On January 28 2012 01:03 Haemonculus wrote: I'm absolutely aware of that. The conviction rate and the rate at which rapes are often not reported are horridly depressing. Which is why it's so important to talk about and debunk the faulty logic behind those numbers.
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted.
Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem.
The 'she was asking for it' defence is obscene, and thankfully seems to be an attitude that is less widely held than it was before. At least I should bloody-well hope so!
On the other hand, take a recent case over here. It was an anti-rape campaign, aimed at students (both male and female). For the women, some of the advice was to paraphrase 'don't over-drink, try to stay with friends'. Apparently, this was grievously offensive to the more feminist inclined thinkers who pressured our Student's Union so much that (if I recall correctly) a lot of the posters were taken down
This is a great example of taking feminist invective and using it in a ridiculous manner. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, that makes people much more vunerable to all manner of harm than they otherwise would be. To promote moderation in drinking is NOT victim-blaming in the same way that saying 'oh well she dressed like a slut' is.
One girl told me I was actively condoning rape with my stance on this particular point though, which was nice to hear. 'Oh you wouldn't say that if you knew a rape victim.' I do actually, and she was raped on a night out after drinking a lot and essentially blacking out, but I try not to use emotive stories to bolster my arguments as I don't feel comfortable doing such a thing.
Rape has become an issue that cannot be debated sensibly anymore, which is a shame. Many of the statistics I have seen are worthless, because of the difficulties in obtaining them, and a lot of material I've seen on this issue is basing itself on small sample sizes and extrapolating to find nation-wide trends.
Would be grateful actually if anybody could PM me some actual useful, reliable data to have a look at.
There are several ways to look at that ad campaign. There have been similar ones in the states lately, and yes they're catching a lot of flak. I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, giving out advice on drinking habits doesn't seem too malicious, but it doesn't do much to solve the actual problem.
In the drinking scenario, we're again dealing with the "stranger in a bar/club" situation. Some subset of men are taking advantage of drunk women. You can look at the problem in several ways, but the point of view we take with the "give out drinking advice" campaign is "some women are drinking too much and putting themselves at risk," instead of "some criminals are taking advantage of them when they do." It suggests that the rapists/abusers are a constant, cannot be dealt with, etc, and that instead of doing something about the attacker, we try to alter the actions of the potential victim so that they don't get abused. We do seemingly nothing to treat the real problem, which is a group of criminals that have become so culturally accepted that they feel they can get away with their crimes.
That is likely what your friend meant when she said your stance was condoning rape. Might not at all have been what you intended, but when you focus the only corrective action on the victim and not the criminal, it can easily be seen as condoning the crime. If some rapist is at a bar clearly intending to rape someone, and only if that someone is drunk, then sure, some women that might have gotten drunk but didn't because of an ad campaign telling them not to, but it leaves the underlying problem. There's still some rapist at the bar intending to rape someone. That hasn't been fixed at all. Chances are he'll simply go after another victim, and then we can all lambast her decision to drink at a bar.
As for info, I always post this DoJ summary in threads like this. Long summary document, and all sources used are cited in the footnotes. Very informative, less than two years dated, and dispels a LOT of bullshit myths about rape in our culture.
Rape isn't an issue no one can talk about. It might be hard here, with retards like vetinari or sunprince babbling about this or that, but don't think it's an issue that cannot be debated.
*sigh* Let me put it in a way even a woman can understand:
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE EVIL PEOPLE.
Is it so fucking hard to understand that you cannot convince sociopaths to give up their pleasures for the good of society? You can only take steps to protect yourself and to steps to ensure that in the event of a rape, you are a credible witness (this is important, as anyone who has ever had any dealings with females knows that they are champion liars.)
On January 31 2012 22:19 vetinari wrote: While that is true, it is not precisely my claim. My claim is that in order for my society, my family and I to not come to harm, other people must generally hold certain ideas and act in accordance with them. Not exactly a controversial idea, when it comes to ideas like "murder is bad", but rather more controversial when it comes to ideas where the negative consequences are not obvious, such as "liberalism is bad".
Where we differ, I expect, is that we value certain things differently. That is, we place different weights on the value of liberty, security, honor, justice, fairness, equality, life, stability, the wellbeing of various groups, the welfare of our descendants, etc.
Back to rape.
Hmm, a heritable variation: willingness to rape. Differential reproductive success: person who is willing to rape is likely to impregnate a woman, especially since men can identify ovulating women (ovulating women seem more attractive). Hence, the willingness to rape is likely to increase reproductive success, provided that the "willingness to rape" trait is balanced with a "be careful to not get caught" trait.
Evidence for this being true: women who are raped tend to be disproportionately attractive, they tend to be young, and, barring the use of the pill, are more likely to conceive than one would expect if men were unable to determine whether a woman is ovulating. In addition, stranger rape is disproportionately likely to be by unattractive men with dismal chances of acquiring a willing mate. The availability of pornography also negatively correlates with prevalence of rape, including that the availability of child pornography negatively correlates with sexual molestation of children.
As a result of this, we can conclude that rape is about sex. That there are rationalisations, doesn't change its underlying reason.
If it helps, consider these:
What is sex for? What is love for?
You could say that sex is about expressing your love. But this is a rationalisation, its about introducing sperm to egg. The pleasure gained from it is purely to get you to do it more. You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
I've bolded and underlined the problem. Heritable variation is exactly that, heritable variation. How is willingness to rape a heritable variation? The heritability of the trait correlates with the strength of selection. Can you demonstrate that "willingness to rape" is heritable and to what extent? Without that, the entire argument evaporates into thin air.
You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
That's an assertion. Once again you simplify a complex matter. Trauma has shown to bring people together for instance. You're also ignoring social and financial pressures and things like that. I suppose you could argue that the general idea came from parentage but that only explains why we are pushed into it from the outset, not our individual reasoning.
Obviously many people love each other while not having children.
Edit: whoa, did not expect the blatant sexism from vetinari tbh. I'm sure he justifies it through evolution though XD kinda explains a lot though.
On January 31 2012 23:04 hummingbird23 wrote: Holy crap, I hadn't even read the post he was temp banned for before replying. Seriously, vetinari is a fucking misogynist through and through.
If you have read his post in other threads of similar topic this is have been abundantly clear for a long time
While that is true, it is not precisely my claim. My claim is that in order for my society, my family and I to not come to harm, other people must generally hold certain ideas and act in accordance with them. Not exactly a controversial idea, when it comes to ideas like "murder is bad", but rather more controversial when it comes to ideas where the negative consequences are not obvious, such as "liberalism is bad".
Where we differ, I expect, is that we value certain things differently. That is, we place different weights on the value of liberty, security, honor, justice, fairness, equality, life, stability, the wellbeing of various groups, the welfare of our descendants, etc.
Back to rape.
Hmm, a heritable variation: willingness to rape. Differential reproductive success: person who is willing to rape is likely to impregnate a woman, especially since men can identify ovulating women (ovulating women seem more attractive). Hence, the willingness to rape is likely to increase reproductive success, provided that the "willingness to rape" trait is balanced with a "be careful to not get caught" trait.
Evidence for this being true: women who are raped tend to be disproportionately attractive, they tend to be young, and, barring the use of the pill, are more likely to conceive than one would expect if men were unable to determine whether a woman is ovulating. In addition, stranger rape is disproportionately likely to be by unattractive men with dismal chances of acquiring a willing mate. The availability of pornography also negatively correlates with prevalence of rape, including that the availability of child pornography negatively correlates with sexual molestation of children.
As a result of this, we can conclude that rape is about sex. That there are rationalisations, doesn't change its underlying reason.
If it helps, consider these:
What is sex for? What is love for?
You could say that sex is about expressing your love. But this is a rationalisation, its about introducing sperm to egg. The pleasure gained from it is purely to get you to do it more. You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
This post just reek of complete and utter ignorance. If he have read anything about studies of sexual assault he can't possibly hold this opinion. He have his incredible sexist opinions based on a contrived logic based on biology that he keeps applying to all issues while completely disregarding the scientific facts.
Well now that he's been banned for blatant sexism I'll freely speculate. The biology stuff he has also been rather inconsistent about (which should be expected considering it's falsity). I imagine it is post hoc rationalization, allowing him to usually keep calm in conversations where he feels strongly against women. He can use cold logic, so he can hold his own in conversation. Unfortunately, he seems to always come to random and hilarious conclusions, but that's due to the post hoc part of his reasoning.
It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
Being a man and a woman is different, that's a fact. Not biogically different thought, having boobs is not that important, but sociologically. The position of the man and the woman in the society are different, and if women are dominated in many fields, it is not always the case. For exemple, it is well known since ages that men have a hard time living through divorce while it's easier for women. Also the suicide rate for men is higher than for women, all those have been discussed to death since the beginning of the century, it's nothing new.
I have ties with islamic countries through my father and I know how things are in those societies. I know people will not believe it, but in those society men are just completly lost without their wife. To say it in another way, in the house the wife is the master. Without her the familly would just cease to exist. Most young kids are educated with a mother who they are completly tied to. Their independance toward women is almost zero even for the most basic things : they don't know how to cook, they are completly dependant for their laundry, they never buy any food at all. But they are dependant not because they slack, but because their mothers will never let them any liberty or responsability : it is the mothers' power, and they intend to keep it. Because of that, they all have a weird bond with their mother : they love her, like a god, but they hate the female gender outside of their mother because they are always in demand toward that sex (while young women are independant).
So overall, sexism in islamic countries is not in link with the religion in my opinion, it's more likely due to the education of the male and their place within the society, especially in respect to their mother and women in general.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
This is the first I've heard about this. What in the holy fuck got into those people. "slaughter anyone against Islam'' lol. There's an easy solution to this problem. Flog more men.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
On February 01 2012 00:18 WhiteDog wrote: I will drop my thought here.
Being a man and a woman is different, that's a fact. Not biogically different thought, having boobs is not that important, but sociologically. The position of the man and the woman in the society are different, and if women are dominated in many fields, it is not always the case. For exemple, it is well known since ages that men have a hard time living through divorce while it's easier for women. Also the suicide rate for men is higher than for women, all those have been discussed to death since the beginning of the century, it's nothing new.
I have ties with islamic countries through my father and I know how things are in those societies. I know people will not believe it, but in those society men are just completly lost without their wife. To say it in another way, in the house the wife is the master. Without her the familly would just cease to exist. Most young kids are educated with a mother who they are completly tied to. Their independance toward women is almost zero even for the most basic things : they don't know how to cook, they are completly dependant for their laundry, they never buy any food at all. But they are dependant not because they slack, but because their mothers will never let them any liberty or responsability : it is the mothers' power, and they intend to keep it. Because of that, they all have a weird bond with their mother : they love her, like a god, but they hate the female gender outside of their mother because they are always in demand toward that sex (while young women are independant).
So overall, sexism in islamic countries is not in link with the religion in my opinion, it's more likely due to the education of the male and their place within the society, especially in respect to their mother and women in general.
:O that's very interesting but could you explain more about the bolded part? I didn't get it.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
Do not worry that nobody will speak for the oppressed.
Know that if we don't, it is a simple fact that nobody will.
That sounds most like Afghanistan. Such behaviour is not suprising in that part of the world. Most of the girl there did not even go to school. It was illegal for girls to go to school when the taliban ruled. Now that America is there, a lot of girls are able to go to school.
It could be Iran, but it is very unlikely. Iran has a suprisingly westernized population. It's just that a reasonably sized minority of zealots has come into power. The people of Iran and the government of Iran are probably the most different people/government in the world.
The taliban banned music, dancing, singing, poetry and even kite flying.
The hatred that these people have for life is hard to grasp for us. People who believe that every culture is equal have simply not read enough about the taliban.
For most of them, this world is just a waiting room. For them it's as clear as day that they will go to heaven when they die. So why would they let things like music distract them? Why would they allow any hapiness to exist in this world? It's temporary. It's a distraction which might cause them to miss out on heaven.
Can we intervene in every internal affair in the world? No, that will never be possible.
Does that mean we should tolerate totalitarianism? Does that mean we should call them our equals?
Just because we don't have enough water to put out all the fires, doesn't mean we should call the fire a nice 'alternative' that is no more or less destructive then the trees it turns to cinder.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
This sounds cowardly. This sounds wussy. Maybe you're willing to give up so easily on bettering these peoples lives but I'm not.
All you're really saying is the specific strategies we've employed haven't worked. That says nothing about all strategies.
We don't necessarily have to be militarily aggressive in defending these rights, and in fact that's usually not recommended.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
This sounds cowardly. This sounds wussy. Maybe you're willing to give up so easily on bettering these peoples lives but I'm not.
All you're really saying is the specific strategies we've employed haven't worked. That says nothing about all strategies.
We don't necessarily have to be militarily aggressive in defending these rights, and in fact that's usually not recommended.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And prison rape?
To highlight another point noted. To brush off the notion that power isn't a factor, and labelling it as a feminist rhetoric is an insult to the field. And if you really want to break down sociological/psychological/criminological analysis on what causes behaviour, the whole field comes crumbling down. There is no guarnateed method in conclusively determining behaviour, there is only strong correlations. We can't explain why some people choose to deviate and why others do not.
Can you explain why some men will go about their urges by paying for hookers, while others will rape? Money isn't a factor, considering that stats say it isn't the homeless that commit rape. Not to mention that a high proportion of rapists that are reported are known to victims, relatives or even people they're in a relationship with.
And the logic that the onus is on me to prove that power plays a role in rape? That logic can just as easily be pointed back at him or you, that you need to disprove that power doesn't play a role. Considering that the counter-point is going against long-established research, the onus is on others to disprove it.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
This sounds cowardly. This sounds wussy. Maybe you're willing to give up so easily on bettering these peoples lives but I'm not.
All you're really saying is the specific strategies we've employed haven't worked. That says nothing about all strategies.
We don't necessarily have to be militarily aggressive in defending these rights, and in fact that's usually not recommended.
Do you have any othersuggestions?
Economic, diplomatic, and cultural pressure. We do a lot of it already. That's basically what the thread is about. We aren't saying that we'll invade countries that perform these practices. We are however condemning and shaming them. The Internet makes much of it inevitable, but that doesn't mean we should be less active.
Saying things like "you can't help them, you just can't" is just defeatist. Instead you should try to come up with other ways. Maybe we can be subversive and less direct. Let's talk about possible ways to accelerate social progress.
EPT
