I suspect that most people haven't gotten a decent "birds and the bees" talk, so there is much confusion. If my blog post about "the difference between boys and girls" [0] were required reading we'd all be better off... I tell women about that experience, and they usually laugh because they get it.
I was drawn to comment here because of these two paragraphs:
> You can think of crimes as a sort of pyramid: At the top, there are a relatively small number of actions that we can all clearly agree merit the severest sanction, if proven. And then, as you slide down the walls of the pyramid, a growing number of cases that are less and less bad. At the base of the pyramid is a gray area where reasonable people can disagree about whether the evidence is strong, or the behavior alleged merits any sanction.
> What happens if we try to apply the sanctions that are clearly merited for the guys at the top to the guys in the middle? What happens if we try to move the line down until it encompasses more and more of the guys at the bottom?
This is a good analogy, except the drug war turns this hypothetical pyramid into something more like an hourglass. Drug war sanctions are applied to people who haven't hurt anyone but themselves.
A week ago I learned my "Who Are Your Lifelines" [1] passenger was back in jail. I determined that his next hearing was today, so I went. The arrest warrant was 2.5 years old. He was actually doing fine, until he crossed paths with a law enforcement officer ~3 weeks ago. He has a job & some degree of stability. Hopefully this progress will persist in spite of spending the next 30 days in jail...
In many states, this has already happened due to a different area of law which operates on rumor and innuendo: divorce.
In several states, divorce law was rewritten by feminists and a lobby of divorce lawyers. In those states, the vast majority of divorces are filed for by women. The majority have false accusations of abuse or domestic violence (indeed, in one state where I looked at the statistics in depth, as a man, you have a 12% chance of engaging in domestic violence, and a >25% chance of being accused of it).
It takes a high level of mental will-power not to generalize.
The result, unsurprisingly, is a large body of men who basically don't believe any of these allegations until proven in a court of law. I saw several transform from believing in equal-opportunity to becoming secret and extreme misogynists. Several whom I know personally hold positions of high power in both corporate and government settings.
Women at those organizations run into a secret glass ceiling.
And there is a sort of informal lobby who financially supports anti-women's-rights candidates.
> The result, unsurprisingly, is a large body of men who basically don't believe any of these allegations until proven in a court of law. I saw several transform from believing in equal-opportunity to becoming secret and extreme misogynists. Several whom I know personally hold positions of high power in both corporate and government settings. Women at those organizations run into a secret glass ceiling.
They retaliate against female colleges because their own divorce was ugly? But, but, meritocracy ...
> The result, unsurprisingly, is a large body of men who basically don't believe any of these allegations until proven in a court of law.
As it should be - anyone, male of female, accused of a crime should be considered innocent until proven guilty rather than have their lives wrecked on an unproven allegation. There are some cases - Weinstein and Cosby - where tens or hundreds of victims have come forward that it's likely that it's reasonable to assume the outcome. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.
Before you start making claims about victim blaming, consider that first we must establish who the victim is: we've just had two well-publicised proven false rape allegations in two weeks in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42417553
The Liam case wasn’t just proven false it indicated a much bigger problem.
I really hope that that case wasn’t that the police was too scared of the political fallout of submitting exonerating evidence in a sexual assault case, i much rather it be just sheer stupidity or plain old corruption for personal political gain.
The UK has had a lot of problems with law enforcement and local authorities not willing to investigate or sweeping under the rug possibly charged political cases such as the sexual assault gangs and pedophile rings in certain communities.
I’ve also known a few people in hiring positione that won’t hire women in today’s climate simply because they are too scared to manage them.
I’ve also seen some cases of false accusations, a big one happened at my first job where a woman working there filed an accusation against a colleague of mine because she got hurt as he didn’t react to her advances, when she submitted it to HR they basically told her “you know he’s gay rught?” It didn’t stop her from going to the external company that handled sexual assault claims nor filing a police report.
I’ve also had a collegue who’s kickboxing instructor of a wife pretty much tried to bait him to beat her during the divorce by punching him. The guy who’s built like a tank and would make you want to switch to the other side of the road came to work with a black eye one day and basically it was from his wife.
There are a lot of cases which are much more nuanced than they seem and in many cases it’s almost a taboo to talk about it in any way that isn’t completely onesided.
While I'm certain all sorts of shenanigans come out in divorce proceedings,
> (indeed, in one state where I looked at the statistics in depth, as a man, you have a 12% chance of engaging in domestic violence, and a >25% chance of being accused of it).
This statistic is not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that women make up domestic abuse charges with regularity. Its far more likely that women are more likely to divorce their spouse if they are abusive.
Yes. What the statistic we're seeing here is that women who divorce their spouse are twice as likely to victims of domestic abuse. Is that really a stretch?
Because as the marriage goes bad, the man is more likely to start becoming abusive. Because if the man is abusive, the marriage is more likely to go bad. Both are very likely true.
Note well: I am not saying that every divorce is because of abuse. I am not saying that every man in a bad marriage will become an abuser.
> This statistic is not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that women make up domestic abuse charges with regularity. Its far more likely that women are more likely to divorce their spouse if they are abusive.
It is, you have 100 men, 25 of them are accused, while 12 actually engage in abuse, which means, half of the accused men are innocent. If this is not enough to convince you, then simply nothing will.
Which accusations were based on innuendo and which accusations were grey area? Those I read were not that way, but then again I did not went out of my way to seek stories.
I am asking for specifics, because I have seen some accusations of quite clear non-grey harassment that got discussed as if they were about "flirting" here.
Not sure if you’re being facetious or maybe english isn’t your first language, but I’m trying to give people the benefit of the doubt over the holidays, so here you go: his employer took away his current show, stopped playing reruns of Prairie Home Companion, which had been on the air for decades, and renamed the current version (it has had a new host for a couple of years). So far all we know is his story that he accidentally touched a woman’s back under her shirt while consoling her, apologized, apologized again via email, had apology acknowledged and accepted.
While an employer may punish an employee by firing them and destroying their legacy as they see fit, they thankfully can not put anyone behind bars. Obviously nothing has gone to trial, and the accuser hasn’t even spoken to the media.
20 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 61.9 ms ] thread[0] http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys-...
I was drawn to comment here because of these two paragraphs:
> You can think of crimes as a sort of pyramid: At the top, there are a relatively small number of actions that we can all clearly agree merit the severest sanction, if proven. And then, as you slide down the walls of the pyramid, a growing number of cases that are less and less bad. At the base of the pyramid is a gray area where reasonable people can disagree about whether the evidence is strong, or the behavior alleged merits any sanction.
> What happens if we try to apply the sanctions that are clearly merited for the guys at the top to the guys in the middle? What happens if we try to move the line down until it encompasses more and more of the guys at the bottom?
This is a good analogy, except the drug war turns this hypothetical pyramid into something more like an hourglass. Drug war sanctions are applied to people who haven't hurt anyone but themselves.
A week ago I learned my "Who Are Your Lifelines" [1] passenger was back in jail. I determined that his next hearing was today, so I went. The arrest warrant was 2.5 years old. He was actually doing fine, until he crossed paths with a law enforcement officer ~3 weeks ago. He has a job & some degree of stability. Hopefully this progress will persist in spite of spending the next 30 days in jail...
[1] http://www.TaxiWars.org/who-are-your-lifelines/
edit: another sentence & [0] added to opening.
In several states, divorce law was rewritten by feminists and a lobby of divorce lawyers. In those states, the vast majority of divorces are filed for by women. The majority have false accusations of abuse or domestic violence (indeed, in one state where I looked at the statistics in depth, as a man, you have a 12% chance of engaging in domestic violence, and a >25% chance of being accused of it).
It takes a high level of mental will-power not to generalize.
The result, unsurprisingly, is a large body of men who basically don't believe any of these allegations until proven in a court of law. I saw several transform from believing in equal-opportunity to becoming secret and extreme misogynists. Several whom I know personally hold positions of high power in both corporate and government settings.
Women at those organizations run into a secret glass ceiling.
And there is a sort of informal lobby who financially supports anti-women's-rights candidates.
They retaliate against female colleges because their own divorce was ugly? But, but, meritocracy ...
As it should be - anyone, male of female, accused of a crime should be considered innocent until proven guilty rather than have their lives wrecked on an unproven allegation. There are some cases - Weinstein and Cosby - where tens or hundreds of victims have come forward that it's likely that it's reasonable to assume the outcome. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.
Before you start making claims about victim blaming, consider that first we must establish who the victim is: we've just had two well-publicised proven false rape allegations in two weeks in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42417553
I really hope that that case wasn’t that the police was too scared of the political fallout of submitting exonerating evidence in a sexual assault case, i much rather it be just sheer stupidity or plain old corruption for personal political gain.
The UK has had a lot of problems with law enforcement and local authorities not willing to investigate or sweeping under the rug possibly charged political cases such as the sexual assault gangs and pedophile rings in certain communities.
I’ve also known a few people in hiring positione that won’t hire women in today’s climate simply because they are too scared to manage them.
I’ve also seen some cases of false accusations, a big one happened at my first job where a woman working there filed an accusation against a colleague of mine because she got hurt as he didn’t react to her advances, when she submitted it to HR they basically told her “you know he’s gay rught?” It didn’t stop her from going to the external company that handled sexual assault claims nor filing a police report.
I’ve also had a collegue who’s kickboxing instructor of a wife pretty much tried to bait him to beat her during the divorce by punching him. The guy who’s built like a tank and would make you want to switch to the other side of the road came to work with a black eye one day and basically it was from his wife.
There are a lot of cases which are much more nuanced than they seem and in many cases it’s almost a taboo to talk about it in any way that isn’t completely onesided.
> (indeed, in one state where I looked at the statistics in depth, as a man, you have a 12% chance of engaging in domestic violence, and a >25% chance of being accused of it).
This statistic is not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that women make up domestic abuse charges with regularity. Its far more likely that women are more likely to divorce their spouse if they are abusive.
Note well: I am not saying that every divorce is because of abuse. I am not saying that every man in a bad marriage will become an abuser.
It is, you have 100 men, 25 of them are accused, while 12 actually engage in abuse, which means, half of the accused men are innocent. If this is not enough to convince you, then simply nothing will.
I am asking for specifics, because I have seen some accusations of quite clear non-grey harassment that got discussed as if they were about "flirting" here.
How many years is he currently serving?
While an employer may punish an employee by firing them and destroying their legacy as they see fit, they thankfully can not put anyone behind bars. Obviously nothing has gone to trial, and the accuser hasn’t even spoken to the media.
Why are we sending these people to Coventry? The city has a bad enough reputation as it is.