Well, this explains a few things:
Narcissistic Heterosexual Men Target Their Hostility Primarily at Heterosexual Women, the Objects of Their Desires, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2010) — Heterosexual women bear the brunt of narcissistic heterosexual men’s hostility, while heterosexual men, gay men and lesbian women provoke a softer reaction, according to psychologist Dr. Scott Keiller from Kent State University at Tuscarawas. This is likely to be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism, the author concludes. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.
More here. The actual study here (subscribers only).
Yes, like a lot of psych studies, it was based on a relatively small sample of college students (104 undergraduate men, to be exact). But after this post yesterday – and, you know, the entire content of this blog — it’s hard not to think that Keiller is on to something.
@ Rutee
Rutee said: Even if that only made us equal, and it doesn’t, because weak studies substantiate weak claims perfectly well, you still have no evidence of your claims beyond an appeal to authority.
RB: You reject common sense or at least a conclusion that I and most men believe to be common sense. You reject the police officers judgement. So it seems the only conclusion you’ll accept is one the one that you want. And that’s the real problem seems to me that you have an ideological fixation that refuses any contrary information.
Rutee: You seem to be That doesn’t substantiate your claims either; the correct answer to a complete failure to substantiate by both sides of an argument (And that’s not what happened here, but I’m playing along) is actually not to conclude that ‘common sense’ or ‘authority’ is right. It’s to not have a conclusion.
RB: If, I am wrong and a woman follows the suggestions I outlined before she looses next to nothing. Perhaps she looses some of her wardrobe. In fact if clothing, body type, etc has nothing to do with a rapists attention but she would go ahead and follow my advice she still would be safer, she would be armed thus more able to protect herself and her family and likely more aware of her surroundings.
If you are wrong she is now in increased danger, is likely unaware of it and has nothing to defend herself and will possibly be wearing skimpy tight clothing making her less capable to fight or run.
Now you tell me which solution is better for women.
Random Brother
You reject common sense or at least a conclusion that I and most men believe to be common sense. You reject the police officers judgement. So it seems the only conclusion you’ll accept is one the one that you want. And that’s the real problem seems to me that you have an ideological fixation that refuses any contrary information.
do you really not understand how what you see as common sense is not “contrary information”. Seriously, the dude with no better argument than, “it seems right to me” is accusing other people of an ideological fixation. how does that work? you cannot possibly be this dense. you’re fucking with us, right?
This just in: Women can’t run in skimpy tight clothing. You never watch the Olympics, RB?
This just in: Women can’t fight or run in skimpy tight clothing.
Women, apparently, can’t fight or run in skimpy tight clothing. Boy, this thread has been educational.
and
and
etc…
Just dropped by to see what’s keeping this thread alive, and I see that I have developed quite the small but loyal following, long after what I had to say had run its course! Keeping the memory of me alive with the same old autistic and anti-intellectual insults… how quaint 🙂 But isn’t it getting a tad old for anyone yet? lol
RB: She loses autonomy. She has to constrain her behavior to avoid some man, somewhere, somewhen, deciding she’s fair game.
That’s what she loses.
Now I see you’ve not explained to me why the Chief of Police is to be preferred over a single cop. Nor have you explained why your sample size of 1, is better than any other person’s sample size of 1 (esp. when one of the people you are dismissing has explained that she works with rape victims). If you choose to allege she is lying, because she doesn’t want to support you, you will have to provide more evidence than, “I said so.”
Also, you’ve not explained why your sample size of 1 (we presume) non-rapist self is of more merit than a study of 12 known rapists. You’ve also not explained away the details of that study (e.g. them being able to pick out the rape victims from a mixed array of victims and non-victims). A small sample size can be representative. That’s what modelling, operational definitions, working terms, elimination of confounding variable, etc. are meant to deal with.
And then peer-review, or good explanation in a non-peer-reviewed paper, irons out some of the methodological flaws and a statement of how much the study seems to show; and any basis for follow on work is described.
You… you’ve pulled something out of your ass, and expect us to think it’s a diamond.
Why? Because you’ve told us how smart you are.
The jury is still out on that one, at least until you show your work.
ohhh chuckeedee. an intellectual doesnt deploy words with the florid abandon you do. an intellectual understands that every word has its place and should be used with precision. what you are is a pseudo-intellectual, or to employ a term more in keeping with the level of understanding youve displayed, a poser.
Why do you demand women change their behavior instead of demanding rapists from doing so?
@ Pecunium:
Pecunium said: That might be a bit subtle for your manly brain, but it’s looking pretty likely from here.
And… further down we see just how strongly that failure of manly logic runs. There is no way the cheif of police might actually know what he’s doing. Nope, it was “screeching” from “femnuts”.
RB is all knowing, and never makes mistakes.
RB: Another odd little straw man.
Pecunium: So, about all those black men in prison… the cops are right on that too. Because the disproportionate numbers of arrests, and convictions, must mean they commit that much of the crime in the US.
RB So your argument is some cops are wrong/bigotted the Toronto cop is as well?
Pecunium: And you are a rape advocate, not because you deny the facts of rape (which you do) but because you said that as soon as the guy whips it out, and sticks it in, she’ll be all over that action.
RB: Don’t project your sad little life on me.
Pecunium: I realise a lot has been said, but you said that, do try to keep up.
RB: Keep up with what? You’ve basically said “Der cops do bad stuff so the Toronto cop bad, Der you disagree wit me, so your pro rape!” Not exaclty the height of logic there.
Pecunium said: RB said, What’s most disturbing is that you’re mentally challenged enough to think 12 people equals a legitimate sample size. Fucking moronic waste of a rib.
And your sample size = 1 (i.e. yourself), until you can come up with a study, DoJ report, something. Where is NWO when we need him. He could teach you a lot about actually making the people you are trying to mock/insult do some actual work.
RB: You can’t even remeber a few posts ago, please find someone with some intelligence to help you alright dear. As it stands no one has proven anything got that cock sock? All you have is you don’t agree with me rape! That and some hysterical whining.
Oh and BTW, your analogy about a cab fails. What if the cabby simply doesn’t hear you? Is he a kidnapper? To a dim witted cunt such as yourself I’m sure it is.
Random Brother
Yeh we haven’t even started on the fact that I should never get drunk and have a fun time or try to look nice because someone will rape me. Isn’t it nice that men (and rapists) don’t get prescribed this behaviour too?
Rachel, it would seem that the crux of our differences are perhaps best encapsulated in two of your central paragraphs:
Because it targets only men whilst ingnoring women’s complicity. The complicity of women is not trivial, and it is not an afterthought. It is tied in with the power of veto and it is an integral aspect of the validation (from mothers in infancy and from women in adulthood) that plays a crucial role in motivating men. It is nonesense to lay the blame solely on men. The problem is culture.
Not quite. Culture as a collective provides the basis for our identities. When we live in a culture and we accept everything that our culture stands for, we become accomplices in the events that takes place in that culture. We can, to some extent, ameliorate our complicity by making a stand for what we believe in, in contravention of the accepted norm. But more often than not, most people accept the status quo and, ipso facto, they share some of burden of responsibility in the things that go around that finish up coming around to bite them on the ass another day. This is a topic that contemporary academia is not addressing properly, though some have tried (e.g., memetics, complexity theory).
… awaiting the rousing chorus from my entourage fan-club of autistics and anti-intellectuals… yay! XD
@Chuckee
There’s nothing anti-intellectual about expecting you to explain yourself in plain language. What you write is pure blather, nothing more, which you have mistaken for intellectualism. Unfortunately, you lack the intellect to understand your own shallowness. You are a living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect: too mediocre to understand how mediocre you truly are.
So, yes, you are a pretentious nob. When you have something to offer rather than pretentious nobbery, we will be here.
as reliable as clockwork hahahahaha
chuckeedee: Care to actually address the problems in calling culture an ecosystem? Or are you going to pretend that was a substantive reply?
But Magical Laura…they are MEN…I thought the point was that they were these supposedly superior to us creatures that us little hamster brained ladies could not possibly ever emulate.
DKM
Dude, you believe that in the coming Golden Age, women should be submissive to men or killed. Literally, killed. You’ll get no love for your “real womanhood” schtick here, since we all know what lies behind it. Also, again with the exclamation points and all caps? You think you’re a MANLY MAN, but to me you look like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80417459@N00/1336367766/
Chuckadee:
I’ve got Asperger’s, and I’m proud of who I am. Why do you believe “autistic” is an insult?
“Now, this will of course set off the radfems and other nutjobs on this board, followed closely by the pussy beggars, but the idea that if a woman has alcohol in her system that she cannot consent to sex is stupid. Also, no such law would ever be passes with regards to a man. But feminists would love to have this pass though it is totally asinine. Anything that harms men I guess.”
This is a statement with which I partially agree. I don’t think that any amount of alcohol whatsoever negates informed and enthusiastic consent. In fact, I think that one of the problems we come up against, when talk about sex, alcohol, and rape and alcohol is that we’ve become overly reliant on the term “drunk” as the catch-all descriptor for the various stages of alcohol consumption. Alcohol is many things, among them a social lubricant, but I don’t think that the moment you have a beer, a glass of wine, or a shot that you immediately become so impaired that you cannot consent to sex. Varying tolerance levels and so forth, notwithstanding.
That said, I think that even without the use of a breathalyzer, the difference between someone, male or female, who has had a few drinks, or is tipsy, or is even inebriated (inebriated is very gray) is easily discernable from someone who is intoxicated, possibly suffering from alcohol poisoning, very possibly having a black out, and almost certainly on the verge of passing out. I think it’s easy for people to feign ignorance; the bullshit “How can you tell?” and “Why’s it my responsibility…” gambits.
Increased education about alcohol and the effects of alcohol consumption would benefit young people enormously, not just as a measure to prevent acquaintance rape, but as a useful tool for life. Talk to ER staff about how many cases of alcohol poisoning they see every year. And how many of those kids were dropped off, of left outside somewhere.
Because it targets only men whilst ingnoring women’s complicity. The complicity of women is not trivial, and it is not an afterthought. It is tied in with the power of veto and it is an integral aspect of the validation (from mothers in infancy and from women in adulthood) that plays a crucial role in motivating men. It is nonesense to lay the blame solely on men. The problem is culture.
See, there’s almost an idea in here, if one can hack one’s way through the verbiage. Essentially, it sounds as if you’re saying that women are complicit in their own oppression because of the way men are socialized to be by their mothers. But no one is saying that women are not complicit in the promotion of patriarchal attitudes and ideas. In fact, even a cursory examination of feminist thought reveals this. How many times do feminists have to say “patriarchy hurts everyone” for this idea to sink in?
Culture as a collective provides the basis for our identities. When we live in a culture and we accept everything that our culture stands for, we become accomplices in the events that takes place in that culture. We can, to some extent, ameliorate our complicity by making a stand for what we believe in, in contravention of the accepted norm.
But that’s just what she said above, only with far fewer words: feminists seek to change the status quo. That’s what it’s all about. Do you know anything at all about feminism?
Also, just saying that culture matters, while true, is unbelievably trite. The real question is how does it matter? How does it influence us, and what is the specific interaction between culture, environment, and biology as it relates to gender? Be specific, use examples. Liberal use of jargon does not an argument make.
In short, stop being a nob.
Chuckedee, have you produced a pseudo-scientific definition of the word “thug” yet? Because until you do, I just don’t know how anyone is supposed to take this drivel seriously. According to you, women only have sex with “thugs” and thus men become “thugs” and sexually assault us. So what is a “thug”? This is critical.
“I’m in the U.S. The old definition where some ahole grabbed someone and forced themselves on a girl, not the new feminist inspired one where a girl is with her boyfriend of 5 years and he’s pounding away and she says stop and he gives 2 or 3 extra pumps before he stops and now he’s public enemy number one.”
I remember that article in Time. I was still living in Baltimore when that case was active and The Sun kept track of it. There have been, maybe, a handful of these cases where charges were actually brought against the defendant. If memory serves, this was one of the few in which the man was successfully prosecuted and it did go to the court of appeals. This case was particularly difficult, remains unresolved, and the case law requires seriously clarification and revision.
Now, if you can stop being trite and dismissive, there have been other cases –far less ambiguous- in which the removal of consent occurred after the start of intercourse. Do you agree with Maryland interpretation of the law? That if consent is given for penetration it cannot be revoked? How about a scenario where he’s pounding away, she says “stop” he gives 5-10 extra pumps instead of “2 or 3”… still okay? Is it okay as long as he doesn’t climax?
What about 15 – 20, or 40- 50? What if everything was going fine but they shifted positions slightly, and now it hurts and she asks him to stop, and he keeps going because he’s almost there? How long do you think he should have, reasonably? You’re a reasonable man, right? Thirty seconds? A minute? Five minutes? How long does he get to pretend that she’s not a person, just a hole, and that if she’d just shut up and hold still, he’d be finished? And how on earth is that not rape? What if she consented to sex with a condom, but he takes it off or refuses to use one, and continues “pounding away”? Still okay?
So, chuckedee: You also need to explain (right after the issue of culture as ecosystem) why feminism is wrong, as it’s women (and men) of a like mind trying to change the culture to better meet their needs.
I’m guessing that Chuckee took a couple of Anthropology classes at the local JC and now thinks he’s the God of Academia. Heaven knows, he didn’t take any writing classes.
“I also have a problem with the idea that we live in some a rape culture. As if women creep around terrified that hordes of rapists are going to pounce on them at any time. This is utter bullshit. If there is a rape culture the woman here sure as hell aren’t acting like they are scared. People who are scared actually take precautions. They don’t respond by holding parades dressed half naked.”
And I have a problem with the idea that we live in a culture in which false accusations of rape are so prevalent, taken so seriously, and result in so many cases of erroneous imprisonment of innocent men, that every time the subject of rape is discussed someone is throwing a link to the False Rape Society in my face. Tell me, how would men’s behavior change if we lived in a culture where false rape accusations were: 1) standard, the norm, ubiquitous and 2) had even a 50% conviction rate? If false rape accusations are such a problem, why haven’t men begun a campaign to take these steps? Something similar to “Take Back the Night” or awareness information in general?
“3. Two things could help ensure that men are not falsely accused of rape. One, passing a law that gives the same punishment to false rape accusers as to rapists. Two, adding polygraphs and whatever high tech machinery to help ensure that the right person gets convicted. Once you have a high level of probability that you have the right guy, hang him. “
This is based on the presumption that all false rape accusations are malicious in intent, and that any time a rape trial fails to produce a conviction the intentions of the accuser willfully and intentionally mislead law enforcement and prosecution. Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that we have a system in place to deal with false reports, perjury, and provide a method for civil redress (a system that could certainly be improved), you’re still working from a very dubious series of claims.
And how would your system help men who are the victims of mistaken identity and/or bad police work? How would this have helped the young men in the Central Park Jogger case?
RB, I didn’t let your comment through in which you called someone a cunt and then suggested carving something into someone’s forehead. Try to restrain yourself, dude.