Well, that sucks. I imagine this stuff is going to be worse on interplanetary missions and the like.
Though I have some faith that the space missions will have more scrutiny. Ultimately, no one cares that much about Antarctica. Space is much more high profile.
Won't matter unless there are significant consequences. Significant jail time, banned from space programs, etc. And I have strong doubts that will happen. Just look at how easily rapists get off today when they have "strong moral character" according to the judge.
I'm sorry, but this comment is a perfect example of why combating this behavior is so tough. And I don't mean to pick on you—this POV is demonstrated throughout the comments here.
Sexual harassment is wrong and should result in appropriate action. However, the absolute breathless hysterics—and frankly dishonesty—that result in these conversations fundamentally undermines the credibility of every single allegation that comes forward.
A man commits sexual harassment by making an advance while putting a hand on a woman's shoulder. It then gets exaggerated at every level: it's assault, then it's groping, then it's sexual assault, then he's a "rapist" and this is "dangerous" and and "act of violence."
When you unleash this tornado of hyperbole, you condition everyone who hears your message to assume that such allegations are always exaggerated and dishonest. And again, it's not just you personally: the OP surveys intentionally conflating "harassment or assault" are just as fundamentally insane.
This messaging tells every single person who might end up on one of my juries that they shouldn't believe a word out of the victim's mouth.
So yeah. I guess if you really care about holding people accountable, maybe try not intentionally sabotaging the attempts to do so.
Wow, that's the fastest slippery slope argument I've ever seen. In the absence of a specific incident to discuss, this sounds both alarmist and alarmingly misogynist. Especially since nobody has suggested that's what happened in the very specific example that this thread is very specifically about.
Thanks, that's lovely. Your comment was deeply troubling on many levels, but you're right, I misused a technical term. Now that we're both done pointing out how problematic the other's words are, I hope the world will be a better place.
The only thing deeply troubling about it is how fanatics like to pretend it isn't true. All I can say is, jury trials are open to the public. Come on down and watch some time.
Until you actually take the time to understand the true elan and effects on target of this virtue-signaling drivel, you're really not in any position to express an opinion one way or another. Those opportunities are plentiful and free, so there's really no excuse.
There's been remarkably little sexual assault on the international space station. The much tighter quarters, constant communication between all team members, and constant digital connectivity (even with lightspeed delays or bandwidth limits), combined with the insanely high selectiveness, all contrive to make sexual assault unlikely to happen, and unlikely to go undiscovered if it did.
The ISS has a crew of 7, micromanaged to death from the ground. McMurdo Station is a town of anywhere from several hundred to a thousand people. They are not comparable social situations.
Over the 9 month long winter, there's only about 200 men and 100 women, and over half of the latter express that SA is a problem. That implies that a lot of men are also going to be aware of the SA problem.
I'm getting strong vibes to how cops will cover for each other, even if they themselves are innocent, and the union (contractor) covers for them all.
Purely my own opinion, but it shouldn't take a leader going "Hey, SA is bad, so don't do it, OK?" for someone to have the morals to 1) not SA someone and 2) report SA if they learn about it.
Then again, I'm often accused of having too strong of a sense of justice.
These are systems problems. You need not only effective leadership, but also a culture where reports are investigated by a disinterested third party, strong guardrails that good faith reporters aren't retaliated against, and harsh penalties when evidence finds someone guilty. No slaps on the wrist, no dismissals of reports, no leadership chains where someone can squash an investigation either as a favor or out of reputational risk. Trust and Safety reporting should be mandatory as a condition of ongoing funding of polar ops.
Accused? Confined to quarters until investigation completes. Accusations found to be true? Brig until the next transport flight is in and than permanently removed from service at the station, and banned from employment with any org that could put you in a role where you might end up at the continent again.
That's hard to find in a colony of a few hundred people, all gathered together for warmth. Everyone knows everyone else.
> harsh penalties when evidence finds someone guilty
And that's another rough one in a small community where everyone's involvement is ideally needed. (I'm assuming the penalties would harm the workforce.)
If these things are necessary in a system, it would also suggest that small towns are inherently rape-y-er than large urban areas. Is that the case?
Can’t say small towns are more rapey per se, but they’re definitely more corrupt because of the tribalism and lack of controls that exist in larger population systems.
The corrupt police raid of the Marion County Recorder comes to mind as a recent reminder of this effect.
It's not so much a leader just saying "SA is bad," but more a leader taking decisive action to shut it down as soon as it pops up. That means a harsh warning on the first offense, and dismissal on the second, regardless of the offender's rank or skill. Anything less means there's room for abusive behavior to take root.
Its not people, its the predominant zeitgeist of the time.
Lack of duty starts at the top. It has spilled down for quite a long time. Since right before 9/11, at least. Now, its prevalent across all fields and at all levels.
- Most teachers shying away from stopping bullying in the classroom.
-Most big-city cops looking away from crime.
- District Attorneys not prosecuting criminals.
- Hospital Heads (HR?) giving ER + ICU doctors unlimited time off to "ponder" someone's murder.
- Leaders punishing their reports who are fighting crime, bullying, or laziness.
- Asset managers making ESG their duty, vs customer best interests.
- 2008 Banks failing duty to disclose CDOs/MBS garbage
- 2020-23 School districts failing the duty to educate kids
Girls know who sexual harassers are because they experience it. I doubt those guys go around telling their friends what they did. Why would they?
For any kind of crime where there is a potentially strong social backlash, I bet the perps take great pains to cover their tracks from people in their physical vicinity. They might share, but more likely on online forums.
Isolated, mixed-sex social groups of unpaired individuals are inherently unstable.
We can improve stability by decreasing isolation — via external accountability and communication, surfacing problems to external authority with the power to act.
We can also improve stability by maintaining stricter single-sex spaces: separate, sex-segregated living quarters and facilities. It shouldn’t even be possible for an outlier abusive man to make his way to a woman’s door, after hours and without permission.
Both cost more, but that should be factored into the cost of putting humans through unnatural experiences like this.
We can also increase stability by increasing the amount of paired individuals substantially. You know, make these places consist of actual communities with families, schools, and everything.
I strongly agree and actually thought about mentioning the same, but I worried it might come across as my implying that single professionals are unsuitable for such roles.
This comes far too close, in my opinion, to the view that men just can't help themselves and therefore don't really deserved to be blamed. I think you can take the view that a systemic treatment of the problem is needed without voiding the significance of personal responsibility.
Once you take personal responsibility into account, the potential treatments become more numerous (and less onerous) than permanently isolating men and women (with, one would hope, fair treatment for trans people, but they tend to get left by the wayside in discussions like this). We can ask questions like "how do you create a culture where all men see any form of sexual harassment as obviously unacceptable?" and "How do you make sure men are not incentivized to cover for each other?" and "How can we ensure that reports of harassment or abuse are properly and fairly dealt with, and that the credibly accused are not able to further harass victims?" Unless, of course, you think that evolution has just made male sexual aggression inevitable to the point where we can't rise above that as a species.
> This comes far too close, in my opinion, to the view that men just can't help themselves and therefore don't really deserved to be blamed.
A very small percentage of people will not behave unless they’re forced to behave, and held accountable when they don’t.
That doesn’t alleviate them of culpability, but it does mean that we cannot rely solely on individuals’ better judgement to keep people safe and healthy.
> the potential treatments become more numerous (and less onerous) than permanently isolating men and women
Providing single-sex living spaces and intimate facilities substantially reduces harassment and assault — we’ve known and successfully made use of that fact for a very long time.
all sorts of people can't help themselves and be bullies, sometimes violent. there's more awareness of mental illnesses in our societies but some men behaving in a threatening way and seemingly not being able to control it is not considered a mental illness
I'm going to say some things here that some people find offensive. But note, no offense is intended and it's just my opinion on the way of the world. If you think differently, I respect that. Anyway...
I think there's a certain reality about male behavior that just can't be ignored. If a woman locks her self up in a place with a bunch of single men this type of stuff is bound to be more likely to happen.
The only reason why this doesn't happen in the real world is because of a 50/50 gender ratio. Men are satisfied with a partner and they enforce gender equality rights because they care about their partner and they care about their daughters. Remove those incentives and they will care less, it's biological reality.
You remove women from a mans life and all that's left is higher level notions of morality versus base level sexual instincts. His base instincts won't be satisfied and he's just relying on what he's "taught" to dictate and control his urges. Among a high enough population those base instincts are going to override morality among a good percentage of single men.
There's really no ideal solution to this. It's largely what women will experience in the military as well if they're embedded in a situation where the men have no outlet. They will unfortunately witness the darker side of men. That's not to say women don't have a dark side too, but that's a different topic.
I mean what are you going to do? Send more men to the antarctic to protect those women? Who's willing to go? I bet a bunch of young single men are down for this....
Anyway I said there weren't ideal solutions to this problem but there are solutions... None offer a complete solution, none are ideal.. but they do mitigate the problem somewhat.
1. Offer free porn to the men. This largely helps men control and release their urges.
2. She needs to partner up with a man. Men will be less likely to mess with her if they know she's partnered up with another dude. Of course a man will only provide protection service if he's provided certain value as well.
3. Send Prostitutes. This causes other problems, but it does alleviate the issue of this topic.
4. Enforce even gender ratios. This would cut down the amount of people going to antartica though because many women just don't want to go.
A reply to your points (each numbered respectively).
1. Porn is already free and available. So I’m not sure why you assume it isn’t. I’m sure the men can acquire it themselves.
2. Exchanging sex for physical protection, is still having to have sex just to be on the base. It’s just easier all round to remove men on the base that can’t control themselves, than invent an extraordinary sex protection fighting system.
3. hiring an extra team of people for the purpose of sexually satisfying the men, sounds like added and complexity and cost. Again it seems the solution is to remove men who are incapable of doing science things without groping and pinning fellow colleagues to the wall.
4. I actually support your 4th idea. more women definitely equalises the influence over the culture at the base, especially if it includes the leadership. Perhaps the first step to achieve that ratio is to remove the men that can’t control themselves. You have a great reason to kick them off the base, kind of works out really.
I’d like to suggest a number 5 solution. since it’s a place of science and experimentation we should see what happens if we remove all the men who are accused of SH and SA. What would be the changes we would see?
1. It is. It would be a lot worse if it wasn't available. More of it will help.
2. I don't think you understand human nature. Inventing sex for protection isn't a thing that I made up it's one of the foundational institutions of marriage and monogamous relationships throughout human civilization. You think a man will engage in a sexless relationship with a woman and offer her all the benefits of a relationship with no sex in return? No. The woman's best strategy is to pair up with a man and get protection if that's what she wants. Sex is part of the transaction. Woman have been doing this for eons what I suggest here is no different. Additionally you can't just remove men who have no control over their sexual urges. First off men hide the amount of control they have, so you won't know. Second off almost all men eventually take the risk if they're deprived long enough.
3. Like I said. Non ideal solution. But this works. And it has worked to pacify urges in places where there's a large amount of men.
4. And like I said the problem here is women don't want to go to Antarctica. It's men who are more willing to take the risk and go. Women tend to value more balanced choices while men are willing to go to extremes to satisfy particular objectives. So if you enforce this you'll restrict the population by a huge amount. Not to mention this is sexist gender policy designed to favor women.
5. You can't. Large numbers of men engage in this behavior. Most of it is harmless and of the nature of catcalling. You remove these men you'll remove over half the population. Also you can't prove these men did it. Second it's only a matter of time. All men have sexual urges and all of this becomes stronger the more they are deprived..
You seem to think that the population of men can be divided into two. Good men and bad men. Bro. Its more complicated then that. It's a gradient and different situations and circumstances can cause any man to shift on that gradient.
Also most of the men tough enough to go to Antarctica aren't exactly the types that are submissive.
What you need is education (on how to respect and behave around other people, on what principles to follow in a evolved society) and being a decent person. Not much to ask is it?
Lock a bunch of men with a few women on island. Do it with a limited amount of food. See what decency is left.
If you want decency education is not the only thing required. Environment matters. You need food, you need resources. For men they need an outlet for sexual urges.
This is reality. If you a think foundation of decency is purely built on "education" then you need to see reality for what it truly is.
Are they animals? If so, they should be kept in a pigsty.
Hey, people are not food.
Honestly, have a think of what you just wrote, you’re comparing the most reprehensible, inappropriate, and intolerable behaviour with life-and-death decisions.
And this just made me think that we aleady ventured into criminal territory. Not just women can suffer, but also men, from other men, women, from predators. The worse is systematic behaviour, when it becomes common place because it’s being ignored.
What do you think Antarctica is? The entire place is a life and death situation.
Resources are sent to Antarctica to prevent it from degrading to a "reprehensible" situation. The entire reason why people aren't eating each other is because of this. You send "education" instead of resources you'd be insane and you'd lack understanding of the base cause of a lot of human evil. It definitely doesn't stem from lack of education.
Sexual Harassment is quite common place across the world where there's men. You will see that the rate of harassment increases with sex imbalance. Just look at male prisons.
The woman ironically must rely on men for protection from other men. And this is the fundamental problem with Antarctica because of the population imbalance.
What are you going to do? Make a police force and jail in the Antarctic to punish people? Again who are the people willing to go to Antarctica to form these systems of justice? Single Men.
You will be further enlarging the ratio of men to women, and thus further exacerbating the problem.
No. Humans have competing instincts that dictate behavior. It is a multivariate situation that is highly complex.
If I am starving, my survival and hunger instinct will take over. I will violate all my moral imperatives to fulfill that survival instinct.
In men, sexual instinct is strong. Not as strong as survival, but certainly way more stronger than women. It's so strong that it basically manifests itself as an urge. If you deprive men away from fulfilling these desires it becomes almost like hunger.
It's biology. Men are just built this way. It is what it is.
>We should force victims to accommodate the perpetrators amongst them and see if that helps.
No. The victims choose to put themselves in a dangerous environment. You cannot change the behavior of a starving man. The only real way to do it is to feed the man. I am offering the best solution should the woman choose to put her self in that position.
As a feminist you demand more. You demand the starving man to conduct himself in obedience to the law, to conduct his behavior according to morals and education. That is a view point that is not inline with reality. People have to eat. Sexual urges for men are not as strong as hunger, that is admittedly an exaggeration to help you understand. But I will say that sexual urges in men are extremely strong, so strong that the comparison is highly apt. You cannot hope to control it by going on a protest.
You have to realize feminism exists mainly because there are a lot of men who support the movement. Should all men on earth decide to be against feminism, the movement will die. A lot of these men support the movement because they have wives, daughters and girlfriends they care about. Single men can support feminism too, but they have a lot less incentive to do so. These single men make up a huge portion of the people in Antarctica.
>Many women don't even want hang out with rapists in Antarctica.
Then don't. You should understand male psychology and deal with the situation realistically rather then demand some unrealistic ideal be upheld.
Men built civilization, we built the law and societies that both genders live in. It is only within the last century that the concept of gender equality has come to fruition. But the biological reality of the difference between sexes is still very real and tradition of centuries of human society cannot be simply erased.
If we want true gender equality we have to attack it from a realistic angle. We have to acknowledge dark realities of both male (and female) behavior and achieve equality through true scientific understanding. The situation in Antarctica was just a time bomb waiting to happen. It's obvious.
This idea that we expect people to just behave according to some ideal when it that ideal goes against human nature and biology is crazy. It just won't work.
>Damn, and they say we feminists have a negative view of men.
That stereotypical view is familiar to everyone. Everyone recognizes an aspect of it as a sort of general truth. All men in general feel dark sexual urges and we all somewhat understand the desires behind why a man would choose to rape a woman. What isn't recognized among feminists (and society in general) is that women have a very dark aspect about them as well. But that's another topic.
>As an alternative to this take, we could hold violent criminals accountable without regard to gender or distance from the equator.
This is another problem with people. These random assumptions. I wasn't talking about accountability here. I was talking about solutions to solve the problem. Accountability is a different topic.
I'm not saying whether those harassers are right or wrong (I think they're wrong) I'm saying the steps that need to be done to solve the problem. You are relying on "accountability" to solve the problem as if that matters in Antarctica. They are cut off from contact from the rest of society. Woman can't...
Not raping people is "an ideal" for you? That's really useful to know. A lot of people would prefer not to be around someone with an admitted propensity for violent crime.
I don't think most of us have such a hard time refraining from hurting people for kicks as you appear to. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I committed a felony due to sexual frustration. Usually, I just take care of business myself. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, don't confuse sex and rape, or lack your terrifying sense of entitlement.
>Not raping people is "an ideal" for you? That's really useful to know
It is an ideal for me. It should be an ideal for everybody. By saying this are you saying it's Not an ideal for you? So you want people to get raped? Are you a rapist?
No you obviously aren't... and me saying that you want people to get raped is a stupid and manipulative thing to say. So I refuse to say that this sentence applies to you.
I bring it up only to show you how stupid and manipulative you're being by accusing me of such things. Do not act immature and say things like that. Have an honest discussion.
>I don't think most of us have such a hard time refraining from hurting people for kicks as you appear to. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I committed a felony due to sexual frustration. Usually, I just take care of business myself. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, don't confuse sex and rape, or lack your terrifying sense of entitlement.
Stop take a deep breath and learn to have a mature discussion. This is HN not a feminist rally. Personal attacks are not welcome on any venue even when you are in complete disagreement with another persons viewpoint.
I will say something that will really piss you off. When I discuss controversial topics with men, most of them are level headed enough to stay logical and rational even in the face of view points radically different from their own. It's usually the women who stoop to your level of using these tactics. Is what I said true? Prove me wrong, or don't.
A lot of women basically reach out for anything, any hanging fruit they can use as verbal weaponry and then they go for the freaking heart. It's bone chilling and deadly the way they do it.
You're just a fount of unconventional wisdom, aren't you? Today I learned that:
- All men, except maybe defective gay men, are ticking time bombs who will commit violent felonies if their whims are not catered to consistently
- While we punish murderers and home invaders, rapists are a special class of criminal that deserves accommodation
- Suggesting that rape is something that men can and should choose not to do is illogical
- Admitting on a public forum that if you reach a certain level of sexual frustration, you may fail to uphold your "ideal" of refraining from committing a violent assault--that's totally rational
- In other news, Freedom is Slavery
I'm convinced. I think that we should radically reorient society so that it's focused on catering to the sexual needs of straight men. Otherwise we'll just be awash in rape and there are absolutely no other solutions. I wish there were another way, but a very stable genius on HN told me this, and they are a man who works in tech, so they're obviously an expert on everything, except self-control apparently.
What's so striking about your argument is how utterly pessimistic you are about men's capacity for moral action. Essentially you are saying that men are a criminal class too large to kill or control and that the best we can do is to try not to provoke them. If a feminist expressed that level of hatred for men, we'd be rightly pilloried. But then, maybe I'm expecting too much of the rape enthusiast community.
Call me a traditionalist, but I'll stick with Feminism and Christianity which tell me that I get to make my own choices whether to rape or love.
Your correlation between being a victim of badmouthing and being right is dubious. There's many people who are ill spoken of like that and are not right at all.
This sort of thing is unfortunately all too common in scientific field work. In the book "Close Calls" by Stratis Kas, Dr. Sonia Rowley related a harrowing story of persistent and dangerous sexual harassment while doing marine biology research in Micronesia. She put up with it because the only other option was cancelling the expedition, and that would have set her research back by years. No one should have to make that kind of choice.
It's worth noting that the sexual environment in McMurdo is... distorted. You have a bunch of adventurous, thrill seeking types, isolated from civilization, and extremely bored a lot of the time. They fuck. A lot more than you'd think.
US bases in the Iraqi Green Zone, and other spots like Bagram AB, had a lot of contractors and had reputations for culture like this, too.
I had a signals MOS and it was a gut check coming to Baghdad and doing work around the comfy contractors after time at Camp Fallujah. The jokes about Filipina Contractors, Cinnabun, and homemade hooch are mostly overstated... but not false...
74 comments
[ 0.39 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadref: https://asimov.fandom.com/wiki/Mentalics
Could be an easy mistake to make.
“Eek” versus “ik”.
Though I have some faith that the space missions will have more scrutiny. Ultimately, no one cares that much about Antarctica. Space is much more high profile.
Won't matter unless there are significant consequences. Significant jail time, banned from space programs, etc. And I have strong doubts that will happen. Just look at how easily rapists get off today when they have "strong moral character" according to the judge.
Sexual harassment is wrong and should result in appropriate action. However, the absolute breathless hysterics—and frankly dishonesty—that result in these conversations fundamentally undermines the credibility of every single allegation that comes forward.
A man commits sexual harassment by making an advance while putting a hand on a woman's shoulder. It then gets exaggerated at every level: it's assault, then it's groping, then it's sexual assault, then he's a "rapist" and this is "dangerous" and and "act of violence."
When you unleash this tornado of hyperbole, you condition everyone who hears your message to assume that such allegations are always exaggerated and dishonest. And again, it's not just you personally: the OP surveys intentionally conflating "harassment or assault" are just as fundamentally insane.
This messaging tells every single person who might end up on one of my juries that they shouldn't believe a word out of the victim's mouth.
So yeah. I guess if you really care about holding people accountable, maybe try not intentionally sabotaging the attempts to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Until you actually take the time to understand the true elan and effects on target of this virtue-signaling drivel, you're really not in any position to express an opinion one way or another. Those opportunities are plentiful and free, so there's really no excuse.
I didn't compare them. I replied to a guy who was talking about space missions.
Over the 9 month long winter, there's only about 200 men and 100 women, and over half of the latter express that SA is a problem. That implies that a lot of men are also going to be aware of the SA problem.
I'm getting strong vibes to how cops will cover for each other, even if they themselves are innocent, and the union (contractor) covers for them all.
Without proper leadership, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch.
Then again, I'm often accused of having too strong of a sense of justice.
Accused? Confined to quarters until investigation completes. Accusations found to be true? Brig until the next transport flight is in and than permanently removed from service at the station, and banned from employment with any org that could put you in a role where you might end up at the continent again.
That's hard to find in a colony of a few hundred people, all gathered together for warmth. Everyone knows everyone else.
> harsh penalties when evidence finds someone guilty
And that's another rough one in a small community where everyone's involvement is ideally needed. (I'm assuming the penalties would harm the workforce.)
If these things are necessary in a system, it would also suggest that small towns are inherently rape-y-er than large urban areas. Is that the case?
The corrupt police raid of the Marion County Recorder comes to mind as a recent reminder of this effect.
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/public_integrity/79/
Boggles the mind. I really don't accept leadership as the problem. Better would help, but at some point people need to own their behavior.
Its not people, its the predominant zeitgeist of the time.
Lack of duty starts at the top. It has spilled down for quite a long time. Since right before 9/11, at least. Now, its prevalent across all fields and at all levels.
- Most teachers shying away from stopping bullying in the classroom.
-Most big-city cops looking away from crime.
- District Attorneys not prosecuting criminals.
- Hospital Heads (HR?) giving ER + ICU doctors unlimited time off to "ponder" someone's murder.
- Leaders punishing their reports who are fighting crime, bullying, or laziness.
- Asset managers making ESG their duty, vs customer best interests.
- 2008 Banks failing duty to disclose CDOs/MBS garbage
- 2020-23 School districts failing the duty to educate kids
- 3-letter agency leaders (FBI, CDC, EPA, etc etc) failing to inform public.
- Presidents sending soldiers to die in neverending conflicts that do nothing for our defense.
Keep going up the chain, you keep seeing failure of duty.
It starts from the top, and percolates down.
When the sheep vote in the wolves run the pasture, don't be surprised when the dogs walk away from protecting the sheep.
Girls know who sexual harassers are because they experience it. I doubt those guys go around telling their friends what they did. Why would they?
For any kind of crime where there is a potentially strong social backlash, I bet the perps take great pains to cover their tracks from people in their physical vicinity. They might share, but more likely on online forums.
Isolated, mixed-sex social groups of unpaired individuals are inherently unstable.
We can improve stability by decreasing isolation — via external accountability and communication, surfacing problems to external authority with the power to act.
We can also improve stability by maintaining stricter single-sex spaces: separate, sex-segregated living quarters and facilities. It shouldn’t even be possible for an outlier abusive man to make his way to a woman’s door, after hours and without permission.
Both cost more, but that should be factored into the cost of putting humans through unnatural experiences like this.
https://www.today.com/news/are-researchers-antarctica-thin-i...
Maybe that’s utopian.
This comes far too close, in my opinion, to the view that men just can't help themselves and therefore don't really deserved to be blamed. I think you can take the view that a systemic treatment of the problem is needed without voiding the significance of personal responsibility.
Once you take personal responsibility into account, the potential treatments become more numerous (and less onerous) than permanently isolating men and women (with, one would hope, fair treatment for trans people, but they tend to get left by the wayside in discussions like this). We can ask questions like "how do you create a culture where all men see any form of sexual harassment as obviously unacceptable?" and "How do you make sure men are not incentivized to cover for each other?" and "How can we ensure that reports of harassment or abuse are properly and fairly dealt with, and that the credibly accused are not able to further harass victims?" Unless, of course, you think that evolution has just made male sexual aggression inevitable to the point where we can't rise above that as a species.
A very small percentage of people will not behave unless they’re forced to behave, and held accountable when they don’t.
That doesn’t alleviate them of culpability, but it does mean that we cannot rely solely on individuals’ better judgement to keep people safe and healthy.
> the potential treatments become more numerous (and less onerous) than permanently isolating men and women
Providing single-sex living spaces and intimate facilities substantially reduces harassment and assault — we’ve known and successfully made use of that fact for a very long time.
Seriously wondering about the other mental affects of the other 41%
"good thing I'm being ignored"
"wait why am I being ignored"
I think there's a certain reality about male behavior that just can't be ignored. If a woman locks her self up in a place with a bunch of single men this type of stuff is bound to be more likely to happen.
The only reason why this doesn't happen in the real world is because of a 50/50 gender ratio. Men are satisfied with a partner and they enforce gender equality rights because they care about their partner and they care about their daughters. Remove those incentives and they will care less, it's biological reality.
You remove women from a mans life and all that's left is higher level notions of morality versus base level sexual instincts. His base instincts won't be satisfied and he's just relying on what he's "taught" to dictate and control his urges. Among a high enough population those base instincts are going to override morality among a good percentage of single men.
There's really no ideal solution to this. It's largely what women will experience in the military as well if they're embedded in a situation where the men have no outlet. They will unfortunately witness the darker side of men. That's not to say women don't have a dark side too, but that's a different topic.
I mean what are you going to do? Send more men to the antarctic to protect those women? Who's willing to go? I bet a bunch of young single men are down for this....
Anyway I said there weren't ideal solutions to this problem but there are solutions... None offer a complete solution, none are ideal.. but they do mitigate the problem somewhat.
1. Porn is already free and available. So I’m not sure why you assume it isn’t. I’m sure the men can acquire it themselves.
2. Exchanging sex for physical protection, is still having to have sex just to be on the base. It’s just easier all round to remove men on the base that can’t control themselves, than invent an extraordinary sex protection fighting system.
3. hiring an extra team of people for the purpose of sexually satisfying the men, sounds like added and complexity and cost. Again it seems the solution is to remove men who are incapable of doing science things without groping and pinning fellow colleagues to the wall.
4. I actually support your 4th idea. more women definitely equalises the influence over the culture at the base, especially if it includes the leadership. Perhaps the first step to achieve that ratio is to remove the men that can’t control themselves. You have a great reason to kick them off the base, kind of works out really.
I’d like to suggest a number 5 solution. since it’s a place of science and experimentation we should see what happens if we remove all the men who are accused of SH and SA. What would be the changes we would see?
2. I don't think you understand human nature. Inventing sex for protection isn't a thing that I made up it's one of the foundational institutions of marriage and monogamous relationships throughout human civilization. You think a man will engage in a sexless relationship with a woman and offer her all the benefits of a relationship with no sex in return? No. The woman's best strategy is to pair up with a man and get protection if that's what she wants. Sex is part of the transaction. Woman have been doing this for eons what I suggest here is no different. Additionally you can't just remove men who have no control over their sexual urges. First off men hide the amount of control they have, so you won't know. Second off almost all men eventually take the risk if they're deprived long enough.
3. Like I said. Non ideal solution. But this works. And it has worked to pacify urges in places where there's a large amount of men.
4. And like I said the problem here is women don't want to go to Antarctica. It's men who are more willing to take the risk and go. Women tend to value more balanced choices while men are willing to go to extremes to satisfy particular objectives. So if you enforce this you'll restrict the population by a huge amount. Not to mention this is sexist gender policy designed to favor women.
5. You can't. Large numbers of men engage in this behavior. Most of it is harmless and of the nature of catcalling. You remove these men you'll remove over half the population. Also you can't prove these men did it. Second it's only a matter of time. All men have sexual urges and all of this becomes stronger the more they are deprived..
You seem to think that the population of men can be divided into two. Good men and bad men. Bro. Its more complicated then that. It's a gradient and different situations and circumstances can cause any man to shift on that gradient.
Also most of the men tough enough to go to Antarctica aren't exactly the types that are submissive.
If you want decency education is not the only thing required. Environment matters. You need food, you need resources. For men they need an outlet for sexual urges.
This is reality. If you a think foundation of decency is purely built on "education" then you need to see reality for what it truly is.
Honestly, have a think of what you just wrote, you’re comparing the most reprehensible, inappropriate, and intolerable behaviour with life-and-death decisions.
And this just made me think that we aleady ventured into criminal territory. Not just women can suffer, but also men, from other men, women, from predators. The worse is systematic behaviour, when it becomes common place because it’s being ignored.
Resources are sent to Antarctica to prevent it from degrading to a "reprehensible" situation. The entire reason why people aren't eating each other is because of this. You send "education" instead of resources you'd be insane and you'd lack understanding of the base cause of a lot of human evil. It definitely doesn't stem from lack of education.
Sexual Harassment is quite common place across the world where there's men. You will see that the rate of harassment increases with sex imbalance. Just look at male prisons.
The woman ironically must rely on men for protection from other men. And this is the fundamental problem with Antarctica because of the population imbalance.
Men are naturally amoral and violent.
We should force victims to accommodate the perpetrators amongst them and see if that helps.
Many women don't even want hang out with rapists in Antarctica.
---
Damn, and they say we feminists have a negative view of men.
As an alternative to this take, we could hold violent criminals accountable without regard to gender or distance from the equator.
You will be further enlarging the ratio of men to women, and thus further exacerbating the problem.
No. Humans have competing instincts that dictate behavior. It is a multivariate situation that is highly complex.
If I am starving, my survival and hunger instinct will take over. I will violate all my moral imperatives to fulfill that survival instinct.
In men, sexual instinct is strong. Not as strong as survival, but certainly way more stronger than women. It's so strong that it basically manifests itself as an urge. If you deprive men away from fulfilling these desires it becomes almost like hunger.
It's biology. Men are just built this way. It is what it is.
>We should force victims to accommodate the perpetrators amongst them and see if that helps.
No. The victims choose to put themselves in a dangerous environment. You cannot change the behavior of a starving man. The only real way to do it is to feed the man. I am offering the best solution should the woman choose to put her self in that position.
As a feminist you demand more. You demand the starving man to conduct himself in obedience to the law, to conduct his behavior according to morals and education. That is a view point that is not inline with reality. People have to eat. Sexual urges for men are not as strong as hunger, that is admittedly an exaggeration to help you understand. But I will say that sexual urges in men are extremely strong, so strong that the comparison is highly apt. You cannot hope to control it by going on a protest.
You have to realize feminism exists mainly because there are a lot of men who support the movement. Should all men on earth decide to be against feminism, the movement will die. A lot of these men support the movement because they have wives, daughters and girlfriends they care about. Single men can support feminism too, but they have a lot less incentive to do so. These single men make up a huge portion of the people in Antarctica.
>Many women don't even want hang out with rapists in Antarctica.
Then don't. You should understand male psychology and deal with the situation realistically rather then demand some unrealistic ideal be upheld.
Men built civilization, we built the law and societies that both genders live in. It is only within the last century that the concept of gender equality has come to fruition. But the biological reality of the difference between sexes is still very real and tradition of centuries of human society cannot be simply erased.
If we want true gender equality we have to attack it from a realistic angle. We have to acknowledge dark realities of both male (and female) behavior and achieve equality through true scientific understanding. The situation in Antarctica was just a time bomb waiting to happen. It's obvious.
This idea that we expect people to just behave according to some ideal when it that ideal goes against human nature and biology is crazy. It just won't work.
>Damn, and they say we feminists have a negative view of men.
That stereotypical view is familiar to everyone. Everyone recognizes an aspect of it as a sort of general truth. All men in general feel dark sexual urges and we all somewhat understand the desires behind why a man would choose to rape a woman. What isn't recognized among feminists (and society in general) is that women have a very dark aspect about them as well. But that's another topic.
>As an alternative to this take, we could hold violent criminals accountable without regard to gender or distance from the equator.
This is another problem with people. These random assumptions. I wasn't talking about accountability here. I was talking about solutions to solve the problem. Accountability is a different topic.
I'm not saying whether those harassers are right or wrong (I think they're wrong) I'm saying the steps that need to be done to solve the problem. You are relying on "accountability" to solve the problem as if that matters in Antarctica. They are cut off from contact from the rest of society. Woman can't...
I don't think most of us have such a hard time refraining from hurting people for kicks as you appear to. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I committed a felony due to sexual frustration. Usually, I just take care of business myself. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, don't confuse sex and rape, or lack your terrifying sense of entitlement.
It is an ideal for me. It should be an ideal for everybody. By saying this are you saying it's Not an ideal for you? So you want people to get raped? Are you a rapist?
No you obviously aren't... and me saying that you want people to get raped is a stupid and manipulative thing to say. So I refuse to say that this sentence applies to you.
I bring it up only to show you how stupid and manipulative you're being by accusing me of such things. Do not act immature and say things like that. Have an honest discussion.
>I don't think most of us have such a hard time refraining from hurting people for kicks as you appear to. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I committed a felony due to sexual frustration. Usually, I just take care of business myself. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, don't confuse sex and rape, or lack your terrifying sense of entitlement.
Stop take a deep breath and learn to have a mature discussion. This is HN not a feminist rally. Personal attacks are not welcome on any venue even when you are in complete disagreement with another persons viewpoint.
I will say something that will really piss you off. When I discuss controversial topics with men, most of them are level headed enough to stay logical and rational even in the face of view points radically different from their own. It's usually the women who stoop to your level of using these tactics. Is what I said true? Prove me wrong, or don't.
A lot of women basically reach out for anything, any hanging fruit they can use as verbal weaponry and then they go for the freaking heart. It's bone chilling and deadly the way they do it.
- All men, except maybe defective gay men, are ticking time bombs who will commit violent felonies if their whims are not catered to consistently
- While we punish murderers and home invaders, rapists are a special class of criminal that deserves accommodation
- Suggesting that rape is something that men can and should choose not to do is illogical
- Admitting on a public forum that if you reach a certain level of sexual frustration, you may fail to uphold your "ideal" of refraining from committing a violent assault--that's totally rational
- In other news, Freedom is Slavery
I'm convinced. I think that we should radically reorient society so that it's focused on catering to the sexual needs of straight men. Otherwise we'll just be awash in rape and there are absolutely no other solutions. I wish there were another way, but a very stable genius on HN told me this, and they are a man who works in tech, so they're obviously an expert on everything, except self-control apparently.
What's so striking about your argument is how utterly pessimistic you are about men's capacity for moral action. Essentially you are saying that men are a criminal class too large to kill or control and that the best we can do is to try not to provoke them. If a feminist expressed that level of hatred for men, we'd be rightly pilloried. But then, maybe I'm expecting too much of the rape enthusiast community.
Call me a traditionalist, but I'll stick with Feminism and Christianity which tell me that I get to make my own choices whether to rape or love.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56360470-close-calls
https://www.soniajrowley.com/index.php/people/sonia-j-rowley
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-condoms-idUSN094316702008...
It's a strange culture. Beware of extrapolating any kind of larger social lessons from things that happen there.
I had a signals MOS and it was a gut check coming to Baghdad and doing work around the comfy contractors after time at Camp Fallujah. The jokes about Filipina Contractors, Cinnabun, and homemade hooch are mostly overstated... but not false...