Degrees of Misogyny

That is not true.

The problems I encounter living in this world are mostly my problems, not the world's.

I quoted it. And objected to it. Men hating women is a very large and significant problem underlying rape (and a host of other dysfunctional behaviors), and there is no reason it should not be addressed with considerable focused effort.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain why not.

You seem to think that "the world's problems" are something "out there", "something outside of you." As if you weren't part of the world.
Unless you are in fact unique, your problems are in some essential way similar to the problems of other people in this world and are part of them.

You missed the central part.
Violence of men against women is a subset of violence of humans against humans. I posit that violence of humans against humans is due to the belief that happiness or satisfaction in life is to be sought in various material pursuits and the fact that we live in a universe with limited resources.
As long as we don't address the bigger context of violence as such, which is violence of humans against humans, we cannot hope to meaningfully deal with any of the subsets of this violence, ie. theft, robbery, rape, assault, murder etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Already done. Because in a comparison between those who have identified and described a moral wrong and the active agents of it, and those who deny, justify, conceal, or perpetrate it, the latter occupy lower moral ground - regardless of whether any of them have any idea how to prevent the perpetration of it.

Why yes, being a native speaker of English that is what I think. Hence the term "world's" problems. I am assuming, in that, that there is an outside or not-me world, and that it is an entity capable of "having problems", of course - that the entity I identify as "myself" is not the entirety of the moral universe, in other words. That other people different from myself exist in some way equivalent to my own existence, to be specific.

And I regard that as an error. Specifically here, I do not regard sexual desire as a material pursuit, for example, or hatred and abuse engendered by its frustrations as an unavoidable consequence of seeking happiness in life. Furthermore, I do not think that engaging in material pursuits in the delusion that one obtains happiness or satisfaction thereby necessarily leads to dishonorable and self-deluded abuse of women in the public streets.

I think the opposite - as long as one fails to address the actual manifestations of violence one has little hope of acquiring influence or leverage over the abstract context, and in addition are likely to misunderstand it by misclassifying the various manifestations, and fool yourself. You also delay, and unduly prolong suffering in physical reality, by failing to direct your efforts to where they can be effective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not starting from that comparison.
I'm comparing people who only claim to have a solution to a problem to those people who in fact have solved a problem.

Like I said, your problems are not unique and are part of the problems of the world.

The key terms here are necessarily and unavoidable: Material pursuits often don't lead to problems as long as resources abound. When resources are scarce, such pursuits do lead to problems eventually. (By resources I mean anything from food to potential mates.) The fact is that resources are scarce, so it's just a matter of time before people trying to obtain those resources get into a fight over them.

As noted, the feminist efforts to stop rape and rape threats so far have not brought about the desired results, or at least there is no evidence of the efficacy of their methods.

Dealing with subsets of violence without regard for the bigger context of violence as such is like cleaning the deck on a sinking ship. If one has given up on saving the ship, then cleaning the deck (even as the ship is sinking) may make sense, sure.

It's not clear how this is the case.

 

No.

First, I do no longer care about political choices at all. I have understood that democracy always tends toward more state power and will always end in a police state. So that there is no real choice. I have, in my youth, some different ideas, in relation with the sexual liberation around 1968. But this was a childish illusion. The remains of 1968 are today the most radical proponents of the police state, and I have learned this lecture.

So my postings are anyway addressed only toward a small minority, irrelevant in any democratic election. That of intelligent, reasonable people, who care about arguments, who are ready to think about long term and side effects of ideas.

Now, about the content: A protection of women from some forms of violence is certainly possible, and not only possible, but will be given in any civilized society, and an anarchistic society which would not give it would simply not be viable. On the other hand, a society which forbids contact between strangers, or makes it extremely dangerous, would not be viable too.

But any society which allows some safe contacts between strangers has, necessarily, to allow also some contacts which are not wanted by at least one participant. For the simple reason that before starting the conversation I cannot know if it is welcome.

(Ok, not exactly. One can enforce people to give some information about this question. This is, in fact, the usual way civilized societies solve this problem - with dress codes. Roughly, a women which is "dressed decently" according to the local culture, is assumed not to want to have any communication with other males. But this solution seems one which the left is uncomfortable with.)

So you cannot have a complete satisfaction provided by the police. What you can have is only some basic security. But some discomfort caused by unsuccessful conversations cannot be avoided. For the simple reason that clear rules of what is legal speech and what is forbidden speech do not solve the problem. To understand that they cannot solve the problem is nothing I would think more than 20% are able to understand, sorry. But this does not change the fact that such rules cannot solve the problem.

The point being? As if I would claim that it is impossible to make laws which do not solve the problems they are claimed to solve.

 

You say that like it means something.

• • •​

Okay, then. We have our answer.

 

It seems to be taking quite a while. Hundreds of years and counting, in the earlier democracies, and at frequent intervals trends away from police state status.

We don't need perfection. We need reasonable enjoyment of the public space by the public. If you are unable to make reasonable assessments of circumstances and so forth, to guide you in your accosting of strangers, so that you are continually giving offense and making threats, you had best not do it.

Not on this planet.

Of course. But we were talking about curbing continual and and unavoidable and unapologetic street harassment and abuse and threatening of women, a consistent and overriding pattern, not the occasional awkward faux pas. What we hope to establish is basic security, such as you propose.

 

If there is a good starting point, with extreme decentralization, if may, indeed, take a while.

Fine. In this case, it would be better to leave the reasonable enjoyment untouched.

You can be sure that I will never ask anybody anything in the USA. Because I will not even visit to this police state.

 

Even longer, in that most of the democracies at issue (small and large, centralized and not,) appear to have moved in the opposite direction over time.

The women wish to share in it. They are, after all, half the population. But that requires significant changes to be made.

Nor will you bother to learn anything about the place, apparently. Police state? It is a growing threat, truly, Trump at the head. But not here yet, or much in evidence.

 

Part of the problem in this discussion is that participants come from different countries, different cultures, and so have very different backgrounds in how public discourse works.

 

Wrong questions, false dilemmas.

I am not amazed that some people, such as yourself, are so adamant in their hostile attribution bias.

Treating people like they're idiots really isn't helping you.

I expect that the methods that the people in charge propose should be effective.

Great then if they work. The question is, to what extent, for how long.
Sometimes, the direct approach (such as "Don't be violent to women!") only seems to exacerbate things.

20% reduction isn't exactly great success.

 

Not all of them.

You said: "A lot of rape victims suffer and a lot commit suicide as a result. What could she have done? I don't know. I can't give you the answer to that question because I haven't found it yet."
I want to see an answer to that.

 

We live to pay bills and die, don't we, Bells? This is all there is to life. That's your basic outlook, no matter how much you try to hide it. And this outlook is all you have to offer. That's why you can't answer that question, and instead constantly resort to your wild imaginings, ridicule and contempt.

 

That's a fucked up way to avoid answering the question, especially from someone who has a half-assed understanding of biology who claims that all we're here to do is pursue biological imperatives.

 

Apparently, you, too, cannot read and are adamant in your hostile attribution bias.

 

No, you aren't. Not on this thread. You were addressing, for example, a post by someone who explicitly denied having solved a problem, that denial being directly addressed by you. Also, there is no one here with a credible claim to having "solved" anything.

You were instead denying the possibility of higher moral ground to anyone who has not "solved" a problem they address. Here's the quote:

So? The world's problems include a great deal that is not among my problems. Hence the distinction.

People in hell want ice water. There isn't any. Meanwhile, why not stay on topic and address the issues of the thread?

 

One of the functional problems you're facing here is that nobody would wish you to seek the answer for yourself.

You're asking impossible questions; nobody can know what, specifically, would have made a difference.

But, you know, like everything else, it's all a woman's problem. The men who do these things? As I hear it from some of my brothers, they're just being men.

Doesn't sound right to me, but hey, I'm queer.

(I would love to say it's the one part of passing I never got the hang of, because, really, I never did. But neither is it the one part. Honestly, you hetero boys are fucked up. Seriously, no wonder y'all are so confused.)

(Sad thing is, you're doing it to yourselves.)