Saay NO to violence against women!

Ahnimus · November 2007

prism wrote:

tell me how "power" isn't the motivation when you get raped by a stranger that follows you out of a bar? someone that you didn't even talk to in the bar but they put something in your drink when you went to the restroom.

Sexual frustration is also a likely motivation. But I know you and Jeanie pretty well. It was only a month ago in an abortion debate that Jeanie said "if I can't make sense of something like this, I have to conclude that it's a power issue." that statement is what we call a non sequitor, it doesn't follow from Jeanie's ignorance about the motives that "power" is in-fact the motive. That is only indicative of her own personal bias.

catefrances · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I think "Power" as a motivation is very rare. I think that needs to be refined a little bit. Sure, someone might tell a white lie about a coworker to get a promotion. But they aren't very likely to murder them just to get the promotion.

So, sure, you guys are providing lots of possibilities, but not many probable occurances to warrant such a wide overview of human behavior.

im not talking about getting a promotion. im talking about a man trying to insinuate himself into a woman's life by pretending to be a nie guy, only to reveal his true self sometime down the line when he feels it's 'safe' to do so.

i am also not speaking about the general population, only those people who are predisposed to such behaviour.

Ahnimus · November 2007

catefrances wrote:

im not talking about getting a promotion. im talking about a man trying to insinuate himself into a woman's life by pretending to be a nie guy, only to reveal his true self sometime down the line when he feels it's 'safe' to do so.

i am also not speaking about the general population, only those people who are predisposed to such behaviour.

So you are talking about a fraction of a fraction of the topic.

People change all the time, and they not be deliberately hiding themselves until it's safe to assume power over their loved ones. That just sounds too ridiculous to ascribe to a large portion of the population. But, you are the paranoid type, aren't you?

Jeanie · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

No, because if I'm being EXCLUSIVE by excluding women (not inclusive), then I'm not capturing their interest either. It's the in-group-out-group problem, so instead of compartmentalizing the issue, I would just bring it all into one common forum.

I really dislike shows like CityLine or any other wholely female hosted talk shows which focuses on "female issues" they just don't capture my interest. I like the Agenda which usually has a mix of men, women, and other races, and all the people are someway involved in the actual field of study. It's also professionally moderated by Steve Paikan and an Agenda is laid out, so the debate progresses smoothly. I didn't like on the Black Women show that the women complained about men being part of the debate. That's the kind of exclusion that is way too common in these kinds of things. We have groups, or compartments of people with different opinions, but they all think alike within their own group, and typically if you don't think like them, you are outed. I call that a cult, I can't think of anything more suiting of the term.

Ok, I see what you're saying. And to a degree I agree, however men and women are different. I just think that if women want to get together and discuss their stuff and men want to get together and discuss their stuff then that's great. AND it's great also when we all get together and discuss an issue. We've talked before about people needing to be in a comfortable environment. Like on the rape thread when you wanted to discuss offenders and their motivations? I was all for discussing offenders and their motivations BUT I didn't think it appropriate for people that have been raped to have to factor that into the discussion at that point. There are plenty of groups and discussions that I have no interest in that I wouldn't be comfortable at. Should I just rock up being uncomfortable and letting my discomfort be known simply because I believe I have the right to be there and I'm trying to stomp out exclusivity? Nope. My efforts would be better served starting my own group or joining in a group that I was interested in and at some point if I could see that Group A was discussing something similar or doing something similar I could suggest that I and my Group B buddies join forces with them on that particular issue.
Here's what I know about human nature, people need to feel that they are being heard and they need to feel comfortable in order to do that. There are things I would not be comfortable discussing with men and would prefer to discuss with women AND there are things I would be much more comfortable discussing with men that with women. AND then sometimes when I've discussed something that's happened to me with women and shared their experience and mine, I've felt much more able to then discuss it with anyone male or female. There's nothing wrong with exclusivity as long as it isn't the ONLY option.

fragileblake · November 2007

NoK wrote:

All this debating... just resources that should of been put for a better purpose.

yeah, well said.

Jeanie · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Sexual frustration is also a likely motivation. But I know you and Jeanie pretty well. It was only a month ago in an abortion debate that Jeanie said "if I can't make sense of something like this, I have to conclude that it's a power issue." that statement is what we call a non sequitor, it doesn't follow from Jeanie's ignorance about the motives that "power" is in-fact the motive. That is only indicative of her own personal bias.

You know, the longer I'm around you the more I'm convinced you only think you know me. Because quite frankly it seems to me that you've got a whole bunch of preconcieved ideas about who I am and they've got nothing to do with me at all. I'm beginning to think I remind you of some heinous female relative from your childhood that you still have issues with.

catefrances · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

So you are talking about a fraction of a fraction of the topic.

People change all the time, and they not be deliberately hiding themselves until it's safe to assume power over their loved ones. That just sounds too ridiculous to ascribe to a large portion of the population. But, you are the paranoid type, aren't you?

LMFAO!!! me? paranoid? i think not.
and let me say this ONE MORE TIME for those not comprehending what im saying. i am not talking about the general population. im talking about those individuals who are predisposed to such behaviour.

of yes im sure an individual such as jeffrey dahmer went up to his victims and said they i like you, come back to my place, we'll have some fun, but if you try to leave im gonna drill a hole in your head and make you my love zombie. something tells me that dahmer deliberately hid his homicidal side to get dates with unsuspecting men and boys. though who knows, as highly unlikely as it is, i could be wrong.

and we're not talking about loved ones here. we're talking about some men who target certain women in order to get what they want. and yes sometimes they do so under the guise of love, but tis not really love. it's a deviancy of love and solely about power.

Ahnimus · November 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, I see what you're saying. And to a degree I agree, however men and women are different. I just think that if women want to get together and discuss their stuff and men want to get together and discuss their stuff then that's great. AND it's great also when we all get together and discuss an issue. We've talked before about people needing to be in a comfortable environment. Like on the rape thread when you wanted to discuss offenders and their motivations? I was all for discussing offenders and their motivations BUT I didn't think it appropriate for people that have been raped to have to factor that into the discussion at that point. There are plenty of groups and discussions that I have no interest in that I wouldn't be comfortable at. Should I just rock up being uncomfortable and letting my discomfort be known simply because I believe I have the right to be there and I'm trying to stomp out exclusivity? Nope. My efforts would be better served starting my own group or joining in a group that I was interested in and at some point if I could see that Group A was discussing something similar or doing something similar I could suggest that I and my Group B buddies join forces with them on that particular issue.
Here's what I know about human nature, people need to feel that they are being heard and they need to feel comfortable in order to do that. There are things I would not be comfortable discussing with men and would prefer to discuss with women AND there are things I would be much more comfortable discussing with men that with women. AND then sometimes when I've discussed something that's happened to me with women and shared their experience and mine, I've felt much more able to then discuss it with anyone male or female. There's nothing wrong with exclusivity as long as it isn't the ONLY option.

I get what you are saying too. I don't think men and women are as different as we think we are. We are 99% the same, we'd realize more how similar we are if we stopped looking primarily at differences.

It's probably just me, I'm comfortable talking about anything just about anywhere. Other people don't care at all. I asked my cousin "What do you think about feminism." he said "It doesn't affect me." but of course it does, he just doesn't care enough to realize how it affects him. His only interests are those things that directly affect him, and indirectly affect him by affecting his family. This is a typical of a self-centered model of concern. I can't blame him because it's his nature, but I very much have a concern for feminism and I guess I'll just leave him out of the debate. But if he did care about it, he should be allowed a voice.

Ahnimus · November 2007

catefrances wrote:

LMFAO!!! me? paranoid? i think not.
and let me say this ONE MORE TIME for those not comprehending what im saying. i am not talking about the general population. im talking about those individuals who are predisposed to such behaviour.

of yes im sure an individual such as jeffrey dahmer went up to his victims and said they i like you, come back to my place, we'll have some fun, but if you try to leave im gonna drill a hole in your head and make you my love zombie. something tells me that dahmer deliberately hid his homicidal side to get dates with unsuspecting men and boys. though who knows, as highly unlikely as it is, i could be wrong.

and we're not talking about loved ones here. we're talking about some men who target certain women in order to get what they want. and yes sometimes they do so under the guise of love, but tis not really love. it's a deviancy of love and solely about power.

And dahmer was a psychopath with a paraphilia called erotophonophilia or lust murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_murder

It is so rare, it's almost pointless to talk about it in a general discussion of "violence against women". I can guarantee that more women die everyday in motor vehicles accidents than people like Dahmer. Even though, Dahmer murdered boys and not women.

Jeanie · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Sexual frustration is also a likely motivation. But I know you and Jeanie pretty well. It was only a month ago in an abortion debate that Jeanie said "if I can't make sense of something like this, I have to conclude that it's a power issue." that statement is what we call a non sequitor, it doesn't follow from Jeanie's ignorance about the motives that "power" is in-fact the motive. That is only indicative of her own personal bias.

Actually I suppose in a round about way I should be flattered that you even remember what I say, (supposing that's even a direct quote and not the bias you've placed on something I said a month ago) because I'd have thought with me being such a mental light weight and completely unworthy of speaking at all in your eyes it's amazing you've not dismissed that quote like you do pretty much everything else I say.

Ahnimus · November 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Actually I suppose in a round about way I should be flattered that you even remember what I say, (supposing that's even a direct quote and not the bias you've placed on something I said a month ago) because I'd have thought with me being such a mental light weight and completely unworthy of speaking at all in your eyes it's amazing you've not dismissed that quote like you do pretty much everything else I say.

I remember just about everything I read. I have a damn good memory, almost photographic in some ways. I do care about some of what you say, but more often than not, I see your statements as examples of received bias and social injustice than well-thought and informed opinions. I know you will take this as in insult Jeanie, but there are no friends at the poker table or the debate table. Debating isn't a place where you allow your social ties to affect your opinions or your take on the evidence. Or else it's not a meaningful debate.

catefrances · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

And dahmer was a psychopath with a paraphilia called erotophonophilia or lust murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_murder

It is so rare, it's almost pointless to talk about it in a general discussion of "violence against women". I can guarantee that more women die everyday in motor vehicles accidents than people like Dahmer. Even though, Dahmer murdered boys and not women.

yep, i know dahmer's victims were boys and men as i mentioned in my post.
i was more addressing your statement about how "People change all the time, and they not be deliberately hiding themselves until it's safe to assume power..." we could talk about ted bundy if you prefer.

Ahnimus · November 2007

catefrances wrote:

yep, i know dahmer's victims were boys and men as i mentioned in my post.
i was more addressing your statement about how "People change all the time, and they not be deliberately hiding themselves until it's safe to assume power..." i can we could talk about ted bundy if you prefer.

Yea, let's talk about the chances of being struck by lightning. Is that a reason to stay inside your entire life?

You are using a extreme cases, very rare cases, in a general way. If you don't fear being struck by lightning when you leave your home, you shouldn't fear being raped and murdered by a psychopath, because they are just as rare.

prism · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, let's talk about the chances of being struck by lightning. Is that a reason to stay inside your entire life?

You are using a extreme cases, very rare cases, in a general way. If you don't fear being struck by lightning when you leave your home, you shouldn't fear being raped and murdered by a psychopath, because they are just as rare.

you do realize that most psychopaths don't progress to becoming murderers don't you?

Jeanie · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I get what you are saying too. I don't think men and women are as different as we think we are. We are 99% the same, we'd realize more how similar we are if we stopped looking primarily at differences.

It's probably just me, I'm comfortable talking about anything just about anywhere. Other people don't care at all. I asked my cousin "What do you think about feminism." he said "It doesn't affect me." but of course it does, he just doesn't care enough to realize how it affects him. His only interests are those things that directly affect him, and indirectly affect him by affecting his family. This is a typical of a self-centered model of concern. I can't blame him because it's his nature, but I very much have a concern for feminism and I guess I'll just leave him out of the debate. But if he did care about it, he should be allowed a voice.

I don't think men and women are all that different either but there is a difference in experience based purely on physicality alone and I think that broadens to other things.
I think we need the opportunity to share our similarities with like minded people before we can broaden our discussion to include people that are different to us. If you don't know where you stand, how are you able to communicate your perspective with others?
Feminism affects all of us, but then so does patriarchy. Whether we want to acknowledge that or not. To my way of thinking though fighting about the nuances isn't going to advance the situation, nor is ignorance.
People should be able to voice their thoughts as soon as they are aware of them, but what is far more important is being able to seek out an unbiased view and have access to quality information when one does begin to take an interest in an issue.
The other thing I have noted is, that people learn and change and become more aware the more they experience. I've had many a discussion with my father about greenies for instance. He's not a fan. But my increasing interest in the subject has made for some heated discussion and we've both learned a lot from our exchanges. Not just about greenies but also about communication styles and each other's perspective of the world around us and our experience. A lot of what we've discussed and learned has had the flow on effect to other parts of our relationship. To the extent that now I can actually discuss women's health issues with him, something that he previously would have completely balked at. So I guess it's true what they say that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Ahnimus · November 2007

prism wrote:

you do realize that most psychopaths don't progress to becoming murderers don't you?

Right... which means the incidence of lust murder psychopaths is less than the incidence of murderous psychopaths which is even less than the incidence of psychopaths. Our 0.002% quickly changed into like one incident in the history of humankind and the victims were all males.

prism · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Right... which means the incidence of lust murder psychopaths is less than the incidence of murderous psychopaths which is even less than the incidence of psychopaths. Our 0.002% quickly changed into like one incident in the history of humankind and the victims were all males.

not to bust your balls or anything but, what about Gacy?

Jeanie · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I remember just about everything I read. I have a damn good memory, almost photographic in some ways. I do care about some of what you say, but more often than not, I see your statements as examples of received bias and social injustice than well-thought and informed opinions. I know you will take this as in insult Jeanie, but there are no friends at the poker table or the debate table. Debating isn't a place where you allow your social ties to affect your opinions or your take on the evidence. Or else it's not a meaningful debate.

So your motivation is different to mine then? Because I'm not here just for the debate. I thought the idea of the Train was also to discuss and learn something new? As far as I can see you are coming at this purely from a debate perspective which it appears means you feel the need to be advesorial. I'd find it much easier to understand you and your views more credible if I wasn't convinced that you operate on the "baffle em with bullshit" principle. Not that I have to justify myself to you, but I read, I'm fairly well educated, I'm smart and I'm also emotionally smart. And one thing I can't be bothered with is playing "throw me a fish" with you. When you can be bothered we've had some very interesting discussions but when you're feeling antsy and just trying to rid yourself of some frustrations you really ruin all that's gone on before. You need to understand that not everyone can be bothered doing it your way. It doesn't mean they are any less intelligent and it certainly doesn't mean that you are better or smarter. But we've said all this before and still here we are.

fragileblake · November 2007

Jeanie wrote:

You need to understand that not everyone can be bothered doing it your way. It doesn't mean they are any less intelligent and it certainly doesn't mean that you are better or smarter.

Understanding that, I feel, is the definition of emotional intelligence. Its also a good indicator of healthy self esteem and self confidence. Great insight. Its amazing if you go down every contentious issue in politics or life you'll find highly educated and intelligent people on both sides of the fence (and some riding that said fence). I'm always humbled and encouraged when someone who I respect disagrees with me and I certainly don't feel the need to take every disagreement as an opportunity to feel smarter or better than someone.

Ahnimus · November 2007

prism wrote:

not to bust your balls or anything but, what about Gacy?

Um, didn't John Wayne Gacy have the sexual identity issues? Wasn't he the guy who used to like doing traditionally female chores and his dad ridiculed him for it. He was married to a woman but raped and murdered several boys and stored their dead bodies in the basement. Then when he was caught he kept saying "I'm not gay". I'm pretty sure that was the guy, yup.

So... how does this relate to violence against women? Gacy murdered 33 boys and young men, no women.

Saay NO to violence against women!

Comments

Categories