Hmm, interesting how shy people still are about making comments about sex. I hope more readers will join in this conversation with sensible contributions about this important topic. Don't you think it's shocking that decisions are being made about men's capacity to respond to revoked consent without any attempt to consider the relevant science?
Hmm, interesting how shy people still are about making comments about sex. I hope more readers will join in this conversation with sensible contributions about this important topic. Don't you think it's shocking that decisions are being made about men's capacity to respond to revoked consent without any attempt to consider the relevant science?
In light of the facts clearly exposing that men's capacity to react and to comprehend to a female with revoking concent shows clearly a illegal double standard in implementing true and logical law's that recognise men's unique ways that they react ,the current system is sexist , illegal, denies men of equal law's, treatment, and the legal right of due process and presumption of innocent, and men's right to free legal representation by a experienced lawyer, like what females get to represent them in sexual assault accusations Wether true or false.
The only way forward would be for the catch-all concept of rape to be re thought as a spectrum...(.in fact arguably most human behaviours are best understood as a spectrum). There's violent rape of a stranger at one end and going off the idea part way through at the other. There are several obvious gradations in between but for brevity I'll not list them. I daresay that these gradations are taken into account in the courtrooms but they should also feature in feminist rhetoric.
"....shy.... about making comments about sex. I hope more readers will join in this conversation with sensible contributions...." I try to do this sometimes on my own 'Stack. Here's an example: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired. Its theme: "What always strikes me when I read sex-relations journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called тАШWomenтАЩ and a generic species called тАШMenтАЩ; as if the perceived тАШunfairтАЩ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes....... The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and тАШplainтАЩ ones; and between confident тАШalphaтАЩ males and тАШbetasтАЩ тАУ this never gets considered......"
The truth that men take much longer to disengage is probably tied to biological aspects like testosterone (I don't remember reading that in the article, perhaps it's covered in the research?).
This is reflected in how men address problems in the midst of an engagement and why men take on more risk.
There is a point in a situation in which I, having done the analysis, will suddenly engage and it's all go from there, it takes literally a bomb like situation to disengage.
This disengagement factor wound be different for different men.
I'm thinking that men who deliberate more before jumping in might also require more time and opposition before disengagement.
This might tie into something like the sunk cost, where once you invest in something, you are more inclined to double down the greater the initial investment, than retreat.
This whole area is so fascinating and worthy of much more research
Our step away from science, often through reductionism has been a disaster in so many ways
I'm not shocked actually, but I am encouraged that there is some sense out there.
I'd like someone smarter than me to line this phenomenon up with similar social moves in history. How have similarly mistreated people or groups changed the course of events in the past? Or have they been able to before it has run its course?
The main method that comes to mind is the dirty trickery that is described in this article: corrupting institutions, running misleading campaigns built on shoddy pseudoscience, demonising entire groups based on purported innate characteristics etc etc...
Yes there were definitely problems for women that led them to these desperate and wicked acts but...
So how does the men's rights movement successfully strategise when it seems the whole progressive world is against the idea and supporters are easily marginalised?
There must be examples where change has been wrought without having to turn to the methods that are working so well for 'progressives' at the moment.
My feeling is not to attack women and their supporters about it but to go the 'shared humanity' route.
How did the gay rights people do it? They were behind the eight ball for ages.
The problem I see now is how to progress men's issues without seeming like you are restricting the progress of women's rights. It becomes quickly intractable and men are easily marginalised in that case. Hence the idea to approach it in another way.
Hmm, interesting how shy people still are about making comments about sex. I hope more readers will join in this conversation with sensible contributions about this important topic. Don't you think it's shocking that decisions are being made about men's capacity to respond to revoked consent without any attempt to consider the relevant science?
In light of the facts clearly exposing that men's capacity to react and to comprehend to a female with revoking concent shows clearly a illegal double standard in implementing true and logical law's that recognise men's unique ways that they react ,the current system is sexist , illegal, denies men of equal law's, treatment, and the legal right of due process and presumption of innocent, and men's right to free legal representation by a experienced lawyer, like what females get to represent them in sexual assault accusations Wether true or false.
The only way forward would be for the catch-all concept of rape to be re thought as a spectrum...(.in fact arguably most human behaviours are best understood as a spectrum). There's violent rape of a stranger at one end and going off the idea part way through at the other. There are several obvious gradations in between but for brevity I'll not list them. I daresay that these gradations are taken into account in the courtrooms but they should also feature in feminist rhetoric.
"....shy.... about making comments about sex. I hope more readers will join in this conversation with sensible contributions...." I try to do this sometimes on my own 'Stack. Here's an example: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired. Its theme: "What always strikes me when I read sex-relations journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called тАШWomenтАЩ and a generic species called тАШMenтАЩ; as if the perceived тАШunfairтАЩ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes....... The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and тАШplainтАЩ ones; and between confident тАШalphaтАЩ males and тАШbetasтАЩ тАУ this never gets considered......"
The truth that men take much longer to disengage is probably tied to biological aspects like testosterone (I don't remember reading that in the article, perhaps it's covered in the research?).
This is reflected in how men address problems in the midst of an engagement and why men take on more risk.
There is a point in a situation in which I, having done the analysis, will suddenly engage and it's all go from there, it takes literally a bomb like situation to disengage.
This disengagement factor wound be different for different men.
I'm thinking that men who deliberate more before jumping in might also require more time and opposition before disengagement.
This might tie into something like the sunk cost, where once you invest in something, you are more inclined to double down the greater the initial investment, than retreat.
This whole area is so fascinating and worthy of much more research
Our step away from science, often through reductionism has been a disaster in so many ways
Another good read, thank you Tina.
I'm not shocked actually, but I am encouraged that there is some sense out there.
I'd like someone smarter than me to line this phenomenon up with similar social moves in history. How have similarly mistreated people or groups changed the course of events in the past? Or have they been able to before it has run its course?
The main method that comes to mind is the dirty trickery that is described in this article: corrupting institutions, running misleading campaigns built on shoddy pseudoscience, demonising entire groups based on purported innate characteristics etc etc...
Yes there were definitely problems for women that led them to these desperate and wicked acts but...
So how does the men's rights movement successfully strategise when it seems the whole progressive world is against the idea and supporters are easily marginalised?
There must be examples where change has been wrought without having to turn to the methods that are working so well for 'progressives' at the moment.
My feeling is not to attack women and their supporters about it but to go the 'shared humanity' route.
How did the gay rights people do it? They were behind the eight ball for ages.
The problem I see now is how to progress men's issues without seeming like you are restricting the progress of women's rights. It becomes quickly intractable and men are easily marginalised in that case. Hence the idea to approach it in another way.