The issue is not if it's a good/bad thing. We all know that.
The issue is that is neither common nor a natural thing for men to "struggle not to rape someone" as much as you think it is. While your intentions might be good, and I do believe that, it reads like some sort of freudian slip.
Imagine if someone wrote "hey guys, let's be honest, I don't really like this thing of urinating on your food before eating, can we just agree to stop doing that :)".
You wouldn't think "oh what a sensible comment, finally someone has the balls to talk about it", no, you would just :O and think the guy is crazy ...
Frankly, there are far too many men who have one foot in the “rape is OK” camp. (Framed as “you have to be forceful even if she’s reluctant,” “if she’s drunk or passed out it’s still OK,” “society owes me sex,” etc.) Just look at the insane popularity of Andrew Tate. I think it’s a salient point.
If you mean, by reporting statistics, you’re probably right. But men in general are widely used to physical abuse and are expected to take it. Granted, it is rarely significantly harmful and women use it as a way to reassure themselves that men are “in charge “ or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is vile behavior.
Men’s behavior is as much shaped by female expectations as the behavior of women is molded by men.
Like it or not, we’re in this together, and cooperation with mutual understanding and benefit is the only way forward. We can see what happens when this breaks down, as in sharia law. How do you think this ends if we ceaselessly demonize men? Shame has its limits, and they start where the violence begins.
Of -reported- incedents, 1 in 4 women report having been the victim of significant physical harm by an intimate partner, as do 1 in 7 men. Now if you consider the comparative likelihood of severe physical harm in M vs F and F vs M, and factor in the likelihood of reporting for women vs men, I think you can see that the rate is not at all what it seems at first glance.
(FWIW, despite the relative -frequency- of incidents , I do agree that the danger is greater to women just on the basis of the likelihood of harm in a MvF conflict.)
Reported incidence of psychological/emotional abuse are almost exactly at parity, with just under half of both sexes reporting abuse in their lifetime. Physical abuse prevalence in lesbian relationships is also much higher than either heterosexual or male-male relationships.
From this I would estimate that the willingness to act out in violence against a domestic partner is something close to evenly distributed among the sexes.
Collection of definitive data about subjects such as this is notoriously difficult, but reading between the lines both here and in violence among youth (m-m, f-f, m/f) seems to indicate that the predilection, if not the severity, of violence is relatively evenly distributed among.
Fallacy of composition: Not every member of a set is guaranteed to share all attributes with the "bad apples" in the set. Not even if there are a lot of bad apples.
This bullshit is why #NotAllMen is a farcical trope among feminists.
Can ya'll please grow slightly thicker skin?
It doesn't take much effort to give the author benefit of doubt, especially when he already qualified his claim with "If you're a man, one of your hardest battles may be..."
To those who are unaware, "may be" signals uncertainty. It signals #NotAllMen.
>Would you trust a medical system measured by: which doctor would the average Internet user vote for?
Yes, the system desperately needs this. Many doctors malpractice for DECADES.
I would absolutely seek to, damn, even pay good money to, be able to talk with a doctor's previous patients, particularly if they're going to perform a life-changing procedure on me.
Raw score is often quite frankly crap. It's often still easy to surface the negative reviews and since people don't at least at present fake those you can find out what they didn't like about a product. If a given products critics are only those whining about something irrelevant, not meaningful to your use case, or acceptable to you and it overall appears to meet spec you are often golden.
Jack Smith also made the clear case to Congress last week that he has the evidence that Trump did try to overthrow the 2020 election and inspired the January 6th insurrection, so he should not have been eligible to run in 2024. He should have been in prison.
To be fair, the English names for all other places named after Cristoforo Colombo use the English spelling for Christopher Columbus. It might be difficult to remember the (locally-less common) exception.
And our primitive spell checkers often cannot deduce from context, as there are many, perhaps most cases, where Columbia is the most-likely correct rendition. Even if we transcend our own difficulties, Siri might defeat us.
You are correct that the correct English spelling for Colombia is Colombia, and surely it is problematic to localize a foreign country's name.
So please reciprocally acknowledge receipt of our formal request for Colombians to stop calling the USA "EE. UU.", "Estados Unidos de América", and all other such indignities. :)
Are you trolling? The implication is clearly that GenZ is unusually hyperbolic. That their predilection for hyperbole is somehow unusual or notable, otherwise WHY MENTION IT.
Speaking personally, the Summer of Love and 1990s counterculture is much more unusual and hyperbolic. I'd be curious to hear where you're seeing Gen Z surpass those generations.
Unusual yes, but I wouldn't call them hyperbolic (in the context of its meaning in this thread).
Also, wrt. to the Summer of Love, I would think its values are in the complete opposite side of what's being discussed here.
Excerpt from its Wikipedia page [1]:
"Many opposed the Vietnam War, were suspicious of government, and rejected consumerist values. In the United States, counterculture groups rejected suburbia and the American way and instead opted for a communal lifestyle. Some hippies were active in political organization, whereas others were passive and more concerned with art (music, painting, poetry in particular) or spiritual and meditative practices."
That doesn't sound compatible with "young people these days are so desperate to show off their skills, to the point of faking it, to get jobs in the government or the industry".
But I am now curious to hear about how you think both cohorts are related.
Realizing that the book burnings in the 1930s were not performed by the dumb Nazi brutes we know from movies like Indiana Jones, but by student organizations (e.g. what should be sufficiently smart people) was a bit of a shock to me (not really anymore from today's point of view seeing how easy otherwise smart people get themselves into a spiral of hate and fascist ideology).
So, it was smart and young German students that wanted to get rid of most or all of the material produced by one of the earliest institutions on the planet dealing with controversial topics like birth control, LGBT, fetishism, sadomasochism and venereal disease.
The founder and most of the researchers there were Jewish, so I wouldn't discard an antisemitic motive behind that as well.
As you say, I always bought the "dumb nazis burned books" story, but this context makes me think about the event in a much different way.
At the time I was an employee. They didn't like people launching side-projects, so, I involved my wife in the process. She's PR, so, she sent it to the media.
I did the rest, being developing, contacting companies and talking to over 40s.
The issue is that is neither common nor a natural thing for men to "struggle not to rape someone" as much as you think it is. While your intentions might be good, and I do believe that, it reads like some sort of freudian slip.
Imagine if someone wrote "hey guys, let's be honest, I don't really like this thing of urinating on your food before eating, can we just agree to stop doing that :)".
You wouldn't think "oh what a sensible comment, finally someone has the balls to talk about it", no, you would just :O and think the guy is crazy ...
reply