A woman's rage

[Shaul]

Man Perfectly Explains Women’s Rage Today Using Brutal Analogy So That All Men Can Finally Understand It

Author A.R. Moxon has recently invited all men to participate in an exercise of empathy. He reframed women’s experiences with assault and sexual violence and presented it in a way that most guys should comprehend…

Man Perfectly Explains Women’s Rage Today Using Brutal Analogy So That All Men Can Finally Understand It​

Comments?

Does it help you guys understand?

This piece is wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, the assumption that men don’t already understand rape is wrong. The vast majority of men fully understand that rape is wrong. Next it is wrong to think that in order to understand that something is wrong one must either experience or imagine it. That isn’t true. Then there is the use of the wrong analogy. Female rape is nothing like a man being repeatedly hit in the genitals, it isn’t even close. The more appropriate analogy of a woman’s experience of rape for a man is male rape. Apparently the author either doesn’t know or understand that men can also be victims of rape. That’s because rape is not a gender issue. Men can be either perpetrators or victims of rape. Likewise women can be either perpetrators or victims of rape. Also, since rapists generally lack empathy, the authors analogy would have the opposite effect he purports to want. He imagines that these rapist inclined men would imagine their genitals being abused and repent from their ways. Ridiculous. More likely those persons would think that it confirms their twisted incorrect imaginations that women are “out to get” them and therefore “deserve” what they get. Because rapists aren’t known for sound reasoning. Worse, the genital abuse fantasy the author puts forth provides fodder for those that hate men and secretly get a vicarious thrill from hurting men.

Male genital injury is a very serious thing. It can lead to lifetime suffering and death. There is nothing positive about it. It is bad enough to see it portrayed in countless “entertainment” with men being kicked or pummeled in their groins. Even if the author was right, which he certainly isn’t, we would still need to find a better way to help those few men that need to “get” what rape is. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Stevicus]

When I served on a jury, the guy was accused of attempting a jail break.
The evidence was tampering with the cell. But after this prisoner was
rotated out of his cell, several other prisoners occupied it. No audit of
the cell was done in between transfers. So any of at least several
occupants could've tampered with it.
It appeared that there was at most a 20% probability that he was guilty.
Despite this being far far less than "beyond a reasonable doubt", two
of the jurors voted <guilty>.

Some background....
The accused was a black male with a very non-white haircut. He sat
in court wearing an orange jumpsuit, with armed guards flanking him.
The jurors, both white women, said they voted <guilty> because he
was scary looking.

Before anyone objects, I'm not dissing white folk or women....just noting
that social factors can easily often corrupt our judgment.
The presumption of innocence is often discarded, even in the legal system.
This is especially true of cops, one of whom told me that they dispensed
summary justice in the field.

Apart from everything else you're saying here, I'm rather surprised that they would even pursue this case and take it to court. If the guy actually broke out of jail, that would be another thing. But to bring a case over tampering with a cell that any number of people could have done, it seems like a waste of time and judicial resources (when they're the ones complaining about being overwhelmed with huge caseloads).

Besides, isn't it the job of the authorities at the jail or prison to keep an eye out for that sort of thing? It sounds like they have Col. Klink in charge. "No one has ever escaped from Stalag 13!"

But yes, I do take your point that the presumption of innocence is often discarded, which is a serious problem within the system, as far as I can see. The idea that people can be convicted just because they're "scary looking" or otherwise "look guilty," that's rather disconcerting.

And this is one aspect of our government and legal system that most people do know about - even if they can't name their own Senators or point out their own state on a map. They know about "innocent until proven guilty" because it's been on every TV show, repeated over and over.

In fact, I remember a few years ago reading an article in which some legal experts were blaming shows like CSI because it leads to jurors expecting a full array of lab results and scientific evidence to prove every case, which they don't believe is very realistic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apart from everything else you're saying here, I'm rather surprised that they would even pursue this case and take it to court. If the guy actually broke out of jail, that would be another thing. But to bring a case over tampering with a cell that any number of people could have done, it seems like a waste of time and judicial resources (when they're the ones complaining about being overwhelmed with huge caseloads).

Contrary to popular belief, I've observed cases go to court & even to trial when merit is sorely lacking.
Sure, sure, prosecutors & judges will complain about the workload, but I wonder....
Is this always sincere, or is it sometimes PR to get more funding & expanded facilities?
If unacceptably weak cases were efficiently dismissed at the outset, that would be better,
especially for those victimized by the accusations.
Those who accuse falsely or thoughtlessly perhaps don't understand the evil they wrought
by imposing a huge financial & emotional cost on the accused. And there's always the
risk of wrongful conviction/judgment.

Besides, isn't it the job of the authorities at the jail or prison to keep an eye out for that sort of thing? It sounds like they have Col. Klink in charge. "No one has ever escaped from Stalag 13!"

Col Klink is a kinder person than many I've seen in the legal system.

But yes, I do take your point that the presumption of innocence is often discarded, which is a serious problem within the system, as far as I can see. The idea that people can be convicted just because they're "scary looking" or otherwise "look guilty," that's rather disconcerting.

And this is one aspect of our government and legal system that most people do know about - even if they can't name their own Senators or point out their own state on a map. They know about "innocent until proven guilty" because it's been on every TV show, repeated over and over.

In fact, I remember a few years ago reading an article in which some legal experts were blaming shows like CSI because it leads to jurors expecting a full array of lab results and scientific evidence to prove every case, which they don't believe is very realistic.

True all dat.

 

[Stevicus]

....

I'll just take this as further evidence of your reading comprehension problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Contrary to popular belief, I've observed cases go to court & even to trial when merit is sorely lacking.
Sure, sure, prosecutors & judges will complain about the workload, but I wonder....
Is this always sincere, or is it sometimes PR to get more funding & expanded facilities?
(That was the result in my town.)
If unacceptably weak cases were efficiently dismissed at the outset, that would be better,
especially for those victimized by the accusations.
Those who accuse falsely or thoughtlessly perhaps don't understand the evil they wrought
by imposing a huge financial & emotional cost on the accused. And there's always the
risk of wrongful conviction/judgment.

Col Klink is a kinder person than many I've seen in the legal system.

True all dat.

 

[Stevicus]

Contrary to popular belief, I've observed cases go to court & even to trial when merit is sorely lacking.
Sure, sure, prosecutors & judges will complain about the workload, but I wonder....
Is this always sincere, or is it sometimes PR to get more funding & expanded facilities?

Yes, it's certainly a strong possibility. I think that's what government agencies tend to do. That's the impression I get from some government and former government people I know. It's kind of a weird way of competing with each other, based on how much money their respective agency or division gets when measured against their peers.

It seems a common theme where all government departments want more money or claim they're understaffed, underfunded, or not given a high enough priority in the grand scheme of things.

If unacceptably weak cases were efficiently dismissed at the outset, that would be better,
especially for those victimized by the accusations.
Those who accuse falsely or thoughtlessly perhaps don't understand the evil they wrought
by imposing a huge financial & emotional cost on the accused. And there's always the
risk of wrongful conviction/judgment.

It's not just with crimes like rape, either. It seems easy enough to railroad someone just by planting drugs on them.

Another case I recall was when someone was pulled over by the Border Patrol for "suspicious driving." They looked in his trunk and found a large bag of weed, so the driver took off on foot. They shot him in the back and killed him. Their excuse was that, while running away, his head turned and they "thought" he had a gun (which he didn't). The Border Patrol officers were quite incensed when the local sheriff's office sent detectives to investigate the shooting, since it was in county jurisdiction. They really took umbrage at the idea of an investigation, upset that they had to answer questions. They reportedly said "We're all cops here!" implying that they should be instantly believed without question or any real investigation.

That may be where we're heading here, and that's where it can get dicey. This isn't just about the potential for false accusations for rape, but if we lower the bar and create an opening for false accusations of other crimes, then we could really slip fast down that slope.

Politics often involves playing on people's fears and manipulating the masses by whipping them into a blind rage where their reason becomes clouded. While this might seem to appear to be somewhat related to rage against Trump, it also gets the population accustomed to a mindset similar to that of a lynch mob where an accusation itself should be "believed" right off the bat. It also gets people used to the idea and more accepting of attacking entire groups of people, whether it's "men," "white men," or whatever the case may be.

What can the result inevitably be when the public is influenced to go along with this kind of mindset and way of perceiving events and attitudes? Who would benefit from this kind of frenzy and rage? I'm not alleging that there's any kind of conspiracy at work, but there's something about all this that seems a bit off. Something beneath the surface, as if this is just a precursor. At least from a political standpoint, we seem to be entering dangerous waters.

Col Klink is a kinder person than many I've seen in the legal system.

I guess there are more like Maj. Hochstetter.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it's certainly a strong possibility. I think that's what government agencies tend to do. That's the impression I get from some government and former government people I know. It's kind of a weird way of competing with each other, based on how much money their respective agency or division gets when measured against their peers.

It seems a common theme where all government departments want more money or claim they're understaffed, underfunded, or not given a high enough priority in the grand scheme of things.

Empire building it so often is.
It's why so many organizations who rely upon single source funding will be
sure to spend all of the money, lest the funder think they can get by on less.

It's not just with crimes like rape, either. It seems easy enough to railroad someone just by planting drugs on them.

Another case I recall was when someone was pulled over by the Border Patrol for "suspicious driving." They looked in his trunk and found a large bag of weed, so the driver took off on foot. They shot him in the back and killed him. Their excuse was that, while running away, his head turned and they "thought" he had a gun (which he didn't). The Border Patrol officers were quite incensed when the local sheriff's office sent detectives to investigate the shooting, since it was in county jurisdiction. They really took umbrage at the idea of an investigation, upset that they had to answer questions. They reportedly said "We're all cops here!" implying that they should be instantly believed without question or any real investigation.

That may be where we're heading here, and that's where it can get dicey. This isn't just about the potential for false accusations for rape, but if we lower the bar and create an opening for false accusations of other crimes, then we could really slip fast down that slope.

It's uncommonly common for K9 dogs to smell drugs, &
for a perp running away or just lying down to appear to have a gun.

Politics often involves playing on people's fears and manipulating the masses by whipping them into a blind rage where their reason becomes clouded. While this might seem to appear to be somewhat related to rage against Trump, it also gets the population accustomed to a mindset similar to that of a lynch mob where an accusation itself should be "believed" right off the bat. It also gets people used to the idea and more accepting of attacking entire groups of people, whether it's "men," "white men," or whatever the case may be.

What can the result inevitably be when the public is influenced to go along with this kind of mindset and way of perceiving events and attitudes? Who would benefit from this kind of frenzy and rage? I'm not alleging that there's any kind of conspiracy at work, but there's something about all this that seems a bit off. Something beneath the surface, as if this is just a precursor. At least from a political standpoint, we seem to be entering dangerous waters.

I guess there are more like Maj. Hochstetter.

We need more like Sgt Schultz.

 

[Stevicus]

We need more like Sgt Schultz.

Even as a comedy, that show did give some insight as to how easy it was to bluff and intimidate as a way of manipulating the bureaucracy and lower-level officers who were scared of being court-martialed, shot, and sent to the Russian front (in that order).

 

[ChristineM]

I can assure u I am a romantic person...
especially because I speak a romance language

So do around a billion other people, including me who speaks 2 so dont really care. You have already shown what sort of person you are.

 

[ChristineM]

My fundie friend is also gifted with what he calls "spiritual insight".
He is always right, so he has a leg up on you.
And he pronounces Ford the liar, in part because of her deep state CIA connections.
(One cannot make this stuff up. I don't argue about it.)

I doubt that either would admit to a count.
But if they did, you'd know who is truthful, eh?

I am woman, i dont do wrong, especially when im right . I'll take my opinion over a "fundie" intent on conspiracy theories anyday.

Oh i doubt the truth will ever be known. But i still cant help but wonder.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am woman, i dont do wrong, especially when im right . I'll take my opinion over a "fundie" intent on conspiracy theories anyday.

Oh i doubt the truth will ever be known. But i still cant help but wonder.

I find it easier to not wonder who is right or wrong.
There is only what can be seen.

 

[Estro Felino]

S You have already shown what sort of person you are.

oui...je le sais
je suis un connard...un idiot...un cretin....

btw...all this because I said Kav is a good man

 

[ChristineM]

This piece is wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, the assumption that men don’t already understand rape is wrong. The vast majority of men fully understand that rape is wrong. Next it is wrong to think that in order to understand that something is wrong one must either experience or imagine it. That isn’t true. Then there is the use of the wrong analogy. Female rape is nothing like a man being repeatedly hit in the genitals, it isn’t even close. The more appropriate analogy of a woman’s experience of rape for a man is male rape. Apparently the author either doesn’t know or understand that men can also be victims of rape. That’s because rape is not a gender issue. Men can be either perpetrators or victims of rape. Likewise women can be either perpetrators or victims of rape. Also, since rapists generally lack empathy, the authors analogy would have the opposite effect he purports to want. He imagines that these rapist inclined men would imagine their genitals being abused and repent from their ways. Ridiculous. More likely those persons would think that it confirms their twisted incorrect imaginations that women are “out to get” them and therefore “deserve” what they get. Because rapists aren’t known for sound reasoning. Worse, the genital abuse fantasy the author puts forth provides fodder for those that hate men and secretly get a vicarious thrill from hurting men.

Male genital injury is a very serious thing. It can lead to lifetime suffering and death. There is nothing positive about it. It is bad enough to see it portrayed in countless “entertainment” with men being kicked or pummeled in their groins. Even if the author was right, which he certainly isn’t, we would still need to find a better way to help those few men that need to “get” what rape is. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is obvious by this thread alone that some men dont understand

Tell me, have you ever been raped? So you speak from no experience. Expected.

Male rape has already been broached.

You are one of only a few replying who consider it a poor analogy.

As opposed to the male joy of abusing women, you have essentially just blown your own argument out of the water.

However, it does seem to have got you mildly considering the pain, abuse and stigma that can and does stay with a woman throughout her life... Hasn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

btw...all this because I said Kav is a good man

He appears to be a good man.
The question was about his having been a good boy.

 

[ChristineM]

oui...je le sais
je suis un connard...un idiot...un cretin....

btw...all this because I said Kav is a good man

Is it? More precisely its because of just about everything you say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it? More precisely its because of just about everything you say.

I'll admit to being regularly astounded by some of his posts.

 

[ChristineM]

I find it easier to not wonder who is right or wrong.
There is only what can be seen.

Wondering is ok as an excercise, knowing is a different thing

 

[Estro Felino]

The question was about his having been a good boy.

IMHO he looks like someone whose first time was on his wedding night,,,lol

 

[Revoltingest]

IMHO he looks like someone whose first time was on his wedding night,,,lol

IRL I look like a flaming liberal.
Appearances & reality can be at odds.

 

[Estro Felino]

IRL I look like a flaming liberal.
Appearances & reality can be at odds.

...so disappointing...
I bet u can't even do the rolling R like groundskeeper willie