So, a Toronto Police Officer told a "personal protection" class not to dress like sluts. Now the backlash. We're inundated with idiotic repetition of the mantra that 'Women can dress however they want' in newspapers, TV and radio. Is it totally lost on the marchers that women's bodies are basically biological instruments that constantly send messages to others? Is it not the case that dressing 'like a slut' only sends those signals more strongly and the signals specifically suggest sexual readiness?
In this day and age where it is almost impossible to criticize women, it is ALWAYS seen as victim blaming to suggest that a woman's behaviour has anything to do with her risk of rape. It is ridiculous when it seems that the only thing a woman has to prove in some places is that she had one drink to many to provide consent. I imagine (or I like to), that most victims of rape did not provoke it in any way in much the same way that most dog bites are unprovoked. However, a little education (which the cop mishandled mightily) can go a long way in preventing both.
I've lived with big dogs since i was a small boy. I've learned not to tease dogs through their fences or cages and not to look a nervous dog in the eye. Maintain a height difference if possible and carefully hold your hand out lower than a dogs mouth to let him sniff you. Usually, this will avert any aggressive behaviour but it does not always prevent it.
By feminist logic, I have no responsibility for any bites that occur if I wander near a dog park after soaking my clothes in the drippings of prime rib roast. If I were to do so, it would not excuse the owner if I were to have my legs chewed off by his pit bull. But, I nobody would ever tell me that it was a smart thing to do.
In case you're confused about the analogy, the woman is the person soaked in beef juice, the dogs are men's libidos and the dog owners are the men themselves. Yes, each man is responsible for his behaviour and it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. It is true that a woman could walk down the street with no clothes on whatsoever and that does not give any excuse for rape. However, it should be acknowledged that said woman is sending a message by dressing (or not) in that manner. The message clearly is inviting sexual advances.
It's all well and good to go around saying that women have the right to dress how they please with out facing any consequences. However, society has become unable to criticize women for any overt sexual behaviour at any age no matter how outrageous lest we provoke the kind of reaction found at the Slut March. (I think we've generally lost the ability to even think critically at all). The bottom line is that I wouldn't want my daughter (if I had one) dressing like a slut, at least until she's mature enough to understand and deal with the consequences of sending those types of signals. One point most people miss is that as a father of two boys, I am also concerned that my sons will be receiving such signals from young women before they are able to deal with them. Nobody wants to acknowledge that aggressive female sexuality can have damaging impact on boys - well, at least nobody would care about that if it were acknowledged.
I find that the current dilution of the definition of rape, becoming synonymous with the broader term sexual assault, along with the campaigns such as the one above are hurting the real victims of rape by trying to include many normal (albeit negative) aspects of sexuality. I mean, calling it rape when a girl has a few too many drinks and has sex because she is too inebriated to consent to sex is an insult to Kimberly Proctor and other victims of sexual psycopaths.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Female Aggression: The Punch In The Nose Theory
Most men, by the time they are men, have had at least one experience of being punched in the nose. At the very least, they've had to face the very real threat of being punched in the nose. Talking to the wrong guys girlfriend, making the wrong comment or any perceived slight in a bar can produce a threat of physical violence.
Most women have never had to face the same threat. Girls who are physically aggressive tend to have the run of the play ground as far as physical violence among girls goes. Most girls will avoid any possibility of physical confrntation so the physically aggressive female rarely get's to practice her aggression on her peers in fair combat.
That is why, in the adult world, I find aggressive women are far more emboldened and unrestrained than aggressive men. Men have had to face serious corrective consequences to misplaced or overzealous aggression in the form of very serious rivals and therefore have had to learn to restrain their aggression. Even a well matched fight usually leads to risk of serious injury to both parties.
So, the aggressive adult woman believes that aggression solves problems while adult men understand that unchecked aggression can lead to worse problems. So, while men are on average, more aggressive - especially in the younger years before the lessons have sunk in - the women who are aggressive are much more adversarial and dangerous.
For example, watch the aggressive female driver. She's a mom of two with the pedal to the metal from traffic light to traffic light. The aggressive sports moms I've seen are far more vocal and confrontational than sports dads. Most dads are laid back and relaxed while the odd mom who gives a damn about sports is shouting from the sidelines.
This is just a trend I've noticed and my theory of such a trend. To test the theory, perhaps one could test whether physical confrontation, or threat thereof, at a young age correlate to greater social caution in middle age? Separating the thugs, soldiers and MMA fans that just enjoy blood from the test sample would be necessary.
Most women have never had to face the same threat. Girls who are physically aggressive tend to have the run of the play ground as far as physical violence among girls goes. Most girls will avoid any possibility of physical confrntation so the physically aggressive female rarely get's to practice her aggression on her peers in fair combat.
That is why, in the adult world, I find aggressive women are far more emboldened and unrestrained than aggressive men. Men have had to face serious corrective consequences to misplaced or overzealous aggression in the form of very serious rivals and therefore have had to learn to restrain their aggression. Even a well matched fight usually leads to risk of serious injury to both parties.
So, the aggressive adult woman believes that aggression solves problems while adult men understand that unchecked aggression can lead to worse problems. So, while men are on average, more aggressive - especially in the younger years before the lessons have sunk in - the women who are aggressive are much more adversarial and dangerous.
For example, watch the aggressive female driver. She's a mom of two with the pedal to the metal from traffic light to traffic light. The aggressive sports moms I've seen are far more vocal and confrontational than sports dads. Most dads are laid back and relaxed while the odd mom who gives a damn about sports is shouting from the sidelines.
This is just a trend I've noticed and my theory of such a trend. To test the theory, perhaps one could test whether physical confrontation, or threat thereof, at a young age correlate to greater social caution in middle age? Separating the thugs, soldiers and MMA fans that just enjoy blood from the test sample would be necessary.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Random Thoughts
It's hard to blog. But I always have a lot of potential posts running around in my head. Most are long enough that it would take several hours just to write. Many require research I just don't have time for. So instead, here are a few random thoughts.
Hockey is the ultimate paleo sport. Well, I suppose football might be even better, but I play hockey so I'm going with that. Ideally, shifts are 30-45 seconds long. Your shift is like a pure sprint to muscle exhaustion, working the entire body. With a short bench, you could be on the ice again in 30-45 seconds.
Although I find ONESTDV unnecessarily spiteful in his criticism of the left leading to an incindiary brand of racism, I find myself going back to his blog. I find that, most weeks, he has at least one or two extremely interesting posts that make me look at a subject differently than before. For example, he actually used the word misogynist recently in exactly the way I'd been thinking about it since I've been spending so much time at the-spearhead. Even when he's not looking at all the sides of an argument or cherry-picking his examples, his arguments are well articulated and hit most of the right points.
I'll have to read more of Dalrock since I have more in common - wife and kids.
This is the most disgusting idea ever discussed.
Just skimming the nonsense I find this: "Men are responsible for 90% of violent crimes; wouldn’t removing them from power guarantee 90% less war?" The reason for this is the same reason pit bulls are thought to bite more than chihuahuas. We'll see how long women stay non-violent if we put 5 in a room and only give them 3 pork chops.
Hockey is the ultimate paleo sport. Well, I suppose football might be even better, but I play hockey so I'm going with that. Ideally, shifts are 30-45 seconds long. Your shift is like a pure sprint to muscle exhaustion, working the entire body. With a short bench, you could be on the ice again in 30-45 seconds.
Although I find ONESTDV unnecessarily spiteful in his criticism of the left leading to an incindiary brand of racism, I find myself going back to his blog. I find that, most weeks, he has at least one or two extremely interesting posts that make me look at a subject differently than before. For example, he actually used the word misogynist recently in exactly the way I'd been thinking about it since I've been spending so much time at the-spearhead. Even when he's not looking at all the sides of an argument or cherry-picking his examples, his arguments are well articulated and hit most of the right points.
I'll have to read more of Dalrock since I have more in common - wife and kids.
This is the most disgusting idea ever discussed.
Just skimming the nonsense I find this: "Men are responsible for 90% of violent crimes; wouldn’t removing them from power guarantee 90% less war?" The reason for this is the same reason pit bulls are thought to bite more than chihuahuas. We'll see how long women stay non-violent if we put 5 in a room and only give them 3 pork chops.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Perspectives on the Logan Assault.
I have a rule for myself. Never enter a dangerous situation if I don’t know how to get out of it. I have used it when I was snowboarding, mountain biking, working from heights, large crowds and in volatile social situations such as bars. I learned it the hard way, in high school, when I ran my mouth off and wound up in physical confrontations with dangerous people. I learned to recognize danger and I learned that seemingly safe or manageable situations could turn dangerous almost instantly with one mistake or change in conditions. I also became fairly good at finding a way out of danger when things went astray, but, as experience grew, I realized that it was easier to stay out of a jam than to get out of one.
Any crowd has an element of danger. Sadly but realistically, crowds are more dangerous for women than they are for men due to their smaller size and possibility of becoming a sexual target. This risk is obviously multiplied if the culture of the crowd is misogynistic. CBS and Logan seemed to make a serious misjudgment by assuming that a jubilant crowd is less dangerous than an angry one and judged the danger in terms of Western culture.
North American culture is not misogynistic, as much as feminists would love to have us believe it. The culture doesn’t exist that could allow enough men to orchestrate and perform such an attack. North American and European men would not tolerate it. In any large crowd, there would be enough strong men to over power any group of men trying to assault a woman.
If you don’t believe me, then I dare you to perform an experiment in a large crowd – say a sporting event or concert. Have a man or group of men pretend to harass a woman and have her scream and complain loudly with some phrase like “Get off me you creep(s).” Immediately, every man within sight or earshot will stand up for her and in all likelihood, the man or men will find themselves pinned to the ground and pummeled or quickly removed from whatever venue. Men will be falling over themselves to get a punch in or to make sure the victim is ok. Logan is likely used to this culture of chivalry and protection of women.
Now a large concert or game is nothing like the crowds in Egypt. I watched one Canadian reporter’s story about getting to his hotel. The cab would not take him all the way and he ended up walking several miles past burned out cars with his full crew to get there. He had several situations that appeared highly dangerous where the crowds were surrounding and jostling his crew. Clearly, this was a lawless situation.
Media everywhere is calling any of this risk analysis “blaming the victim”. Nothing I’ve said removes any of the blame from the men who perpetrated it. However, their culture was definitely a factor and should have been taken into account. CBS, being vastly more knowledgeable about international situations than I am, should have been able to do a far better analysis. I know I'm speaking from hindsight, but from my perspective, it looks as though they were blinded by their thirst for sensational journalism. A beautiful damsel in the midst of chaos was too much to resist. But, as we all know, it blew up in their faces and Logan paid the heavy price.
Any crowd has an element of danger. Sadly but realistically, crowds are more dangerous for women than they are for men due to their smaller size and possibility of becoming a sexual target. This risk is obviously multiplied if the culture of the crowd is misogynistic. CBS and Logan seemed to make a serious misjudgment by assuming that a jubilant crowd is less dangerous than an angry one and judged the danger in terms of Western culture.
North American culture is not misogynistic, as much as feminists would love to have us believe it. The culture doesn’t exist that could allow enough men to orchestrate and perform such an attack. North American and European men would not tolerate it. In any large crowd, there would be enough strong men to over power any group of men trying to assault a woman.
If you don’t believe me, then I dare you to perform an experiment in a large crowd – say a sporting event or concert. Have a man or group of men pretend to harass a woman and have her scream and complain loudly with some phrase like “Get off me you creep(s).” Immediately, every man within sight or earshot will stand up for her and in all likelihood, the man or men will find themselves pinned to the ground and pummeled or quickly removed from whatever venue. Men will be falling over themselves to get a punch in or to make sure the victim is ok. Logan is likely used to this culture of chivalry and protection of women.
Now a large concert or game is nothing like the crowds in Egypt. I watched one Canadian reporter’s story about getting to his hotel. The cab would not take him all the way and he ended up walking several miles past burned out cars with his full crew to get there. He had several situations that appeared highly dangerous where the crowds were surrounding and jostling his crew. Clearly, this was a lawless situation.
Media everywhere is calling any of this risk analysis “blaming the victim”. Nothing I’ve said removes any of the blame from the men who perpetrated it. However, their culture was definitely a factor and should have been taken into account. CBS, being vastly more knowledgeable about international situations than I am, should have been able to do a far better analysis. I know I'm speaking from hindsight, but from my perspective, it looks as though they were blinded by their thirst for sensational journalism. A beautiful damsel in the midst of chaos was too much to resist. But, as we all know, it blew up in their faces and Logan paid the heavy price.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Social Engineering, the Bully and the Science Whore
Tara Parker-Pope at NYT writes an article outlining the latest scientific findings about bullying. Looking at the social structures of high-school students, the study found that the kids at the top of the social hierarchy and the ones at the very bottom seem to show the least aggression towards others, while the ones in the middle and near the top tend to show the most. You can read the entire article for the full explanation. Basically, the authors subcribe to the theory that the top echelon kids have do not have to exercise aggression to keep their positions while the middle and near-top kids are fighting eachother for rank. That is plausible, however, they dismiss the notion that the top-rung kids are just nicer and therefore popular. I'm sure that in many cases, the upper echelon kids are the top percentile in social skills, so, they just make friends much more easily. Others will recognize the power of their charisma and fight for opportunities to win their favour.
I'm sure that both dynamics occur to some extent but scientists seem to have trouble with duel theories; they prefer simple explanations that can be tested so they tend to favor all or nothing theories
So far, these findings seem to be a fairly interesting study in social standing which is fine. What I have a problem with, is the tone of the rest of the article and findings. It turns from factual to practical. Sociologists need to justify their existence and funding, so they try to drive policy with their scientific knowledge.
Pretend that sociologists, like Dr. Gallagher, achieve their goal of removing or suppressing aggression among the student populace. Everyone in school gets along. No one is intimidated, put down, jostled, ignored, shamed, hit, laughed at or teased. One big happy student body ready to take on the world with their peaceful outlook on life hand-in-hand. I see two obvious problems with this. One, the next generation of leaders, thinkers and doers will be unprepared to handle the real world and be overwhelmed by the hyper-competitive cultures from elsewhere. Two, their ability to question and challenge authority, essential for a good democracy will be seriously compromise - basically they would be sheep.
Of course, it is a rediculous concept from the start. Trying to curtail outward aggression will simply make it more subversive and dangerous.
In the name of stamping out bullying? Bullying is the act of picking on a weaker person repetetively. Adults with the best of intentions are trying to protect their kids. Nobody wants to think about the consequences that such proposed social engineering would have in the long term.
This is not a conspiracy. It is simply a misguided notion used by sociologists to gain funding for the great social engineering experiment and a reaction to overblown, media-driven fear of a simple aspect of human nature. It fits in nicely with the war on the male. Aggression and bullying are seen as male-type behaviours and viewed negatively. Unfortunately, many babies are still in this bathwater and we will need them as western civilization faces its challenges in the future.
I'm sure that both dynamics occur to some extent but scientists seem to have trouble with duel theories; they prefer simple explanations that can be tested so they tend to favor all or nothing theories
So far, these findings seem to be a fairly interesting study in social standing which is fine. What I have a problem with, is the tone of the rest of the article and findings. It turns from factual to practical. Sociologists need to justify their existence and funding, so they try to drive policy with their scientific knowledge.
The research offers a road map for educators struggling to curb bullying and aggression both inside and outside of school. One option may be to enlist the support of students who aren’t engaged in bullying — those at the very top of the social ladder, and the two-thirds who don’t bully.A road map? So why is it the job of educators to stifle students' natural inclinations to fight for status? What business, are the personal affairs of students, of the educators? To think that somehow school officials can control the social lives of all students is the epitome of hubris. Defining all acts of aggression as "bullying" is misguided. Using this way of thinking to convince teachers to try and remove aggression is highly disturbing. Why? Adolescents are learning to use this behaviour. They are learning the consequences and rules for aggression.
Pretend that sociologists, like Dr. Gallagher, achieve their goal of removing or suppressing aggression among the student populace. Everyone in school gets along. No one is intimidated, put down, jostled, ignored, shamed, hit, laughed at or teased. One big happy student body ready to take on the world with their peaceful outlook on life hand-in-hand. I see two obvious problems with this. One, the next generation of leaders, thinkers and doers will be unprepared to handle the real world and be overwhelmed by the hyper-competitive cultures from elsewhere. Two, their ability to question and challenge authority, essential for a good democracy will be seriously compromise - basically they would be sheep.
Of course, it is a rediculous concept from the start. Trying to curtail outward aggression will simply make it more subversive and dangerous.
“It does highlight that it’s a typical behavior that’s used in establishing social networks and status,” said Dr. Gallagher, an associate professor of child and adolescent psychiatry. “Schools and parents need to be tuned into this as a behavior that occurs all the time. It means that school districts need to have policies that deal with this, and I think it means also that we need to turn to the adolescents for some of the solutions."Well, at least we're turning to adolescents for the solutions; that puts a nice friendly face on all of this doesn't it? Why must sociologist attempt to recommend policy about the personal lives of students? What type of policy could be effective in curbing social ambition or even preventing aggression amongst the social status climbers and who thinks that this is desirable?
In the name of stamping out bullying? Bullying is the act of picking on a weaker person repetetively. Adults with the best of intentions are trying to protect their kids. Nobody wants to think about the consequences that such proposed social engineering would have in the long term.
This is not a conspiracy. It is simply a misguided notion used by sociologists to gain funding for the great social engineering experiment and a reaction to overblown, media-driven fear of a simple aspect of human nature. It fits in nicely with the war on the male. Aggression and bullying are seen as male-type behaviours and viewed negatively. Unfortunately, many babies are still in this bathwater and we will need them as western civilization faces its challenges in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)