[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 31683)
Message
File  []
close
unnamed.jpg
316833168331683
>> No. 31683 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 7:27 pm
31683 spacer
Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds

Virtually all young women in the UK have been subjected to sexual harassment, according to a survey from UN Women UK, which warns that most women have lost faith that the abuse will be dealt with. Among women aged 18-24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/10/almost-all-young-women-in-the-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-survey-finds

Should we, as a gender, be doing more to tackle sexual harassment?
Expand all images.
>> No. 31684 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 8:07 pm
31684 spacer
>>31683
Define sexual harassment. Is asking a girl for a snog while drinking tinnies down the canal sexual harassment if she says no, or does it need to be more sinister.

Polls like these never reveal their methodology so there is no way to really figure out what these people consider to be harassment or if that is even a fair definition of what's happening.
>> No. 31685 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 8:24 pm
31685 spacer
>>31684
Found the office creep.
>> No. 31686 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 8:31 pm
31686 spacer
>>31684

It's disturbing enough that 97% would define the experiences they've had as sexual harassment, but I'm also inclined to agree; without being provided with the definition or methodology used in the survey, it's impossible to know what action (if any) would be an appropriate response.

I'm glad we've moved into an era when even the most soulless of corporate entities will generally get HR to take action if they get a serious complaint like this. At the same time, it's hard to do this in public -- you can't police every interaction. The perception in the survey that most harassment won't be taken up by the authorities is probably correct.

It might not be conducive to getting to a real solution about helping women not experience shitty things, but I do feel compelled to bring up the fact that I've been "sexually assaulted" as a man in public spaces as well, experiencing everything on the spectrum from inappropriate comments from colleagues to having my arse and crotch outright grabbed by women. I've also been violently assaulted by both men and women, and there seems to be a shocking lack of attention sometimes on the fact that most violent assault is a gendered issue of almost exclusively men bashing the shit out of eachother.

I kind of wonder whether this might just be people behaving dysfunctionally within a dysfunctional society, and the remedy might be something more akin to better mental health generally, so that we're not abusing eachother for kicks.

>>31685

This is a conversational cul-de-sac. Otherlad is right, studies and surveys are almost useless without also publishing the definitions and population/data collection methods.
>> No. 31687 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 8:45 pm
31687 spacer
You can email the UN and ask them for the data.

https://www.unwomenuk.org/safe-spaces-now
>> No. 31688 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 8:48 pm
31688 spacer
>>31686
>It's disturbing enough that 97% would define the experiences they've had as sexual harassment, but I'm also inclined to agree; without being provided with the definition or methodology used in the survey, it's impossible to know what action (if any) would be an appropriate response.
"Their bar for sexual harassment might be too low" is certainly an interesting line to take.
>> No. 31689 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:03 pm
31689 spacer
>>31688
Different lad but 97% is a figure that stretches credulity. I believe that there's a massive issue, I could believe 80% of women are harassed but 97%? I would be surprised if 97% of the population own a television.
>> No. 31690 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:14 pm
31690 spacer
>>31689

I don't know, I believe it. I have quite literally not met a woman who hasn't been harassed in some way, but there's certainly types of harassment that men get too but probably welcome. I have been catcalled by a woman and it made my day, because it was novel and also I didn't feel threatened - reverse the roles and the story is different.

My point is that I really don't think any of us really understand how relentless it can be for women. I'd not rule out that I've had interactions with women that they could viably consider harassment, simply because I didn't apply enough empathy to a situation to realise I was being inappropriate. I can't think of an example, but that's sort of the point.
>> No. 31691 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:18 pm
31691 spacer
>>31688

That's a wilful misreading. What I'm saying is that sexual harassment takes many forms, and it's hard to think of a realistic catch-all solution that would make all of them disappear. The thing that makes blokes stop wolf-whistling in the street is not likely to be the same thing that makes a colleague stop making inappropriate passes or touching at work, for example.

It might be a poor analogy, but if you want to solve road accidents, it's not only about sticking signs up saying "be safer" (though not an inherently bad idea). It's more that it's one part of a broader set of solutions including setting speed limits, enforcing drink-driving laws, getting car manufacturers to adhere to safety standards, etc..

A survey like this can't tell us much without saying what the experiences of sexual harassment actually are with a bit more nuance.
>> No. 31692 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:25 pm
31692 spacer
>>31691

Exactly, and it's also worth noting that you can identify that you've been sexually harassed regardless of how you feel about it. Someone self aware enough can know that Big Gary giving them a backrub, unprompted, at work, is harassment, even if ultimately they quite liked it. And when the line is that thin, it does become difficult to know what to do.

(I did work with a guy who would do this, though he did not discriminate on gender)
>> No. 31693 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:26 pm
31693 spacer
>>31689
>97% is a figure that stretches credulity
Why and how? Think through that argument carefully. Don't bother with "they can't do maths".
>> No. 31694 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:29 pm
31694 spacer
>>31692

I would think that any incident that someone would describe as harassment is unwanted by definition. Even if what you say does hold any water at all, I don't think this would be enough to meaningfully affect the data.
>> No. 31695 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:31 pm
31695 spacer
>>31691
>The thing that makes blokes stop wolf-whistling in the street is not likely to be the same thing that makes a colleague stop making inappropriate passes or touching at work, for example.
Well, no, the thing that makes blokes stop doing both of those is the same thing: social pressure. If you were going to say "HR policies", know that HR is frequently complicit in the abuse and that even if they did act the abuser would just cry foul and play the victim.
>> No. 31696 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:50 pm
31696 spacer
>At the root of all this is the normalisation of the idea that a woman’s body in a public place is simply public property and young women just have to put up with it. We have to shatter that normalisation through policy and in the press if we want to change the picture
Sorry, but this is total fucking wank. Nobody thinks that women's bodies are public property.

>Should we, as a gender, be doing more to tackle sexual harassment?
I dunno, maybe. What are you suggesting? Confronting cat callers on behalf of random women? I've never actually seen cat calling happen IRL.
>> No. 31697 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 9:59 pm
31697 spacer
>>31695

I completely agree with you about HR, and I'm aware much of sexual harassment policy is based on very primitive power politics (i.e. "would it be more damaging to the organisation to sack them or do nothing?" type of reasoning). That said, I do also think that the threat of being dismissed is one potentially useful tool among many.

I disagree somewhat about "social pressure", though. Yes, cultural change is the goal, but there's loads of mechanisms by which you can do that. Legislation can be a good idea, where applicable. Enforced social guidelines in other contexts, maybe not -- even worse, it might cause some backlash and people deliberately bucking the change.

As I say, it's hard to even talk about the right way to exert "social pressure" without knowing what kind of harassment we're talking about. It reminds me of the way people will publish vague social media messages about "normalising (behaviour x)". Fine, maybe behaviour x should be normalised, but perhaps it would be more useful to address the reasons why behaviour x is stigmatised, ideally with specific examples of how this presents itself in real world events?

>>31696
>Sorry, but this is total fucking wank. Nobody thinks that women's bodies are public property.

It's poor phrasing, but I think there is something to be said for the idea that all bodies are treated as "public property"; we all have expectations and prejudices about appropriate behaviours and attitudes towards our bodies imposed on us based on our characteristics, it's just this tends to take the form of sexualisation for (young) women.
>> No. 31698 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 10:20 pm
31698 spacer
>>31693
It's simply intuition based on spending an unreasonable amount of time looking at polls and surveys.
I accept I could simply be wrong, but these two things can't be reconciled in my head:
1. Roughly as many young women must be harassed as have a washing machine, or any other near-universal household item. For an alternative comparison, a young woman who hasn't been harassed would be about as rare as a genuine flat earther.
2. All of these women are willing to let a survey taker know about the harassment. All of them, even the deeply conservative ones, the ones who're trying to pretend it didn't happen, the ones who fear retribution for speaking out, and so on.
Now I'm quite prepared to accept that the first one is the case despite my skepticism. It seems unlikely, , but I'm open to the fact I could be underestimating the scale of a truly gigantic problem. The second is the real source of my suspicion. It simply does not seem likely that reporting would be so universal in a society so at peace with harassment.
>> No. 31699 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 10:32 pm
31699 spacer
I don't know, I think at least part of that statistic is the result of men being expected to be the active one in any courtship and a shifting perception of what is and isn't considered appropriate. It reminds me of a gay lassm8 angrily complaining to me that she couldn't have a drink after work without being bothered by lads trying to talk to her, I saw her point but she seemed to hold it against the men despite them doing what society expects them to do.

Suppose I can look forward to sexual harassment being a topic at the next work stand-up at any rate. Zoom bothering - the act of being unusually flirty with a colleague in a morning phone call because you just awoke from an awkward sex dream.

>>31695
>I would think that any incident that someone would describe as harassment is unwanted by definition.

When I was a teenage call-centre drone I had a female manager sneak up on me when I was working and tickle me to wake me up. I don't know if it strictly counts as sexual in my book as I'm not sure of her intent but I didn't like it. She was a bit wrong, the term 'mutton-dressed-as-lamb' came to mind because she was in her late 30s but dressed like a teenager and clearly had a thing for the young meat.

Still would've but it was clearly inappropriate touching for an office environment as defined by society. On the flip-side there's plenty of times I've felt more like I'm taking one for the team in bed* but you wouldn't call it sexual harassment because I was expected to and didn't want to cause a fuss.

*don't roll your eyes at me, I'm just making a point.
>> No. 31700 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 10:46 pm
31700 spacer
I remember once when I was younger, I think I was at uni, there was a woman walking ahead of me in the street, she looked back a couple of times but I thought nothing of it. Then I tripped on a paving stone and made a stumbling noise, at which I heard her audibly gasp. I had an impulse to explain that I wasn't following her but realised that would just have made it worse, so I crossed the street and sped up so I was in front of her so she could see me. I know it wasn't remotely my fault that she felt threatened or like she was being followed by me, but I still felt fucking awful and it's stuck with me. It was probably the first time I really thought about it from a woman's perspective.

If I had felt like I was being followed, I would have been preparing to fight - she seemed like she was just preparing to be attacked. My response is likely just as sad, that I feel like I'm expected by society to do violence to remain safe, but at least for me it changed a little bit about how I thought about how men and women are treated.
>> No. 31701 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 10:47 pm
31701 spacer
>>31698
The problem with the two points you raise is that:
1. If this weren't the case, then that would require that either the bar for what constitutes harassment is too low, or they're simply lying. Neither of these assertions is a particularly good look.
2. It's an anonymous confidential survey. There is no retribution for speaking out. Nobody that cares will know that they answered the survey and reported being harassed.

>>31697
>I do also think that the threat of being dismissed is one potentially useful tool among many.
Only if it's a credible threat. You only need look at the news from Google where it's the people that report issues and make noise that are the ones getting dismissed or referred for mental health issues.
>> No. 31702 Anonymous
10th March 2021
Wednesday 11:17 pm
31702 spacer
>>31701
For 1 that isn't quite correct, there are other possibilities: It could be an unrepresentative sample or some other questionable structural decision, which isn't quite the same thing as lying. It's entirely possible to set up a poll in a less-than-ideal fashion by accident while acting in good faith.
I would never say that the bar for what constitutes harassment is too low. I would consider it a plausible explanation for the high figure that it's much lower than what most people would consider harassment. That is a bad look (because it looks too similar to "too low"), but I don't think most people are right. If we could see the survey's definition it would be easier to decide if the figure is plausible without having to make any judgement on whether that definition is appropriate.
For 2, remember that you're dealing with a figure as high as 97%. Assuming a representative sample, that includes the paranoid, the ignorant, and the completely crazy. Unless you go further and imagine they're in the 3% and the actual figure is 100%, I suppose.

I suppose I should make clear I'm interested here because I'm the sort of sad individual who's interested in surveys, not because I'm the kind of bad-faith dickhead who wants to demonstrate that "actually only 80% of women are harassed. The remaining 17% are merely made to feel very uncomfortable which isn't harassment, so actually there's no problem." I take as read that the problem actually exists.
>> No. 31705 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 1:33 am
31705 spacer
97% of women report sexual harassment, but it doesn't say what that harassment entailed. Are they being groped, touched, verbally harassed or is simply being unattractive enough for a women to think you speaking to them is harassment? We need to know where the bar is do something about it.

The survey doesn't say and we'll never know because they never publish their data and methodology properly so it can be peer reviewed. Sociology is a fucking tinpot science and I wash my hands of this weirdness.
>> No. 31706 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:03 am
31706 spacer
>>31702
>It could be an unrepresentative sample or some other questionable structural decision
Ah, so you're going with "leading market research company didn't do their job properly"? Yeah, no.

>Assuming a representative sample, that includes the paranoid, the ignorant, and the completely crazy.
I'd think the 3% covers those with plenty of room to spare. Plus the error bars on 1000 young women (about 4.2m) are themselves around 3%.
>> No. 31707 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 4:01 am
31707 spacer
To anyone doubting the numbers, ask the women in your life about their experiences. The world is full of awful perverts who mostly get away with it. Being wanked at in the street or having an erection rubbed against your arse on the Tube or getting a hand up your skirt in a nightclub is just a normal part of life for women.

I've never done any of those things, but I do know that I've been a little bit too persistent when chatting someone up, I've made female friends feel uncomfortable with jokes that were a little bit too near the knuckle, I've slept with women who were probably a little bit too pissed, a little bit too vulnerable. There's a massive grey area of stuff that's not necessarily criminal, but is definitely unethical - stuff that you justify to yourself at the time, but that you know deep down is a bit predatory. I think that men tend to diminish the experiences of women partly out of ignorance, but partly as a defence mechanism against having to examine their own behaviour.

We shouldn't just uncritically accept any possible allegation as true, but we do need to recognise that women are perpetually under threat in a way that makes them justifiably fearful and hyper-vigilant. Like >>31700 crossing the street, we need to make a conscious effort to help women feel safe whenever we can. We need to examine our own actions and we need to have honest conversations with other men about how we can all be better.
>> No. 31708 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 6:48 am
31708 spacer
>>31707
I think the level of disbelief itt is quite naive. Basically every woman I've spoken to for long enough has a story about some bloke taking photos of them, grabbing them, talking to them like shit, all sorts. Now, you might say "ah, but you've only ever spoken to three women, you big saddo", but the point stands. These are situations that men basically don't have to deal with.
>> No. 31709 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 7:12 am
31709 spacer
>>31700
When I was at university I was walking about 20 metres behind a female student on a quiet road on a very foggy day. The only noise was our footsteps and I could tell she quickened her pace when she realised I was behind her. She then decided to cross the road, but almost exactly where my car was parked so I had to follow her across. I don't think I've ever felt more like a sex pest.

I must look a bit like a wrong 'un because in my younger days middle aged women would shield their handbags from me as we walked past each other.
>> No. 31710 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:17 am
31710 spacer
Women in the Western world are amongst the most privileged and least endangered demographics out of the entire human population. First world feminism is nothing but petit bourgeois power politics.

I won't try to claim there exists perfect gender equality in Britain today, but I won't be taking shite like the OP's article seriously until western women start fighting in wars, becoming homeless or committing suicide at the same rate as men. Until then they can deal with the fact somebody wolf whistled at them six years ago.
>> No. 31711 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:23 am
31711 spacer
>>31710

Solid logic there, ignore women being sexually harassed because they don't fight enough wars. Just such brilliance on display there.
>> No. 31712 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:34 am
31712 spacer
>>31709
I think the point at which I realised she was trying to get away from me I would have waited for her to leave the area before following her across the street... well, do better next time.
>> No. 31713 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:35 am
31713 spacer
>>31711

Cuts to the point mind.

97% of women have been sexually harassed is a useless statistic. I bet 97% of men can say they've had a woman misinterpret an entirely innocent attempt at flirtation. Neither of those would help anyone or contribute anything towards solving whatever is wrong here.

There needs to be a line drawn between proper sexual assault and the delicate sensitivities of middle class Guardian fisherpersons. We can't tackle everything at once, and the list of things more important than being looked ot funny on the tube or getting inappropriate messages on Tinder is about as long as a Dostoyevesky novel, it's as simple as that.

You can call that a relative privation fallacy if you like but I'll be saying I told you so when we're all underwater and you realise we should have spent more time talking about that.
>> No. 31714 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:55 am
31714 spacer
>>31713

"Climate change exists, so we shouldn't talk about sexual harassment".

10/10.
>> No. 31715 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:58 am
31715 spacer
>>31711

The point of the other post was that, in a just world, the problems of a relatively highly protected class of people are not the first priority.

By all means, argue about whether these things should be prioritised, or whether it's a fallacy to try and pit one social ill against another, or whether they're wrong in their assessment of privilege and danger, or whatever else, but it's the laziest thing to just mischaracterise an argument and then dismiss it.
>> No. 31716 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:34 am
31716 spacer
Observation of people has taught me that people label it as sexual harassment when a sexual advancement is rejected that they would have been fine or even fantasised about had it been a person they were into. If you believed everything you read about what is sexual harassment. You would never be able to procreate. This is perhaps why internet porn has turned to incest because they are the only women young men are taught they can engage without volatile rejection.

As long that is the bar of entry I am dubious about such statements about prevalence in society being meaningful. I've also read too many online journalist treat it like it was one step away from rape when a guy took the intitive to talk to them, that is clearly not the bar for sexual harassment but there seems to be a lot of people who think it should be.

I've also been in a organisation that had to deal with the bullshit of people using innuendo to try play the system to sabotage people they didn't like, you get a lot of mileage just from floating the concept of sexual harassment, as from an institutions perspective it really must be handled seriously and you can't be dismissive. it is like a cheat code for a special kind of cunt and the more you feel it must always be taken and you must believe the victim seriously the more power they have.

I am sure this post will be inevitably strawmanned into condoning what are quite self evidently crimes or hand waving away all sexual harassment as non existent.
>> No. 31717 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:35 am
31717 spacer
>>31715

It's a totally flippant argument. By definition, anyone participating in this conversation isn't prioritising the most serious problems in the world. Most of us aren't aid workers in the D.R. Congo, most of us don't live in poverty so we can give every penny we can to the World Food Programme. Unless you really are living that hyper-utilitarian life of service to the very poorest, then saying "it isn't the worst problem in the world so I don't have to care about it" is functionally equivalent to the defining statement of privilege - "it doesn't affect me, so no-one should care about it".

We've got a mix of priorities based only very weakly on pure utilitarianism, which is fine. Sexual harassment isn't the worst problem in the world, but it's a serious problem nonetheless.
It might be uncomfortable to admit, but it's a problem we're all complicit in; the upside is that we are all able to combat it in some way.
>> No. 31718 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:49 am
31718 spacer
>>31716

I believe the argument is that entitlement masks it self in victimhood, especially to the entitled themselves, and it is the privilege that complain the loudest and the most when they don't get something they want.
>> No. 31719 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:49 am
31719 spacer
>>31717

>anyone participating in this conversation isn't prioritising the most serious problems in the world. Most of us aren't aid workers in the D.R. Congo

Selective reductionism isn't a counterargument to that point. Maybe we're not all in UN development thinktanks, but it's reasonable to believe plenty of people here work for the NHS or campaign for their political cause, attend protests, and so on.

>Sexual harassment isn't the worst problem in the world, but it's a serious problem nonetheless.

Which is what ties into the previous point- It's not the most serious problem, but it can be serious, except here we're talking about a survey where a majority of the instances were fairly inarguably in the not at all serious camp. It is not only slightly offensive to people who belong to the group who have been involved in serious sexual assault, but it's counter-productive as a whole.

At the end of the day this is the kind of tripe pushed by very comfortable people with very comfortable lives, who want in on a bit of that "life is hard because of factors preordained before my birth" political currency, doing a disservice to people who have legitimate claims to that currency.
>> No. 31720 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:58 am
31720 spacer
>>31717
>the upside is that we are all able to combat it in some way.
Combat WHAT mate? "Sexual harassment" in the context of the OP is entirely nebulous. I have never stuck my hands up a women's skirt unsolicited, but I have been shot down in flames when trying to chat one up. Was I harassing her? Is any women I've tried it on with who didn't like me a victim of harassment?

We have no answers, only a statistic which makes no sense to any of us because we're not wrong uns. So where do we go from here?
>> No. 31721 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:06 am
31721 spacer
>>31720
Do you think women aren't able to tell when they're being harassed? Maybe because you have to be as clever as a man to be capable of making the distinction?
>> No. 31722 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:08 am
31722 spacer
So what sexual harassment stats do you lads actually believe then?
>> No. 31723 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:13 am
31723 spacer
This is all just a smokescreen for the anti-protesting laws they're planning to pass.
>> No. 31724 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:16 am
31724 spacer
>>31717
>Unless you really are living that hyper-utilitarian life of service to the very poorest, then saying "it isn't the worst problem in the world so I don't have to care about it" is functionally equivalent to the defining statement of privilege - "it doesn't affect me, so no-one should care about it".

Agreed, and I also don't think that the existence of worse things precludes devoting attention to less-severe-but-still-bad things.

At the same time, what if we're also complicit in several other bad things that aren't "the worst problem in the world", but still deserve more attention than sexual harassment? For example, I think it is valid to point out that if we're concerned about gender equality, it is justified to have conversations about violence committed among and to men, about the near-universal gender differences in suicide, about the relatively shorter lifespans of men in wealthy countries, and so on.

Those conversations seem to be few and far between, and when they occur they're often presented in conspicuously shallow and non-gendered terms, or even in ways that push the burden of seeking care back onto men ("suicidal men just need to seek help more", etc.). So I think there's some fairness in pushing back against research like this. I'm with you that "but what about x?" is an unproductive reaction, but it might also be that this is an unproductive survey, or at the very least an unproductive way of presenting the survey findings.
>> No. 31725 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:19 am
31725 spacer
>>31721
>Do you think women aren't able to tell when they're being harassed?
No, I'm asking what women define as harassment and if I've been complicit in it. No one has been able to define what harassment is so how can we combat it?
>> No. 31726 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:20 am
31726 spacer
>>31725
Have you ever been sexually harassed?
>> No. 31728 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:32 am
31728 spacer
>>31726
How would the people responsible know what constitutes harassment if all I said was "yes"? You're deflecting.

How can we define that which is completely arbitrary and unique to each individual? What I consider harassment might not even register on another person's radar.

I have been made to feel uncomfortable by the advances of men and women on 100s of occasions, but is that harassment because I say it is or only once it passes an arbitrary threshold? Does my gender or sexual orientation affect this threshold?
>> No. 31729 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:33 am
31729 spacer
>>31721

I think women will decide if it's harassment entirely based upon how much they liked your face and if you looked high enough in status to meet their requirements.

At the end of the day human interaction is just too flawed for us to allow wishy washy self-definition on these kinds of things. There needs to be something concrete, because no matter how much awareness and sensitivity you promote in men, you can't teach people not to be socially awkward fuck ups.

Aren't there also statistics suggesting gen Z simply isn't having sex? They're practically celibate compared to the generations before them and is it any wonder why.
>> No. 31730 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:39 am
31730 spacer
Open question lads: Have any of you ever turned down a female's advances on you? How did she react?

I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think the very fact I can ask that question, knowing it's rare enough that it might never have even happened to some of you, has a lot to answer for.
>> No. 31731 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:46 am
31731 spacer
>>31721

Fuck it I will bite. Yes some women can't tell, there are the Beatrice and Alice Grants of the world who assume that if someone doesn't give them what they want when they asked nicely that person was unreasonable. And that they can ask any man in a bar to buy them a drink and when they man tries to talk to them afterwards assuming they are interested cause a scene of it being harassment and walk off with their free drink.

I've met these people I've met the BBC journalists daughters who were taught and believed male sexuality defacto disgusting and men were only after one thing. I've met the child of Barristers who would lecture me on how I am privileged so I wouldn't know.
I've met the lady who doth protest too much who ended up marrying their 'harasser' who I had been expected to defend her from. I've seen the girl get too drunk in a bar hit on someone and when they sobered up decide it was the other people’s fault. I've had the girl who couldn't take no for an answer take rejection as me being cruel. And I have meant the person who wielded sexual harassment as a weapon in HR to sabotage someone else.

All of this is more of an insult to the multiple women I have loved who have been raped than me, what again is quite telling is that these women were very quiet about their abuse, deenying it or tried to rationalise it (so ironically by your point they didn't know they were harassed), being a victim has very different behaviour from being entitled belief that you are one, powerlessness runs through a victims behavour.

Life has taught me that the worse just of anything is a person involved in a situation.
>> No. 31732 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:48 am
31732 spacer
>>31730

Yes. If you date someone for a while and it will happen.
>> No. 31733 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:48 am
31733 spacer
>>31730
Is my answer invalid if I'm gay? I went through a period in my 20s where I would only go to pubs with a beard I could use as a shield so I wouldn't get chatted up by women, I never considered it harassment though, just annoying; people are horny and pubs are where they go to meet other horny people. I was there to meet horny men though, so they were out of luck.

I have been inappropriately touched by men and women though and I would consider that harassment, but I feel like they knew that already and didn't care so me telling them that probably wouldn't have made much difference to their behaviour.
>> No. 31734 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:49 am
31734 spacer
>>31731

>worse just of anything

Judge. Autocorrect got me.
>> No. 31735 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:58 am
31735 spacer
>>31728
I'm deflecting? You're prevaricating. What point are you making? That we can't effectively fight harassment, because some of the 97% of responses might not be 'as bad' as you, a man, think is bad? Does that mean we shouldn't try? If we should try, then why is this important?
>> No. 31736 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 12:16 pm
31736 spacer
>>31735
>as bad' as you, a man, think is bad
Projection, no one has said this. Every single response has been consistent in their confusion over what defines harassment and how to effectively combat it when we don't even know where the line is or what 97% of women consider harassment to be.

How do we combat a nebulous, arbitrary concept? It's futile by definition, so we need to crystallise the debate so we can have a consistent and non-confusing idea of what we're fighting. Which is what we're all asking and you continue to dance around.
>> No. 31737 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 12:18 pm
31737 spacer
>>31735

The point they are making is that sexual harassment is entirely subjective, it is defined by the reaction of the victim, and that is a nebulous bench mark. If we tried to codify it and took it by the broadest definition we would have to lock up all society, it we took it by the narrowest rapists would walk free.
Sexual harassment therefore is an entirely unhelpful catch all term, it is too broad to be useful and any statistics about it is meaningless.
It would be like if we got rid of all the different categories of assault and just called it all 'non-consensual physical contact' then we wouldn't be able to have a sensible conversation about that either, because discussion about murder and fist fights would be equivocated with aggressive football tackling and being too close on public transport.
>> No. 31739 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 1:02 pm
31739 spacer
>>31738
Oh, good, someone said something silly I now longer have to care about this issue.
>> No. 31740 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 1:07 pm
31740 spacer
>>31738
If you're being banned for posting links to the DM, posting excerpts without the links isn't any better. It's not a technicality you'll be allowed to get away with. Just fucking stop.
>> No. 31741 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 1:30 pm
31741 spacer
>>31740

Thanks modlad, I almost got riled up at the story without realising it was DM nonsense.
>> No. 31742 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 2:17 pm
31742 spacer
>>31736
>>31737
So you're confused about what sexual harassment is? Tell your employer, maybe they'll send you on a training course.
>> No. 31744 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 2:28 pm
31744 spacer
>>31740
Are we blanket banned for DM links or just where not relevant? I'm wondering about exclusives. I think I've posted links before without issue but that might just be because I'm a quality poster and/or sensitivity-lad forgot to whinge.
>> No. 31745 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 2:45 pm
31745 spacer
>>31744
I think it depends what mood the mods are in, but almost any DM link will result in a ban and deletion even if it is an exclusive or it's something written for them, like when they had exclusives about Prince Andrew or the article Are Nige penned at the weekend about him leaving politics "for good".
>> No. 31746 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 2:48 pm
31746 spacer
>>31743
She must think she's making some kind of statement but I do wonder about Patel's comment that more will be done to make women feel safer walking home.

I mean, 'feeling safer' sets me on edge a bit. A few years back I remember reading a farcical story of an American college campus running courses on rape awareness that spooked the women up -and then they handed them tasers at the end with predictable results.
>> No. 31747 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 2:52 pm
31747 spacer
>>31706
>Ah, so you're going with "leading market research company didn't do their job properly"?
It's hardly beyond credibility. How do you properly weight a survey like this? You can't exactly cross reference it with how people voted last time, income, likelihood of turnout, etc.
>> No. 31748 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:02 pm
31748 spacer
>>31743
Oh The Sun! Much better than The Daily Mail.
>> No. 31749 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:06 pm
31749 spacer

Sekuhara.png
317493174931749
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/qepiqi9xaf/YouGov%20Sexual%20harassment.pdf
There we go. Some figures and some definitions. I don't see a breakdown by age, however, and I'm not sure where the figure of 80% comes from (on the first page it says 52%.) so if anyone can explain that to me I'd be grateful.
>> No. 31750 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:07 pm
31750 spacer
>>31744
Around last August, the Daily Mail's url was wordfiltered to "If I post a link to this website again I will be banned". A month or two after that, we started banning people for posting it. Same goes for The Sun.
>> No. 31751 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:20 pm
31751 spacer

1200.jpg
317513175131751
>>31746
You can't make women feel safer coming home.

If you take the case that's in the news of Sarah Everard then she is in bright clothing, she was in well lit areas, she was on the phone to her boyfriend whilst she was walking home. You can take all the precautions there are in the world but if some psychopath decides he wants to kidnap and murder someone then he's going to try and kidnap and murder someone once he has the opportunity.
>> No. 31752 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:26 pm
31752 spacer
>>31751
I feel very sad about this case; how are any of us safe if there are policeperson sexbeasts out there on the prowl.
>> No. 31753 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:32 pm
31753 spacer
>>31752

It's OK, Cressida Dick has promised extra police patrols in the area.

Oh.
>> No. 31754 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:37 pm
31754 spacer
>>31753
These ones?
https://www.victoriajones.uk/met-police
>> No. 31755 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:38 pm
31755 spacer
>>31749

Pinched or grabbed arse by a not friend/ partner is much higher than I would have imagined (34-37%) in Britian.
>> No. 31756 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:54 pm
31756 spacer
>>31755
I think a better thing to find out would be what proportion of men have pinched someone's arse.

Do a significant number of men do it or is it just a small number of serial bum gropers giving all of us a bad name? Is one man pinching 50 bums worse than 50 men pinching one bum?
>> No. 31757 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 3:59 pm
31757 spacer
>>31749
>looked at your breasts
>winked at you
>asked you out for a drink

Hang on..
>> No. 31758 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 4:07 pm
31758 spacer
>>31749
>Looked at your breasts
>Winked at you
>Asked you out for a drink
>Commented on your attractiveness

Hang on...
>> No. 31759 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 4:10 pm
31759 spacer
>>31758

Well done, you've found a way to ignore the problem.
>> No. 31760 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 4:12 pm
31760 spacer
>>31757

Yes it is a survey of general sexual behaviour, not exclusively sexual harassment.
>> No. 31761 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 4:42 pm
31761 spacer
>>31749

Not wanting to defend abusive behaviour, at all, but a good number of these definitions are dogshit.

It's the typical strategy of such charities, trying to gain attention to their cause by stretching definitions and presenting studies with quite vague research designs. In the end, it's always about money, and about agenda setting.

I have no problem at all believing that a large amount of abuse happens every day that no upstanding person could possibly defend, but that's not the game these charities are playing.

You could now say that the means justify the ends. But I wonder.
>> No. 31762 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 4:58 pm
31762 spacer
>>31761

The fact that one in eight women have been flashed, one in five have been asked for sexual favours and one in three have been groped on the arse should at least give us pause for thought.
>> No. 31763 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:00 pm
31763 spacer
>>31761

You're responding to a yougov survey.
>> No. 31764 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:10 pm
31764 spacer
What happened to flashing anyway? It seemed to be all the rage in the 00s but these days there's not a sausage outside of naked protests. I'm not saying I've seen any blokes in trench coats but there were plenty more tits back in my day.

You would think it would be a consequence of global warming if anything.
>> No. 31765 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:21 pm
31765 spacer
>>31763
Who commissioned YouGov to conduct the survey?
>> No. 31766 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:32 pm
31766 spacer
>>31765
Unless the Guardian is being very sneaky, I believe it was UN Women UK.
(Although it's possible that was a different survey that happened to be published around the same time. I can't imagine how else the figures from YouGov differ so widely from those quoted by The Guardian.)
>> No. 31767 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:33 pm
31767 spacer
>>31765

Not me guv.
>> No. 31768 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:41 pm
31768 spacer

Sekuhara 2.png
317683176831768
Ah, here we go.
https://www.unwomenuk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APPG-UN-Women_Sexual-Harassment-Report_2021.pdf
The high figures come from this, which seemingly uses a different YouGov survey to >>31749 with similar questions. (Although the headline figures differ from those in The Guardian, with 71% of women being harassed and 86% among women 18-25. Possibly they're assuming a non-reporting %? I've only skimread the figures rather than reading the whole thing.)
>> No. 31769 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:47 pm
31769 spacer
>>31756
The arse grabbing percentage is a lot higher than the self reported harassment percentage. More women are getting unrequested arse grabbings than being asked out for drinks. That can't be right.
>> No. 31770 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 5:52 pm
31770 spacer
>>31762

Don't get me wrong, I think not even the most scrutinising look at the study's details will be able to absolve men, that is those men who harrass women, of any and all wrongdoing.

But if you indiscriminately class comments on somebody's physical attractiveness as harrassment, then the gamut is going to be quite wide. From somebody shouting "OI !!! GREAT TITS!!!" after a lass to somebody saying "I say, Ms. Brown, you look quite dashing in your outfit today!".

Also, asking somebody for a drink, I mean, come on. Really? Are you telling us that from now on, any lad who musters up the courage to ask a lass to go for a drink is going to be seen as some sort of sex pervert?

To be true to itself, the study would then also have to class it as harrassment when somebody looks at a woman's ankles.
>> No. 31771 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 6:04 pm
31771 spacer
>>31769
Different times, but just over 10 years ago I knew a lad whose pulling technique in clubs was to go behind women and feel their arse. It was surprisingly successful; if she turned around and smiled then he was in there, if not then he just moved on. No need to try and chat them up or waste time on smalltalk, a quick cop of their arse was enough of a barometer to quickly know whether he was in there or not. It probably helped that was about 6'5" and reasonably attractive.

I do also have female friends who bemoan the fact that #metoo means they're far less likely to receive an unsolicited grope in clubs; even if the person doing it is a complete creep they said it's nice to feel wanted. You can't win.
>> No. 31772 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 6:35 pm
31772 spacer
>>31771

>I do also have female friends who bemoan the fact that #metoo means they're far less likely to receive an unsolicited grope in clubs; even if the person doing it is a complete creep they said it's nice to feel wanted.

Am I really the only person who has always thought that grabbing a random lass's arse is wrong on a good number of levels?

I don't think I've ever heard any lass say that an arse grope by a stranger in a club is a reassuring sign that she's wanted.

I'm all for not overblowing the whole issue, I think there has been more than enough veering off into the muddy waters of "all men are rapists", but it's one thing to ask a lass to go have a drink, and quite another to make uninvited physical contact. The latter is a boundary that you have no right to cross unless you're given unmistakable permission that it's okay.
>> No. 31773 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 7:03 pm
31773 spacer
>>31742
You're still deflecting.
>> No. 31774 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 7:19 pm
31774 spacer
>>31773
And you're still being a massively disingenuous bellend, even by .gs standards.
>> No. 31775 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 7:20 pm
31775 spacer
>>31772

I know discovering women wanted to be treated the way society has told you should under no circumstances ever treat them is a head fuck. Makes you feel tricked.
>> No. 31776 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 7:42 pm
31776 spacer
>>31771
>>31772
My brother is a good few years older than me and it blew my mind going clubbing with him before and seeing him do this. I always just assumed he was particularly uncouth rather than out of touch until now. Sign of the times but he had his own mindfuck that I was screwing women of different races like it was nothing.

Time moves fast, I wonder what we do now that will be unthinkable in the future. Aside from owning a home.
>> No. 31777 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 7:56 pm
31777 spacer
>>31775

>I know discovering women wanted to be treated the way society has told you should under no circumstances ever treat them is a head fuck


I guess then there'll never be an explanation why one of my female friends when we were all about 20 nearly reported another friend to the police after he massively groped her in the back of a Renault Clio in a dark car park. She obviously wanted it, never mind that they were both waiting for her boyfriend to come back to the car, so whatever got into her pretty little head that she then nearly went to the coppers the next day was beyond everybody's reasoning. Women, eh.

I honestly couldn't believe she didn't go to the police. Our gropey friend was well known for that sort of thing after three or four beers, it wasn't the first time that he'd tried something like that. She apparently didn't even tell her boyfriend till the next day.
>> No. 31778 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 8:10 pm
31778 spacer
Can you maybe take a break from arguing about this pointless distraction to sign this petition please?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/protect-the-freedom-to-protest
>> No. 31779 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 8:17 pm
31779 spacer
>>31777

Some women want it. Evidently not all, and not from everyone or all the time. From what I can tell half of women want the Christopher Grey experience, the other half are appalled by the idea women would want that, and they need to be protected from their own desires.
>> No. 31780 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 8:35 pm
31780 spacer
Not that it particularly matters, but are there any women in this thread?

I honestly quite like that roughly 2/3 of the posts have been querying the statistics and picking over the definition of sexual harassment, which does incline me to believe it's mostly men, and sperglad(s)

>>31751
My partner asked me if I could have a conversation with my male friends about the treatment of women following the abductorapurder. I'm honestly not sure what it will achieve, my male friends are all progressives who either don't care about the specifics and just want people to be happy, or they're already vocal proponents. I imagine we'd agree on saying it's our fault if we chose to make a decision that led to our demise, knowing it was the unsafe choice. But that doesn't mean we deserved it etc.
>> No. 31781 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 8:44 pm
31781 spacer
>>31780
The only person who has brought it up with me is a female work colleague, who told me that she used to live in that part of London and had far more sense than to walk around there alone at night because it wasn't safe.

When the Ched Evans rape case was in the news I only ever heard victim blaming from other women, saying things like it was her fault for having so much to drink and getting herself in that position.

I don't know, maybe it's a generational thing as these were all from women in their late forties and early fifties.
>> No. 31782 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 8:59 pm
31782 spacer
>>31781

>When the Ched Evans rape case was in the news I only ever heard victim blaming from other women, saying things like it was her fault for having so much to drink and getting herself in that position.

My mum makes occasional remarks whenever there is a new rape case in the news that young women these days are asking for trouble by wearing all that revealing clothing.

I'm not sure if it's age related amnesia, but I know for a fact that pictures of my mum from her partying days in the 70s exist in a shoe box somewhere at her house where she's wearing disturbingly skimpy mini dresses.

So I'm not sure if her comments should really be understood as "I've been there", or if she has actually forgotten what she got up to in her day.
>> No. 31783 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:00 pm
31783 spacer
>>31782

>I'm not sure if her comments should really be understood as "I've been there", or if she has actually forgotten what she got up to in her day.
Alternately, your mum wanted it.
>> No. 31784 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:13 pm
31784 spacer
>>31780
>Not that it particularly matters, but are there any women in this thread?

Don't answer him ladets! All this time reputable academic journals such as the Daily Mail have warned us of a PC gone mad and now he's come to abduct all of us.
>> No. 31785 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:21 pm
31785 spacer
>>31784
>A Met police officer arrested after the disappearance of Sarah Everard was taken to hospital with a head injury he suffered while in custody.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56331950

He's either tried to kill himself by running head first into a wall, tried to prove he's a mentalist by injuring himself or other rozzers have fucked him up.

As a side point, when they say "human remains" have been found do they mean body parts rather than a full corpse?
>> No. 31786 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:38 pm
31786 spacer
>>31785

>As a side point, when they say "human remains" have been found do they mean body parts rather than a full corpse?

I think "human remains" always kind of indicates that the body was probably in a bit of a jumble. A leg here, a head there.
>> No. 31787 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:39 pm
31787 spacer
>>31785
I hope he's okay.
>> No. 31788 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 9:43 pm
31788 spacer
>>31785

They haven't been able to make a positive identification that it's her yet, so presumably some important bits are missing.
>> No. 31789 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:28 pm
31789 spacer
Green Party peer calls for 6pm curfew for men after the disappearance of Sarah Everard

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/green-party-peer-6pm-curfew-men-disappearance-of-sarah-everard-b923587.html

This seems to have sailed over a lot of people's heads, but she was quite clearly taking the piss out of the police telling women to stay at home to protect themselves.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-london-police-telling-women-to-stay-at-home-
>> No. 31790 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 10:40 pm
31790 spacer
>>31789
Allow me to piss you off: If there's a potential lady-slayer still on the loose it might make sense to advise women to stay indoors. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that on a situational basis. Perhaps you could avoid hurt feeling by saying everyone should stay indoors?

The argument that the police should focus on deterring men doesn't apply in this situation, it's a murderer on the loose.
>> No. 31791 Anonymous
11th March 2021
Thursday 11:40 pm
31791 spacer
>>31789

>Green Party peer calls for 6pm curfew for men after the disappearance of Sarah Everard

Fuck off. I don't go around raping women, and teh guvmint has no right to assume that I do.
>> No. 31792 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:07 am
31792 spacer
>>31790
So why not a curfew for men in the local area because there's a lady-slayer on the loose? He can't kidnap anyone if he'll be arrested for leaving his home after dark now can he?
>> No. 31793 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:14 am
31793 spacer
>>31791
Does anyone else get a faint whiff of hammers off this lad?
>> No. 31794 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:35 am
31794 spacer
>>31792
They'll cower in their abode until the curfew is over.
>> No. 31795 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 1:45 am
31795 spacer
There's plenty of places you won't find me walking around at night. Common sense that, and it's only sheltered middle class dickheads who bring out the "victim blaming" line about that.

Doesn't even have to be about gender or race or special treatment for anyone over anyone else. There's just this weird naive, studenty idealism that if only we tried a little harder to not all be awful bastards, nobody would get raped or mugged or have an awkward conversation on the tube; and somehow it's entered the political mainstream. I have to be honest. I think there's just a level of middle class comfort where you just lose all touch with reality, and you start believing in the fairytale land Guardian op ed writers live in.

You can't fix things just by talking about them more. If you could, perhaps 97% of women wouldn't still be getting sexually assaulted (according to whatever definition they used), because we've been having that conversation since about... What, 2008?
>> No. 31799 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:18 am
31799 spacer
The sad thing is that you can tell men how to help women feel safer but the ones that are a danger aren't the ones that are going to implement or follow any of that advice.

As for intervening, it really depends on the situation doesn't it? Who wants to volunteer to become a beating target to help save some poor girl from being harassed? How do you weigh up your options in that situation?
Unless you catch some weird public masturbator at it in which case they're more likely to be a feebale sadsack you could beat in a fight according to my internal ranking of sex fiends.
>> No. 31800 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 6:57 am
31800 spacer
>>31795

>we've been having that conversation since about... What, 2008?

1977, at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_the_Night

>>31799

I once tried to intervene when a bloke was dragging a woman around by her hair outside Lime Street Station. She spat in my face.

People are complicated, but we have this overwhelming need to simplify everything into binaries. Erin Pizzey's story is absolutely wild:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
>> No. 31801 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 7:12 am
31801 spacer
>Street harassment is how men mark out public spaces as their own, making women into trespassers on male territory. Behavioural psychologists have observed how male pedestrians crowd women’s personal space at cashpoints and traffic lights, how all-male groups take up more pavement space, and how men make more antisocial noises in public than women, considering it more acceptable to speak on mobile phones at checkouts or in train carriages. Women are more distressed than men by such unwanted public noise, and by having to challenge its perpetrators. We don’t know how these encounters might escalate.

>This isn’t a new problem. In fact, men have long sought to exclude women from public spaces and make them feel uncomfortable. In the 19th century, pubs, saloons and restaurants in the UK and US were almost exclusively male spaces. State ordinances forbade women from entering, or segregated them off into “ladies’ snugs”. In 1941, one male British pub-goer refused to use the word “pub” to refer to a mixed-sex establishment: “pub” was short for “public house”, and he reasoned that women therefore didn’t belong in a “pub”, in the same way they didn’t belong in “public”.

>In formally segregated spaces, women were generally only tolerated if they were there to serve men: as prostitutes or waitresses. Men applied a similar logic to all public spaces: if they treated all women on the street in the way they treated servants or prostitutes, it marked out those spaces as male domains, and suggested that women entering them consented to their own abuse. As the zoologist Edwin Ray Lankester, the third director of the Natural History Museum, wrote, if women “really do wish to be left alone”, they should “avoid the haunts of men”. The haunts of men were all public spaces, and it would therefore be “comic” for a woman to “object being spoken to in the street”.

>Many men today still appear to believe in a similar social contract. By abusing and harassing women, men make public spaces their own – and by entering those spaces, they perceive that women acquiesce to their abuse. Frequently the onus to prevent these behaviours falls on women rather than men. Many women will be familiar with advice such as holding your keys when you walk home, avoiding listening to music, not getting drunk, travelling on well-lit roads, or shouting “fire” rather than “rape” in the case of assault, because the former is taken more seriously. Rather than taking boys and men aside and teaching them not to harass, assault or murder us, the responsibility for preventing male violence has been placed on women’s conduct.

>We know that it’s a minority of men who rape and murder women. But a great many engage in continual, low-level, unrecorded intimidation that hints towards assault and is threatening to women who they believe to have “strayed” into their territory. It is difficult to overstate the damage this has done to women. Is it any wonder that we are much more likely to suffer anxiety and agoraphobia than men? Fear of male abuse has led women to give up once-loved activities, or stop walking or running alone. Women’s experience of street harassment rockets during adolescence, when many teenage girls retreat to their bedrooms, as “the only place in the world [they] feel safe”, as one told a researcher in 2001. Too often, women feel unsupported by authorities who are supposed to protect us. It’s difficult to feel that much has changed since a US judge refused to prosecute street harassment in 1976, because it was “generally accepted behaviour [that is] too frequent for a justice system to handle”.

>What’s missing from discussions about women’s fears is a focus on men. Men’s harassment and assault of women is part of a sustained, long-term attempt to roll back advances in women’s rights and restrict our presence in public spaces. Some well-intentioned individual men ask how they can change their behaviours to make us feel calmer and safer, and are advised to cross the road to ensure they do not walk behind us at night. But we need solutions that rise above individual behaviour, and tackle men’s abuse and intimidation of women as a systemic problem. This is an urgent frontier for women’s rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/11/women-feel-safe-public-spaces-men-behaviour-change
>> No. 31802 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 7:22 am
31802 spacer
>>31800

People aren't that complicated they just love certain myths. Women will always be seen as the victims of society regardless of circumstances and evidence their are just too many people who benefit from the idea.
>> No. 31803 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 7:37 am
31803 spacer
>>31801

I was fully behind feminism until having read a similar (but academic) article in university. Where it made it abundantly clear that feminism was regularly on par with conspiracy theories about Jews controlling everything purporting the hidden deliberate controlling orchestrated agenda of men.
>> No. 31804 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 8:24 am
31804 spacer
>>31799
>The sad thing is that you can tell men how to help women feel safer but the ones that are a danger aren't the ones that are going to implement or follow any of that advice.

There's been plenty of instances of men pretending to be 'allies' to women to get into their knickers and engaging in extremely predatory behaviour. I haven't seen any evidence that these courses telling men not to rape actually work.
>> No. 31805 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 8:49 am
31805 spacer
>>31800
>I once tried to intervene when a bloke was dragging a woman around by her hair outside Lime Street Station. She spat in my face.

The "what men can do" posts floating about the social media ether at the moment are frighteningly naïve, and I genuinely worry for the people that attempt to follow the advice. This goes especially for the lads who are being pressured to intervene; statistics repeatedly show men are more frequently the victims of violence, and especially young men.
>> No. 31806 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 9:12 am
31806 spacer
>>31805
Every time I've seen someone try and break up a domestic happening in public they've ended up getting turned on by both parties.
>> No. 31807 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 9:17 am
31807 spacer
>>31806

The answer is obvious really, when things become so normal and routine they will do it in public, disrupting it is a violation of the norm.
>> No. 31808 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 9:18 am
31808 spacer
>>31801

Is this being posted as a serious thing, or to laugh at? I can't quite tell. Stuff like "considering it more acceptable to speak on mobile phones at checkouts or in train carriages." You mean speaking in public spaces? This is just too silly.

>In 1941, one male British pub-goer refused to use the word “pub” to refer to a mixed-sex establishment: “pub” was short for “public house”, and he reasoned that women therefore didn’t belong in a “pub”, in the same way they didn’t belong in “public”.

This is crap.

>As the zoologist Edwin Ray Lankester, the third director of the Natural History Museum, wrote, if women “really do wish to be left alone”, they should “avoid the haunts of men”. The haunts of men were all public spaces, and it would therefore be “comic” for a woman to “object being spoken to in the street”.

This is absolute bollocks.
>> No. 31809 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 9:50 am
31809 spacer
>>31804

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that isn't true of every single man calling himself an ally or male fisherperson or what have you. Humans are simpler than we like to delude ourselves, and any bloke going along with this nonsense is ultimately doing it because he thinks it's a better mating strategy. We've constructed a hell of a lot of fancy shite to ponder over and navel gaze about, but ultimately human behaviour all boils down to the primal need to eat, and to fuck.

The reason I scoff at it is because life has taught me the far better route is to simply disregard any of it and treat women as you would any other person, instead of bending over backwards to show how much you claim to respect and value them. It's a crazy idea I know, but they actually like you better if you treat them with the indifference you'd treat any other person you aren't friends with. If you ask me that's much more actually respectful to begin with.
>> No. 31810 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 10:08 am
31810 spacer
>>31801
>Women are more distressed than men by such unwanted public noise, and by having to challenge its perpetrators. We don’t know how these encounters might escalate.
Is testosterone supposed to have made me into a god? Am I not supposed to fear violence, or does it not matter much if I get beat up? I sense that I'm much more likely to get into a fight for telling groups of lads they're now allowed to answer their phones in Sainsbury's because it's mildly annoying to me.

I don't like the way she goes from this positing a sort of spectrum from men talking on the phone, to actual street harassment, to women getting murdered. These are different things and they don't all always spring from men wanting to control public space or whatever she's getting at.

>Rather than taking boys and men aside and teaching them not to harass, assault or murder us, the responsibility for preventing male violence has been placed on women’s conduct.
This isn't true. Harassment, assault, and murder are all crimes, everybody knows they're not allowed. Does she really, honestly believe that serial killers are the way they are because nobody told them murder was a crime?

Something I never see acknowledged in these articles is that one of the facets of yer patriarchy is the idea that women are stupid and weak and need to be protected for their own good. She doesn't even hint at what political solution does she wants. Armed woman's patrols? Harsher policing? A curfew for men? Segregation?
>> No. 31811 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 10:35 am
31811 spacer
>>31810
This is making me quite angry tbh. It's hard to have a conversation about because of these bizarrely constructed opinions.

>treat women as you would any other person, instead of bending over backwards to show how much you claim to respect and value them. It's a crazy idea I know, but they actually like you better if you treat them with the indifference you'd treat any other person you aren't friends with. If you ask me that's much more actually respectful to begin with.

Same principle as colourblind racism? Tbh I agree, individuals aren't statistics. We need to establish a new normal, if we keep trying to make things fair then it's just going to be an escalating war of double standards.

The amount of times I've called someone a 'cunt' on rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk, and had a response of "How dare you call a woman a cunt" etc etc. Love, I had no idea of your gender before this, it's just that you were being a cunt. It's like women and men communicate completely differently online, and women expect men to communicate like women and then get offended when they don't.
>> No. 31812 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 11:35 am
31812 spacer
>>31811
>This is making me quite angry tbh. It's hard to have a conversation about because of these bizarrely constructed opinions.

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if the brain rot that the Guardian regularly churns out pushes more people towards the right than the Mail does.
>> No. 31813 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:23 pm
31813 spacer
>>31809

There are other possibilities, Internalised misandry, men are made to feel ashamed for being born and of their gender indirectly by being taught men have done everything bad in some circles, it isn't a shock if they hate themselves and other men.
The other I've seen is overcompensation (in the homophobes are closet homosexuals sense) I had a friend go fully righteous about treatment of women all over Facebook to the point that my stance of I don't need to treat women better, I need to measure them by the same standards as men, angered him, he decided I had some secret hatred of women he actually openly asked it once. Within a few years he had slipped into a cycle of physically assaulting his partners, it is a consistent pattern I have found if you scratch below the surface of a SJW motives you'll find an arsehole cloaking themselves with good intentions.
>> No. 31814 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:23 pm
31814 spacer
>>31792
How do we know that it's a man?

>>31795
>There's plenty of places you won't find me walking around at night. Common sense that, and it's only sheltered middle class dickheads who bring out the "victim blaming" line about that.

Nah, it's more mysterious than that - I walk all over the place at night and always have because I grew up on the outskirts of my hometown. I always wear headphones too and I've done this in multiple locations at all hours. Not once have I had a problem but some people do like they're magnets for nutters.

Admittedly I'm a bloke but you would think that, by now, I'd have been set upon by a gang of ruffians.
>> No. 31815 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:31 pm
31815 spacer
>>31814
It's not mysterious, it's just relatively very rare and you'll easily have some people experiencing multiple assaults, and others who've experienced none despite the exact same behaviour in similar locations. You're at the start of the bell curve, other people are at the end.

Like afaik, these people don't set up shop in the same place every day. It's simply random chance as to whether you get a negative interaction. The longer you're out, the higher than chance will be. But it's still a relatively low chance overall.
>> No. 31817 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 12:47 pm
31817 spacer
>I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if the brain rot that the Guardian regularly churns out pushes more people towards the right than the Mail does.

Can't say that, that's victim blaming. Those people were obviously all misogynist nazis before, if it takes this little to galvanize them. Imagine being annoyed at someone just because they're attacking your identity. Only racists do that.
>> No. 31818 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 1:00 pm
31818 spacer
Much as It's a given that nobody, man or woman, deserves to become a victim of any kind of physical violence at all, our streets are safe. Crime statistics show Britain as a safe place to live, and that includes women walking home at night. Women can't just feel safe, they are safe. And if you need any more convincing, look at figures of (sexual) physical violence in many third-world shitehole major cities. They have a problem with street violence. We, for all intents and purposes, do not.

I don't know what kind of utopian world you are living in where crime doesn't happen at all. But you are by several magnitudes more likely to be fatally hit by a car in traffic in the UK on any given day than to be dismembered by some crazed sex offender.

Does that make it ok, when there are still thousands of rape cases with female victims each year? No, absolutely not. Again, nobody deserves to become a victim, and ideally, there would be no victims at all. But that isn't how reality works. No amount of harsh sentencing and no violence prevention programmes will deter a certain residual number of violent offenders with a mind to it and the determination to hurt an innocent woman, or man.

I've had this conversation with a friend who's a dyed in the wool fisherperson, and she keeps saying that even if crime numbers are low compared to other countries, women just don't feel safe at night on the streets. But I'm sorry, if crime statistics not only prove Britain as a safe Western developed country to live but also show that men actually become victims of physical violence more than twice as often as women, then you can't hold half of the entire population hostage and mark all men as potential rapists by imposing a blanket curfew on them, just so that you get to keep ignoring reality.


Further reading:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018#which-groups-of-people-are-most-likely-to-be-victims-of-violent-crime
>> No. 31819 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 1:15 pm
31819 spacer
>>31818
>men actually become victims of physical violence more than twice as often as women

This often gets brushed aside during the debate; it is a lot more dangerous to be a man walking alone in public than it is for a woman. I suppose it's because you'll be accused of being a MRA loon if you bring it up.
>> No. 31821 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 1:46 pm
31821 spacer
>>31819

>I suppose it's because you'll be accused of being a MRA loon if you bring it up.

The problem with true MRAs is that some of them, at least the most vocal ones, have about the same amount of irrational problems with women as a good number of rad fems have with men.

I think gender equality is a very good idea, and women should have the same rights - and responsibilities - as men. And I think that it's great that women's rights have come such a long way. But I draw the line where the idea of gender equality turns itself on its head and openly, and sometimes more tacitly discriminates against men.

But I'm as little a fisherperson as I would accept the label MRA. Both don't accurately represent my actual way of thinking. I'm for true gender equality, and that means rejecting a good number of fisherperson standpoints when they veer into territory where it's no longer just about that, and where I as a lad feel discriminated against. Case in point: being put under a curfew that's ostensibly meant to protect women from rapists, when I would never in a million years have it in me to rape somebody.
>> No. 31822 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:01 pm
31822 spacer
>>31819
But it's men who are assaulting other men. Placing all men under curfew would be doubly effective in that it would both supress the demand for and supply of victims.
>> No. 31823 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:05 pm
31823 spacer
>>31819

How many of these men are being assaulted by women?
>> No. 31824 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:10 pm
31824 spacer
>>31822

Domestic abuse cases the majority of the time the women is the attacker, maybe these men wouldn't need to be out on the street at night if it was safe to go home.
>> No. 31825 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:15 pm
31825 spacer
>>31822
>But it's men who are assaulting other men

Then there should be campaigns telling men not to assault other men.
>> No. 31826 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:26 pm
31826 spacer
>>31825

Are there campaigns telling men not to assault women?
>> No. 31827 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:41 pm
31827 spacer
>>31826
Yes. Issues affecting men, such as the high suicide rate, don't get taken as seriously by society as issues affecting women.
>> No. 31828 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 2:48 pm
31828 spacer
>>31826
I remember one in particular which had a guy with brain damage in it who had been permanently quadraspazzed on a life glug by a single punch and how the guy who did it was in jail.
>> No. 31829 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 3:05 pm
31829 spacer
>>31818
Thinking aloud, is it not possible that you get into a cycle here where if women don't feel safe they're more inclined to support groups that advocate reducing violence against women. But the statements those charities put out about how much violence women experience will make women feel less safe, which will make more people inclined to support those charities, giving them greater resources and influence to highlight the problem, which might well make the problem of violence less of an issue - but by constantly raising awareness it's going to make the perception of the problem (and so the feeling of being unsafe) much greater.

(In the same way that the relationship between fear of crime has very little if any relationship to the actual level of crime being committed.)
>> No. 31830 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 3:13 pm
31830 spacer
>>31829

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
>> No. 31831 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 3:30 pm
31831 spacer
>>31818
>>31819
>I've had this conversation with a friend who's a dyed in the wool fisherperson, and she keeps saying that even if crime numbers are low compared to other countries, women just don't feel safe at night on the streets. But I'm sorry, if crime statistics not only prove Britain as a safe Western developed country to live but also show that men actually become victims of physical violence more than twice as often as women

I reckon you would be accused of gaslighting for saying this. A word that seemed to spring from nowhere into the public discourse a few years back.
>> No. 31832 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 3:58 pm
31832 spacer
I'm a man and I don't feel safe walking home, not everywhere. There are parts of my town I simply wouldn't go at night, places I probably wouldn't even drive through.

That doesn't mean women don't have it worse, though. I think this thread, and any like it, are really arguing two different points that run parallel enough to seem like the same thing - street crime happens, and women are harassed often. Both are real, both can often be linked, but they are two separate things with two separate societal root causes.

I know men and women who have been attacked on the street, I know men and women who have been gravely injured in fights, and I know men and women who have been sexually assaulted. I don't think it happens as often as domestic violence, or road traffic accidents, or suicide, but it's still something that happens often enough that we're all aware of it. And just because I've never been attacked in the street, doesn't mean I'm thick enough to think that means it doesn't happen.

Arguing about the exact degree of violence, about what counts as harassment and what doesn't, about which gender suffers the crime more, is really, really fucking missing the point. We're a country with more surveillance per head than nearly any other, with a reasonably well funded police system, so why do we not feel safer?

Obviously I get that because an attractive white woman died, we're going to be in hysterics about it for a couple of weeks, but it's as good a time as any to examine the violence that can and does happen to all of us.
>> No. 31833 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 5:17 pm
31833 spacer
>>31829

It's mean world syndrome.

If you ask the average person in the street off the top of their head if they think crime of all kinds has risen in the last couple of years, or really if any other marker of a disintegrating society has worsened, you will more than likely get a resounding "yes" from them. Except, that just isn't true. Violent crime is at one of its lowest levels that we've ever seen, just like property theft, juvenile delinquency, or even mass poverty and unemployment.

In fact, many indicators of overall quality of life in Britain are the best they've ever been.

It's a pretty muddy and ugly world that some of these charities operate in. On the one hand, you can't argue against the fact that at least in theory, they are dedicated to respectable causes that deserve support and attention. Women shouldn't have to fear violence, sexual or otherwise. Prostitutes or migrant workers shouldn't be subject to human trafficking. And children are among the weakest members of society, and need society's special protection.

The problem is, if we do a little thought experiment, then if those charities actually succeeded at eliminating all those social ills, then they would suddenly make themselves obsolete. Who needs a charity combatting violence against women, if women no longer experience any violence. And although charities often claim to be non-profit and driven by volunteer work, a good few paychecks still always depend on donations, subsidies, and grants.

And so the only way for a lot of those charities to ensure their own existence is by painting a picture of the particular problem they deal with continuedly getting worse. And they do that either by cooking up dodgy statistics, or by campaigning for changes in the law that make things rape by definition which really shouldn't be, even if they may (or may not) count as a separate offence against a person in their own right.

There's also a lot of ideological underpinning with these women's charities. For a small, but significant and vociferous number of radical fisherpersons, it's a way of channelling their anger against the male gender in general. And so, ideology becomes methodology. Because it's your deeply-held belief that all men are rapists, you do anything you can to influence public opinion so that the rest of the world starts thinking the same.
>> No. 31834 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 5:24 pm
31834 spacer
>>31832
Suicide's much rarer than you seem to think it is.
>> No. 31835 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 5:34 pm
31835 spacer
It's almost as if people feel like crimes that affect people like them are proportionally higher or need to be prioritised more.
>> No. 31836 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 5:46 pm
31836 spacer
>>31834

Leading cause of death under the age of 45.
>> No. 31838 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 11:39 pm
31838 spacer
>>31823

I know you think you're being clever about which demographic does what, here, but you're playing with fire. You really won't like what happens if we bring race into that question.
>> No. 31840 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 1:04 am
31840 spacer
>>31838

You're so close to getting my point.
>> No. 31842 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 2:17 am
31842 spacer
>>31830
Are you really linking to alt-right bollocks in a thread about sexual harassment>
>> No. 31852 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 9:41 am
31852 spacer
>>31840

Perhaps you should directly state the point so that it can be discussed, and to avoid any misinterpretation.
>> No. 31853 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:02 am
31853 spacer
>>31852

You'd like that, wouldn't you. Slut.
>> No. 31856 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 12:11 pm
31856 spacer
>>31842
Is it? I just read the article and it seemed to be a perfectly reasoned musing about how controversy garners attention over more balanced stances.
>> No. 31861 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 1:31 pm
31861 spacer
>>31856
It's easier to dismiss something as 'alt-right' than it is to deconstruct what has actually been said.
>> No. 31862 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 1:34 pm
31862 spacer
>>31856
The author advocates for scientific racism, human biodiversity, inherent gender differences, and various other pseudoscientific bullshit.
>> No. 31868 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 3:12 pm
31868 spacer
>>31862

>inherent gender differences

Not him, and I've got no dog in this fight, but you really believe that inherent gender differences are "pseudoscientific bullshit'?
>> No. 31869 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 3:25 pm
31869 spacer
>>31862
I've skimmed it as it's a surprisingly large article, and couldn't find any of that stuff. Can you point me to the specific statements?
>> No. 31872 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 3:31 pm
31872 spacer
>>31869
"The author advocates for", not "The article advocates for".
>> No. 31873 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 3:48 pm
31873 spacer
>>31872

That's not what I asked you.

Do you believe there are no inherent, gender based differences between men and women?
>> No. 31874 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 3:49 pm
31874 spacer
>>31873

That's not what you asked him either. You asked him "Can you point me to the specific statements?" and I provided you with contextual information that rendered the question irrelevant.
>> No. 31875 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 4:01 pm
31875 spacer
>>31874
That was actually me asking about specifics, not him, or you.

I'm basically suspicious that they're saying not to trust a fair article because they don't like the source.

Also whichever one of us said "inherent gender difference" is pseudoscience, what on earth do you mean by that?
>> No. 31876 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 4:06 pm
31876 spacer

time_cube_graphic.gif
318763187631876
>>31875

Why did he complain about me not answering the question he asked someone else, then?

>I'm basically suspicious that they're saying not to trust a fair article because they don't like the source.
I don't know the source or why the other lad thinks it's all those things, whether or not it is (I have a sneaking suspicion I've seen it slated for being similar things in the past though) but if someone linked to an apparently reasonable argument made by Otis Eugene "Gene" Ray, that would itself be a reason to question how reasonable it really is.
>> No. 31879 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 5:03 pm
31879 spacer
>>31876
You're right, it's fair to consider the context, but if the points and argument are solid, then it's worth looking at? This is moot considering I can't be arsed to read the whole thing.

I'd definitely be loathe to take an argument from Otis Ray at face value, he's obviously quite mental. The earth is clearly hollow.


>> No. 31880 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 5:07 pm
31880 spacer
>>31879
*concave. It's somewhat different.
>> No. 31882 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 5:33 pm
31882 spacer
>>31879
>but if the points and argument are solid, then it's worth looking at?
I'll never know if they are because as far as I'm concerned, they're written by some nutbar so I don't care to find out. He doesn't believe in a concave earth, obviously his reasoning is generally spurious.
>> No. 31884 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 5:51 pm
31884 spacer
>>31875
>I'm basically suspicious that they're saying not to trust a fair article because they don't like the source.
I'm basically suspicious that you think a neoreactionary who thinks there's a biological basis for racism and sexism is capable of writing a "fair" article.
>> No. 31887 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 7:06 pm
31887 spacer

Our Lord and Steven.png
318873188731887
>>31884
You've still not given any direct quote demonstrating your accusations. Why would I just take your word for it? I obviously can't be arsed to read anything he's written, so if you want me to believe something, you can provide a quote.

Either way, a good point is a good point. If you don't trust the source, then it's good to find out *why* that source wanted you to learn that particular point and what it might have intentionally omitted or obfuscated. For that and other reasons, it's useful to bear the source in mind, but ignoring verifiable information because you don't like the source is wilful ignorance.

Now chad up and stop being disingenuous, I'm happy to hear you out if you've got a point to make.
>> No. 31888 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 7:17 pm
31888 spacer
>>31887
>You've still not given any direct quote demonstrating your accusations.
If only there were some way of finding information on the Web. That would be a cool idea, someone could make millions out of it.

>ignoring verifiable information
Yeah, I suspected you might be arguing in bad faith.
>> No. 31889 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 8:18 pm
31889 spacer
I mean, if you've got sone kind of stake in denying that races or sexism have actual biological differences, then I have to assume you're basically the same thing as a flat earther or anti-vaxxer, but woke.
>> No. 31891 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 8:31 pm
31891 spacer
>>31889
>sexism have actual biological differences
The bloody sexisms, there's loads of them these days, the sexisms.

God, fuck off you thick shit.
>> No. 31893 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 9:15 pm
31893 spacer
>>31889

>I mean, if you've got sone kind of stake in denying that races or sexism have actual biological differences, then I have to assume you're basically the same thing as a flat earther or anti-vaxxer


Thank you.

Even if genetic differences between the sexes and between ethnicities are a touchy issue, and acknowledging that they have been used in abundance throughout human history to separate humans with privilege from those who were denied it, you cannot honestly say that they don't exist.

Gender studies, for example, calls the insurmountable heap of evidence from bio and genetic science that men and women are different a "biologism". In other words, they see it as an ideologically motivated determinism that differences between the sexes should exist, when they feel they don't.

Fair enough, but the play rules are still that in order to debunk a scientific theory, even if it's one you so vehemently disagree with, you have to do so by coming up with scientifically solid evidence that debunks the original accepted standard of knowledge thus far.

Gender studies does not do that. And in terms of scientific proof to the contrary, it really always has been, and still is pretty empty handed. Instead, it decries every demand to produce solid, scientifically acceptable evidence for its claims as a hostile attack on itself. And it that sense, gender studies is no better than any garden-variety conspiracy theory.
>> No. 31894 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 9:23 pm
31894 spacer
>>31884
Identifying SSC as neoreactionary is slightly misplaced. (in the sort of way that getting your Stalinists and your Maoists mixed up) He's more of an insufferable rationalist type. If I remember correctly he lives in a polycule, which "actual" neoreactionaries mock him for, and his big thing is "effective altruism" (charity... but ~rational~!) which in theory leads to socially progressive ends, even if in practice and due to what sort of social grouping it's around, it's just Californian ideology nonsense that puts us on the same road to free market phrenology as Nick Land.

The article itself is basically fine. The thing about neoreactionaries, "rationalists" and all that crowd is that they're actually capable of writing some insightful things. They're some of the few people outside an academic concept willing to talk about social signalling, not simply in the sense of using "the shipping forecast" as a quick slur on someone's integrity, but looking at how it can have a systemic effect. In SSC's case this goes as far as the tediously self referential "As I am writing this, I could just be trying to signal that I am very smart and fair...". It's unfortunate that there's nobody on the left doing similar analysis, but that's what your stuck with. Just going "that's neoreactionary, neoreaction is bad, so I won't read any of it" seems like a dangerous mistake when neoreactionaries are (for all their wrongness and insanity) probably the smartest people on the right today and some of the best placed in the disproportionately socially influential tech sector. You've got to know your enemy to fight them - and if your enemy can teach you a few things about society while you're at it, so much the better.
(But don't go overboard, read neoreactionaries in moderation - not because you might become one, but because their chief export is insufferably long and often pointless essays. They're worse than bloody communists.)

Anyway, the article is fine as it goes. No reheated phrenology or any of that sort of thing. A bit insufferably intellectual in tone, but I would highly recommend reading it.
>> No. 31900 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 10:02 pm
31900 spacer

q3389qf97hh31.jpg
319003190031900
>>31894
>polycule

Who keeps inventing all these words and why are they drawing up these absurd trees, isn't sex supposed to be fun?
>> No. 31902 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:00 pm
31902 spacer
>>31893
>cannot honestly say that they don't exist.
We can honestly say they don't exist because science tells us they don't exist. There is no substantive "genetic difference" between races, and the "genetic difference" between men and women is one fucking chromosome. The idea that these somehow account for the different status afforded to them is the same debunked nonsense advanced by the likes of The Bell Curve and James Damore.
>> No. 31904 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:13 pm
31904 spacer

EudW2PZXcAUQbhY.jpg
319043190431904
>>31894
>Identifying SSC as neoreactionary is slightly misplaced
It really isn't. Here he is literally embracing scientific racism.
>> No. 31907 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:39 pm
31907 spacer
>>31902

>the "genetic difference" between men and women is one fucking chromosome

So there is a difference.

How "substantiative" that difference is is beyond a pointless discussion- It's substantiative enough to give one a cock and the other a fanny, and thereby grant humans the ability to reproduce.

Nobody is trying to say men and women are a different species you thick fucking twat.
>> No. 31908 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:45 pm
31908 spacer
>>31907
Apart from John Gray, of course.
>> No. 31909 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:02 am
31909 spacer
>>31907
>So there is a difference.
Nobody is saying there isn't a generic difference. What is being said is that these don't result in any inherent difference that makes men and women more or less suited to particular tasks.

That is Other Place-level shitposting, lad.
>> No. 31910 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:34 am
31910 spacer
>>31909
> What is being said is that these don't result in any inherent difference that makes men and women more or less suited to particular tasks.
What about breastfeeding? Is there any inherit difference that makes one sex more suitable for that task?
>> No. 31911 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:36 am
31911 spacer
How has someone being murdered ended up with me being told I should tell my mates off for looking at a girl's arse? That seems like a valid area for discussion in of itself but I'm not comfortable with the association.
>> No. 31912 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:37 am
31912 spacer
>>31910
>That is Other Place-level shitposting, lad.
>> No. 31913 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:45 am
31913 spacer
>>31910
He's being daft for the sake of it, lad. Go to bed.

>>31911
You ought to have a word with your Mrs, lad. It's not right that she's 'asking' you to police your friends for behaviour she doesn't like.
>> No. 31914 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 1:36 am
31914 spacer
>>31904
Again, to my ears this is like saying "It's okay to call Maoists 'Stalinists' because they both embrace violent revolution".
For my money I think it's still more accurate to call him a "Rationalist", most "Rationalists" I've seen tend towards partaking in playground phrenology anyway.
>> No. 31917 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:02 am
31917 spacer
>>31914
I'm not calling a Maoist Stalinist. I'm saying that this particular so-called Maoist seems to be saying an awful lot of Stalinist things, to the point of telling someone in an email to not reveal that he's actually a Stalinist.
>> No. 31918 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:02 am
31918 spacer
>>31911

Those erotic femdom stories I sometimes read for a guilty wank where it's matriarchal society and all men have to wear chastity cages by law are coming true.
>> No. 31919 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:14 am
31919 spacer
>>31917
When those Stalinist things are things that a lot of Maoists also say it seems more apt to suppose that both are Marxists, or where they differ from Marx, Marxist-Leninist(+/- Maoist)s.

In conclusion, Rationalists are racist.
>> No. 31920 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:25 am
31920 spacer
Women are indistinguishable biologically from men which is why I believe we should remove the outdated sexist segregation in sports.
>> No. 31921 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:31 am
31921 spacer
>>31919
If you want to argue that the person who espouses alt-right positions, advances alt-right arguments, supports and is supported by alt-right types is somehow not alt-right, knock yourself out.
>> No. 31922 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:47 am
31922 spacer
>>31921
I appreciate that dropping the explanatory metaphor for the comedy value of a conclusion that doesn't obviously follow unless you've understood the confusing metaphor perfectly wasn't the best way to convey my point, so I'll come out and say what I was getting at:
In this case "alt right" (or "racist") is analogous to "Marxist". Stalinists and Maoists both tend to be Marxists, Neoreactionaries and Rationalists both tend to be alt right or racist. The advantage of more specific terminology is that it lets you disentangle your Mao from your Rosa Luxemburg and your Hitler from your Moldbug - once you stop doing that the "neo" in "neoreactionary" exists only to waste a few bytes of RAM.
>> No. 31923 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 4:05 am
31923 spacer
>>31922
You say that as if the distinction is somehow important or relevant here.
>> No. 31924 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 4:18 am
31924 spacer
>>31923
When you start saying Stalin is a Maoist because he's saying Marxist things people who have a passing familiarity with the subject matter (and those who go off and skimread to develop their own understanding) might get it into their heads that you have no idea what you're talking about, even if you're broadly correct and simply don't care for the distinction.

Call a spade a spade, a trowel a trowel, and this thread "maintained by Railtrack Plc."
>> No. 31925 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 4:58 am
31925 spacer
>>31902

We can't meaningfully discuss the issue of gender-based violence without acknowledging the huge sex disparity in the capacity for violence - not the propensity towards violent behaviour, but the simple physical ability to effect violence.

Men are much, much stronger than women. The average woman has about half of the upper body strength of the average man; elite female judo players have grip strengths that would put them in the bottom 25% of all men. That statement shouldn't be particularly controversial, but it is.

If we pretend there's no sex difference in strength, then why should women fear violence being inflicted upon them by men? The only logical answer would be that men (or at least some men) are intrinsically monstrous, while women (or at least most women) are so intrinsically virtuous to render them defenceless. This line of reasoning may sound familiar if you've been following the commentosphere over the past few days.

This fact becomes highly relevant when we start looking at domestic violence. There's very strong evidence to show that men are no more likely to initiate violent behaviour in an intimate partner relationship than women, but domestic violence is widely perceived as a gendered issue. Why? Again, we return to sex differences in strength and the denial thereof. Women are just as likely to hit men as vice-versa, but there's a huge asymmetry in the amount of damage that the sexes can inflict on each other.

There's no evidence to support the idea that "toxic masculinity" makes men believe that they have the right to hit their partners, because men aren't actually any more likely to hit their partners than women; domestic violence is at least as prevalent in lesbian relationships as heterosexual relationships. Many fisherperson academics attempt to explain these facts with tenuous arguments about internalised homophobia or the imitation of heteronormative behaviour, but there's a far more straightforward explanation - women aren't inherently less prone to perpetrating violence against their partners, they just tend to lack the physical capacity to inflict serious violent harms on men or to defend themselves against male violence.

If we cherry-pick the truths that we choose to acknowledge, we inevitably end up in a terrible muddle and inevitably degrade our ability to usefully act towards our shared aims. Men aren't monsters, but we are far more dangerous when we choose to behave monstrously for very straightforward biological reasons. All people deserve equal treatment in society, but that aspiration doesn't negate the reality of biological difference; pretending that we're all exactly the same just hampers our ability to work towards a more equal society.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00421-006-0351-1

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1991.71.2.644

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00235103

https://www.jstor.org/stable/584365

https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.5.651

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J155v06n01_11
>> No. 31926 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 8:30 am
31926 spacer
>>31925
>Men aren't monsters, but we are far more dangerous when we choose to behave monstrously for very straightforward biological reasons.

Otherlad here. I agree that there are innate biological differences between men and women at a population level, and I don't think anything I'll say here really diminishes your points, but feel I need to add something: I think physical capacity is only one of the contributing factors to how "monstrous" people can be when they're violent.

I haven't researched this and don't have any hard data, but for what my personal experience is worth, I think 1) willingness to commit violence and 2) capacity to "get away with it" are at least as important as your physical capacity when it comes to the kind of injuries you inflict on someone.

Or to put it more bluntly, the formula for physical capacity can be changed the moment someone picks up a heavy or sharp object, or if certain kinds of violence are accepted as "normal" (e.g. a woman slapping a man in the face). So as a complimentary point, I think it's probably true that our different physical capacities also lead to very strong kinds of social conditioning which determine how men and women express violence. There's a combination of biology and social expectations based on biology at play here.
>> No. 31927 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 8:43 am
31927 spacer

listing.jpg
319273192731927
There's something quite eerie about phone lights at vigils replacing candles and lighters.

Anyway, this thread seems to be well and truly in "All Lives Matter" territory. Not all men are violent or engage in sexual harassment, but there's no way of knowing which ones will and now you can't even trust the police to keep you safe; the theory with Sarah Everard is that copper used his badge to get her in his car.
>> No. 31928 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:01 am
31928 spacer
>>31925
>We can't meaningfully discuss the issue of gender-based violence without acknowledging the huge sex disparity in the capacity for violence
I'm not entirely sure what any of this has to do with gender essentialism.
>> No. 31929 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 10:18 am
31929 spacer
>>31928

There's a difference between essentialism and biological determinism lad, keep up.

I wonder if trans men inherit all the toxic masculinity and become woman beaters when they transition, but still hit like a wet noodle. Or does all the testosterone in their hormone therapy bridge the gap?
>> No. 31930 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 10:38 am
31930 spacer
>>31929
Depends how young they start really. A trans man on T can gain a lot more muscle quickly than a woman, but starting out on it in your early 20s puts you at a big disadvantage and your bones will never be as strong.
>> No. 31931 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 10:46 am
31931 spacer
>>31925
>this fact becomes highly relevant when we start looking at domestic violence. There's very strong evidence to show that men are no more likely to initiate violent behaviour in an intimate partner relationship than women, but domestic violence is widely perceived as a gendered issue.

That is a very weasel word way of saying women beat their partners far more than men do. Which is what the science universally says.
>> No. 31932 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 10:57 am
31932 spacer
On the positive side, the police violence last night has brought some attention to the policing act that Patel's bringing in.
>> No. 31933 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:14 am
31933 spacer
>>31932

I didn't see any police violence. I did see the police arrest a handful of people who were clearly acting in breach of the Coronavirus Act and the Public Order Act. The optics were terrible, but it strikes me as hypocritical that the same people who were decrying the anti-lockdown protests are now decrying the police for enforcing lockdown laws. It all reeks of tribalism over principle.
>> No. 31934 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:20 am
31934 spacer
If we discuss gender differences, one mistake we must not make is to have our cake and eat it too when it comes to painting men as the defective, violence-prone gender.

What I mean is, it seems that in public debate about what it means to be a bloke, oftentimes you see a focus on negative things. Toxic masculinity, an alleged predisposition for violence, the assumption of male privilege, all that kind of thing. So that gender differences become acknowledged just enough to put men in a bad light while at the same time calling women the better gender, but not enough to allow the notion that there are actually things that men do better than women, and which are of value to society.

Toxic masculinity itself is a term invented by fisherpersons, and just for the obvious purpose of denigrating the male gender. While very few talk about toxic femininity. If you argue that harmful behaviours of men should all be subsumed under the umbrella term "toxic masculinity", then the same should go for women who show harmful behaviours. But when was the last time you actually read the words "toxic femininity" in a mainstream blog, magazine, or newspaper article admitting that it even exists.

It's that traditional blind spot many fisherpersons have, that women are inherently good and men are inherently bad, and even if a woman is bad, it's somehow a man's fault.
>> No. 31935 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:25 am
31935 spacer
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/14/sarah-everard-misogyny-men-violence-death-women

>Where are the online resources for boys struggling with low self-esteem and perceived societal expectations?

The thing is, as someone who was an awkward teenlad, pretty much nobody cares. The only place you can go to find any sort of support or camaraderie is online, where you'll find people like you, but more bitter. This is what chronic masturbators are. Maybe we should make a "what can we, as a gender do to help boys and men struggling with low self-esteem and perceived societal expectations" thread on mumsnet.

She ends with
>we need you to talk to your sons. Because in failing the boys of today, we are failing the women of tomorrow.

I'm a little bit worried that Guardian readers trying to talk to their sons about male violence is going to make everything worse. At the very least it's adding fuel to the neurotic teenlad > fully brainwormed internet misogynist pipeline.
>> No. 31937 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:31 am
31937 spacer

_117493708_ibrox_reuters-1.jpg
319373193731937
>>31933
>The optics were terrible

Especially when you compare it with Glasgow last week.
>> No. 31938 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:32 am
31938 spacer
>>31933
Shut the fuck up.
>> No. 31939 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:50 am
31939 spacer
>>31929
>There's a difference between essentialism and biological determinism lad, keep up.
Indeed there is. So why do you keep bringing up the latter?
>> No. 31941 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:30 pm
31941 spacer
>>31888
You made a claim, now back it up. There's no need for this showboating, I'll listen. You'd be better off being cooperative here than assuming bad faith on behalf of others, it gets things moving faster.
>> No. 31942 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:42 pm
31942 spacer
>>31941
>I'll listen
Will you though?

>You'd be better off being cooperative here than assuming bad faith on behalf of others
I'll stop assuming bad faith when you stop demonstrating it.
>> No. 31943 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:47 pm
31943 spacer
>>31942

"I WAS GOING TO INTORODUCE YOU TO MY HOT OLDER BOYFRIEND WHO GOES TO ANOTHER SCHOOL BUT NOW I AM NOT GOING TO BECAUSE YOU ARE SOOOO DISGUSTING"

So you don't have proof then?
>> No. 31944 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:51 pm
31944 spacer
>>31933
>It all reeks of tribalism over principle.

Good luck making this argument when all the press photos consist of attractive middle-upper class white women.
>> No. 31945 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 12:54 pm
31945 spacer
>>31942
Yeah. Sock it to me.
>> No. 31946 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 1:26 pm
31946 spacer
>>31941
>>31943
Scott isn't going to sleep with you, m7.
>> No. 31948 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 2:43 pm
31948 spacer

Untitled.png
319483194831948
>>31944
The more I see the pictures from this the more it looks like a BBC drama.
>> No. 31951 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 2:48 pm
31951 spacer
>>31948

It's helping import the whole "Crisis actor" thing.
>> No. 31952 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:01 pm
31952 spacer
I know we've veered off onto domestic violence rather than sexual harassment here, but I imagine this situation would be exactly the same in reverse if we lived in a mirror universe where women are the ones who are expected to make the first move on men, and therefore the ones effectively made to compete for a mate.

This is all completely primitive monkey behavioural dynamics honestly. We need to be more honest with ourselves, there's no internalised toxic muscularity or patrinormative heterobicamerality or any of that nonsense. It's just that if you want to actually get a bird, as a bloke, you've got to be a bit forward. It really is that simple, you just end up like all those chronic masturbators on the otherplace if you don't.

You can say we have to teach men how to read boundaries better or be more tactful or whatever you like, but it won't do anything. The only thing that will substantially change it is shifting the supply and demand equation of access to pussy.

I think men need to go on sex strike for a year, shift the balance a bit. I know it'll hurt, but it really is for the greater good.
>> No. 31954 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:28 pm
31954 spacer
>>31952

Much as one or two of the things you said are tenable, on the whole, your posts sounds too much like staple MRA argumentation.

Especially

>supply and demand equation of access to pussy

Please don't use any of those words together. There's a whole rabbit hole of sexual market theory attached to that kind of phrasing which you really, really don't want to go down. Not because it would be wholely unreasonable to apply the dynamics of supply and demand to the dating and courtship game, but because it's kind of the favourite topic of a certain segment of MRAs who in reality have nothing but vitriol to add to the debate.
>> No. 31955 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:32 pm
31955 spacer
>>31954

I've never dwelled much on those segments of the internet, it always gave me a kind of complete hopelessness and dread when I ever looked into it. I feel painfully sorry for them.

If I use terminology that sounds like theirs, it is a coincidence. My speculation comes from more or less pure introspection and reflection on life experiences, if often in the bottom of a glass.
>> No. 31956 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:35 pm
31956 spacer
>>31951
I feel like it's not a new phenomenon, you go to a widely popular protest and get yourself arrested with photographers in sight. So long as the protests doesn't pose a threat you can be guaranteed the best shots, an editorial in the paper and all charges either dropped or coming as a slap on the wrist.

It seems a very thin line between making a choreographed stunt for a message and your brand but I can't help but be cynical in these circumstances.
>> No. 31957 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:37 pm
31957 spacer
>>31956
That's not what a crisis actor is.
>> No. 31958 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:50 pm
31958 spacer
>>31951
It's not actually a thing. It's a boogeyman invented by right-wingers to avoid the consequences of their actions.
>> No. 31959 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:52 pm
31959 spacer
>>31955

>If I use terminology that sounds like theirs, it is a coincidence.

That may well be. And there are actually more level-headed non-MRAs in psychology and social sciences who have applied the mechanisms of markets to human sexuality. And in that context, even the word "sexual market value" has its actual place and does not imply, as some MRAs do, that it is something that man-hating menopausal fisherpersons attempt to control.

It's probably a bit like immigration. You can argue to some extent that I'm not racist but the UK can only accept a certain number of immigrants before there will be adverse cultural and economic effects that would be in our interest to prevent as a country. The problem isn't that statement in itself, depending on how you lean, but that you'll have UKIP and the BNP patting you on the shoulder and calling you one of theirs.

If you get what I mean.
>> No. 31960 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 3:58 pm
31960 spacer
>>31958
Yes. That's what I mean. They're doing it more now, this sort of photography encourages them because it looks like a TV show, so they think it's all entirely staged.
>> No. 31961 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 4:04 pm
31961 spacer
This whole "men as a gender" thing is so meaningless. Don't teach women to stay safe, teach men not to harass. What does it even mean?
>> No. 31963 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 4:19 pm
31963 spacer
>>31961

It is framing it as you are blaming the victim rather than the offender which is a fair point except I still have locks on my house and you would think me an idiot if I didn't.
>> No. 31964 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 4:25 pm
31964 spacer
>>31963

I always blame the offender but that doesn't mean that the victim's negligence for their own safety didn't give the offender their opportunity to strike. We don't live in marshmallow land where crime doesn't exist.
>> No. 31967 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 5:31 pm
31967 spacer
>>31964
When your negligence is "going outside at night" drawing attention to it can only be a cunt move. Not having locks on your doors is unreasonable carelessness, not being able to get a job that finishes before the school day is out rather less so.
>> No. 31968 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 6:23 pm
31968 spacer
>>31964

>I always blame the offender but that doesn't mean that the victim's negligence for their own safety didn't give the offender their opportunity to strike.


You're still implying that it's the victim's fault for not being careful enough.

We're not talking about something like taking a swim somewhere that's teeming with sharks. That's your own fault for ignoring the obvious. But if you're saying it's a woman's fault if she gets attacked while walking home at night because she should have known better, then that's not a statement that you are going to make many friends with. Because that's pretty much the same as saying a woman was asking to get raped because she was wearing revealing clothing.
>> No. 31969 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 6:26 pm
31969 spacer
>>31911
>How has someone being murdered ended up with me being told I should tell my mates off for looking at a girl's arse? That seems like a valid area for discussion in of itself but I'm not comfortable with the association.

This is a real problem with the public debate that is happening at the moment. Women know from experience that they are pretty likely to have to deal with some degree of low-level street harassment like cat-calling, persistent unwanted attention etc. There is a truly absurd conflation of this kind of behaviour with violent assault or murder which has now just dominated the press with very little challenge.

If the two were indeed directly linked, you would have to assume that women would get assaulted/murdered at a much higher rate than statistics tell us that they do, I expect. That hasn't stopped every shit opinion writer in the country from strongly implying that if you once had a twat yell "nice tits" at you, you were probably only seconds away from being abducted, raped and murdered. It's not a surprise that large numbers of women are now unironically speaking as if violence against women is somehow more prevalent than violence against men, which is easily proven to be complete nonsense to anybody who bothers to google it.
>> No. 31970 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 6:40 pm
31970 spacer
>>31946
They're not the same poster. And I don't know who Scott is. Why are you obsessed with this person?
>> No. 31971 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 6:49 pm
31971 spacer
>>31970
Presumably Scott is the person who writes Slate Star Codex and they're "obsessed" with him (as in, have mentioned an opinion on him) because someone linked to his website making him relevant.
Just a guess though.
>> No. 31972 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 6:51 pm
31972 spacer
>>31968 - I think opinions like this are quite regressive. They make it incredibly hard to have a conversation about the topic without getting sidetracked by someone tripping you up for not padding every single sentiment with a clarification. Is that your intention?

>You're still implying that it's the victim's fault for not being careful enough.

That's because you've got an absolutist definition of 'fault' though, isn't it? People like to simplify it, but if someone has a choice between two actions, and takes one which they know is more risky, then *they did that with full agency*, and they are responsible for that decision. That doesn't mean one thinks that responsibility has much weight, but it is there.

It's obviously, so so obviously, the fault of the perpetrator. It's so obvious that it often goes unsaid. But that doesn't mean you'd be fucking furious with yourself if you had a choice between taking a safe option and a risky option and that 0.0001% chance manifested in your brutal murder?

Like how do you think the boyfriend feels? Do you think he regrets not staying on the line longer? Do you think Sarah regretted that in her last moments?

>ignoring the obvious

But the obvious is entirely subjective.

> Because that's pretty much the same as saying a woman was asking to get raped because she was wearing revealing clothing.

That's disingenuous. Choice in clothing has no impact on rape rates at all. Marginal precautions, such as have been discussed everywhere recently, can have a genuine impact.

That said, you won't stop that type of nutter from getting you. Even being in permanent mistrust mode won't ensure it. Part and parcel and all that. But that doesn't mean that sometimes it might be the deciding factor.
>> No. 31973 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 6:54 pm
31973 spacer
>>31969

>There is a truly absurd conflation of this kind of behaviour with violent assault or murder which has now just dominated the press with very little challenge.

Indeed, but that's not where all of that started. It sort of has a few of its roots in anti-child abuse advocacy, where nowadays it's commonly-held belief that some paedo inappropriately putting their hand on a kid's knee is as life-changingly traumatising as full-on penetrative arse rape. There's an account by Richard Dawkins from a few years ago where he said he was fondled by a Catholic priest, but apparently it didn't go much further than a bit of touching with his clothes on, and he drew a lot of heat from children's charities for saying that while it left him feeling massively disgusted, it surely wasn't as grave as what some children experienced who had to suffer much more serious sexual abuse. So in essence, while certainly no adult has any business touching a child even in the most superficial kind of way, the idea that there is scope is declared invalid to begin with.

And the same is now apparently increasingly true for abusing an adult woman. I have no doubt that yelling "Oi!! Great tits!!" after a woman can leave her feeling hugely uncomfortable. And rightly so, I can't really imagine why any bloke would think that that is ok. But if you're blurring the lines and trying to remove the distinctions between shouting poor-taste sexually explicit stuff after a lass on the one hand and dismembering or gang raping her in a dark alley on the other hand, then that is just nonsense. Because with that, you're really saying that one equals the other and that somebody who does A just as easily has it in him to do B.
>> No. 31974 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 7:01 pm
31974 spacer
>>31971
Good spot. And people don't usually respond to a request for a source with such argumentativeness, evasion, and transparent attempts to induce frustration unless they have strong feelings on something, which I think falls under 'obsession' in casual use on the internet.
>> No. 31975 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 7:06 pm
31975 spacer
I'm starting to find the assumption that all men are attracted to women to be irritating. I understand it of course, most men are straight, you casually say "Men" when you really mean "Most men" not "all men" and so on. But I'm not straight, I'm gay.
In the nicest way possible: I don't care about women. Not that I treat the women I know socially in a weird way, Not that I don't think harassment against women is terrible and worse than what men get, but it's not like being a straight man where it might be helpful for me to be reminded that I shouldn't stare at a woman's tits. I don't care, I don't like tits. I could be the creepiest guy around and none of this would have anything to do with me because I'd only be interested in being creepy towards other men.
And I don't like the assumption that I should be expected to intervene if another man with sexual preferences that are completely alien to me is acting in an objectionable fashion, just because I happen to be a man and most men are attracted to women. With all reasonable concession to doing the right thing in public, this is none of my business.

I'm sure there's some underlying nugget of misogyny or self-centeredness or borderline chronic masturbator thinking or something else horrible underpinning a lot of these feelings, but still. It's on my mind and I can't exactly say it anywhere else.
>> No. 31976 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 7:34 pm
31976 spacer
>>31975
You can still be gay and look at a pair of boobies.
>> No. 31977 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 8:29 pm
31977 spacer
>>31972
>But that doesn't mean you'd be fucking furious with yourself if you had a choice between taking a safe option and a risky option and that 0.0001% chance manifested in your brutal murder?
What was the "risky option" she took, lad?
>> No. 31978 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 8:33 pm
31978 spacer
>>31974
I like how you're going to absurd lengths to defend an alt-right tosspot but think the other lad is the one who's "obsessed".
>> No. 31979 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 8:37 pm
31979 spacer
>>31978
Someone linked an article
You said the writer was a rotter
I said It seemed like a perfectly reasonable article having only read the article and never heard of them before.

Someone else asked you why you said they were a rotter.

And you got very secretive about revealing why and said asking people to back their point means they don't believe you anyway.

You are right, I also don't believe you, you are an anonymous poster 'your word' has zero credibility, I have no reason to believe you, this isn't Sunday school, I am not going to take anything on faith, I don't get afterlife brownie points for just trusting you, and the more you play coy with evidence, the reasonable it is to assume on the balance of probability there isn't any. So either provide the evidence claimed or I will just assume you to be lying for your own ends.
>> No. 31980 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 8:53 pm
31980 spacer
>>31972
I am not convinced that going outside and winding up raped and murdered is a calculable risk in the majority of cases. It would seem more like fundamental uncertainty.
>> No. 31981 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:00 pm
31981 spacer
>>31975
>>31976
I'm actually fairly sure it's women who do the most pervy glances in actuality. They did an eye tracking experiment a few years back and found that women couldn't keep their glances still no matter the gender. I think I remember that science bloke with the moustache talking about it. I'd post a link but we're not allowed to talk about fun websites.

Men are not only the scapegoats in all this but also the victims. Lock all the women up and throw away the key.
>> No. 31982 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:15 pm
31982 spacer
>>31979
1. Evidence has, in fact, been provided. If you choose to ignore it, that's fine. Just don't ask me to do your research for you.
2. Even if evidence had not been provided, which it has, you could have literally googled the guy's name yesterday and got all the evidence you could ever have wanted. Instead, you apparently wanted some kind of cunt-off, and here we are.
>> No. 31983 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:32 pm
31983 spacer
>>31982

Evidence has been provided, imagine for a second that I don't have an interest in reading through this entire thread again looking for what I might have missed but you know exists, would you like to like to link to the relevant post or repost it to make me feel stupid and prove you right?
>> No. 31984 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:36 pm
31984 spacer

EwbU15PWYAMtILa.jpg
319843198431984
Hmmmm.

https://www.castingnow.co.uk/patsy-stevenson

https://twitter.com/counterfireorg/status/1371053376461541376
>> No. 31985 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:37 pm
31985 spacer
And now the "crisis actor" brainworms have reached here. Well done everyone.
>> No. 31986 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:39 pm
31986 spacer
>>31968

>You're still implying that it's the victim's fault for not being careful enough.

That's because it is. It's also the killers fault for doing it, but it's their fault for not being careful enough.
>> No. 31987 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:42 pm
31987 spacer
>>31983
>imagine for a second that I don't have an interest in reading through this entire thread again
Funnily enough, I don't have an interest in reading through this entire thread again to find it either.

If you want the evidence, it's there for you to find of your own accord. But it looks like you don't actually want it, otherwise you'd have found it yourself already. Which is fine. If you want to be the one wading into a thread about sexual harassment of women defending an alt-right nutjob, you do you.
>> No. 31988 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:43 pm
31988 spacer
>>31984

Don't embarrass yourself, mate.
>> No. 31989 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:47 pm
31989 spacer
>>31982
>>31987
here you go >>31904

Regards: "Call him a rationalist not a neoreactionary, rationalists can be racist too" pedant.
>> No. 31990 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:52 pm
31990 spacer
>>31986
This mode of thought seems like the kind of thing that would include "Pilot decided to fly the plane", "Airline decided to operate flights" and so on in every single air crash investigator's report.
>> No. 31991 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:53 pm
31991 spacer
>>31989

Thanks lad (I think)? What exaclty am I looking at there?
>> No. 31992 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 9:54 pm
31992 spacer
>>31985

we did it rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk!
>> No. 31993 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 10:55 pm
31993 spacer
>>31982
For Meghan's sake, is this it? It turns out I missed the fucking quote! I didn't see that the image posted in >>31904, which is apparently your source. You were talking to several different people and didn't clock it, instead readily assuming that obviously this board is full of nazis to whom you must direct your ire. Good job lad. Good use of time for both of us.
>> No. 31994 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:18 pm
31994 spacer
>>31993
>It turns out I missed the fucking quote!
Like I said, you could have just fucking googled it rather than spend however many hours demanding other people do the work for you.

Have you done that yet?
>> No. 31995 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:30 pm
31995 spacer

educate.png
319953199531995
>>31994
>> No. 31996 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:31 pm
31996 spacer
You pair have made me a misandrist.
>> No. 31997 Anonymous
14th March 2021
Sunday 11:45 pm
31997 spacer
>>31994
No, I read the attached image and I agree that he's a dubious source with a relatively clear agenda.
>31996
>You pair have made me a misandrist.

There's absolutely no way that someone can *make* you a misandrist, you were clearly already violently frothing with militance, and dedicating your existence to the eradication of the male race. You are using this flimsy pretext to reveal what you've always known. It's obviously not the case that external influences can provoke a dim view by being intolerable arseholes and relentless derailing the topic. It's you, not me. It's never been me.

That said, I do think that this kind of dialogue drives more polarity than any single Murdoch publication.
>> No. 31998 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 3:14 am
31998 spacer
>>31997

>That said, I do think that this kind of dialogue drives more polarity than any single Murdoch publication.

I think it's largely the same sorts of people with the same motives behind both, they only appear superficially different on the surface.
>> No. 31999 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:09 am
31999 spacer
The only reason this news story gained traction and there is protest is that women were bored at home with lockdown.

This is the national equivalent of your girlfriend picking a fight with you because it's a rainy day.
>> No. 32000 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 7:14 am
32000 spacer
>>31999
It's gained so much media interest because when was the last time a copper kidnapped and murdered someone? It's also affected lots of women because they feel it could have easily been them; she was just an ordinary woman walking down the street.
>> No. 32001 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:05 am
32001 spacer
>>32000

It gained attention before it was known it was a copper. So that is entirely a... cop out of a reason.

No this is like when your girlfriend has a go at you because the flat is messy. The flat was always just as messy and she was always complicit in that, the difference is she is frustrated she has time on her hands and requires an outlet, so even if the house is a bit messy and the washing hasn't been done which are valid points that isnt the real reason she is pissed off at you (and God help you if you point out in an attempt for balance the shower is clogged with her hair and half empty dozen variants of conditioner) it was never really about the clutter on the coffee table.

It is no coincidence that there was mass social media activism about black lives matter about this point into lockdown previously. With equally absurd level of knives out on social media.

You can argue violence is wrong all you want but the reality is these people wouldn't give a shit if they weren't already pissed off and looking for some righteous indignation, even if no one would ever admit it
>> No. 32002 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:06 am
32002 spacer
>>32000
Not to mention the whole "government on the verge of passing a bill to criminalise protest" thing.
>> No. 32003 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:17 am
32003 spacer
>>32001

Women are complicit in their own murders?

For walking home after 9pm?
>> No. 32004 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:23 am
32004 spacer
>>32003
I think it's been well established by now that this place is a bit backwards when it comes to attitudes towards women.
>> No. 32005 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:29 am
32005 spacer
>>32003

Not at all. But they usually don't lose their collective minds because someone else got murdered once. No one is arguing murder isnt wrong babe, but I've had a hard day and I just want to relax, I can't prevent all crime from existing right now.
>> No. 32006 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:55 am
32006 spacer
>>32003

Also bonus follow up point if you can find an actual solution to this problem that isn't just appeasement of a knee jerk reaction that is unnecessarily heavy handed you get 10 points.

Otherwise I get to hand wave this as mass hysteria.
>> No. 32007 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:04 am
32007 spacer
>>32005

People ALWAYS lose their shit when attractive white women get killed. People forget quickly but it always happens.

>>32006

Just because I don't know the solution, doesn't mean there can't be one. And people aren't protesting my failure to keep women safe, thats on the Met.
>> No. 32008 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:42 am
32008 spacer
>>31977
>What was the "risky option" she took, lad?

We're speaking relativistically here, as regards safe/risky. Staying on the phone to partner an extra minute would be safer than hanging up, for example. This is all incredibly marginal stuff.

However, speaking specifically, if she had remained on the phone to her partner/her partner had remained on with her, do you think things would have turned out the exact same?

>>32003
Complicity is not the right concept here. You're talking about agency. These people have agency in their decisions, it's just that there's absolutely no way you'd reasonably expect these decisions to have outcomes of such weight.

How do you think the boyfriend feels about ending the phone conversation? He was complicit in that, it's just there's absolutely no way that you'd ever expect that action to have the result it did. Doesn't mean he didn't have agency, just that exercising his agency had mad results.

>>32007
Had a look at missing people statistics the other day. I could only find for the whole of the UK at a glance, but you when you cut it down, factor in the 80% that are found within 24 hours, very very rough maths basically, there's still over 10,000 a year missing in London.

So what happens with them? Do we just never hear about them?
>> No. 32009 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:47 am
32009 Pterodactyl Theory - Part and Parcel
Let's imagine that all big cities have a sort of large, vicious Pterodactyl flying overhead. It likes people of smaller stature, and once it grabs you, there's nothing you can do. The chances of it coming down and grabbing you, as an individual, are infinitesimally small, but if it happens then you will certainly die a horrible death.

However, the Pterodactyl doesn't like to be seen doing this. It doesn't like lights, it gets vexed by the buzzing of mobiles, and if you pull back it's little fingers while it's choking you, it might actually drop you, as I learned today. It may or may not see gender, I don't know yet. Mainly what it sees is vulnerability.

Now if this beast is flying around, and we can't reasonably stop it as we don't know where the nest is, what's the solution? It's a vicious wild animal who is much stronger than its victims, and without burning down the entire city, we will never stop it.

So I need to accept that getting eaten by Pterodactyls is a risk of my existence (in this city at least), however I also need to be aware of the things that may reduce that risk, and employ them at my own volition. And if I choose not to, that's my problem, and my 'fault'. But that doesn't mean I did anything wrong.

I'm beginning to think our language isn't developed enough to have these conversations, all this faffing with responsibility/fault/complicity/agency etc.
>> No. 32010 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:50 am
32010 spacer
>>32007
>People ALWAYS lose their shit when attractive white women get killed. People forget quickly but it always happens.
Bad toupee fallacy, they get murdered, just the media usually has something more meaningful to talk about. This is prime silly season shit because there is fuck all else to report on.

>Just because I don't know the solution, doesn't mean there can't be one.
This statement is so the mantra of the ignorant masses, as always the sentiment is good I’ll say that but, the logic is fuckwitted; no one needed an addition inspiration to stop crime.
What do you expect to happen? That someone is inspired by this to create a magic bullet to prevent crime from ever happening, that no one had thought of before? The best minds in society have been trying to prevent crime from happing since the dawn of civilization but what was really need was bunch of middle class women declaring that murder is bad and they would like it not to happen, that was not the one thing standing between us and utopia.
No there is not a solution to stop murder from ever happening.

The only novelty here from the usual history repeating is since it was a copper we might not get the standard response of more police funding and "[inset name]'s law" to erode civil liberties, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
>> No. 32011 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 10:11 am
32011 spacer
>>32010
>we might not get the standard response of more police funding and "[inset name]'s law" to erode civil liberties, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
We've got the Policing bill being checked for amendments today how are you all still unaware of this?
>> No. 32012 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 10:18 am
32012 spacer
>>32011

I consider this kind of newy to be vapid noise not worthy of attention if that wasn't apparent from the nature of my post.
>> No. 32013 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 10:22 am
32013 spacer
>>32012

That's pretty fucking stupid of you.
>> No. 32014 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:15 am
32014 spacer
>>32013

Is it? Tonight on national news we live in a chaotic universe where things beyond our control happen, but first water is wet and cows go moo.
>> No. 32015 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:18 am
32015 spacer
>>32014
>cows go moo

WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY?
>> No. 32016 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:18 am
32016 spacer
>>32014

If laws with a tangible impact on people's lives and the functioning of our country aren't worthy of your attention but a debate on hypothetical civilisations and pterodactyls as metaphor for rape are, perhaps you'd be happier on a different sort of forum? A dinosaur-themed roblox discord, perhaps?
>> No. 32017 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:22 am
32017 spacer
>>32016
> A dinosaur-themed roblox discord, perhaps?
link?
>> No. 32018 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:25 am
32018 spacer
>>32017
https://discord.com/invite/xYs8pVK
>> No. 32019 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:44 am
32019 spacer
>>32016

Did you know they make new laws everyday? Sounds crazy but it is true!
>> No. 32020 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:47 am
32020 spacer
>>32019

You are genuinely fucking retarded and I despair for you.
>> No. 32021 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:56 am
32021 spacer
>>32019
>>32020
The return of SearchStormfag?
>> No. 32022 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:17 pm
32022 spacer
>>32016
>>32017
>>32018

This feels like a fake conversation for grass roots marketing.
>> No. 32023 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:21 pm
32023 spacer
>>32022

I think you mean astroturfing, grass didn't appear until after the dinosaurs.
>> No. 32024 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:24 pm
32024 spacer
I'm on the side of the lad who thinks the new policing law is important. I sympathise that with the way the media is controlled and run in this country (not Jews) it's difficult to recognise what you should be paying attention to, but you have to see through the wood for the pterodactyls.
>> No. 32025 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:26 pm
32025 spacer
>>32020

No I am super serious. I know the news doesn't report on all of them but they have this building called parliament and basically all they do is talk about making them. That and imply their esteemed colleague across the aisle is a cunt.
>> No. 32026 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:28 pm
32026 spacer
>>32023

Wait so now there is space grass too?
>> No. 32027 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:41 pm
32027 spacer
>>32009

The problem with your razor-sharp analogy is that what is happening now is that all men are being called potential pterodactyls.

What still infinitely boils my piss is that some rad fems now call for a blanket nightly curfew for all men. You are making one-half of the population pay for the wrongdoings of not even a handful. You wouldn't do this with any other subgroup of the general population. You wouldn't tell all Mideasterners to be home by dinner because some of them are a bit bombey-daft militant wogy. On the contrary, governments fall over themselves to not seem xenophobic for scrutinising brown people too much. But one man commits a horrific act of violence and murder that is, granted, impossible not to condemn, and out come all the old battle cries again of all men being rapists.

I actually support a temporary nightly curfew for somebody who has committed a violent offence, not necessarily just against women. Make it part of their probation requirements that they have to be home by 7pm or something. Probation laws in Britain already allow for this. And then lift it again when they've shown that they're a reformed individual who can be trusted not to reoffend. But a blanket, unconditional curfew imposed on all men with complete disregard of whether a man is a danger to others, or if he's part of the 99.9 percent of the male population who aren't, is complete sexism.
>> No. 32028 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:43 pm
32028 spacer
>>32027
>What still infinitely boils my piss is that some rad fems now call for a blanket nightly curfew for all men. You are making one-half of the population pay for the wrongdoings of not even a handful. You wouldn't do this with any other subgroup of the general population.

It was said tongue in cheek because of women being told to stay at home to be safe.
>> No. 32029 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:47 pm
32029 spacer
>>32025
I'm not sure why you seem to think the problem here is laws being made in general.

>>32028
The first mention of it is here >>31789
>This seems to have sailed over a lot of people's heads, but she was quite clearly taking the piss out of the police telling women to stay at home to protect themselves.
and still it went over the heads of posters responding to it: >>31791
>> No. 32030 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:50 pm
32030 spacer
>>32028
Poe's law, that and Jenny Jones doesn't have much in the way of intonation. Obviously it wasn't a serious suggestion, and obviously it won't happen, and obviously it was said to highlight the absurdity of idea of curfewing women. But she could have been a bit clearer, because obviously a lot of people have taken it at face value.

I think the lesson is that it might not be the best time to make facetious points in Parliament in the days after a girl has gone missing.
>> No. 32031 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:56 pm
32031 spacer
>>32028

>It was said tongue in cheek because of women being told to stay at home to be safe.

Unfortunately, no, it wasn't. At least not by everybody.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sarah-everard-men-curfew-green-party-peer-b1816267.html

>A Green Party peer has suggested a 6pm curfew for men following the disappearance and suspected murder of Sarah Everard.

>Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb argued the move would “make women a lot safer” and reduce “discrimination of all kinds”.

>Speaking in the House of Lords during a debate on the Domestic Abuse Bill, she said: “In the week that Sarah Everard was abducted, and we suppose killed because remains have been found in a woodland in Kent, I would argue that at the next opportunity for any bill that’s appropriate I might actually put in an amendment to create a curfew for men on the streets after 6pm, which I feel would make women a lot safer and discrimination of all kinds would be lessened.”

It's only discrimination when men do it, eh? You want to treat half the population as criminals, potential or otherwise, and then get your knickers in a twist when you receive a "deluge of misogynistic emails and tweets"?

It seems literally anybody can get a peerage these days.
>> No. 32032 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 12:56 pm
32032 spacer
>>32027
>The problem with your razor-sharp analogy is that what is happening now is that all men are being called potential pterodactyls.

Razor sharp, like the tooth of a pterosaur? Interesting.

I am curious though, other than being very simplistic, what's the problem with the analogy? I suppose I could have used Werewolves or Vampires instead, that would allow them to take on human form.

Ultimately, many people are being accused of being Pterodactyls when we know for a fact that very, very few Pterodactyls exist.

>You are making one-half of the population pay for the wrongdoings of not even a handful.

Exactly, but you're ignoring that it was 'the patriarchy' who originally suggested it, so the radfems are kind of just responding in kind. Hence why it was spun around to curfew men rather than women, because that's the exact point Baroness Jones was clumsily making.

Nightly curfew sounds better than prison. If it helps people resocialise, then I'm all for it.
>> No. 32035 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 2:23 pm
32035 spacer
>>32032

>I am curious though, other than being very simplistic, what's the problem with the analogy?

There's nothing wrong with your analogy, it's actually a good one.

As I said, the only problem is that it's not where the public debate is at currently. One sudden, isolated pterosaur attack is being treated as if they're now going to swoop down and kill every single one of us.
>> No. 32037 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 2:28 pm
32037 spacer
>>32035
>As I said, the only problem is that it's not where the public debate is at currently.
It's really not. Right now the public debate is about the policing bill. Both the Leave and Remain campaigns signed a joint letter about it. Starmer was forced into a U-turn from abstaining to setting the whips to vote against it. It's on a number of news channels, various Tory politicians have gone on TV to defend it. You seem to be completely detached from reality.
>> No. 32041 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 3:08 pm
32041 spacer
>>32037
> It's on a number of news channels, various Tory politicians have gone on TV to defend it
I, for one, don't even own a television.
>> No. 32042 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 3:17 pm
32042 spacer
>>32041
Nor do I, what does that have to do with it?
>> No. 32045 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 3:39 pm
32045 spacer
>>32041
How smug did you feel when you were typing that out?
>> No. 32046 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 3:46 pm
32046 spacer
>>32008
>Staying on the phone to partner an extra minute would be safer than hanging up, for example
Ah, but what if she had a PAYG phone? An extra £1 spent to stay on the phone means an extra £1 not available to take the bus home another day, a pretty risky option. Then you get away from not being murdered into other responsibilities - does she not have a responsibility to manage her money? Was not being able to eat not a foreseeable consequence of running up the phone bill out of fear of being attacked?
Or what if the thing that draws the attention of an attacker in the first place is overhearing someone on the phone, looking over and seeing they're alone? Where do you compute the relative risk of being undetected (but unassisted if attacked) versus being detected (but a less attractive target for attack)? Is there a big hydraulic machine like that economist had?

The absolute explosion of possibilities makes any attempt to assign risk values to this sort of thing impossible.

>>32009
Assigning fault is completely redundant in this scheme. You can put the practical measures out there without any notion of fault for failing to use them.
It's pretty common in air accident reports to say "This part of the crew's behaviour could've been improved on, but the accident was caused by something completely different"

Perhaps because it's a system designed to prevent the recurrence of accidents rather than just to chuck around discourse, there's a much more reasonable standard of responsibility applied. One that recognises that people have limitations, face tradeoffs, and fly into the face of basic uncertainty without being able to re-do their actions with the benefit of hindsight.
>> No. 32047 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 3:48 pm
32047 spacer
>>32010

>no one needed an addition inspiration to stop crime.

She was murdered by a police officer.
>> No. 32050 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 4:10 pm
32050 spacer
>>32027
>The problem with your razor-sharp analogy is that what is happening now is that all men are being called potential pterodactyls.
I'm not sure why you think it's a problem. That part of the analogy is demonstrably correct. Surely the problem with the analogy is the part where he suggests that people should just accept the risk of a pterodactyl attack as part of the cost of living.

>You wouldn't do this with any other subgroup of the general population.
He says, in the middle of a national lockdown where anyone who coughs is put under house arrest.

>But one man commits a horrific act of violence and murder
But it isn't just one man, is it? I mean, if it was he'd be the most prolific offender in history.
>> No. 32051 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 4:15 pm
32051 spacer
All I know is that the #CurfewForAllMen hashtag has raised awareness for the issue, which is good.
What's bad is how radical fisherpersons have latched onto it and turned it into a massive crusade as is their wont.
>> No. 32054 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 4:22 pm
32054 spacer
>>32051
It isn't trending.
>> No. 32056 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 4:30 pm
32056 spacer
>>32054
Not anymore but something similar was.
It is mental how quickly the internet moves nowadays.
>> No. 32058 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 4:55 pm
32058 spacer
>>31990

A lot of plane crashes are caused because a pilot decided to fly the plane when it wasn't safe to do so, or because an airline decided to operate flights when it wasn't safe to do so.
>> No. 32059 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:03 pm
32059 spacer
>>32058

They're really not. It's exceedingly rare for pilots (there are two, don't forget) to fly with a known safety issue, and even rarer still for an airline to decide to "operate an unsafe flight". The entire industry is set up to prevent exactly those things. A pilot "deciding" to fly an unsafe plane is just a suicide attempt, quite literally.

Not sure what impact this has on your clever analogy.
>> No. 32061 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:17 pm
32061 spacer
>>32050
>Surely the problem with the analogy is the part where he suggests that people should just accept the risk of a pterodactyl attack as part of the cost of living.

Do you accept that you may just drop dead from any number of causes, many entirely unpredictable or unpreventable, as a condition of your being alive?

Aneurysm, pterodactyl, or fragment of meteor going in your ear hole. Presumably you would accept 1 and 3 and not 2, issue of existence notwithstanding?

>>32056
I find it very odd remembering a time when /*/ wasn't the default board through necessity. I wonder much has traffic dropped over the past 10 years.

>>32059
Still happens though, see Kobe. Though I suppose you'd sub 'airline' for 'Kobe' there.
>> No. 32062 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:25 pm
32062 spacer
>>32061
>Do you accept that you may just drop dead from any number of causes, many entirely unpredictable or unpreventable, as a condition of your being alive?
I'm not really sure what relevance this has to women being harassed, beaten, raped and murdered.
>> No. 32063 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:31 pm
32063 spacer
>>32059

It's not my clever analogy but whatever, there are hundreds and hundreds of examples of catastrophes caused by poor maintanance, upkeep raining, bad CRM, pilot fatigue and unsafe decisions taken on by a pilot.
>> No. 32064 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:33 pm
32064 spacer
>>32058
Very true, but you're sidestepping the point by your reliance on times when it's known not to be safe rather than the fact that there's always a risk.
Think of the Concorde crash. It would be utterly redundant to include a paragraph detailing how the pilots were partly to blame for the crash because they decided to try and fly the plane that day, knowing that there's a risk of a plane crashing when you fly it. But we wouldn't be here using it as an analogy now if they'd decided not to take that risk and instead walked off and just left the plane pilotless at the gate in an act of unprecedented and unjustified unreasonableness given the information available to them at the time.
>> No. 32065 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 5:41 pm
32065 spacer
>>32064

It seems to me you've got it backwards here, because walking alone in dark city streets seems to me to be obviously dangerous behaviour and carries a high risk to becoming a victim of crime. If the Concorde had been a rusting shitbucket it wouldn't have been unreasonable to refuse to fly it.
>> No. 32068 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 6:07 pm
32068 spacer
>>32065
Now you're moving to a standard based on perceived risk rather than blaming people for taking any risk at all.
Flip the thing around: What percentage of lone walks through dark city streets do you think end in tragedy? It's all well and good saying it's ten thousand times more dangerous than doing the same journey in the daylight, but the number will still be tiny because a lot of people walk alone in cities at night.

Put it another way - would you refuse to get into a car under any circumstances because they're actually quite dangerous, even though this refusal can be very inconvenient?
>> No. 32071 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 6:18 pm
32071 spacer
>>32068

No I wouldn't, but not would I insist that it's my god-given right to be able to ride in a car and never run the risk of a crash in it and to a person who would make such an argument, I'd say that the only way to never risk a crash in a car is to never get in one.
>> No. 32073 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 6:23 pm
32073 spacer
Going to be very interesting hearing what this copper has to say for himself.
I have no idea how a copper can even go about killing someone, it boggles the mind quite honestly.
Do you think it was something along the lines of "Why are you outside, there's a lockdown, right here's a fine, stop getting so uppity, right, that's it, you're under arrest, OK, that's it! *wack*" sort of thing? I know it's not pleasant to think about but what the fuck could the chain of events leading up to this be?
There seems to also be the assumption that she was raped, I'm not entirely convinced that she was although I'm probably wrong.
>> No. 32074 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 6:27 pm
32074 spacer

Don't say it won't ever happen.png
320743207432074
>I'm not really sure what relevance this has to women being harassed, beaten, raped and murdered.

Because it's easy to say "This is bad", but what kind of workable solution is there that prevents this without vastly restricting freedoms and invading privacy?

How do you prevent these one in a million people from suddenly just killing someone without curtailing the freedoms of the society, or making it a worse place to live for everyone?

In this instance, the police could/should have acted on the flashing reports, thereby preventing this entire situation. But that's not the case every time.

If we believe that it's victim blaming, or attributing fault to victims, to say they could have done anything about it, then they couldn't have done anything about it (the police could, the government could, but not them). So if there's nothing they could have done about it by the individual, it's basically another cause of random death - you can't control other people so why is being randomly murdered any different than being clocked by a meteor the size of a chihuahua's head?
>> No. 32075 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 6:46 pm
32075 spacer
>>32074

>How do you prevent these one in a million people from suddenly just killing someone without curtailing the freedoms of the society, or making it a worse place to live for everyone?

If we look at our legal system, we've pretty much answered that, in that it's generally presumed that the individual is innocent until proven guilty, and you are free to do whatever you want, within the law, without the government and authorities being allowed to suspect that you're a wrongun. On a level of laws, courts, sentencing and policing, you are by and large only treated differently if you have given them enough reason to believe that you are a threat to other people's wellbeing.

One of the big fallacies is still that laws deter crime. Although certainly many people will choose not to do something because it's illegal, there are still more than enough who will just not give a fuck. Especially when you get into the realm of sexually motivated crimes. Somebody who is fucked up enough that he has it in him to attack, rape, possibly murder women for sexual gratification cannot be reasoned with the same way that a lot of people choose to obey the speed limit because they don't want to pay a fine. Sexual perversion runs much deeper than that, and somebody who goes around raping women will not really stop and take a good look at himself just because you raise the prison sentence for rape to 20 or 25 years.

Laws are there to punish offences, not to prevent them. At least not 100 percent. And so the only thing you can do if you don't want to hold the rest of the population hostage is that you pick up the pieces after a corpse turns up.
>> No. 32076 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:05 pm
32076 spacer
>>32074
>Because it's easy to say "This is bad", but what kind of workable solution is there that prevents this without vastly restricting freedoms and invading privacy?
Easy. Men need to stop being insufferable shitweasels when people suggest that maybe if they treated women with some fucking dignity they wouldn't have to be constantly watching their backs.

It's not rocket science. Just fucking pay attention.
>> No. 32078 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:39 pm
32078 spacer
>>32076
Can you kindly take your hysterical reductionism back to rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk? That's not an answer, you're just angry at the question.
>> No. 32079 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:40 pm
32079 spacer
>>32076
>shitweasels

Why do people do this, just come out with the most lazy and inoffensive swear words possible to emphasise whatever lame point they're making about how they pretend to be friends with women because they might shag 'em if they're pissed and desperate.

It's like watching the the beauty of English swearing die. You really might as well remove the swear, it's better even because at least then you're calling someone a weasel.
>> No. 32080 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:47 pm
32080 spacer
>>32079

Its because they are cunts.
>> No. 32081 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:47 pm
32081 spacer
>>32078
It is an answer, you're just offended at being called out on it.
>> No. 32082 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 8:50 pm
32082 spacer
>>32076
Neither way of reading this for the more severe offenses is very helpful. One is tautological - if literally all men behaved well then women wouldn't have to watch their backs. All well and good, but there's no mechanism on earth that can make that happen. The problem with murderers and rapists is that they're not going to follow a politely worded directive from the Minister for Women and Equalities.
The other is just a bit inane - if men stopped their inappropriate catcalling and so on then women wouldn't have to think about it so much, so they could stop watching their backs. (But would keep occasionally getting murdered and raped, because again - the murderers and rapists aren't going to take the direction.)

It sort of feels like one of those things where the logic is kept fuzzy because making the connection explicit makes it harder to use the event to achieve some kind of change. If you say "Well we can't do anything about the rapist murderers, but maybe this high profile rape and murder is a good opportunity for men who aren't murdering rapists to think how they can treat women like human beings in general" you sort of slide the rape and murder under the carpet and everyone loses interest because that was the shocking bit. So you've got to fuzz it up and go "No more rape and murder - stop catcalling now!" even though the connection between the two is tenuous, hopefully leveraging the high profile problem you don't know how to solve to get more attention for the one you can solve.

(A similar sort of situation would be when a murder draws the attention of a majority to the poor living conditions in a certain area of the country or among a certain minority group. You get a sort of "Well, we should fix that!" effect even if the murder in question wasn't particularly poverty related.)
>> No. 32083 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:00 pm
32083 spacer
>>32082
So what you're saying is that women should just accept that they'll always have to do risk assessments and threat modelling on literally everything they do?
>> No. 32084 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:04 pm
32084 spacer
>>32083
I'm afraid that's a fate I would wish only on you, illiteratelad.
>> No. 32085 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:05 pm
32085 spacer
>>32082
>even though the connection between the two is tenuous, hopefully leveraging the high profile problem you don't know how to solve to get more attention for the one you can solve.

Fair point. I suppose that sounds a bit like how slacktivists might justify themselves as well. It's hard to call out because it obviously comes from a good place, but it's basically ineffective and often counterproductive. Nothing more permanent than a temporary solution etc.

It seems apparent there are no easy answers, at least none that have been brought to the table. Is it that bad to just accept that you can just randomly die horribly for nothing? Is it worse if that's at the hands of a violent psycho or some random act of god?

I just can't see any solution that doesn't enshrine a police state.

>>32081
Then it was a crap one, >>32082 was a good one though. You could try answering like that if you want people to listen to you. Why don't you try typing a response like that?
>> No. 32086 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:11 pm
32086 spacer
>>32083
Why do you keep trying to put words in peoples mouths instead of actually engaging with them? That said, we all do risk assessment and threat modelling constantly. You just might not notice it, because of how many risks you take. Risk/reward is a core aspect of decision making. So what's your point, the degree to which it might be expected, or dare I say required?
>> No. 32088 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:29 pm
32088 spacer
>>32086
>That said, we all do risk assessment and threat modelling constantly.
We really don't to anywhere near the same extent, and I think you already know this.
>> No. 32090 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 9:50 pm
32090 spacer
>>32085
>Then it was a crap one, >>32082 was a good one though.
No, it was just the one you didn't want to hear.

>You could try answering like that if you want people to listen to you.
Well why didn't you say so earlier? If I'd known that was the case I'd have started posting victim-blaming polite nonsense earlier.

>Why don't you try typing a response like that?
Mostly because I'm not a fucking rape apologist who accepts the continual abuse of women as some kind of inevitable fact of life. This state of affairs didn't just happen. We've consciously created it over centuries. We can also unmake it, but that means accepting difficult truths like the fact that it's the result of constant normalisation of the sexualisation of women. But you don't want to hear that. You want to hear long, inoffensive answers about how it's not all men and it's a complex problem and there's very little we can do as individuals. You don't want to accept that you're part of the problem.

I'm not here to make your feel good about yourself or part you on the head. I'm telling you to get over yourselves and start being honest about the problem. If you don't want to hear that, fine, but maybe this isn't the thread for you.
>> No. 32093 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 10:31 pm
32093 spacer
>Well why didn't you say so earlier? If I'd known that was the case I'd have started posting victim-blaming polite nonsense earlier.
It's the tone, not the content, you dweeb. I'm obviously up my own arse enough to enjoy navel gazing, so it's pretty easy to get me to change my mind if you approach me on that level. If you keep heckling then it just makes me more likely to snap at you, thereby achieving...what? I feel bad, you feel like you've proven something? What's the goal with that?

Also if this is andromache then you owe me a tenner.
>> No. 32094 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 10:37 pm
32094 spacer
>>32093
>It's the tone, not the content, you dweeb.
I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt. I'll try and present the issue of rampant bint-hating and male violence in a way that doesn't threaten your ego from now on.
>> No. 32098 Anonymous
15th March 2021
Monday 11:08 pm
32098 spacer
>>32094
It is a tragedy that so many innocent women are the victims of violence while your far more deserving male arse remains unkicked.
>> No. 32102 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:12 am
32102 spacer
>>32090
Frothing at the mouth is only wasting your own time. You can have a discussion if you want or you can keep typing angry words.
>> No. 32104 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 3:08 am
32104 spacer
>>32083

I'm sorry to have to let you know, but there are people who enjoy hurting other people. We call them "criminals" and they don't seem to go away.
>> No. 32105 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 3:12 am
32105 spacer
>>32071

Listen to yourself. You're mocking women for wanting to walk around at 11pm. This is why people are saying to give men a curfew, it's to wind people like you up.
>> No. 32109 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 6:23 am
32109 spacer
>>32079
There's been a few articles over the years on how words like cockwomble are used by unimaginative twats.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qkmpyx/how-twitter-ruined-swearing

https://www.esquire.com/uk/life/a22747750/cockwomble-there-is-a-crisis-in-british-swearing/

>>32105
This thread has been a festering turd almost from start to finish, which isn't entirely surprising given the longstanding issue on this site that some posters have with women.
>> No. 32111 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 7:36 am
32111 spacer
>>32090

>This state of affairs didn't just happen.

About 1% of the population are psychopaths. These people are neurologically incapable of experiencing empathy or guilt like the rest of us - they can just turn it on and off as it suits them. They do whatever they like and they are totally indifferent to how their actions affect other people. About another 2.5% have Cluster B personality disorders - incurable and pervasive psychiatric conditions that make them much more likely to behave antisocially.

What are we supposed to do with psychopaths? We can't appeal to their better nature, because they don't have one. Teaching them to empathise only makes them more dangerous, because they don't develop a robust sense of guilt but do become more competent at manipulating people. They do respond to carrot-and-stick incentives, but unless we have a panopticon society we can't totally eliminate situations where they believe that they can get away with behaving antisocially.

Seriously, what do we do with these people? It's all well and good to hand-wave about rape culture, but most serious violent and sexual offences are committed by people who don't care about right and wrong and cannot be made to care.
>> No. 32112 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 8:26 am
32112 spacer
>>32109
>This thread has been a festering turd almost from start to finish, which isn't entirely surprising given the longstanding issue on this site that some posters have with women.

The posts in this thread got gradually stupider as the conversation pushed into more rhetorical and emotional point-scoring territory, and some people flat out refused to make posts of any higher effort than "look it up yourself" and "bad men are like pterodactyls".

I don't think it's wrong to question study methods, discussing how to interpret results, asking whether the definitions are fit for purpose or whether they relate to other topics (there's been a series of iffy connections between sexual harassment, domestic violence, and the recent highly reported murder, despite all potentially having quite different factors at play), and even wondering why the story is being presented above other topics in media at all.

Honestly, I was very surprised to learn that the recent murder displaced a lot of coverage about the Policing Bill. I say this with every respect to the person who was killed, but it is plausible that stories like the OP are to open up discussions about gendered violence when we could just as well be talking about abuse of police power -- the story can be presented in multiple ways, and there seems to have been a concerted choice to go with the former.
>> No. 32114 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 8:39 am
32114 spacer
>>32111
Psychopaths generally aren't just wandering around in the way you're suggesting. Psychologists are very good at spotting the warning signs of them at a young age. Your entire argument here is predicated on the idea that it's still 1970 and there are loads of undiscovered serial killers around; there aren't.
>> No. 32116 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 8:41 am
32116 spacer
>>32112
Thankfully, other parts of the internet that users here look down on have actually engaged with the policing bill. Ian Dunt's thread on the bill's reading last night is a good read, entertaining and informative.
>> No. 32118 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:11 am
32118 spacer
>>32112
>"bad men are like pterodactyls".
*psychopaths/Wayne Couzens-type figures. It's a bit different. As for the analogy, no-one's actually tried to explain how it's shit, and apart from a couple of bits and pieces, it seems to serve the purpose it was meant to. The absurdism/stretch of it was actually meant to preclude emotional pointscoring.

While from what I know, >>32114 is correct and we're much, much better at identification and treatment, there will still be those who slip through the cracks, or whose underlying predilections are triggered by random events. So how do we actually deal with these people?

Because no-one's said anything other than "Men need to take responsibility", which is a nice, easy, indistinct answer. What do we actually do? Surveillance state? Arm everyone? Curfews? How do we actually deal with this situation in the moment? Do you expect men in general to act as a secondary constabulary, getting involved in any single potential altercation they see as a matter of course? What are the actual, practicable solutions being touted here?

We could probably cut down on the emotionality if posters like >>32090 would stop associating politeness with nazism, insisting it's men rather than psychopaths who are the problem, and just stop trying to rile people - or simply just take a breather and calm down before continuing to post on the internet. I have a feeling you're the same person as the "Google it yourself" poster, so if that's true then you're a bit transparent and getting absolutely nowhere with your style of discourse.
>> No. 32119 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:12 am
32119 spacer
>>32114

>Psychologists are very good at spotting the warning signs of them at a young age.

That's a debatable point, but how many children are actually screened for psychopathy at a young age? What would we do with several hundred thousand potentially dangerous criminals?

At last count, there were 5,930 beds in secure psychiatric hospitals; people only end up in these beds after being convicted of a serious criminal offence. Of those beds, only 630 are in hospitals with specialist provision for personality disorders (Rampton, Ashworth and Broadmoor). Most NHS trusts don't have a specialist personality disorder service.

There is no system for identifying psychopaths before they offend. Psychopaths who do offend can be diverted from the criminal justice system into forensic psychiatry, but a) we don't have anywhere near enough capacity and b) there's not really much we can do to usefully treat these patients. Once they've been discharged (or, more likely, released from prison at the end of their sentence), we don't have any system for keeping tabs on them beyond the normal probation and community mental health systems.

Psychopaths aren't cartoonish monsters, they're just ordinary people with absolutely no scruples. They aren't vanishingly rare - at a prevalence rate of ~1%, you likely went to high school with at least a dozen.

There are clearly loads of undiscovered murderers around, because people keep getting murdered. The Metropolitan Police failed to spot that Wayne Couzens was a potential murderer, despite the fairly substantial vetting he would have been subjected to before becoming an Authorised Firearms Officer and joining the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command. Most murderers don't become serial killers in large part because most murderers get caught.

>We believe there is no evidence that any treatments yet applied to psychopaths have been shown to be effective in reducing violence or crime. In fact, some treatments that are effective for other offenders are actually harmful for psychopaths in that they appear to promote recidivism. We believe that the reason for these findings is that psychopaths are fundamentally different from other offenders and that there is nothing “wrong” with them in the manner of a deficit or impairment that therapy can “fix.” Instead, they exhibit an evolutionarily viable life strategy that involves lying, cheating, and manipulating others.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230603244_Treatment_of_psychopathy_A_review_of_empirical_findings

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252709000028
>> No. 32122 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:16 am
32122 Quod bono?
>>32112
>even wondering why the story is being presented above other topics in media at all.

This is a big one for me. It was huge before we even knew it was a copper, but there are thousands of other similar cases in the London, so why did this one get picked up with such fervour? She can't be the only attractive white woman to go missing, is it because she was 'doing everything right' as regards being on phone/well lit areas and such? I don't understand, who benefits from this?
>> No. 32123 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:17 am
32123 spacer
>>>>32119
>That's a debatable point
No it isn't. We don't have enough corpses turning up in patterns for there to be a relevant number of Yorkshire Rippers or Wests around and haven't for decades. Whatever we're doing is working, thus, I don't care, you're talking shite.
>> No. 32124 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:31 am
32124 spacer
I'd just like to point out that, as a psychopath, not all of us are after going out and murdering people. I know I could probably do it and do it well enough to get away with it, but with little to no personal gain it's simply not worth the risk. I'd imagine the majority of that 1% of psychopaths feel the same way.

#notallpychopaths, I suppose.
>> No. 32125 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:39 am
32125 spacer
>>32123

I don't understand what point you're making. Do you think that psychopaths are exclusively serial killers and that rapists and non-serial murderers are all non-psychopaths? Because that's absolutely not the case.

If whatever we're doing is working, then why are we even having this conversation?
>> No. 32126 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:45 am
32126 spacer
>>32124

Absolutely - the problem is that a) there are a lot of psychopaths b) most of them don't end up raping or murdering anyone and c) we don't have any good way of predicting which of them will turn into murderers and rapists.

Unless there's a massive breakthrough in forensic psychology, we're just going to have to live with the fact that a small but highly significant proportion of the population are utterly amoral. There's almost certainly another John Worboys or Reynhard Sinaga active right now and there are definitely thousands of opportunists who will take a chance if they see it.
>> No. 32127 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:46 am
32127 spacer
>>32125

That's because you're stupid. If not all psychopaths are serial killers and rapists then what the fuck does it matter how many there are who aren't?
>If whatever we're doing is working, then why are we even having this conversation?
Because a) you brought up psychopaths in the first place, though they're not really relevant because b) you're trying very, very hard to make this into a #notallmen debate instead of engaging with the policing bill, which is something that actually matters to more than just your flimsy ego.
>> No. 32128 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:51 am
32128 spacer
As has been pointed out in this thread is women by all accounts are very safe, safer than they have ever been and safer than men (even though not being safe is treated as a woman’s problem, this is because women complain and men don’t (I’ll explain)).

What the problem seems to be in this context is that women collectively asking for things that things that are unsolvable (i.e. currently in the news; no murders), the idea that there are forces beyond anyone's ability to control is an existential problem they don't face, men don't do this, this behaviour is quite explainable.

You have heard the old joke about when a man is lost he spends ages circling around getting more lost, and a woman just asks someone for directions. This is an observation of a greater behaviour pattern, men look for ways to solve a problem for themselves women look for someone to solve a problem for them.
This all sounds quite sensible on the women’s part men presume themselves to be experts in anything and everything (there is a reason most arrogant people are men), the issue is this becomes exaggerated, "if something is not exactly how someone likes it" men must either change it for themselves or accept it is unchangeable possibly through initially quite frustrating means of smashing their heads into a brick wall instead of asking for the door, but eventually men will learn this lesson.
Women see these things as within someone else’s control and if they ask correctly it can be changed, at this point if someone says something "can't" be changed to a woman that is indistinguishable between different concepts things; that are well beyond their capacity to change, and things they consider not worth their effort of changing. It turns out if it is the second one, there is actually a lot that can be achieved by just asking more. There is a reason the cliché "I'd like to speak to the manager" is a woman, equally women can never rule out the possibility that if they had just asked longer they might have solved the problem, they can’t tell the difference between the unchangeable and the stubborn

This leads to further interesting dynamics because women aren't actually the solvers of a problem they can be critics of how things "should be" without any consideration of feasibility. Men who face from a young age the limitations of their powers have to accept things beyond their control and what is "good enough", Women see it as someone else fucking with them when things aren't perfect. Women’s morals can be absolute and never need to be compromised by pragmatism, men’s morals are wholly relative to what solved the problem,
Every think pieces on modern feminism could be summarised as "women complain about something unrealistic to fix" vs "men are refusing to fix this thing" depending on if it is pro or con.
>> No. 32129 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:53 am
32129 spacer
Get a load of all this evopsych. Fuck me.
>> No. 32130 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 9:58 am
32130 spacer
>>32127

>If not all psychopaths are serial killers and rapists then what the fuck does it matter how many there are who aren't?

Because most murderers and violent rapists are psychopaths, which means that any solution along the lines of "teach boys to respect women" or "tell rapists not to rape" is to a great extent doomed from the outset. I care about the issue, I want us to actually do something that might help, which is why I want to start with the evidence and work towards practical solutions.

I've read the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, I'm not best pleased about the provisions on protest, but I haven't heard anyone propose an amendment to the bill that would actually have a meaningful impact on violence against women. A few people have been talking about stricter sentences, but there's no evidence to suggest that sentencing is relevant and it certainly has nothing to do with the low rate of prosecutions and convictions for violent and sexual offences against women; the overwhelming consensus within the criminal justice system is that the primary problem is a lack of funding for the CPS and HMCS, which a) isn't being recognised as such by Westminster or the media and b) isn't a statutory matter and so has nothing to do with the bill.
>> No. 32131 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 10:16 am
32131 spacer
>>32130

>Because most murderers and violent rapists are psychopaths

They certainly aren't not without some fallacy of... but they killed or raped someone so they must be a psychopath.
>> No. 32132 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 10:21 am
32132 spacer
>>32130
>>32131
Yeah citation needed on this one. Your Criminology degree from a polytechnic not withstanding.
>> No. 32133 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 10:29 am
32133 spacer
>>32128

This is more accurate than a lot of people would ever like to admit. It's not even sexist to observe as such because it still all comes down to socialisation and how women are raised to think versus how men are raised to think.

I'm going to make a broad and sweeping statement about morality and politics in general here. When we're talking about broader social patterns and systematic issues affecting whole groups of a populace, the left is most often right. But when talking about issues and behaviours that ultimately hinge on individuals, the right is more often correct.
>> No. 32134 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 10:46 am
32134 spacer
>>32132

>The current study meta-analyzed data from 29 unique samples from 22 studies that included 2,603 homicide offenders, and found that the mean psychopathy score on the PCL-R for a homicide offender was 21.2 (95% CI= 18.9 –23.6). This score is indicative of moderate psychopathy. The overall effect size r= .68 was large, and effect sizes intensified in studies of more severe manifestations of homicide including sexual homicide (r= .71), sadistic homicide (r= .78), serial homicide (r= .74), and multi-offender homicide (r = .80). Current study findings make clear that psychopathy and homicide are importantly linked and that psychopathic personality functioning is a significant risk factor for various forms of lethal violence.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329273113_Psychopathic_killers_A_meta-analytic_review_of_the_psychopathy-homicide_nexus
>> No. 32135 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 11:03 am
32135 spacer
>>32134

If I am reading that study right it is saying 68% I have to agree most murderers are evidently psychopaths. But I would consider 32% a large enough minority to disregard that as a meaningful generalisation in a lot of contexts.
>> No. 32136 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 11:09 am
32136 spacer
>>32135
Yeah, it's a bit weird. 2/3 of murderers are sourced from a fraction of the population, the other 1/3 are sourced from 99% of the population. I don't know how to phrase it, but that's a got to be significant.
>> No. 32137 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 11:16 am
32137 spacer
>>32135

The cutoff between "psychopath" and "non-psychopath" is essentially arbitrary and hotly disputed, but the analysis shows a very strong correlation between psychopathic traits and murder.

It seems a bit obvious when stated plainly, but people who kill are much more aggressive and impulsive and much less empathetic and remorseful than the general population. The problem we face as a society is that those traits appear to be substantially hard-wired and we have no effective means of changing them. We can probably reduce the likelihood of people developing psychopathic traits somewhat by reducing childhood trauma and neglect, but that's a complicated and multi-generational issue.

The idea that we can end violence against women through cultural change is wishful thinking - we can certainly do a better job of helping victims and prosecuting perpetrators, but a significant proportion of people are, if not "born evil", then at least "born with a very limited capacity for morality".
>> No. 32138 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 11:50 am
32138 spacer
>>32137

In curiosity based on this thread, I took a psychopathy test. https://www.psychopathtest.com/
I read in the foot notes that psychopaths are typically of low intelligence (which seemed counter intuitive). Looking at the test (assuming it is typical) it hardly seems surprising and a flaw of the measuring system more than anything circular reasoning as it were.
It seems to require an openness about being manipulative and cruel that I couldn't imagine being particularly forth coming from anyone who was manipulative and not stupid.
>> No. 32139 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 12:03 pm
32139 spacer
>>32138
Took it too. Somewhat eye opening being asked a few questions I'd never asked myself within that particular context. "My suffering is worth causing others pain" was a good one.

>then at least "born with a very limited capacity for morality".
Appeal to their rationality then? If there's no benefit to killing etc, then they wouldn't do it. Lacking empathy doesn't mean you're evil, as such. It just means that empathy doesn't factor into your decision making process.
>> No. 32140 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 12:24 pm
32140 spacer

Beta Picard.jpg
321403214032140
>>32134
>>32135
>>32136
This conversation feels a bit backwards to me. Although we'll never know exactly what proportion of the population could be diagnosed with a degree of psychopathy it doesn't mean that psychopath = murderer and I'd hazard that most psychopaths are not murderers just as most poor people aren't thieves. There's always a choice element after all.

What policy solutions can we draw from this that actually give us a society you would want to live in? We've had multiple historical instances of mental health paranoia and the community becoming a panopticon for signs of mental illness (i.e. people who are different are therefore criminals) so that might give pause for thought. As would the unintended consequences of ham-handed attempts at addressing social issues such as schools praising all pieces of work creating a paranoia of compliments or how suppressing aggression or risk-taking creates ineffective people.

If we must then the half-baked idea in my head would be directing people with a propensity to being wrong'uns into lives that productively use these traits - as most psychopaths already gravitate to particular professions and having screening for others like the police. The 'flow like water' approach to solving the issue of crime.
>> No. 32141 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 12:39 pm
32141 spacer
>>32140

>it doesn't mean that psychopath = murderer

Absolutely, but the prevalence of psychopathy among serious violent offenders significantly narrows our options for reducing crime. They don't have a better nature to appeal to. Some can be persuaded that it isn't worth the risk and they can get what they want through other means, but others have co-morbid mental illnesses or learning disabilities that make them less receptive to reason and less able to achieve their goals by lawful means. Others will believe (rightly or not) that they're clever enough to beat the system and will relish the thrill of evading detection and capture.

The world is full of high-functioning psychopaths, many of whom excel at what they do and contribute usefully to society; the problem is that there's no limit to what they're willing to do if they think that they'll get away with it, whether that's murdering a woman or rigging the LIBOR rates. There are almost certainly things we can do to reduce the attractiveness of serious criminal behaviour to psychopaths, but we can't eliminate it entirely.

To a great extent it's the cluster of symptoms that makes the danger - someone who is cruel and arrogant and impulsive poses a far greater threat than someone with one or two of those traits.
>> No. 32143 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 12:43 pm
32143 spacer
>>32138
>It seems to require an openness about being manipulative and cruel that I couldn't imagine being particularly forth coming from anyone who was manipulative and not stupid.

I feel like some of the questions test for this by asking both of your own action and how perceive or feel you experience from everyone else. Although looking at the rest of the site I might be putting more thought that I ought into something so infantile.

I got 40%
>> No. 32144 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:05 pm
32144 spacer
>>32137

>We can probably reduce the likelihood of people developing psychopathic traits somewhat by reducing childhood trauma and neglect, but that's a complicated and multi-generational issue

There was a Horizon documentary a few years ago on what makes a psychopath. Interestingly, they did say that even somebody who is genetically predisposed to being a psychopath can still go down a different road if they are taught compassion in childhood and grow up in a loving home.

As far as brain chemistry, apparently it has a lot to do with your amygdala functioning properly. In a neurotypical, compassionate person, the amygdala processes incoming stimuli in such a way that brain regions are triggered which encourage compassion and empathy. For example, when a neurotypical person sees somebody else falling off their bike and skin their knee, the instinctive reaction of most people isn't just to go and help that person, but you will also almost physically feel their pain from their skinned knee. A psychopath on the other hand will be very well aware intellectually that you've hurt yourself and that you're probably in some degree of pain, but that's where it ends. They will neither feel that person's pain, nor will they have the instinct to come and help them.

And that's what's at the root of many serial killers or violent (sex) offenders. They will be aware on some level intellectually that what they're doing is hurting their victim, but they don't care.

But apparently, you can make up for that genetic deficiency of somebody's amygdala by teaching them right from wrong since early childhood. If you keep teaching them that it's horribly wrong to hurt another person or even an animal that way, and if it's underpinned by a domestic environment where that child feels loved and appreciated, then there is actually somewhat of a good chance that nurture can override nature.
>> No. 32147 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:21 pm
32147 spacer
>>32141
Sounds like some top-tier armchair psychology to me that pleasantly distances criminal elements from your own humanity. You know full well our 'better nature' isn't some absolute force and one that is highly susceptible both to social pressures and its identification of good people (or absence in bad) based on conformity and results. It almost sounds like something a psychopath would say to trick us by defining certain behaviours and then pretending they have it so that we will never think they're the canal pusher.

That everyone commits crimes and hurts people for their own amusements and greed to varying levels should be a given, as can rule bending or whatever else. We're obviously talking about the most serious crimes here but even then you yourself recognise that it's a cluster of factors of which psychopathy (a poorly defined meme term) is one and probably not one that you ought to place your degree of emphasis compared to just having poor impulse control, being a bit cold or just plain thick.

Sometimes you just shoot an Arab on a beach innit, that you didn't cry at your mother's funeral shouldn't be jumped upon.
>> No. 32149 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:31 pm
32149 spacer
>>32144

I believe I might be as you describe. I do not think I feel guilt, more of a sense of "if I do this then I risk losing my place in society, which I enjoy and benefit from". I'd have no issues at all stealing from a friend, but recognise that it's not worth the risk of losing the company of those I enjoy. Perhaps that's just how everyone thinks, I don't know.

I also think I'm functionally empathetic, as in I have high emotional intelligence, but would never really feel the pain someone else is experiencing. I can certainly identify and appropriately respond to it - I've been told I'm good at it - but, like you say, this is probably all just because my mum is a nice person and instilled these prompts in me. I feel like I only give compassionate advice because, well, that's what people do, so it'd be odd if I didn't, despite me really, really not caring what other people go through.

Perhaps I'm not psychopathic, just very selfish, but also self-aware enough to know that I have to do the things society expects of me to continue enjoying the life I have. I suppose if you stripped that society away from me, if I became an outsider, I would have no reason left to playact and would just do whatever I wanted. That wouldn't necessarily be murder, but you see my point.
>> No. 32150 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:45 pm
32150 spacer
>>32149
This post makes me think you're more of a narcissist m7
>> No. 32151 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:49 pm
32151 spacer
>>32150

Fair, my instinct was to dismiss your idea which means you're almost certainly right.
>> No. 32152 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:51 pm
32152 spacer
>>32149
>I feel like I only give compassionate advice because, well, that's what people do, so it'd be odd if I didn't, despite me really, really not caring what other people go through.

I don't want to conflate my diagnosed sperging with undiagnosed "I'm a tortured soul and might be a psychopath", but it is worrying how much one can have in common with these people without necessarily 'sticking out'. I think that's the most relevant takeaway, especially since most human behaviour seems to be defined on various spectra.

>psychopathy (a poorly defined meme term)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

DSM 5 is the best we've got. If you're saying that with that in mind, then I'd probably still agree tbh. Just wanted to make sure.
>> No. 32153 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 1:53 pm
32153 spacer
>>32147

If you'd like some non-armchair psychology, be my guest:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/2CmPDwAAQBAJ

The reason I brought up psychopathy in the first place was to critique arguments about "fighting rape culture" as a means of ending violence against women. The evidence is fairly clear that a large proportion of violent crime (and the majority of the most serious violent crime) is perpetrated by people who don't have a warped sense of morality, but no sense of morality. We have reams of data to show that psychopaths don't respond to social pressure, only the threat of retribution.

Everyone commits crimes and everyone hurts people, but it's a tiny minority that commit the kinds of crimes that make women afraid to walk home at night. By and large, that minority doesn't think like the rest of us, doesn't feel like the rest of us and doesn't respond to the same incentives as the rest of us. We can pretend otherwise, but it won't make women safer.
>> No. 32154 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:06 pm
32154 spacer
We've managed to float pretty far away from the point in this thread. We've gone from "97% of women have been sexually harassed" to "only a fraction of a 1% subset of people are murdering women at night, so there's nothing we can do"
>> No. 32155 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:14 pm
32155 spacer
>>32154
It's been the worst thread in a while.
>> No. 32156 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:16 pm
32156 spacer
>>32154
>We've managed to float pretty far away from the point in this thread. We've gone from "97% of women have been sexually harassed" to "only a fraction of a 1% subset of people are murdering women at night, so there's nothing we can do"

That isn't necessarily the conclusion. The discussion is still ongoing. We spent maybe 100 posts trying to determine how valid that statistic was, another 50 or so in cuntoffs, and the general discussions has been taking place around that.

The more information we can agree on as a community, the better quality of conversation will take place. So things like this being hashed out, which are pertinent, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, when people are being told to 'reflect' or think about their behaviour and what they can do, that achieves just about nothing. We need to determine actual solutions. We don't want a police state, and we don't want to be scared.

To be honest, what exactly is wrong with trying to determine who is responsible.
>> No. 32157 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:19 pm
32157 spacer

dougal-featured-1024x598.jpg
321573215732157
>>32156
>The more information we can agree on as a community, the better quality of conversation will take place
>> No. 32158 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:19 pm
32158 spacer
>>32155
Why do you think that is? At the very least, people are taking an active interest and being honest about their opinions, contemptible though they may appear. Is it the topic that's led to this? Or the approach of the posters? Or even just a few individuals derailing things?
>> No. 32159 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:22 pm
32159 spacer
>>32156

>To be honest, what exactly is wrong with trying to determine who is responsible.

All we've done is manage to change the subject from "probably quite a lot of men are harassing women" to "psychopaths murder people, don't they?" which I suppose is predicable - nobody wants to really think about how serious and prevalent the former is, especially when we can just sit and talk about how hard it is to do anything about the latter.
>> No. 32160 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 2:29 pm
32160 spacer
>>32159
Definitely quite a lot. 97% is a stretch (spoke to a woman who took the survey and she thinks it's mainly fair but there were some leading questions and the phrasing mentioned 'harassment' but not 'sexual harassment' as she recalled), but certainly not too much of a stretch. Certainly an overwhelming majority. And then we have what, a significant majority of men who would answer 'yes' to questions on that survey. So it seems like a more universal social problem, that people are very often harassed.

Is it because discussion of Sarah Everard that we moved on to psychopaths? The two are obviously related, but '97% of women are sexually harassed' and 'A nutter killed someone' are quite different topics, but due to circumstance/timing they've become entwined.
>> No. 32161 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 3:37 pm
32161 spacer

Screenshot 2021-03-12.png
321613216132161
>>32160

>Is it because discussion of Sarah Everard that we moved on to psychopaths? The two are obviously related, but '97% of women are sexually harassed' and 'A nutter killed someone' are quite different topics, but due to circumstance/timing they've become entwined.

Precisely. This thread mirrors the general discourse, with a wider discussion of low-level harassment being conflated with a specific and rare tragedy. I'm pretty sure that about 100 comments ago, someone made the point that a lot of people get quite upset when you try and disentangle those issues - Davina McCall has since been cancelled for it.

The fact that most women have been catcalled or leered at or groped is definitely a bad thing and we definitely need to call out other men when they do it, but that doesn't mean that the streets of Britain are a gauntlet of rapists and murderers. To loop back to the lengthy discussion about psychopaths, there's a categorical difference between the sort of man who makes an inappropriate joke at work and the sort of man who abducts, murders and mutilates a complete stranger. They're fundamentally different problems and they have to be addressed in a fundamentally different way.
>> No. 32162 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 3:57 pm
32162 spacer

DarkAge.jpg
321623216232162
>>32161
We know what must be done.
>> No. 32163 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 4:13 pm
32163 spacer
>>32161

Surely we understand why they're entwined, though? Women being harassed makes them feel unsafe, as does hearing a woman just like them was murdered. Yes, the builder wolf whistling at a lass isn't going to kill her, but if you basically have to expect harassment when alone on the street, then of course every time a man acts threateningly towards you you're going to wonder if this is the time you finally get your head caved in.

It shouldn't be that odd that any level of threatening behaviour is inextricably linked with the worst case scenario of threatening behaviour.
>> No. 32164 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 4:22 pm
32164 spacer
>>32161
The replies to this tweet say a woman is killed by a man every three days. Is that 'rare' enough?
>> No. 32166 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 4:32 pm
32166 spacer

a48673eb-618a-4732-a413-9e2ddda0b849.png
321663216632166
>>32164
If a woman is killed every 3 days but a woman is killed every 1.5 days that means as many women kill women as men.

Those most at risk are children under the age of one, with 45 homicides per million population.
>> No. 32167 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 4:38 pm
32167 spacer
>>32166

Two different problems can exist at the same time.
>> No. 32168 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 4:48 pm
32168 spacer
>>32167
Yes, but apparently since they're entwined, or at least related, we are only allowed to discuss them as a monolith.
>>32163
Okay, then what? We can't discuss distinct issues that fall under one umbrella without ignoring other issues, so what happens next? They come from different places, and manifest in different ways, so why should we look at them like they're the same thing?

Ultimately we reduced car fatalities by looking at *each individual cause* and working to reduce each individual cause, because "Let's just make cars safer" does fuck all to help anyone. But just telling people you're adjusting the height of a steering column or another type of plastic in the bumper isn't sexy, doesn't inspire confidence, but it bloody well does the work and saves the lives.
>> No. 32169 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 5:08 pm
32169 spacer
>>32163

Of course, but we run into problems when that natural fear informs policy decisions.

>>32164

Men are around three times more likely to be murdered than women. There has been a steady decline in the number of female murder victims over the last few decades. Murder is overall an exceptionally rare event, accounting for around 0.1% of deaths; the murder of a woman by a stranger is rarer still.

Rape and sexual assault clearly have far more female victims (about a 5-to-1 female/male ratio), but around 90% of these crimes are committed by someone known to the victim rather than a stranger - more than half of rapes are committed by a partner or ex-partner of the victim. "Someone grabbed me off the street and dragged me down an alley" is extraordinarily rare compared to "I woke up in a stranger's bed with no memory of the night before" or "I said no but my husband wouldn't stop".

I don't want to dismiss anyone's fears or downplay the suffering of any victims, but I think there's an undue focus on a very rare risk that does a disservice to women. The majority of violence against women is domestic violence. They should be less afraid of walking home at night than coming home - that's where most women are raped or murdered. Unfortunately, domestic violence is a phenomenally complex issue and a political minefield.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf
>> No. 32170 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 6:20 pm
32170 spacer
>>32169
>The majority of violence against women is domestic violence...
>Unfortunately, domestic violence is a phenomenally complex issue and a political minefield.

Is 'phenomenally complex' a euphemism for the fact that they are far more likely to be the abusers with lesbian relationships being the most violent and gay relationships being the least violent despite a cultural truthism that women are the victims and men are the aggressors? and feminism have actually threaterned people for investigating and exposing that fact, yes I could see how that might be an uncomfortable subject to deal with.
>> No. 32171 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 7:23 pm
32171 spacer
>>32169

Thanks for a measured and decently sourced post.
>> No. 32172 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 7:59 pm
32172 spacer

EwnEKU8W8AIncEk.jpg
321723217232172
You're all still arguing over who should get to play the victim card? Great.
>> No. 32187 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 10:32 pm
32187 spacer
>>32169
>The majority of violence against women is domestic violence.
Right, and I think it's fair to say that the majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are not, in fact, psychopaths. They're otherwise ordinary people who happen to exist in a society that has for centuries normalised a certain perception of women. There was that study a while ago that suggested that a non-trivial proportion of men were minded to engage in sexual violence, while not actually perceiving it as such. As in, they asked a bunch of men "would you ever rape someone?" and they said no but said yes to a variety of scenarios of dubious consent.

Ultimately, we have to stop seeing this as a problem of "harassment of and violence against women" and start seeing it as "harassment by and violence of men". We can't dismiss it as "not all men" when it's pretty clear that it is really a pretty big chunk of men.
>> No. 32194 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 11:32 pm
32194 spacer
>>32187

>There was that study a while ago that suggested that a non-trivial proportion of men were minded to engage in sexual violence, while not actually perceiving it as such. As in, they asked a bunch of men "would you ever rape someone?" and they said no but said yes to a variety of scenarios of dubious consent.

That's the thing though, a certain portion of the perceived increase in violence against women stems from the fact that someone's been moving the goalposts concerning what constitutes sexual violence and what doesn't. If a crude sexual joke or asking somebody that you don't reasonably have a shot at to go for a drink is now sexual harassment, then no wonder you've got these huge numbers of "victims".

It's one thing to be blind to what the average reasonable person would consider sexual harassment but the perpetrator somehow doesn't, and quite another to declare certain forms of, maybe immature, interaction to be sexual harassment.

It's that whole thing again which we discussed at length further up in this thread. There's one thing anti-sexual violence interest groups can't have, and that's victim numbers actually declining. Because before long, it will make those groups seem irrelevant and like they're no longer needed. The only way they'll keep themselves on the charity circuit is by having the average person believe that everything somehow keeps getting worse.
>> No. 32196 Anonymous
16th March 2021
Tuesday 11:46 pm
32196 spacer
>>32194
>If a crude sexual joke or asking somebody that you don't reasonably have a shot at to go for a drink is now sexual harassment
What do you mean "now"? When was that ever not harassment?

>quite another to declare certain forms of, maybe immature, interaction to be sexual harassment
See, that's how we get results like that survey. People like you thinking sexual harassment is just "immature interaction".
>> No. 32199 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:01 am
32199 spacer
>>32196

So you actually think asking somebody to go for a drink is harassment?


> People like you thinking sexual harassment is just "immature interaction".

Some of what is now made out to be sexual harassment is really just that, yes.

Some of it. Not all of it. Just to repeat, so you don't lose your shit at me.
>> No. 32200 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:05 am
32200 spacer
>>32196
Can you explain how asking someone to go for a drink is sexual harassment please?
>> No. 32202 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:19 am
32202 spacer
>>32199
>Some of what is now made out to be sexual harassment is really just that, yes.
The definition basically amounts to unwanted advances and attention. Can you suggest which of your unwanted advances or attention you think should not be considered harassment?
>> No. 32204 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:30 am
32204 spacer
>>32202

I think we've arrived at the "It's only harrasment if you're ugly" stage of the discussion.
>> No. 32205 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:30 am
32205 spacer
>>32202

For one thing, asking somebody to go for a drink, as I've just said more than once.

Also, do you really think "unwanted attention", as broad as that term can be understood, should count as harassment, or maybe even be a punishable offence?

You'll put about three out of five clubgoers on a night out with one foot in a police cell with that kind of reasoning.
>> No. 32206 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:36 am
32206 spacer
>>32202
What happens if the unwanted attention comes from someone who you're attracted to?
>> No. 32208 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:38 am
32208 spacer
>>32205
>For one thing, asking somebody to go for a drink, as I've just said more than once.
So you think women should just tolerate men coming up to them uninvited and asking them out? You don't see how that might make them at least a little bit uncomfortable?
>> No. 32209 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:42 am
32209 spacer
>>32202

You can't really know if asking to go for a drink is unwanted until you've asked, can you? If you ask and they say no, you know it was unwanted, and then anyone who isn't awful will say "ok" and that is the end of the interaction. Is that harrasment? Is it harassment if they say yes? It's schrodingers harrasment until you get an answer.

If your point is nobody should ask anyone out in case the other person isn't interested then fair enough, that feels exteme but at least it has internal logic.
>> No. 32210 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:43 am
32210 spacer
>>32208
This is literally how it has always worked. Your stance would lead to such a decline in birth rates that anti-natalists would need to adopt natalism just so they could continue being anti-natalists.
>> No. 32211 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:44 am
32211 spacer
>>32209

Obviously I also account for context. Asking a random woman out on the street is definitely different to asking someone you've met or asking someone if they want a drink at a club.
>> No. 32212 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:45 am
32212 spacer
>>32209
>You can't really know if asking to go for a drink is unwanted until you've asked, can you?
Right, and similarly the woman can't really know if you plan to drug and rape her until it actually happens, can she?

To be clear, it's not a matter of whether she wants to go on a date with you, it's a matter of whether she wanted to be asked in the first place.
>> No. 32213 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:47 am
32213 spacer
>>32210
Great, now that we know you're okay with harassing women we can move on now.
>> No. 32214 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:48 am
32214 spacer
>>32213
Funny how you didn't mention any context at all, even though I've been asking for it consistently, until you'd strung us along enough. Very interesting.
>> No. 32215 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:49 am
32215 spacer
>>32208

What about striking up a conversation in general, not asking them out. Is it harrasment to talk to someone who might not want to be talked to? If so I have been harrased by a lot of pensioners at bus stops.

Plus how do you meet people? Not even just partners, friends too? I have good friends I met by talking to at events, but there was no way of knowing if they wanted to talk to me until I went up to them and engaged.

What is your solution here? Don't talk to anyone?
>> No. 32216 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:50 am
32216 spacer
>>32212

Oh. Sorry, I thought you were being serious up until now. Well played, but let's move on.
>> No. 32217 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:57 am
32217 spacer
>>32216
>Oh. Sorry, I thought you were being serious up until now.
It's as if you literally haven't been listening to a single word women have been saying all along.
>> No. 32218 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:59 am
32218 spacer
>>32217

Women don't want to be asked out by men, ever?
>> No. 32219 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:01 am
32219 spacer
>>32218
I don't know. But I get the impression they definitely don't want to get their drinks spiked and get raped, ever. No, fantasising about it and engaging in it safely is not the same as it actually happening in the wild.
>> No. 32220 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:07 am
32220 spacer
>>32219

So asking a woman out is harrasment because spiking drinks is a thing that exists? Assuming I accept that idea, what is your solution? How do couples meet?

You also tellingly haven't answered any of the good questions people have asked you yet.
>> No. 32221 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:15 am
32221 spacer
>>32220
>I accept that idea, what is your solution? How do couples meet?
Presumably in circumstances where both parties want to go out. This really isn't that hard.

>You also tellingly haven't answered any of the good questions people have asked you yet.
It's telling that you think anyone's asked a "good question".
>> No. 32222 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:20 am
32222 spacer
>>32221

>Presumably in circumstances where both parties want to go out. This really isn't that hard.

How do you know if someone wants to go out until you ask and they respond?

>It's telling that you think anyone's asked a "good question".

Is talking to someone at a bus stop harrasment?
>> No. 32223 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 3:00 am
32223 spacer
>>32218
Not ugly ones, no.
>> No. 32225 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 4:03 am
32225 spacer
>>32222
What kind of psychopath talks to other people on public transport? Other than to thank the driver, obviously.
>> No. 32226 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 5:43 am
32226 spacer
>>32187

>Right, and I think it's fair to say that the majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are not, in fact, psychopaths. They're otherwise ordinary people who happen to exist in a society that has for centuries normalised a certain perception of women.

There's a very strong correlation between domestic violence (particularly severe domestic violence) and personality disorders - people with a diagnosed Cluster B personality disorder (antisocial, narcissistic, borderline or histrionic) are about ten times more likely than the general population to commit violent crime, including domestic violence.

The social attitudes theory is really hard to square with the fact that most violence is perpetrated by people with psychiatric disorders that develop in childhood and are stable throughout adult life - social attitudes may be a factor, but they're certainly not the factor. Most men aren't violent and a small subset of men commit a vastly disproportionate amount of violent crime.

http://www.ohrn.nhs.uk/OHRNResearch/MIviolence.pdf

https://bpded.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40479-015-0033-x
>> No. 32227 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 6:21 am
32227 spacer
>>32225

Old people.
>> No. 32228 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 6:38 am
32228 spacer
>>32225
It happens a fair bit in the North.
>> No. 32230 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 7:20 am
32230 spacer

40555616-9369363-image-a-16_1615930594496.jpg
322303223032230
A VOTE FOR THE TORIES IS A VOTE SUPPORTING RAPISTS.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1371895792642879488
>> No. 32231 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 8:00 am
32231 spacer
>>32230

IF YOU WANT A RAPIST NEXT-DOORY

VOTE TORY
>> No. 32232 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 8:06 am
32232 spacer
>>32230
Well given those statistics, and the fact that they've been trending even lower for years now, I don't think that's much of a stretch. It'd be nice if Labour were even remotely pro-active about these things.
>> No. 32233 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 8:50 am
32233 spacer
What women want and what women say is a Venn diagram in which the two circles aren't just separate, they're on two different pages.

It's sexist to say this, but it's also 100% true. Women want a world where they never receive unwanted attention from the psychic men around them, but they don't want to make the first move either. Furthermore, the vast majority of them are as dry as the dead sea for the kind of man who actually takes all this at face value and treats them as such.

I respect women and treat them entirely as equals, but when it comes to sexual dynamics this is just a fact of life. I very much doubt it will ever substantially change, no matter how much noise fisherfolk make about it.
>> No. 32234 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 9:27 am
32234 spacer
>>32232
The number of people charged with rape was artificially inflated due to political pressure, which led to loads of trials collapsing or being thrown out when they went to court because the case simply wasn't there. Now that things have started returning to the position they should have been in the first place and the number of rape charges has fallen there's been an outcry.

Rape is highly emotive, but as if often boils down to "he said, she said" it can be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
>> No. 32240 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 10:47 am
32240 spacer
>>32231
Oh yeah? It wasn't Tony Blair wot caught the guy who bummed people to death at celebrity parties.
>> No. 32241 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 10:51 am
32241 spacer
>>32225
Even the train driver?
>> No. 32245 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:10 pm
32245 spacer

21a3dd0b5c711951e9aa343b8bc66928.jpg
322453224532245
>>32233

I actually agree with this lad. Where women all too often go wrong is that they expect men to have supernatural mind reading powers. And then they complain when we don't, and it's then our fault for not understanding women. While at the root of it, there's often actually the fact that women don't understand men.

In other words, if you expect a dog to meow, then it's not the dog's fault for not being able to, but yours for assuming that all four-legged pets should sound like a cat.

Or in yet other words, women see the world women-centric, as well they should, and that's fine, but they don't like it when we as lads see the world from the standpoint of a man.


>>32234

>The number of people charged with rape was artificially inflated due to political pressure, which led to loads of trials collapsing or being thrown out when they went to court because the case simply wasn't there.

This is also true. You can very well charge a person with a crime because you think they are a suspect, but if we accept due process of law as the standard, then there must be the possibility that during the course of a trial, the suspect's innocence is established beyond reasonable doubt. Everything else only amounts to a show trial. There's an old saying that some crimes are so heinous that not even innocence is a defence, but we must not allow our legal system to actually operate that way.

Some college campuses in the U.S. have tried in recent years to replace reasonable doubt with preponderance of evidence in rape cases. That is, even if there is no smoking gun that you are guilty, which is normally the basis for a conviction in the UK, you can be found guilty nonetheless because the available evidence seems to point more towards your guilt than against it. And that's really an immensely dangerous proposition, again with respect to due process of law.
>> No. 32248 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:44 pm
32248 spacer
>>32245
Women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things. This is the main dividing line between men and women. Anything else is just conjecture.
>> No. 32254 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 12:58 pm
32254 spacer
>>32248
Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.
>> No. 32257 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:14 pm
32257 spacer
>>32248

It's still not conjecture to say that women don't understand men.

Why is it so universally accepted that men don't understand women, when the opposite still has that whiff of patriarchical mansplaining. The root cause of both is the same, and both are real.
>> No. 32258 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:22 pm
32258 spacer
>>32257
First of all, you have to define what you mean when you propose that "women don't understand men". For brevity, I'm assuming that you mean "all human beings who are women" which is such a massive categorisation, not to mention the offshoots and subsetting such a massive categorisation entails but let's assume that's what you mean which is also what you mean when you use the "men" category.
Now you have to define "understand". Do you see how abruptly such a proposition runs into difficulty supporting itself?
>> No. 32259 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 1:46 pm
32259 spacer
>>32258


>For brevity, I'm assuming that you mean "all human beings who are women" which is such a massive categorisation

Getting lost in gender wonderland a bit there, lad?

Assuming the term "lad" isn't offensive to you.
>> No. 32260 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:06 pm
32260 spacer
>>32259
I don't think he getting into any of that. More just that maybe it's too broad a generalization. Maybe there are a small number of women who do understand men. And there's probably some grey area.
>> No. 32261 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:06 pm
32261 spacer
>>32259
Not at all, just trying to point out that statements like "women don't understand men" or vice versa are actually just sweeping generalisations (which most of you already know) and simply tried to explain why.
>> No. 32263 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:18 pm
32263 spacer
>>32260
Again, what do you mean by "understand"? As in, understand their nature? In interaction? The language they speak? Culturally? As you say, it's a massive grey area but I think in general, men and women understand each other well enough. The continuation of the species over millennia has demonstrated that. Saying otherwise is simply pointing to the outlier situations and using it as ammunition for conjecture.
>> No. 32264 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:33 pm
32264 spacer
>>32261
>>32263
Come on, lad. Even Captain Birdseye understands that men and women will always have some trouble understanding each other because we come from very different perspectives, upbringing and culture. I've never been a bird so unless I consciously think about it there is going to be misunderstandings.

The best you can argue is that I don't understand any of you fucking weirdos living in "humanity" regardless of gender. Magnolia painted rooms can do one.
>> No. 32265 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:36 pm
32265 spacer
>>32263

Even if women and men understand each other sufficiently in key areas, you can't really argue that there aren't behavioural traits that correlate with being a man, while others correlate with being a woman.

In that sense, it is then not a sweeping generalisation to consider certain things men and women do or think as being "typically male" or "typically female".

The word "typically" to most people is already open to the interpretation that something isn't always without fail going to be as expected. If you say you "typically" get up for work at 8am, then that implies that that's when you'll most likely be getting up on any given day, but it doesn't mean there will be no exceptions at all.
>> No. 32266 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:41 pm
32266 spacer
>>32264
If you had to choose between perspective, upbringing or culture, which one do you think is the most important and why?
>> No. 32267 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 2:51 pm
32267 spacer
>>32264
You need to read this book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Mars-Venus-Different-Languages/dp/0199550999
>> No. 32273 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 4:55 pm
32273 spacer
>>32233
It seems strange to me that we associate this so strongly with women and romance.
Perhaps I've always wrongly put it down to being British, but I've always felt obliged by politeness to act in a similar way. To just come out and say what you want usually feels improper compared to saying something ambiguous and letting other people read their own desires into it, or to saying the opposite of what you mean while hopefully slowly laying the groundwork for what you actually want to do.
>> No. 32274 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 5:01 pm
32274 spacer
>>32273
>saying the opposite of what you mean while hopefully slowly laying the groundwork for what you actually want to do.
Fucking hell, lad. I don't like the c word, but you're making me want to use it.
>> No. 32276 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 6:40 pm
32276 spacer
>>32233
True to some degree, at least in the Anglosphere.

Maybe our culture is weird, but in my experience, things are way too different in other cultures. Lowland countries, and Germany, I think you would enjoy, as everything seems straight forward. Spanish/Hispanic, Arabic and other such cultures, it's a game of cat and mouse, which I enjoy.

I haven't tried eastern European yet, so would be interesting how it works out there too.
>> No. 32282 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 9:15 pm
32282 spacer
>>32276

It could well be an Anglo cultural thing. But then, so too is this kind of cake and eat it fisherpersonry. Chicken and egg situation I reckon. British culture is one where every idiom of communication is soaked in understatement and innuendo. You almost just sound thick or somehow socially stunted if you speak and act too plainly and directly.

To be clear I've never had a problem with it, or any issues with women, I'm just making observations here really. It just seems to be one of those things, to me, where we're all supposed to play along, while knowing privately it's a lot of bollocks. Culture is full of that and I'm sure that's universal wherever you go.
>> No. 32285 Anonymous
17th March 2021
Wednesday 11:51 pm
32285 spacer
>>32282

>But then, so too is this kind of cake and eat it fisherpersonry.

I dated a Polish lass for two months at uni, and she was much more laid back in that respect. She didn't buy much into Anglosphere feminism. She did want to be treated equally and with respect, but she was not into that whole fisherperson way of thinking. Kind of hard to explain.

My theory is that because socialism made women equal to men much more profoundly than in 1960s to 1980s Britain, there was much less fertile ground in those countries for a fisherperson movement to form.

Women had a significantly higher employment rate than in the UK, and working in the same kind of jobs as men was much more common in the Communist Bloc. Ending up as stay-at-home mum was frowned upon because you weren't doing your part for socialism, at a time when women in the UK still struggled for basic worker's rights.

And that has probably had an impact on their culture to this day. Women were equal to men, and didn't have to fight for equality.
>> No. 32286 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 12:44 am
32286 spacer
>>32285
Don't be daft, lad. The Eastern Bloc was deeply conservative and that went double for Poland, an authoritarian dictatorship with a centrally planned economy isn't going to challenge family stereotypes. Polish feminism is instead shaped by Catholicism and a recent history of western influence.

A German once explained it to me that there is this divide between Anglo and continental fisheries on terms you would expect. In our society a woman is expected to conform to certain standards of behaviour and if not then something must be wrong with her, she can't just be a whore because she wants or even likes to be a whore but instead she is one because of exploitation and must be saved. Victorian sensibilities brought forward.
>> No. 32287 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 1:11 am
32287 spacer
>>32286
Poland exported a lot of qualified people in the 90s and early 2k, on all levels. Plumbers, workers, programmers, various kinds of engineers... the country itself suffered a bit. The ruling class is OK, but the brain drain was real. Based on recruiting in the UK, while being Polish certainly wasn't a plus, it was definitely a neutral point. Poland is weird in the European project, can we agree on that?
>> No. 32288 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 1:30 am
32288 spacer

such-women-copy.jpg
322883228832288
>>32286
>an authoritarian dictatorship with a centrally planned economy isn't going to challenge family stereotypes
Whether it was successful or not is another question, but many regimes matching that description made attempts.
(yes, this is the Soviet Union and not Poland, but it's an interesting poster. "There were not and could not be such women in the old days. - I.V. Stalin")
>> No. 32296 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 11:22 am
32296 spacer
>>32286

>an authoritarian dictatorship with a centrally planned economy isn't going to challenge family stereotypes

You're right in that what I noticed with my Polish girlfriend lass was that she not only didn't seem to think much of British feminism, but she also had quite conservative family values. She had two older sisters back home in a village near Torun, and they were in their mid- and late 20s and both were already married and had kids. And my lass also said she wanted to get married pretty soon after uni. Maybe still enjoy her independence for a bit and start her own career, but 25 kind of seemed to be a cutoff where many Polish women back home were expected to settle down, get married, and be a glorified housewife. Which must be hard to stomach for Anglosphere fisherpersons trying to preach the gospel to their Polish sisters.

Polish catholicism didn't really do much to discourage her from sex before marriage, but a gentleman never tells.
>> No. 32309 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 6:37 pm
32309 spacer
>>32288
>>32296
>>32285
>>32286

Fundamentally, the aims and goals of fishmongery are different under socialism than they are under Western liberal capitalism. In the Soviet states, "traditional" family values were no obstacle to empowering and providing equal rights to women, because there was no economic necessity or incentive to compete in the workplace.

In Western economies, competition between workers is the name of the game. Taking six months off and another couple of years part time to raise a child is a serious obstacle to the ambitious Western professional's career trajectory. Therefore, to Western fishmongers, the family unit and traditional values around it are an obstacle to progress in and of themselves.

Fish-shepherding isn't entirely retarded, in principle. Liberalism, however, is.
>> No. 32311 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 8:12 pm
32311 spacer
>>32309

>entirely retarded, in principle. Liberalism, however, is.

I have to assume you don't understand that word and had it explained through twisted propaganda otherwise I refuse to believe anyone would say anything quite so short sighted and stupid.
>> No. 32312 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 8:53 pm
32312 spacer
>>32311
Stupid's in right now mate, though this lad's clearly from the other place and/or a seppo.
>> No. 32315 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 9:34 pm
32315 spacer
>>32311
>>32312
No, communistlad is right. Pregnancy gets riskier as women get older. Society should not punish, and indeed should provide support for women who want take time out of their jobs or education when they're in the optimal pregnancy health range.
>> No. 32316 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 9:42 pm
32316 spacer
>>32315

You seem to be retorting a point no one was making.
>> No. 32319 Anonymous
18th March 2021
Thursday 11:53 pm
32319 spacer
>>32311
>>32312

No, lads, I was using liberalism correctly in context. That is, in its classical political sense- free market commerce, deregulation, rugged individualism and all that.

The problem here is that the commonly accepted definition of "liberal" has drifted towards "non-specific lefty type", which is entirely inaccurate.
>> No. 32320 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 12:39 am
32320 spacer
>>32319
Okay Humpty.
>> No. 32321 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 12:40 am
32321 spacer
>>32309
>In the Soviet states, "traditional" family values were no obstacle to empowering and providing equal rights to women, because there was no economic necessity or incentive to compete in the workplace.

They quite clearly were. Lenin was all about women's liberation in the sense that he understood the role they could and did play in the revolution, just as they had done for the French, but this was reversed in the 1920s as society was falling apart and the mental plan to completely destroy the family unit was unworkable. Stalin went even further in reversing women's gains and that didn't change following his death. Sex education didn't exist in the Soviet world, women were not for positions of power and they were positively rewarded for being baby makers (so long as they also worked and made good communists) while single people were taxed. Anyone who didn't like it or didn't fit in went to gulag where women were abused with impunity or otherwise could enjoy a lengthy stay in a mental institution. Matters like domestic violence did sometimes see punishment but it was a social order issue where even quarrelling could get you both into trouble and people matched for party influence.

On the broader economic point; there is inherently no incentive for a centrally planned economy to not be socially conservative, it doesn't want to challenge social norms and doing so to cater to minorities would be ridiculous. There is no pink pound in a socialist system, no freedom from the state fiddling with anti and pro natalist policy and a 6 month break will impact your career no matter the system.
>> No. 32322 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 8:13 am
32322 spacer

161313473_3878598082216737_8549376728875461351_n.jpg
323223232232322
Apparently it's fine for women to come out with blanket statements like this about men, but if you applied the same line of reasoning to Islam and terrorism it's beyond the pale.
>> No. 32323 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 8:20 am
32323 spacer
>>32322
Probably because women aren't agitating for a genocidal gender conflict after making the naff wee joke.
>> No. 32324 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 8:27 am
32324 spacer
>>32322

I've honestly stopped paying attention to this kind of thing. Imagine the number of people who must be creating images and little "memes" in order to deliberately drive a wedge between people or to inflame a situation.

Twitter and social media are just froth, opinion, hot takes. Don't waste your time.
>> No. 32325 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 8:33 am
32325 spacer
>>32323
It's possible to be wary of eskimos after the likes of the Manchester Arena bombing without wishing to wage genocide against them.
>> No. 32326 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 9:45 am
32326 spacer
>>32323
It's wild how similar the circumstances and ideologies of islamophobes and fundamentalists are.
>> No. 32327 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 10:01 am
32327 spacer
>>32322

One in ten is really pushing it. I probably have a dozen and a half guy friends and acquaintances that I am relatively close to, and none of them are the rapey type, or would even have an alarmingly low opinion of women.

By contrast, I know a few women who are absolute fucking psychoes and whose boyfriends or husbands I sincerely worry for. From my own perspective, you're far more likely as a guy to meet a lass who's fucked in the head and has a ton of issues than the other way round.

Would that provoke me to make similar statements about women as in that meme? No, not at all.
>> No. 32328 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 10:12 am
32328 spacer
>>32327
What exactly is the rapey type? How do you identify them?
>> No. 32329 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 10:19 am
32329 spacer
>>32328

They rove in packs of 4-11 wearing slight variations of a blue pinstripe shirt reeking of Paco Rabanne. They tend to frequent All Bar One or Vodka Revolution early in the evening before moving on to Atik. The unsuccessful can later be found chucking cans of coke at each other and scrapping outside of kebab shops.

I think. It's been so long since I've been outside I've started to forget what the world was like.
>> No. 32330 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 10:59 am
32330 spacer
>>32322

Statistics show black people are more likely to stab you, and significantly moreso than the evidence men are likely to assault you. But it'd still (and quite rightly) be racist to act as if all black men are potentially going to stab you.

They absolutely hate this one because there's no counter argument. It reveals them to be prejudiced hypocrites and all they can do is flap their arms and go "false equivalence!" when it's not, it's a perfectly valid equivalence.
>> No. 32331 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:11 am
32331 spacer
>>32329
I don't mind Paco Rabanne. I usually buy Joop! Go because you can often get 100ml online for about £15.
>> No. 32332 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:12 am
32332 spacer
>>32324
>Imagine the number of people who must be creating images and little "memes" in order to deliberately drive a wedge between people or to inflame a situation.
That's exactly what most of this stuff is. This video

goes into some rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk account that, pretty much every acrobat post you've ever seen written from a woman's perspective was faked by, for exactly this reason. I'm not sure why I-swear-I'm-not-an-MRA-just-happen-to-be-repeating-all-their-arguments-verbatim lad is so intent on taking it at face value.


https://heritageposts.acrobat.com/post/641958210391113728/the-sad-truth-about-oppa-homeless-style same information presented in text rather than video here.
>> No. 32333 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:22 am
32333 spacer
>>32330
I think it may be a false equivalence. I'm not smart enough to articulate why, but in my gut I feel like it is.
>> No. 32334 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:22 am
32334 spacer
>>32332
>Gongnom Style

Going off on a tangent, but the way Seppos pronounce things with an o instead of an a really boils my bills. Kebob. Posta. Holloween.
>> No. 32335 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:24 am
32335 spacer
>>32330

>They absolutely hate this one because there's no counter argument.

Black people are more likely to be impoverished or neglected by policy than white people because of systemic racism, and that deprivation causes more crime. Men are more violent than women because of privilege. They are stronger and that's about it.
>> No. 32336 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:24 am
32336 spacer
>>32333
You've internalised the matriarchy. Feminism is teaching you to hate yourself and assume you are in the wrong.
>> No. 32337 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 11:53 am
32337 spacer
>>32326
Well, all religions are shit. Islam is a bit more shit than most current ones. Good on you if you take comfort in your belief, but it souldn't be controversial to disagree with nonesense.
>> No. 32338 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 12:28 pm
32338 spacer
>>32335

That's a double standard in itself. Men are more violent because that's the role the ruling class puts them in, and so on and so forth. Why do we apply leftist systemic interpretation to the plight of blacks but not to the plight of men?

The answer is usually because it's more personally beneficial for the person making the argument to be selective about the application of ideology in that manner, I feel. It always comes down to middle class intellectual types using victimhood to better one's position.
>> No. 32339 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 12:34 pm
32339 spacer
>>32335

>Men are more violent than women because of privilege

Pay a visit to a family or divorce court, or a male prison. Then let's talk again about male privilege.

Also, even if we accept that men are more likely to be physcially violent than women, women aren't exonerated in terms of overall aggression.

>Women are more likely to use direct aggression in private, where other people cannot see them, and are more likely to use indirect aggression (such as passive-aggressive behavior) in public.

Anybody who has ever been in a relationship with a woman at all can probably attest to that.

>While the literature generally finds that women are more commonly the victims of domestic violence,[32][33] some research suggests that rates of physical aggression within the context of dating and marriage tend to be similar for men and women, or that women are more likely to commit domestic violence against a partner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#Aggression_and_violence_among_peers_and_in_relationships

Women may not be as capable of physical harm as men, but the emotional harm that can come from verbal aggression is often overlooked IMO. I would actually prefer somebody moderately kneeing my balls to somebody telling me again that she slept with my best friend, and that he was better in bed. The latter resulted in me being incapable of a romantic relationship for the best part of two years as a younglad.
>> No. 32342 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 1:43 pm
32342 spacer
>>32339
Top notch cherries there, m7.

>The latter resulted in me being incapable of a romantic relationship for the best part of two years as a younglad.
Ah, an honest-to-goodness chronic masturbator. That would explain a few things.
>> No. 32343 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:03 pm
32343 spacer
>>32342

This post contributes absolutely nothing.

>>32338
>That's a double standard in itself. Men are more violent because that's the role the ruling class puts them in, and so on and so forth. Why do we apply leftist systemic interpretation to the plight of blacks but not to the plight of men?

I've often felt this is an underappreciated aspect of the male experience. Ironically, I suspect it's glossed over because another part of the expectation of men is to be entirely self-sufficient and individualistic; not affected by external influences at all.

The pressure to be willing to commit (and withstand) violence as a man is immense, piled on in early life, and almost never talked about.

I also feel like the same thing can be said of other expectations, like confidence and assertiveness. There's been a lot of poking fun in the form of "be as confident as a mediocre white man" etc. in recent social media froth, but what's rarely mentioned is that you are not just encouraged to act a particular way, you are actively punished as a man for appearing anything less than that picture of confidence.
>> No. 32344 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:09 pm
32344 spacer
>>32343
>This post contributes absolutely nothing.
You make the false assumption that context means nothing.
>> No. 32346 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:26 pm
32346 spacer
This is idiotic. Real fisherpersons completely agree with the idea that the patriarchal system is also unfair on men in some ways. It's not glossed over, it's an active part of the doctrine. You're talking a lot but you're not saying anything.
>> No. 32347 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:27 pm
32347 spacer
>>32346
Most women don't identify as fisherpersons.
>> No. 32348 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:30 pm
32348 spacer
>>32347
If they don't identify as fisherpersons then they're not going to be complaining much about sexism are they.
>> No. 32349 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:30 pm
32349 spacer
>>32346
This is correct. What is definitely not correct is "women get custody and men get prison therefore male privilege is BS".

In case anyone needs reminding what privilege looks like, there's a man in the US being investigated for murdering a bunch of East Asian-American women where the police defended him by saying "he just had a bad day".
>> No. 32350 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:34 pm
32350 spacer
Mods, have you scientifically crafted this sodding thread in a lab in order to make me post something mental? Like a useless geek version of Bruce Banner?
>> No. 32351 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:34 pm
32351 spacer
>>32342

>Ah, an honest-to-goodness chronic masturbator

You are reading much more into it than I actually said.

For a little over a year and a half after we broke up, it was all about me getting my rocks off with other lasses. I was in some ways the opposite of an chronic masturbator, and I was having more than my share of fun. But it was still kind of a lonely place, because in the end, although I was unaware of it at the time, I was doing it to prove to myself that lasses wanted me, after my ex had so bluntly let me know that she preferred my best friend's knob over mine. And when you're 20, 21, you just have ample opportunity if you want to go down that path, at least for a while. So I had sex with a few of them, but was determined not to start an actual romantic relationship. Not falling in love was my shield against being cheated on again. If I didn't become emotionally invested, then nobody could use that vulnerability to hurt me. If that makes any sense.

Luckily, I then eventually met an absolutely lovely lass who put a stop to all of that nonsense inside my head, and we stayed together for almost five years. She was a godsend at that time in my life, because she made me believe in love and romance again, as cheesy as that sounds.
>> No. 32352 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:37 pm
32352 spacer
>>32349
Where the police relayed to the media what the suspect had said in interview.
>> No. 32353 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:42 pm
32353 spacer
>>32346

And I find your distinction between "real fisherpersons" and whatever other category (fake fisherpersons?) arbitrary and largely irrelevant to mainstream discourse.

I don't have the data on hand counting the precise number of articles that appear or on what platforms, but the overwhelming majority of ones that I come across that address gender issues are focused on the needs and concerns of women. The ones that focus on men's issues tend to continually push responsibility back onto them as individuals for not correctly addressing their own problems; not talking enough, not seeking help, not caring for themselves enough, etc..

As for talking a lot and not saying anything, I'm obviously referring to personal experience and impressions rather than hard facts, here. Whether you're unable to relate to that doesn't make the point of view invalid, but I obviously accept that my life isn't perfectly representative of every man out there.
>> No. 32355 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:48 pm
32355 spacer
>>32353
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=341
>> No. 32356 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:48 pm
32356 spacer
>>32351
That's nice and all, but doesn't really do anything to explain how you end up so in denial about systems of privilege.

Two things can be true at the same time. Men are also hurt by structural sexism and toxic masculinity, while at the same time male privilege undoubtedly exists. Remember, privilege doesn't mean you get it easy, it just means that there are things you don't have to deal with.

Ultimately, it's the structural sexism that results in privilege, and is why we end up with 80% of all women and 97% of young women reporting harassment. And the assumption that when it comes to kids fathers have a role while mothers have a duty, which is why maternal custody/paternal visitation is such a common outcome in divorce proceedings. I'm sure plenty of us will be aware of the fetishization of young women. Reminding us of that is literally the one thing /lab/paedo was good for.
>> No. 32358 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:52 pm
32358 spacer
>>32352
That's what lawyers are for.
>> No. 32359 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:53 pm
32359 spacer
>>32350
This thread will be emailed to Angela Eagle. It's all part of the master plan.

>>32352
This. It's being skewed and blown up for a hot take, but that's modern journalism for you.
>> No. 32360 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 2:59 pm
32360 spacer
>>32356

> Men are also hurt by structural sexism and toxic masculinity

You've bought into fisheries hook, line, and sinker if that is your honest opinion, lad.

Toxic masculinity is a figment of the fishperson imagination, and they have been trying to override opposition to the idea by now ignominiously claiming that it somehow hurts men as well.
>> No. 32361 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 3:02 pm
32361 spacer
>>32360
Shush, lad, grownups are talking.
>> No. 32362 Anonymous
19th March 2021
Friday 3:04 pm
32362 spacer