Rape and the "Civilized" World

(Something, Something, Burt Ward)

Well, yeah. Much like in Montana, adolescent boys raping prepubescent girls are just boys being boys.

After a while, though, these things start to add up. There is a curious coincidence of outcomes in Middle America; generally speaking, there is a certain appearance of statistically speaking overlap between certain outcomes that are observably unhealthy for women. And the shocking grand result is that there appears to be an influential number of people in our society who would appear to believe that women are nothing more than breeding machines.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say shocking? That's kind of an odd suggestion in the first place, and is what "political correctness" looks like. It's not actually shocking, but we're obliged to continue presuming these noble defenders of American tradition, well, noble, well past the point that the evidence clearly indicates that the only question of the sinister is not so much whether they are sinister, but how sinister they are.

Sincere beliefs, you know. And a presumption that the lovely, wonderful neighbors who invited you to the barbeque just aren't really like that.

But, generally speaking, the "Middle America" identity label:

• Objects to sex education as dangerous or otherwise detrimental to youth.

• Objects to homosexuality because sex was intended for men to have with women.

• Objects to women preventing pregnancy.

• Seems to think awareness of the rape phenomenon is overrated.​

And people can make whatever point about being a blue dot in a red sea; that much we get. But it is hard to ask my fellow males to empathize; there really isn't anything in the male heterosexual social universe that begins to compare.

It is annoying enough when the police department in Seattle puts out one of its annoying memos about how to wear non-rapey hairstyles and clothes and shoes (cf. Minard, quoted in topic post). But let us think about the collective impact of these arguments:

(1) You are mature enough to have a baby, but not to not have a baby.

(2) The problem is your irresponsibility as a woman; we demand you be more responsible.

(3) We are going to make it harder for you to be "responsible".

(4) And you shouldn't be a lesbian; your natural place is under a man's body and authority.

(5) Oh, and by the way, you know, not that we actually support this stuff (wink-wink), but we're also thinking of sending this dude to Congress who is a former prosecutor who argues that there is no way your husband can actually rape you, since, you know, it's your fault for marrying him and sleeping near him. I mean, sure, we don't actually think that, but, you know, the four points above are important enough to making sure we get our tickets to Heaven punched that we're willing to take that risk on your behalf.​

It is the sort of thing made clear, independently from the coincidental elevated concentrations of such attitudes in "Middle America", in arguments that we see around here, even. See, for instance, the brief exchange with Geoff spanning #982-988 above.

When a society stacks these obligations onto women, the "not all men" doesn't really matter. How, exactly, is it supposed to resolve that each individual woman believes this is something that just happens to other women? Because it won't be her man. Or the next one. Or the one she finally decides to marry. It will always be someone else, right?

But if it's her turn? Well, what did she do wrong?

The bottom line is that this sort of (ahem!) responsibility, this duty of constant extraordinary vigilance, really is part of the message.

And it really is easy to see the mechanics of such simplistic denials as Mr. P undertakes—"It is not"—when we consider some of the other ideas floating around in the related culture. Such as the notion that a man arguing against abortion access would certainly accept such an abrogation of his own bodily rights ... if he was a woman. (See "Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]", #282-285.)

We men have a primarily intellectual approach to such issues, and while one might suggest this is a matter of convenience for many, it is also a general constriction imposed by reality. I'm not a woman. Neither is Geoff. And neither, apparently, is Capracus. We can argue intellectualizations and rationalizations, but our visceral comprehension is refracted or otherwise altered by one valence of removal.

It's easily political to say this is about my daughter for me. But the fact of her existence only draws that orbit closer; the psychoemotional value might have increased instinctively, but before her it was about other women in my life. I cannot stand the idea that these people, who are so important to my existence throughout the periods of my relationships with them—be it my mother, or longest friends in active circles, and so on—are so inherently poorly regarded by so many people in my society.

But what that cannot touch, just like our neighbor's denial of customary obligation, is that I will never be on the receiving end of such a sustained and consistent denigration coming from so many directions at once. Nothing about this even begins to be something I get to understand viscerally as if it was me on the line.

And that matters. Or so says me.

Quite clearly, there are men who would disagree.

But it really does seem an arguable question; a collection of subcultural elements shot through a cultural identity that result in a prima facie appearance of misogyny which, in its own context, can be sustained through analysis to reasonably predict certain related outcomes. It is, to be politically correct, hardly conclusive, but also a peresuasive enough outcome to demand further inquiry.

At the root of it all seems to be a problematic outlook about the station of woman in society; the manifestations are diverse, and fashioned according to market demand. Policeman or prosecutor, teacher or preacher. Sometimes what people consider a shocking manifestation is simply a version they haven't seen before.

But look at, say, the weirdness of IPA, in which people talk about rape prevention as if it is akin to locking car doors, or having a house alarm—which, as we were reminded two weeks ago, is insufficient to prevent a professional hit like the perfectly executed burglary at a friend's house—and all the while presuming that women aren't already doing this sort of stuff. Women's cars are stolen. Their homes are robbed. They get straight-up mugged on occasion, though sexual intimidation is often used, so toss a coin, but still, you get what I mean. No, really, I suit my shoes to where I'm going. If I'm on the floor for a show, I'm probably wearing skate shoes, which are just fine on the occasion that I need to run. If I'm sitting in a bar, or in a theatre, I'm probably wearing something less suitable for running. But, you know, the question would never have occurred to me except for the Seattle Police Department, to the one, and our IPA neighbors to the other.

It is a market-demand manifestation. Switch issues and we see a similar version. Setting aside the overlap that would keep young people as ignorant of sexual health issues as possible, consider among the anti-abortion advocates the arguments about forced ultrasounds and state propaganda; they're just trying to provide women with information to help them make responsible, informed decisions. Yeah, because, you know, women have no clue whatsoever about their own bodies, apparently. At which point it's hard to set aside the overlap that would keep young women ignorant about sexual health; it's a bit easier to set aside the exceptionally outstanding cases of communal sexual grooming like we saw in Virginia, except those eventually reassert themselves, anyway, as a market-demand manifestation among homophobes.

And, you know, these markets do function virtually everywhere in American society. But they seem to have noticeably greater influence and concentration in places that identify with these "family values" of "Middle America".

It's not so much that we shouldn't be repulsed by the idea that this has happened in Steubenville, but, rather, I keep getting distracted by the larger phenomenon. There is an underlying, pervasive dimunition of woman inherent to this sort of ownership culture in which faith is empowerment and empowerment is authority, and it is a cradle-to-grave thing. Well, in some outlooks ... er ... right. Moving right along ....

This is going to keep happening. Because ... ah ... er ... I don't know, how about, because Eve.

Or ... because boners.

Or ... um ... no, really, I mean, sure, that's glib, but, really, it's pretty clear what's going on. The fundamental question is why, because that will tell us how it works. Of course, figuring out how it works also helps us answer that fundamental question, so therein lies the quandary.

And it's easy to be glib when one has that valence of separation. Just like it's easy to prescribe vague principles about how to address the fundamental justifications and mechanics of the behavior.

Yeah. Something, something, Burt Ward.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? What the hell am I supposed to do with a lede like that?

Yes, Really

The lede, from Steven Hoffer for Huffington Post:

An Ohio attorney is accused of raping a woman in a courthouse conference room after she refused to have sex with a judge.​

Not surprisingly, the story only goes downhill from there.

Columbus-based criminal defense attorney Javier Armengau, 52, allegedly tried to convince the mother of his client to perform oral sex on a judge, The Columbus Dispatch reports. Armengau said that the judge was "in his pocket" and that by pleasing him the woman could obtain a favorable sentence for her son, the alleged victim said in her testimony.

After the woman refused, Armengau allegedly assaulted her in a conference room.

The Columbus Dispatch reports:

The woman said that she made numerous visits to Armengau’s office and that on at least 10 occasions he stripped naked and masturbated in front of her.

The rape, she said, occurred when Armengau took her into a conference room outside the courtroom after her son’s sentencing and forced her to perform oral sex on him.​

Those allegations come from the third of the five women who have brought accusations against Armengau, currently on trial for charges of rape, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping and public indecency.​

For his part, Mr. Armengau said on Monday, "I have not engaged in any wrongful conduct nor have I done anything that should warrant a complaint."

Stay tuned ... or ... I mean ... er ... (sigh).

Damn.
____________________

Notes:

Hoffer, Steven. "Attorney Allegedly Raped Woman Who Refused Sex With Judge". The Huffington Post. June 18, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. June 21, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/javier-armengau-ohio-attorney-rape_n_5506839.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Middle American Newspaper Drops George Will

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Drops George Will

Now this is different: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri's largest newspaper, has decided in the wake of George Will's controversial rape column to drop the well-established conservative icon:

In a piece earlier this month, Will, a Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative columnist, wrote that being a rape victim is now a "coveted status" on college campuses. The piece outraged readers and politicians, and prompted the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to announce earlier this week that it will no longer run Will's syndicated column.

Messenger spoke to CNN's Brian Stelter during Sunday's "Reliable Sources," and explained how the newspaper -- which said it had been considering dropping the column "for several months" -- arrived at the decision.

"We had a lot of readers very angry and very hurt," Messenger said. "It caused us to go back and take a look at it, and it reinforced our previous decision that he had lost a little bit of speed off his fastball, and it caused us to make the decision a little bit more quickly than we would have otherwise."

He also defended the decision to critics who argued that the Post-Dispatch was wrong to silence Will's viewpoint on the issue. Messenger said that the column was "very offensive to many of our readers" and that it is "well within our rights to decide what sort of debate, what level of civility, what level of treatment of women who are sexual assault victims we're going to allow on our page."

—Fung​

In truth, the thought of newspapers dropping Will's column had not really occurred to me; marketwise, I figured he was inviolable. It is, however, doubtful that such a trend would emerge as to start costing Will his Washington Post gig.

Meanwhile, I think Tony Messenger of of the Post-Dispatch pretty much made the point that the newspaper is "well within [its] rights to decide what sort of debate, what level of civility, what level of treatment of women who are sexual assault victims we're going to allow on our page".

One wonders if Mr. Will has it in him to follow up this outrage by complaining of censorship.
____________________

Notes:

Fung, Katherine. "Post-Dispatch Op-Ed Editor: Readers Were Horrified By George Will's Sexual Assault Column". The Huffington Post. June 22, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. June 22, 2014. thwww.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/22/george-will-column-st-louis-sexual-assault_n_5519478.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This Isn't Rocket Science

Nutshell

The Stranger presents "I, Anonymous", a weekly rant column submitted by readers and published anonymously because of subject matter:

No, Anonymous, this is not for you, but for every man. For every man who has heard my apprehension and hesitation and thought the subject was open for debate. That thought their erection took precedence over my comfort. That thought I'd like it once we started. This is because when I say I don't want to, I shouldn't have to have an army of excuses at my disposal. This is because "I don't want to" should be enough! And this is because not one but many men have employed these tactics against me. I'm sick of all of your excuses for manhandling me and bowling over my resistance: "But you're so sexy..." "But I thought you liked me..." "But you have such a nice ass..." "But I just want to fuck you so bad..." "C'mon baby..." Stop! Just stop. You raped me. And I'm still coming to terms with that thought. But this is not for you. This is for the society that raised you and taught you that this was okay. Because it's not.​

____________________

Notes:

Anonymous. "I, Anonymous: This Is Not For You". The Stranger. July 2, 2014. TheStranger.com. July 3, 2014. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-anonymous/Content?oid=20004971

 

Er ... um ... ah ... right.

Although I know you know the answer, I'll go through the standard:

(1) Start with the rape survivor. That's the primary offense of the judge's misogyny.

(2) The homosexuality issue is the result of a prejudice about what constitutes "masculinity".

(3) Incest? Yeah, so he's a sexual deviant. The only thing that makes him stand out on this occasion is that he has a bench.​

Welcome to Amer....

Oh, shit.

Right.

Okay, this one's beyond me.

 

Is the Best We Have the Best We Can Do?

Satisfaction?

"There are very real reasons why sexual assault is happening in our country every day. This is because our society normalises, trivialises and in both obvious and subtle ways condones rape. This is called rape culture." ― Tania Billingsley​

In May, Tania Billingsley reported a sexual assault. The suspect then left the country under diplomatic immunity, and something of a domestic row has resulted.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully's failure to check on progress in the matter for weeks and weeks, his decision to issue his first apology not to the victim but to the Prime Minister, suddenly look all the more bizarre and unthinking. The in-house inquiry into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's handling of the case of diplomat Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail becomes more than just a matter of process.

That inquiry, by the way, will be worth little if it merely trace-papers the Prime Minister's odd and peremptory suggestion that the official who led Malaysia to believe New Zealand was happy for the diplomat to fly home should "consider their career options". Should it turn up any failure in ministry systems, it is impossible for McCully to delegate responsibility - after all, the famous micro-manager has overseen a major restructure of Mfat in recent years.

But Billingsley's broader and more important point concerns the way issues around sexual assault are dealt with in New Zealand, the prevalence of such violence, and the values that underlie that.

(Manhire)​

Toby Manhire's article for The New Zealand Herald also considers the general state of things in the Islands: "Research tells us one in four females and one in eight males in New Zealand are likely to be victims of sexual abuse. Less than 10 per cent will make a complaint; a minority will result in prosecution."

Additionally, Manhire recalls the Roast Busters scandal, in which a group of young men were allegedly gang raping young girls, and the police weren't doing anything about it.

At least two 13-year-old girls who tried to blow the whistle to police back in 2011 about being allegedly raped by the Roast Busters were made to feel it was their fault, and their complaints never went anywhere ....

.... She wanted to be identified, but for legal reasons she is unable to be shown or named. She says she was sexually assaulted by the Roast Busters when she was 13.

"Joseph was on my left side. Tristram was on my right. And Beraiah was on top […] I was a virgin."

She says she was "terrified".

"I started crying and was asking Beraiah to hop off and I was scared and stuff [...] I was more traumatised that I was 13 and losing my virginity."

She says she was telling them to stop and get off her, but they continued. It was Joseph, she says, who eventually stopped it ....

.... She said she felt like it was her word against the Roast Busters'.

"They said that I didn't have enough evidence to show, because I went out in clothes that was pretty much asking for it. [...] I was asked a lot of questions about what I was wearing, and I went out in a skirt.

(Gillies)​

Manhire also notes the Bazley Report, from 2007, which noted the "culture fo scepticism in dealing with complaints of sexual assault". And a police officer shocked the Islands last year by describing a ten year-old girl as a willing participant in her own rape.

Every society has its challenges. There is no comfort, though, in affirmations that this particularly ugly challenge is not unique to, say, my own culture.

It's one of those weird things. In my society, people get so worked up about the "scourge" of Muslims and terrorism. But the insane damage we visit upon the women in our society? Our mothers and daughters and sisters, friends and wives, takes a greater toll daily, monthly, yearly, than anything Al Qaeda or its offshoots can manage. And with this, apparently, we are satisfied.

Except maybe we aren't.
____________________

Notes:

Manhire, Toby. "Sex crimes tarnish our women's rights halo". The New Zealand Herald. July 11, 2014. NZHerald.co.nz. July 10, 2014. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11291524

Wikipedia. "Roast Busters scandal". March 18, 2014. En.Wikipedia.org. July 10, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roast_Busters_scandal

Gillies, Amanda. "Roast Busters victim asked to 're-enact' alleged rape". 3 News. November 6, 2013. 3News.co.nz. July 10, 2014. http://www.3news.co.nz/Roast-Buster...-rape/tabid/423/articleID/320311/Default.aspx

 

This was a community sanctioned assault. Are you equating the society you live in with that of rural India? Do your local government officials and neighbors conspire to drag people from their homes and physically assault them for violating community standards? Using your smartphone to call your neighbors for help is of little use when it’s those very neighbors carrying out the assault.

 

Tru'nuff

Well, it's also kind of like prevention advice. Who is going to stop fleeing an assailant to stand at a pay phone to call 911 when the police aren't going to do a damn thing anyway? (In Seattle, that can be a hell of a flight, and into neighborhoods less safe for a woman alone at night showing distress and potential weakness.) Or worse than nothing?
____________________

Notes:

Anonymous. "Thanks for Nothing, SPD". The Stranger. January 1, 2014. TheStranger.com. July 11, 2014. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-anonymous/Content?oid=18547746

 

It turns out there were some errors in the initial report of the rape in India, but they didn’t alter the sense of injustice of the assault. Due to India’s lingering patriarchal traditions and discriminatory social stratification, being born a woman is akin to being born black in the Jim Crow American South. To avoid her assault, that 14 year old girl would’ve needed to call someone when she became old enough to dial a phone to get her the hell out of that plantation style country. If Western culture can be used as a gauge for social development, then it would appear that Indian society might be a century away from the level of gender parity we experience. Maybe technology like smartphones can help reduce their social evolutionary deficit.

In places like India, the larger social conspiracy against women’s freedoms limits their options in regards to self protection from the dangers posed by deficiencies in social order. The best way to advise women who are at risk of such violence is to document and analyze their individual circumstance, and explore practical solutions accordingly. Obviously in Western society the options available to women for public and private security are significantly more than those in India. This is not an expression of condescension, but a simple statement of fact.

 

Who would reasonably have more insight into the intentions of a statement, the one making it, or the one receiving it? If my analysis of a situation leads me to a conclusion that an improved outcome could be obtained through an elemental changes in circumstance, how else could I express it without it being subjectively interpreted as condescension on your part? Do you understand the basic principle of reality that that every event is a composition of its elemental behavior? And that each element has a determinant or responsible role in an eventual outcome? In regards to violent assaults, the victim, the perpetrator, and the society they exist in are all responsible elements of this violent event. A modification of action in any or all of these elements will change the outcome for better or worse. So when a violent perpetrator is intent on committing an assault, and society is either unwilling or unable to stop them, who’s left in the equation to dictate the outcome? The victim is left to decide what action if any can be taken to facilitate a desired outcome. How does that get construed to blaming the victim? Victims do what their capable of doing, which doesn’t mean that they don’t learn from their experience and apply such knowledge to decrease future risk for themselves and others.

So when my ilk, as I essentially did in the previous post, tell this girl that it’s a tragedy that she had none of the safeguards and benefits afforded you and I in our respective societies, that’s a bad thing?

I know a woman who was repeatedly raped through ages 5-10 by various individuals, and she tells me that she could’ve have stopped it if she'd been properly instructed how to do so. She used this experience to educate her own children about what they should do under such circumstances. So are you going to tell this woman that her evaluation of this experience is invalid, because it doesn’t fit your flawed understanding of cause and effect?

So first you imply your circumstances are comparable to those of a young teenage girl in rural India, and now you want to further emphasize your incapability by comparing yourself to a 3 year old. What’s next, comparison to a newborn?

That’s an utter load. No member of this forum deserves to be treated uncivilly, including a moderator. That you personally take offense to mainstream prescriptions regarding violent assault and personal safety doesn’t reasonably warrant an accusation of abuse. It is though an indication for a need on your part to modify your own sensibilities to a more reasonable state.

No, I don’t just think, I know women in the West have more options to reduce their risk of rape than women in India, to say otherwise is to ignore the obvious cultural and economic differences.

You see, your perception of Westen society is so one sided that you cannot acknowledge that significant social pressure is exerted on men to refrain from violence. That’s not to say that current levels are ideal, but such levels are trending in a positive direction.

That’s ridiculous. I asked women to use whatever practical options are available to reduce their risk from violent assault, including trying to condition men not to commit violence. Unfortunately changes in male behavior are a generational occurrence, and potential victims don’t have the luxury of ignoring its threat while it still exists. To suggest that individuals should not address their immediate security needs during this period of social evolution is irresponsible.

We’re all potential victims of male violence. We all have individual responsibility to address the risk created by the present deficiencies in our respective societies. The strategies I advocate for women are essentially the same that I would advocate for men in regards to reducing the risk form violent assault. So no, you don’t get to play the male domination card for this issue. And as far as singling people out for shame, like I said above, this responsibility is shared by us all, and is no different than you trying to shame an entire society to meet your own expectations of reform. But then you'll assert that society needs to be shamed for not doing enough, which likely applies to the rest of us individually as well regarding personal security. There's usually always room for improvement in either case.

 

This Post Has No Title

Here's an intersting contrast that gives us some insight into ... er ... ah ... something? Okay, I'm not sure what insight it offers, but it seems to me that pretty much every discussion of the rape phenomenon devolves into what women need to do to protect themselves from a slender minority of rapes. It isn't even a Godwinesque approach to a 1:1 probability; overwhelmingly more often than not, it's straight out of the gate.

Recently, a thread regarding the rape phenomenon arose. A member posted a barely relevant consideration, one that would be more useful in other contexts, and then asked for it to be splintered. For various reasons I now consider mistaken, I granted that splinter request.

Thus a new thread was born, to discuss prejudice against men resulting from the rape phenomenon.

It lasted until post five before someone went after women. At post ten a member tried not so much to knock the discussion off the rails as bomb the train as it was rolling out of the station. By the time a moderator aims to reel in the discussion at #23, the discussion is virtually over. At #25, the same member who went after women in post five returns to do it again. Despite some attempts to reiterate the splinter topic, it seems pretty clear that the thread probably should have been closed at that point, since its focus was determinedly on Elliot Rodger, including some swooning romanticization in an attempt to blot his misogyny out of the discussion.

The bottom line being—

• What describes, and what factors contribute to, the discrimination against men documented in the topic post?

• What's wrong with women? Here's what they need to do to (unsuccessfully) prevent rape.​

—that the actual topic of that thread, like virtually any discussion of the rape phenomenon, disappeared beneath a mountain of Infinite Prevention Advice. No news, or, what's wrong with women?

This keeps happening.

But look how deeply the malady runs. The definition of insanity? We might expect this result, as it it is pretty much predictable. Can't quite set your watch by it, but you can't really set your watch by anything, these days, save for a network clock.

And look at how that goes. It isn't even good prevention advice, as it starts with less than a quarter of male on female rapes reported, and when you strike from the list those crimes that the alleged "common sense" prevention advice does not cover, we're dealing with something significantly less than a tenth of reported male on female rapes.

At the same time, a woman avoiding the circumstances that account for over seventy percent of rapes is somehow out of bounds. And the thing is that there is a middle ground; I actually can agree that it isn't common sense. But I also say that's the problem. In a species that is ninety percent heterosexual, segregated abstinence just isn't a functional solution. Neither is the legendary Lysistrata revolution.

For today's mansplanation[sup]†[/sup], then, this is a huge part of the problem:

• When it is is some fantastic demon of a man stalking women and hauling them into the alley or raping them in their homes—remember when we tried to explore the prevention advice on that latter six years ago, although I don't blame you if you're trying not to?—it is easy to dispense advice to ward off the "bad guys".

• But neither should women be expected to put up with the run of the mill sexual harassment. There is not a heterosexual male who has ever been in an intimate relationship that lasted beyond one drunken encounter who hasn't committed one of these offenses. Indeed, this customary outlook on privilege within intimate relationships is a major contributor to the rising expectation of sexual violence in heterosexual relationships. One wonders how long before that is held against women, that she should have known to expect sexual violence simply because he was a male and went out with him anyway? (Or maybe I'm giving the wrong people ideas?)

• Neuroses kick in. Some men are instinctively attuned to the contradiction, yet the battle between the so-called primal and civilized selves generally, without the assistance of civilization, results in a victory for the primal. There is an ego defense instinct that kicks in, and the mechanisms are reasonably well tuned and unbelievably durable.​

The problem is that all these IPAs who feel offended because, in their mind, they have the best of intentions and a functional answer, have neurotic investment, unwittingly or otherwise, in protecting themselves. I sometimes make the joke that they're trying to improve their odds of getting laid; after all, if it isn't rape? If it's her fault?

And this doesn't just affect men. Who among us would so easily indict their own life? How many women of my mother's and grandmothers' generations would hew to the traditional line because otherwise they must admit they are a sexual violence survivor, and what follows from there are the customary self-condemnations for everything she did wrong? It's always astounding when we can watch the tragic passing of that torch from one generation to the next, and others would hold those up as examples of a proper outlook. Avoidance of self-indictment is one of the easiest neurotic functions to observe; it is nearly as common as breathing, and in some acute contexts should be vivisected, not dissected.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] A note aside, since the question recently arose: "Mansplanation" actually has functional value when it is effectively presented for males, reflects reality, and does not carry the stench of vested interest. Indeed, some would parse whether such arguments even constitute "mansplanation", though for the time I'm happy to leave it as such for those unable to comprehend the difference. Furthermore, it always strikes me when such confusion arises; there are plenty of people who would, for instance, accuse Bells and I of open collusion. I think the deepest that goes is an occasional message back and forth: "You want this one?"

Some are acute enough to perceive when I'm "springboarding", or using something in their post as a springboard to dive into the issue.

Yet for all the instinctive trust Bells and I show one another in this virtual environment, we are both aware that, should we ever meet face to face, that encounter will exist in a different context. She knows what I say, but is it also what I do? And what is the cost of finding out?

Do I resent this inherent, instinctive suspicion? No. At least, not personally. What I resent about it are the circumstances that create it. We both end up with two classes of human associates. Well, three: Those we can trust by faith, those who have demonstrated they cannot be trusted, and then here's the tricky part—for women, in this rape culture, that third class is people they simply cannot afford to trust; for men, it is people who simply cannot afford to trust us. It is most curious to me that those in the public discourse who most resent such outcomes personally experience such tremendous overlap with those who advocate circumstances leading to such outcomes.

Which also brings us to the difference between being wrong and insisting on being wrong. This, too, arose recently, and it is somewhat puzzling—if we omit any dialectic of neuroses—to consider the number of people who apparently, according to their behavior and expression, cannot figure it out.

To the one, no person is perfect. To the other, it is not merely an issue of whether one is mistaken; is one insisting on being mistaken? And what is the larger argument this mistake is a component of? I have every confidence that when I blow one that badly, Bells will let me know. And she can have some reasonable confidence that I didn't just turn on the issue. And, strangely, that's how intelligent discourse is supposed to go.

Lastly, I read through this note and wonder, "How is this difficult to comprehend?" Meanwhile, I am perfectly willing to dissect some toxic, corrupted samples that she doesn't even want in the lab. How much is she merely tolerating that behavior? No idea; I figure she'll tell me if I push it too far.

 

While toddling better describes your own activity, moving on at this point makes sense to me as well, considering you can’t seem to get a grasp on the full meaning of responsibility and its role in everything we do.

Toddle on.

Look forward to it.

 

We live in a world of cause and effect, with women not always rational enough to see this. Or if they see the cause and effect, the current political trend is woman expect all the advantaged and none of the liability; dual standard.

If a male goes into a bar and starts to talk crap, this will often provoke an argument or fight. There is a cause and effect. He does not lament, why he has to keep his mouth shut or be polite, since it is up to the other guy to change; the lamenter comes first.

If I go up to a police officer and look suspicious, he will stop me. Since I realize this, and I don't wish to be stopped I need to act in a more honest way. I don't lament how I am not at fault for pushing a button that is predictable; everyone else has to change for me. The dual standard that women have been able to create, due to retroactive guilt, appears to be based on getting men to put aside their ability to react with cause and effect. Cause and effect is part of male training since the self reliance needed by a male needs the ability to anticipate action and reaction from the environment.

Has a study ever been done where we compare how dress and behavior correlate to sexual harassment? We can take 100 women, and dress them in a range of clothes with various behavior, from the drunk hooker party girl, to the proper church lady, and then see how the men react. Some dress and behavior will even induce the reaction of protector in many of the men. Others men will want to stay away.

My guess is sex is the easiest way for women to manipulate men. The tools include dress and flirting behavior. Although this can be fun in privacy, it can backfire in a public places, since the induction will often extend beyond the target.

For example, say you have a man and women who like to argue with anger. They know each other and this is how they build passion in their little world. This is fine in their little world, but if they bring it outside into public, strangers do not know this is their choice of a game. Some men will get very protective of the gal. Some women will gossip about the woman. Proper social protocol will require they reduce this interaction in public, because it will a ripple effect among strangers. Even if innocent. at the level of the couple, it can rub some people the wrong way and create a situation that is predictable but will appear unexpected if totally self centered.

The analogy is like walking in the jungle with a deep love for all the animals. This attitude is fine at home or at the zoo, but you are dealing with wild animals in the jungle, that have instincts. So if some of the animals begin to attack, it is not a surprise to the rational minded, since this is predictable. The love of all animals will not magically make the jungle safe for you. You can't wear a meat coat and expect the lions to wink and wave at you. This is not good training for the ladies, even if the guys traditionally go in advance of her and try to sterilize the jungle into a zoo, so she can pretend to be safe as mother nature. Men will do that for nice gals but not hookers.

 

Everytime I read your bizarre rants against women I find myself hoping that you do not have a wife or [shutter] any daughters. I pity any woman that has to spend any time interacting with you on any level.