never allow one to win the game of language manipulation.

Another part of this game is to use old words for new meanings, with the hope others will still use the old meaning and thereby merge two unrelated things. The word rights had a traditional meaning with the scam calling itself the same thing. Rights are things that we all share with one person's rights not limiting the rights of others.

I have the right to vote, with my vote not requiring you pay extra taxes and pay my taxi fair to the voting booth. That would not be equal rights. A women's right to choose abortion does not address the equal rights of the male to choose the fate of the unborn that has half his DNA. He has no right except to pay for th child based on her choice. The language game, redefines women's rights to mean that which gives extra benefits to women.

I am against women's rights, because that implies something different from equal rights for all. If it meant equal rights for all, the term women's right would be redundant and language would try to compact it. It is not compacted because the intent of the game is something else. It is treated by language as a separate definition.

 

The father DOES have a choice, wellwisher... his choices, if he doesn't want a kid:

A) Keep his little johnny in his pants
B) Wrap it before he taps it
C) Ask if she's on birth control
D) Insist on the use of a cervix condom/dome/spermicidal gel
E) Have a vasectomy
F) Any combination of the above

 

Ménage à Nasty

It also allows him a quasi-sexual kinship with other men.

I mean, to the one, anyone can stand on the street corner and rant like an Old Testament prophet. To the other, it is observable and documentable that rhetorical and philosophical harmony between two persons can nurture extraordinary trust.

And in a way, it's kind of like the seeming prudes who actually spend far to much time and effort thinking about other people's sex lives. My daughter's maternal grandfather is one of those cases; he presumes people stupid, with the result that he is constantly explaining his actions to people in terms of sexual propriety. It's kind of worrisome, to be honest, especially since this is a "Christian" who likes to brag of his piety for other men to notice; and in that context, it's hard to not wonder why he's inflicting his sexual propriety on everyone else at every opportunity.[sup]†[/sup]

For Wellwisher and his fellow misogynists, there is indeed a spiritual kinship that treads into the realm of shared intimate experience. It's not quite as blatant as a MMF ménage à trois, with the guys high-fiving over her back as they double-end her. But it is a shared experience within each person's realm of sexual intimacy.

And, yes, on this occasion circumstance actually licenses the jab: That sounds kinda gay.

And it sound that way because it is.

One of the most insightful data bites from the misogynists comes via Southern Poverty Law Center and its list of misogynistic hate sites. It is a list I would prefer Sciforums avoid, as our inclusion would be a dubious honor. Pickup artist Roosh Vörek explains:

"I'll be the first to admit that many of my bangs in the United States were hate fucks. The masculine attitude and lack of care these women put into their style or hair irritated me, so I made it a point to fuck them and never call again."​

And here we get to the heart of the matter. By Vörek's explanation:

(1) The basis of interaction between men and women is sexual intercourse.

(2) This is somehow owed men if women wish to interact with men.

(3) Women must also meet a quality standard in giving men what they owe.​

And some might wonder why anyone pays attention to these goofballs, and the twofold answer is simple enough to comprehend:

• Elliot Rodger is a spectacular example of what can go wrong simply according to the tenets of these outlooks.

• Certain attitudes, for whatever reason, are given a place at the table despite their lack of reason or respect. In the discussion of human rights as applied to women, we apparently owe some amount of "equal time" to the supremacist counterargument. And Vörek's attitude is representative of what many perceive as unspoken in allegedly civilized quarters, such as what they hear when some men's rights advocate is reminding us through the talking head box that as we assess any given episode of brutal violence against women that we must remember how the real victims here are the poor, defenseless men. Seriously, one could walk into a domestic violence shelter, tie up all the women, rape them, and then kill them, and when the issue hit the news cycle the rest of us would for some reason be obliged to entertain the unsupported and insupportable argument that some man somewhere is the real crime victim.​

One of the reasons we generally don't let these people on television is that the audience does not seem to want or need it expressed so explicitly. The ones who sympathize know what he means. Those who are horrified also know what he means because, hell, he keeps saying it. But the convention is that one need not say certain things outright. And the only loser in that is any notion of Justice or The Right Thing To Do. People in the range counting as being on "our side" of the debate don't want these people on the air, because those useless points are not only offensive in general, they are also specifically counterproductive. The sympathizers don't want it on the air because once they start saying it, they will lose further access to those outlets. And the news providers don't want it on the air because, while it will bring a tremendous but ephemeral ratings spike, the longer view suggests that decency will keep these people off the air, meaning the providers will have a harder time ginning up fake controversy disrupting the public discourse in order to raise more advert revenue. By not putting these attitudes front and center, we allow and even encourage them to grow and strengthen out of our view. And then they erupt, and someone gets really, really hurt, or really, really dead, and everyone starts shouting at one another, and the customs of the discourse mean that before we can make any progress we must first sit and listen to someone trying to prove that the real victim is a man, such as, say, Elliot Rodger. I really still can't believe not only the fact of people defending him, but the swooning romanticization in much of it. Elliot Rodger was a victim, once upon a time, but it wasn't women who hurt and exploited him.

Still, though, it makes for much better ratings if a news outlet pretends there is some reasonable justification by which Rodger or other deadly hatemongers become the real victims of their own crimes.

It would probably do people like Vörek and, perhaps, our neighbor, a great deal of personal good to give up the ghost, come out of the closet, and get a nancy boy who will wear his hair just so and let you fuck him however you want.

Because this bit with a communal intimate experience defined by failure and dysfunction is unhealthy, not only for the people caught up living the condition daily, but for everyone else in communicable proximity as well.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] The key here is to watch the child, and to know reasonably well what is going on in her life. Or, as such, given that we're talking about a tween ferociously striding through the chemical bath of adolescence, it is important to be able to perceive other cues that a parent would rather not spend time thinking about in order to filter out fearful speculation. To wit, one might wonder if someone has been unsettling my daughter as such based on certain behavioral changes pertaining to how she regards her body, but such an inquiry must first account for the state of her brain chemistry in general—which actually prescribes that these behavioral episodes will occur—and also specific events and processes that may be occurring in her own life that really aren't anyone else's business. To the one, I'm pretty sure I don't have to worry about this guy in particular on that point, but, to the other, it's also a really annoying and really unsettling habit and I'm starting to weary of explaining it to unfamiliar people who have just endured their first unnerving encounter with such behavior. That is to say, at some point I'm just going to have to put my foot down: "Look, dude, I know you're a decent guy who isn't going to hurt her like that, but I need you to stop spending so much time thinking about sexual intercourse, sexual deviance, sexual predation, and my daughter. And I need you to stop right fucking now."

Works Cited:

Southern Poverty Law Center. "Misogyny: The Sites". Intelligence Report. Spring, 2012; n.145. SPLCenter.org. August 26, 2014. http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...wse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites