Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Sep 18, 2018 09:47 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 18, 2018 08:51 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, many powerful men get a sense of entitlement because of just that. Otherwise, women could avoid those situations...by leaving the industry, if nothing else.

Should they have to? Leave the industry? I think it's better if the men with a sense of entitlement have to avoid the lawsuits.

Sure, if a woman can provide sufficient evidence in court...which we have yet to see indication of.  But how much does that just further incentivize women putting themselves into compromising situations...hoping to get a lawsuit payday? It's been common knowledge, for decades, that Hollywood is morally bankrupt, sexually permissive, and those that don't play ball are branded as "hard to work with"...especially among those entering the industry. Relative morality run amok.
And you don't get blindsided by a sexual assault and then keep silent about it for decades unless you've agreed to the payoff...which is retroactive consent.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:If there is actual evidence of rape, yes, it's all the man's fault. But we don't actually know that yet. We do know that at least one of the accusers may have done the same to someone else.

Exposing yourself and masturbating in front of people is also all the man's fault.

Depends. Did you willingly go to his private hotel room? You do know people often undress and do other private things there, right?
Or do you regularly accept invitations to go alone to a man's hotel room? O_o
Maybe you should take Mike Pence's advice.

Quote:"One legal problem has been the statute of limitations for rape, an issue by now much discussed."

No, the problem is waiting to report a crime long after all evidence (the thing necessary to successfully prosecuting a crime) is gone.

Quote:"The awareness of all that I have not suffered but might possibly suffer also takes its toll. One night in Finland, while working at World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER), I decided to go out walking in the woods at one a.m., because I had never been able to enjoy that freedom before, and, I reasoned, where but in Finland might it be possible to enjoy it? I had walked for only about 10 minutes in a lovely forest, when I concluded that the fear would not go away, and I would never be able to enjoy such a midnight stroll, not ever in my life."

One a.m. in the woods alone? Most women would be a bit spooked at that, even if only the wild animals that may be out there.
Did she even try a midday walk in the woods, maybe with some bear spray?

Quote:Last week, I wanted to go to the woods. I looked for my gun, and put one in the chamber, but I wanted to relax, and not worry. So, I decided to go to a trail on the coast that’s more populated. The city extended the trail recently. I was excited to see how far it went, but when I got to the halfway point, I noticed that no one was around. I was by myself. I had to decide if the joy that I’d receive was worth the risk. I turned around. That doesn’t happen to you, does it? You don’t have to worry, do you? Would you be afraid to go for a walk in a national forest by yourself?

So...you left your gun so you could "relax"? Am I reading that right? If so, that completely defeats the purpose of having a gun.
Bravo for buying one, but the only useful gun is the one you carry. If you did have your gun, you didn't need to rely on crowds for safety.
If I'm going somewhere I consider dangerous, I'm armed and I can relax. Otherwise, I have be vigilant to maintain a very high situational awareness.

I call time out to look at
"I can (or should be able to) do anything I want to do.".

Look at Syne for a moment..
Is he free to do anything he wants to do or is he bound by a myriad of laws and conventions which he accepts?
I'm guessing he isn't free to do anything he wants to do.

Let's step ahead so we're in the position it's the other guy that should never agree to do what we ask them to do. Let's also step into the shoes of a guy with enough power that the guy standing before him is effectively naked unless he is carrying a gun and very skilled at using it or at the very least has some way of defending himself. The superior person standing before a person with power will try for a winning strategy then a holding strategy then an exit strategy.
Before stepping onto the web of a powerful spider you need to be attached a web (say a social network) of comparable power and influence and you need to make that absolutely clear - it may not win, it may not hold - but there's a fair chance it will get you out.

My mum used to say..
2/"Never volunteer.".
3/"Keep your powder dry at all times.".
To my sister - always carry a hatpin.

I have never sought power but at one time I might have been able to ever-so-slightly tweak the threads that bound a (small) city together. Example - I was once publicly beaten up by a thug working for X - not long afterwards X was very badly beaten up and never recovered. The tweak - get beaten up publicly (fairly safe - powder dry(ish)) - bring violence into the dispute and let the city decide. I'm not sure even Sun Tzu would have seen that one coming.
-C2.

Why isn't it all lovely and happy and nice? - Some sort of plague? I dunno.

(Sep 19, 2018 01:19 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]But how much does that just further incentivize women putting themselves into compromising situations...hoping to get a lawsuit payday?

Extortionists? That’s how we’re perceived—with an innate penchant for gold-digging, right? That’s one of the reason that Nussbaum gives for not coming forward. She didn’t want to be portrayed as an extortionist but like Sun Tzu said, they must have their rewards. There has to be an advantage to defeating the enemy.

(Sep 19, 2018 01:22 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]I have never sought power but at one time I might have been able to ever-so-slightly tweak the threads that bound a (small) city together. Example - I was once publicly beaten up by a thug working for X - not long afterwards X was very badly beaten up and never recovered. The tweak - get beaten up publicly (fairly safe - powder dry(ish)) - bring violence into the dispute and let the city decide. I'm not sure even Sun Tzu would have seen that one coming.
-C2.

I’m not sure, he may have. The moral law was the first of his five constant factors.

(Sep 19, 2018 04:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 01:19 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]But how much does that just further incentivize women putting themselves into compromising situations...hoping to get a lawsuit payday?

Extortionists? That’s how we’re perceived—with an innate penchant for gold-digging, right? That’s one of the reason that Nussbaum gives for not coming forward. She didn’t want to be portrayed as an extortionist but like Sun Tzu said, they must have their rewards.  There has to be an advantage to defeating the enemy.

Again, who said it was all women?
If there was no consent, they shouldn't wait so long to come forward/report it. Doing so only raises the specter of them willingly accepting a payoff, whether in job opportunities or otherwise. So where are all these supposed lawsuits right on the heels of an assault? Did I miss them? Or is it just women whose stardom has waned and this is just a way to extract money or get their name out there again?

Again, you don't get blindsided by a sexual assault and then keep silent about it for decades unless you've agreed to the payoff...which is retroactive consent.
You suspiciously avoided this question:

Do you regularly accept invitations to go alone to a man's hotel room?

If so, why do you think that's a good idea?
If not, why are you excusing other women doing so? Are they children? O_o

And the other stuff you avoided in my post is telling.

(Sep 19, 2018 05:02 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, who said it was all women?

Um...you did. Hypergamy is gold-digging behavior, and you said it yourself, it's an inherent sex difference.

Syne Wrote:You suspiciously avoided this question:

Do you regularly accept invitations to go alone to a man's hotel room?

If so, why do you think that's a good idea?
If not, why are you excusing other women doing so? Are they children? O_o

Are all men children? Are all men predators?

Business Meetings in Hotel Rooms

"One of the first reactions to the recent sexual harassment and assault allegations against producer and studio exec Harvey Weinstein (many of which allegedly occurred in his hotel room), was why were women meeting with him in his hotel room in the first place.  But meetings in hotel rooms aren’t as far-fetched as they may sound.

We can’t blame the women for going to the meeting in the hotel room.  The reason these women went to a meeting in a man’s hotel room, is that they didn’t want to be excluded.  They want the job.  If Sandberg wasn’t willing to help Summers finish his speech, maybe he would find someone else for the job.  In Weinstein’s case, the women he allegedly harassed reported that they feared they wouldn’t get the job, or would lose their job if they didn’t meet with him in his room.  Men have no problem taking a meeting with a male senior executive in a hotel room, and if women want to compete, they will be reluctant to turn down a meeting as well.  So, taking the meeting is completely reasonable, but not providing employees’ strategies with how to deal with these situations is just unfair."

SAG-AFTRA wants to end hotel room meetings in bid to combat sexual harassment

"If no agreement can be reached regarding a meeting location, the guidelines establish the concept of a "support peer," who would accompany the performer during the meeting."

Chaperones; is that what it’s going to come down to? What if there’s an emergency, some sort of deadline that we have to meet? Should we obtain a letter of approval from our chaperone, perhaps?  What’s next? Free game unless you're with a male guardian? Well, you’ll have to abandon the #NOTALLMEN hashtag, that’s for sure.

(Sep 19, 2018 06:15 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 05:02 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, who said it was all women?

Um...you did. Hypergamy is gold-digging behavior, and you said it yourself, it's an inherent sex difference.

No, I didn't. Hypergamy is not equivalent to extortion, deary.
Crack a dictionary.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You suspiciously avoided this question:

Do you regularly accept invitations to go alone to a man's hotel room?

If so, why do you think that's a good idea?
If not, why are you excusing other women doing so? Are they children? O_o

Are all men children? Are all men predators?

Non sequitur, as you have given zero reason to presume all men children...or even predators...aside from your usual, vague misandry.
Contrast that with the many times you've implied that men should protect women against their own bad decisions and lack of objections.
And since you didn't seem to notice, I didn't even make a broad statement about all women...just the ones going alone to a man's hotel room.

Quote:Business Meetings in Hotel Rooms

"One of the first reactions to the recent sexual harassment and assault allegations against producer and studio exec Harvey Weinstein (many of which allegedly occurred in his hotel room), was why were women meeting with him in his hotel room in the first place.  But meetings in hotel rooms aren’t as far-fetched as they may sound.

We can’t blame the women for going to the meeting in the hotel room.  The reason these women went to a meeting in a man’s hotel room, is that they didn’t want to be excluded.  They want the job.  If Sandberg wasn’t willing to help Summers finish his speech, maybe he would find someone else for the job.  In Weinstein’s case, the women he allegedly harassed reported that they feared they wouldn’t get the job, or would lose their job if they didn’t meet with him in his room.  Men have no problem taking a meeting with a male senior executive in a hotel room, and if women want to compete, they will be reluctant to turn down a meeting as well.  So, taking the meeting is completely reasonable, but not providing employees’ strategies with how to deal with these situations is just unfair."

IOW, they freely chose to go to a hotel room alone because the thought they would benefit. And if they do, they might think of recording the meeting...and not overtly flirting with the guy on camera. Or at the very least, reporting a rape/sexual assault in a timely manner. And if they don't report inappropriate behavior, they are willingly making that trade.

Quote:SAG-AFTRA wants to end hotel room meetings in bid to combat sexual harassment

"If no agreement can be reached regarding a meeting location, the guidelines establish the concept of a "support peer," who would accompany the performer during the meeting."

Chaperones; is that what it’s going to come down to? What if there’s an emergency, some sort of deadline that we have to meet? Should we obtain a letter of approval from our chaperone, perhaps?  What’s next? Free game unless you're with a male guardian? Well, you’ll have to abandon the #NOTALLMEN hashtag, that’s for sure.

A chaperone isn't there to stop a rape that doesn't get reported for decades. A chaperone is there to treat the woman as a child, incapable of making decisions in her own best interest. Again, where are all the rape accusations hot on the heels of such a meeting? Can you show me even ONE? O_o

(Sep 19, 2018 07:06 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 06:15 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 05:02 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, who said it was all women?

Um...you did. Hypergamy is gold-digging behavior, and you said it yourself, it's an inherent sex difference.

No, I didn't. Hypergamy is not equivalent to extortion, deary.  

Oh, I beg your pardon.  Whores, then.  All women engage in sexual relationships for money rather than love. All women are whores. I stand corrected.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

(Sep 19, 2018 07:33 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 07:06 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 06:15 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 05:02 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, who said it was all women?

Um...you did. Hypergamy is gold-digging behavior, and you said it yourself, it's an inherent sex difference.

No, I didn't. Hypergamy is not equivalent to extortion, deary.  

Oh, I beg your pardon.  Whores, then.  All women engage in sexual relationships for money rather than love. All women are whores. I stand corrected.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Yes, we get it; this subject makes you emotional.

(Sep 19, 2018 07:06 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And since you didn't seem to notice, I didn't even make a broad statement about all women...just the ones going alone to a man's hotel room.

Hypergamy is not even equivalent to "whore".
Again, crack a dictionary, deary.

Hypergamy doesn't, itself, infer motive. You can love and be fully committed to a man of higher status than yourself. That's just the evolutionary psychology of the attraction that drives mate selection having adapted to needing protection and support. There's nothing untoward or morally wrong about that, as such.

But yes, if you're willing to trade sex for money/benefit, you are, by its literal definition, a whore.
Why do you have such trouble differentiating the two? O_o
What, did you marry down?

(Sep 19, 2018 07:55 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, we get it; this subject makes you emotional.

Emotional? There’s no logical reason to have any sort of discourse with you. If we’re only good for sex then there’s no reason for you to engage with me.

What part of fuck off, didn’t you understand?

Don’t talk to me.

(Sep 19, 2018 08:23 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2018 07:55 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, we get it; this subject makes you emotional.

Emotional? There’s no logical reason to have any sort of discourse with you.  If we’re only good for sex then there’s no reason for you to engage with me.

What part of fuck off, didn’t you understand?

Don’t talk to me.

You don't get to dictate the actions of others, deary.
Control your own actions. Oh wait, I forgot, you want men to do that for you.

No one ever said women were only good for sex. But I don't expect a raving misandrist to be capable of seeing past her own biased straw men. Even when she has to resort to blatantly conflating words with very disparate definitions. Some, present company apparently excluded, are quite capable of rational thought. It's not a complete incapacity to rational thought that precludes intergender friendship. Intergender friendships cannot be equivalent to intragender friendships.