shirgall Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I erred, it's spelled "Taharrush" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3395390/The-Arabic-gang-rape-Taharrush-phenomenon-sees-women-surrounded-groups-men-crowds-sexually-assaulted-spread-Europe.html http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/13/wilders-european-women-should-arm-themselves-with-pepper-spray/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2016/01/13/the-daily-mail-taharrush-collective-sexual-harrassment-and-wikipedia/?ref_widget=gr_trending&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=atheist
corpus mentium Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 It is taharrush, and its entry is up for deletion on wikipedia. ...what was your rationale for creating[1] the article in the first place? You based your addition entirely on news articles published in the last 48 hours. I wonder if the death of David Bowie is also up for deletion since it is also recent news. It is completely unfathomable to me how anyone can defend such vile behavior or even attempt to suppress info about it. I had a meeting with a client who thought what happened isn't much to worry about because it was such a small percentage of the immigrant population that had actually engaged in it. He also said that other European countries should help shoulder the burden of immigration so that it won't be so bad in Germany. To me it sounded like someone saying, "Let's abandon the front lines to the invading force. It's only fair that if one place gets conquered then we should be conquered as well." Here is a video by Ezra Levant on the topic. Just a heads up - it is disturbing to watch. 2
brucethecollie Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 for your pleasure, finally a statement by Canadian feminists on these attacks: http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/01/07/its-time-to-consider-a-curfew-for-men/ I've never read feminist stuff like what is on that website before. I'm horrified and speechless. 1
tux Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 The Swedish mainstream media has been through some shaky last few days. Since it was revealed that the best selling morning paper likely chose not to report the attacks when they took place last summer, the confidence in mainstream media is falling. The (center-) right is now openly talking about culture incompatibilities. The left, on the other hand, claims that it is a matter of male culture - "males in geoups" and that the ethnicity of the perpetrators is irrelevant. Something similar is probably taking place in Germany.
A4E Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 "males in groups" and that the ethnicity of the perpetrators is irrelevant. If this is true, I am not surprised. I have watched some Swedish political debates on internet, and it is some of the most childish stuff I have ever seen. Actually, that is unfair to children. Children are more mature than what goes on in those debates. I observed that the conservative side sometimes try to steer the conversation into something useful, but then they are dragged into the mud by the left again. Example: "...The other party was involved in something bad in our country 75 years ago. It is important to point out this fact when they now speak about this issue." "...But their party contributed to something even worse in our country 100 years ago, so I think we can all agree on who is not to be relied upon."
shirgall Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Apparently Taharrush Gamea has its roots in 2005 Egypt... https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/224097/
AccuTron Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Nevermind there's a difference between sexual openness and violent RAPE!? That's a bumper sticker. Obviously it's true on it's face. But face of what? (I'm not excusing violence here, or in NYC's Central Park; I'm addressing what the immigrants are perceiving.) Be the anthropologist from another planet; blank slate. I'm also mixing my own opinions in here, since it would be a pain to extricate them. Which is fine, since the mission is to discover what makes humans tick. Stumbling thru sexual theory in a dark room, we find basically that women shop for men and their resources, trade goods being female squishy places. Camel toes and cleavage are advertisements. We have an existing cultural understanding that, to put into scientific terms, "the women are just fuggin' with us so ignore them." The alternative is that she in fact is expressly taking her inner oven out for a BBQ run, so the assumption of wanting sex is basically sound. There is no reason to presuppose immigrants having such understandings, from a land that never had them. (Or some of the addenda that go with it.) I live here, and find women's behaviors completely bogus; I feel for those guys in general who are new to this strange land. Take that space anthropologist to a retail or happy hour area, friday night, warm weather, city of choice. See how the women dress and behave. The space scanner records this. A prostitute wishes to enter the scene and be noticed as a prostitute. How? Her behavior and costume would have to be so utterly outlandish as to be mistaken for...some high school chick and her friends. There is no remaining distinction. If that's what the space scientist's scanner would see, then how the heck is a hinterland Syrian to detect a difference? And that's just a friday night, not even a festival. 1 2
Donnadogsoth Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 That's a bumper sticker. Obviously it's true on it's face. But face of what? (I'm not excusing violence here, or in NYC's Central Park; I'm addressing what the immigrants are perceiving.) Be the anthropologist from another planet; blank slate. I'm also mixing my own opinions in here, since it would be a pain to extricate them. Which is fine, since the mission is to discover what makes humans tick. Stumbling thru sexual theory in a dark room, we find basically that women shop for men and their resources, trade goods being female squishy places. Camel toes and cleavage are advertisements. We have an existing cultural understanding that, to put into scientific terms, "the women are just fuggin' with us so ignore them." The alternative is that she in fact is expressly taking her inner oven out for a BBQ run, so the assumption of wanting sex is basically sound. There is no reason to presuppose immigrants having such understandings, from a land that never had them. (Or some of the addenda that go with it.) I live here, and find women's behaviors completely bogus; I feel for those guys in general who are new to this strange land. Take that space anthropologist to a retail or happy hour area, friday night, warm weather, city of choice. See how the women dress and behave. The space scanner records this. A prostitute wishes to enter the scene and be noticed as a prostitute. How? Her behavior and costume would have to be so utterly outlandish as to be mistaken for...some high school chick and her friends. There is no remaining distinction. If that's what the space scientist's scanner would see, then how the heck is a hinterland Syrian to detect a difference? And that's just a friday night, not even a festival. Astute observation, AccuTron. Is that an excuse for bringing in millions of aliens who "don't get us"? Or is the fact that feministed women no longer ask for male protection, including the protection of cultural standards allowing them to be distinguished from prostitutes, an excuse for ignoring the problem? I'm not questioning that skimpy clothing indicates sexual willingness. But the key word here is "willingness." If someone is literally fighting and clawing while you assault them, they've obviously not consented-->i.e., rape. These men come from places that oppose sexual openness and orgy-type scenes where consent is freely given. In other words, there is zero interest in consensual sex here. The idea is to assault someone against their will. That's inherent in the definition of rape. You're not honestly arguing that these men mistook the women for prostitutes and accidentally raped them against their will, are you? Prostitution is still consensual, so I'm really confused on how you could be confused. You "feel for them"? Gross. I think the relevant point is that not only are we importing a rape culture, we've got a crop of degraded females who have been encouraged not to look for (white) males for protection from rapish aliens. As long as it's Islamoids doing it, it's OK. 1
Sima Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 2 women (refugee camp workers in Hungary) were also attacked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYiXbUg_IM 1
shirgall Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Muslim teens stoning transgender women in Germany: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/224338/ Drilling down... http://www.jpost.com/page.aspx?pageid=7&articleid=441695 Africa were arrested on Saturday in the western German city of Dortmund for stoning two transgender women. According to a report on Friday on television station SAT1.NRW, the men attacked Yasmine und Elisa, two transgender women, near the city’s main train station. “Within seconds we were tossed around…and they took stones from a gravel bed on the corner and threw them at us,” said Elisa. A police car appeared at the train station as the stoning attack unfolded and arrested the men.
shirgall Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Video of Swedish woman being harassed by asylum seekers. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/01/19/watch-swedish-woman-harrased-by-muslim-asylum-seekers-who-ask-for-sex-n2106759 1
adamNJ Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 It is taharrush, Jesus, I can't believe this is a thing
AccuTron Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I'm not questioning that skimpy clothing indicates sexual willingness. But the key word here is "willingness." If someone is literally fighting and clawing while you assault them, they've obviously not consented-->i.e., rape. These men come from places that oppose sexual openness and orgy-type scenes where consent is freely given. In other words, there is zero interest in consensual sex here. The idea is to assault someone against their will. That's inherent in the definition of rape. You're not honestly arguing that these men mistook the women for prostitutes and accidentally raped them against their will, are you? Prostitution is still consensual, so I'm really confused on how you could be confused. You "feel for them"? Gross. Read what I said: (I'm not excusing violence here, or in NYC's Central Park; I'm addressing what the immigrants are perceiving.) Did you ignore that? I never said that I was confused; the closest you could claim is when I said that women in general behave what I called bogus; spend as many dozen hours on MGTOW sites as you like to fill in the details. Female deceit, dishonesty, manipulation, and just plain ditziness, loom large. I clearly stated that (in very many cases) there is no easy way to tell a working prostitute from a "normal" saturday nite gal. I used the case of a spaceman's scanner to remove any human from the experiment at that point. I "feel for" the guys who aren't rapists, but who wonder what the frick is going on with all those women shaking anything that moves. THE POINT IS, what are women doing to themselves, what have women (NAWALT boilerplate here) become? What do these immigrant men, or local men, see when we look at many women's behaviors? Some pretty darn perfect working definitions of tramp, hooker, trollop, or whatever it is in Allah-land that the dead warrior gets to have always. Shake the dust from your spoiled eyes, and see afresh without the built-in or later-installed excuses, many women act like hookers!!!!! (And feel for the Muslim neighborhood that's trying to keep out such trash.) Now, as to your question, do some of these men see the women as prostitutes?...How could they not? What you call "sexual openness" really means, "totally off leash without any consideration for consequences." I mean, really, "sexual + open" is supposed to mean "not really sexual" + "not really open." And yes means no, or no means yes, or just what the heck is genuine in all this? Not talking the rapist here, talking the girl's behavior. This is personal. I'm such an amazing guy, the real deal, I wouldn't lie here, because I just wouldn't, but also what's the point in an honesty forum? Anyway, Mr. Wonderful here, if he saw whatever that rape stuff was, or a female stranded along the highway, has a new answer that he never used to have: Ferrrrrget it. (D in post 46 is on to this.) In a gang rape, of course that's a tactical disaster anyway to interfere, but my insides have had it, simply had it, with (various forms of) no-account female behavior. I am not alone by the millions worldwide. This is an extremely serious problem, women are being hugely hurt by this behavior, but God forbid they'd lift a pinkie on the internet to learn the consequences of such behavior. A good scientist doesn't just view one thing, in general. They may focus on one thing, but would be poorly qualified indeed if they didn't see what was revealed in addition. Wanna' stare harshly at the rapists? Great, get it out of your system. Now, turn the camera around -- what about that?
shirgall Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Pro-immigration documentarians visit refugee camp, get robbed: http://www.progressivestoday.com/pro-immigration-filmmakers-visit-french-refugee-camp-and-get-robbed-video/
Jer Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 I'm sorry for your experiences, but I just don't see how it's on-topic for the thread. MGTOW topics are covered pretty much ad nauseum, are they not? Why are you assuming I'm not familiar with all the arguments against female corruption? I'm happy to address, but this is derailing the thread. And yes, your original post was unclear (ie, confused). How exactly are these issues "revealed in addition" to the rapes? I still don't understand the connection. +1 the idea that the men mistook them for willing goes out the window when they fight back and the men don't stop. There's also evidence the attacks were premeditated.
shirgall Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Islam has the death penalty for "Fasad fil-ardh" so the perpetrators of these crimes should be put to death under their own law. http://islam.about.com/cs/law/a/c_punishment.htm Fasaad fi al-ardh The second crime for which capital punishment can be applied is a bit more open to interpretation. "Spreading mischief in the land" can mean many different things, but is generally interpreted to mean those crimes that affect the community as a whole, and destabilize the society. Crimes that have fallen under this description have included: Treason / Apostacy (when one leaves the faith and joins the enemy in fighting against the Muslim community) Terrorism Land, sea, or air piracy Rape Adultery Homosexual behavior
Guest Gee Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Read what I said: (I'm not excusing violence here, or in NYC's Central Park; I'm addressing what the immigrants are perceiving.) Did you ignore that? I never said that I was confused; the closest you could claim is when I said that women in general behave what I called bogus; spend as many dozen hours on MGTOW sites as you like to fill in the details. Female deceit, dishonesty, manipulation, and just plain ditziness, loom large. I clearly stated that (in very many cases) there is no easy way to tell a working prostitute from a "normal" saturday nite gal. I used the case of a spaceman's scanner to remove any human from the experiment at that point. I "feel for" the guys who aren't rapists, but who wonder what the frick is going on with all those women shaking anything that moves. THE POINT IS, what are women doing to themselves, what have women (NAWALT boilerplate here) become? What do these immigrant men, or local men, see when we look at many women's behaviors? Some pretty darn perfect working definitions of tramp, hooker, trollop, or whatever it is in Allah-land that the dead warrior gets to have always. Shake the dust from your spoiled eyes, and see afresh without the built-in or later-installed excuses, many women act like hookers!!!!! (And feel for the Muslim neighborhood that's trying to keep out such trash.) Now, as to your question, do some of these men see the women as prostitutes?...How could they not? What you call "sexual openness" really means, "totally off leash without any consideration for consequences." I mean, really, "sexual + open" is supposed to mean "not really sexual" + "not really open." And yes means no, or no means yes, or just what the heck is genuine in all this? Not talking the rapist here, talking the girl's behavior. Thanks AccuTron, I never understood MGTOW until now. MGTOW can't differentiate easily differentiate between a prostitute and a woman out on the town because they can't see the difference. MGTOW presumably can't easily differentiate between a woman who will ruin them and a good women for the same reason, right? But such differences do exist so it must be that they lack the intelligence to pick up on the cues. I wonder if good women pick on that fact that MGTOW can't pick up on the fact that there are differences and then judge them as not being suitable partners owning to deficiency in the ability to provide owning to insufficient intelligence and therefore do nothing encourage MGTOW men who then project all of this onto women because of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Not to say the fairer sex is completly beyond reproach, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.
Jer Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I really don't get the conflict over if they thought the women were prostitutes or traditionally virtuous women. It's a non sequitur imo. You still need consent to touch a hooker. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I really don't get the conflict over if they thought the women were prostitutes or traditionally virtuous women. It's a non sequitur imo. You still need consent to touch a hooker. Is that true for Arabia?
Torero Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I really don't get the conflict over if they thought the women were prostitutes or traditionally virtuous women. It's a non sequitur imo. You still need consent to touch a hooker. It's psy-ops, propaganda. No doubt there are some muslims who are really not used to women dressing "attractively" so a dumb soul would take her for some "easy woman" you can just freely "grab" on the streets. But the propaganda is that somehow "all" or "the majority of" the immigrants are thinking like that. That's ridiculous, especially for Syria. Damascus used to be a pretty modern city, not like some Wahabist Saudi-Arabian village or so. It used to be French colonist territory, go figure. An example of the nasty narratives the social media (who seem to have taken over the role of media in many ways) are propagandising those things: The story of the 13-year old German-Russian girl, allegedly raped for '30 hours by 3 immigrants' Eine 13-jährige Deutsch-Russin wurde dieser Tage in Berlin entführt und von drei Unbekannten 30 Stunden lang gefangengehalten und mehrfach vergewaltigt. Verschiedene russische Medien berichteten den Vorfall. Then it appeared that this whole story was a fabrication: Police denies rumour: girl NOT molested by immigrants Doch die Geschichte scheint gelogen zu sein. It's an example of narratives they use to spark more conflict between the autochtonous population in Germany (German, Russian, Turkish, whatever race, religion, culture or background) and the "new" immigrants. I am not saying it's like the left-wing press narrative "no problems, all immigrants are brain surgeons and highly skilled engineers 'saving' Europe from a declining birth rate", not at all. That is just as well propaganda. But not recognizing the right-wing propaganda while the left-wing propaganda is recognized is being half-blind. It's propaganda everywhere. And both the poor autochtonous population (see my earlier post on the strategy they play out) and the innocent refugees (that are there) are suffering from the policies to let people fight against each other. Why do they do that? To keep the real forces safely working in the background; the politicians, the interest groups who directly profit from this ("social" worker organizations, immigration bureaus; it's a whole industry!). In the end it all boils down to one thing; getting more POWER to the -already for USAmericans and Canadians unimaginably huge- STATE.
Jer Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Is that true for Arabia? Yes, a prostitute is a person who performs services in exchange for money. Slaves are a different thing.
shirgall Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 It's my understanding that "easy women" are raped and stoned under Sharia law, not "grabbed" for fun. And also, these women were not playfully grabbed or patted on the ass. Did you read about the reporter almost ripped apart and scalped by the mob in Egypt? I didn't read graphic accounts of the Europe incidents, but this was definitely not some "misunderstanding" of how "easy" the women are. I'm frankly appalled and will be walking at least an arm's length away from those for whom the difference isn't readily apparent. The difficulty here is that Islamic law merely asks women to be modest, but local cultural norms are used for that definition. The culture in the middle east requires the hijab, for example, not the Koran.
shirgall Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I'm not sure how this relates to my comment. You mentioned Sharia law (Koranic) but Koranic law is rather non-specific on what modesty is. It is the cultural norm that defines immodesty. The refugees are used to a cultural norm that's much more covered, less forward, more submissive. Yeah, the grabbing and worse is not acceptable, but I'm betting that they will claim immodesty on display if pressed and that they should not be held to some standard they've never experienced before. We can only hope that the Europeans are adamant about their cultural norms being accepted by the refugees and not start imposing new codes of conduct and modesty to accommodate the incoming wave... but that's where this whole thread started.
AccuTron Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I'm sorry for your experiences, but I just don't see how it's on-topic for the thread. MGTOW topics are covered pretty much ad nauseum, are they not? Why are you assuming I'm not familiar with all the arguments against female corruption? I'm happy to address, but this is derailing the thread. And yes, your original post was unclear (ie, confused). How exactly are these issues "revealed in addition" to the rapes? I still don't understand the connection. Firstly, it's not just my experiences. It's in the millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of men. I see that wayyyyyyyy too often, and it's usually a female doing it: "It's just you and I'll ignore the gigantic evidence otherwise." It's very female to attack the messenger and thus ignore the actual message content. I'm shocked if I don't see it. That's just the facts, ma'am. As to MGTOW in general, I said the topic was covered endlessly elsewhere. Derailing the thread? From what? It's ten times saying the same thing: Rape is bad. It was true the first stated time, no more true the tenth. This thread could use either a steering wheel or a parking brake. My point was, and I did say this, that once we're all here...clapping our hands in unison and saying rape is bad as if we didn't already know...that we can further investigate. There are two parts to this immediate story, the rapist and the raped. But I stated up front that I wanted to look at the larger picture. I totally get that Damascus is a bigger city, and people everywhere will vary as to character. I'm trying to put a spotlight on this: Why do the women in a generalized sexual display feel that they can get away with it? (And I don't want to confuse with topless dancing Zulu women who are clearly empowered by their strength.) I've been around this and that festival over the years, yeah, looks fun, check the buns, etc. The actual dress and movements of these generalized female revelers is what millions of years of evolution, with the tens of thousands for primates, CLEARLY states, "Come drag me into the bushes, I'm ready." Shh. Pretend it's not true. Now, why do they get away with it? Because there's a substantial social contract, involving primarily white* males, that the women will be protected. Those jiggly girls out there are completely, silently, assuming that unnamed white males will put their/our own lives at risk to prevent any of these females from assault, even while in maximum tease mode. That's a hell of a contract, and no I didn't vote for it. [*White just means the color of the males who are already there; it could be polka dots.] Isn't there something a little fishy in all this? I, a male, am expected to initiate or counteract violence because some stupid broad...which is how it will be seen...makes a fool of herself. I, a male, am expected to get my face slashed or whatever because some ditz can't behave. Wrong!!! This forum is all about results of actions. Seeing who is responsible for what, see how the money or power trails go. I'm saying, back up the zoom lens and look at the larger societal picture. Where are the unspoken contracts and expectations? And then ask, if the existent white male structure, however imperfect, is weakened by social dissolution, what happens? Will these festivities end up being less frequent? I'm not suggesting that black skin means bad character. I'm asking to look at the invisible social contract that these women take for granted. It may not be there some day.
AncapFTW Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Firstly, it's not just my experiences. It's in the millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of men. I see that wayyyyyyyy too often, and it's usually a female doing it: "It's just you and I'll ignore the gigantic evidence otherwise." It's very female to attack the messenger and thus ignore the actual message content. I'm shocked if I don't see it. That's just the facts, ma'am. As to MGTOW in general, I said the topic was covered endlessly elsewhere. Derailing the thread? From what? It's ten times saying the same thing: Rape is bad. It was true the first stated time, no more true the tenth. This thread could use either a steering wheel or a parking brake. My point was, and I did say this, that once we're all here...clapping our hands in unison and saying rape is bad as if we didn't already know...that we can further investigate. There are two parts to this immediate story, the rapist and the raped. But I stated up front that I wanted to look at the larger picture. I totally get that Damascus is a bigger city, and people everywhere will vary as to character. I'm trying to put a spotlight on this: Why do the women in a generalized sexual display feel that they can get away with it? (And I don't want to confuse with topless dancing Zulu women who are clearly empowered by their strength.) I've been around this and that festival over the years, yeah, looks fun, check the buns, etc. The actual dress and movements of these generalized female revelers is what millions of years of evolution, with the tens of thousands for primates, CLEARLY states, "Come drag me into the bushes, I'm ready." Shh. Pretend it's not true. Now, why do they get away with it? Because there's a substantial social contract, involving primarily white males, that the women will be protected. Those jiggly girls out there are completely, silently, assuming that unnamed white males will put their/our own lives at risk to prevent any of these females from assault, even while in maximum tease mode. That's a hell of a contract, and no I didn't vote for it. Isn't there something a little fishy in all this? I, a male, am expected to initiate or counteract violence because some stupid broad...which is how it will be seen...makes a fool of herself. I, a male, am expected to get my face slashed or whatever because some ditz can't behave. Wrong!!! This forum is all about results of actions. Seeing who is responsible for what, see how the money or power trails go. I'm saying, back up the zoom lens and look at the larger societal picture. Where are the unspoken contracts and expectations? And then ask, if the existent white male structure, however imperfect, is weakened by social dissolution, what happens? Will these festivities end up being less frequent? I'm not suggesting that black skin means bad character. I'm asking to look at the invisible social contract that these women take for granted. It may not be there some day. Trying to attract a mate isn't the same as consenting to mating with anyone who's attracted. Even in the wild, among animals, it merely gets them to come by to be tested as a possible mate. I get it, you don't like them acting like that. This isn't really a "white knight" thing, though. They are people who didn't deserve to be attacked.
rosencrantz Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Because there's a substantial social contract, involving primarily white males, that the women will be protected. Those jiggly girls out there are completely, silently, assuming that unnamed white males will put their/our own lives at risk to prevent any of these females from assault, even while in maximum tease mode. That's a hell of a contract, and no I didn't vote for it. You did not, and I am happy that your genes will disappear from the genepool when you keep being a MGTOW. Degrading women in wartimes / invasions is a well known used tactic. The immigrants know this and the natives begin to see it that way. Western culture is attacked and if we don't fight back we deserve to disappear in the trash bin of history.
Donnadogsoth Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Watching this back-and-forth, I think the most important lesson to be learned here from AccuTron is that Europa's moral degradation is such that it has created this problem in first place. The shields are down, we are in a position of weakness, and our leaders have stirred up foreign wars and strife. That women have become skanks is just a symptom, a little whore's blossom, of the greater problem that is we let these bastards in here in the first place.
Torero Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 From Donna I can "understand" knowing his other posts, but AccuTron, really?Women shouldn't be able to wear whatever they want, else it is somehow "understandable" that men are grabbing them? Whut? This "blaming the victim" narrative is exactly what those abusing (so not all) muslims want; if she's not wrapped up in burqas, hijabs or other "protective clothing", you may consider her some whore and molest her or worse...Come on, it's 2016 and women should be able to dress the way they like without running these risks. I've been to quite some festivals and parties myself and indeed many women dress provocatively. But that's their choice, there's no reason why they should be abused because of that choice. Not the provocation party is the one misbehaving, yet the party taking advantage of that and let himself go like some primitive ape.In essence you agree with the mayor who said "keep them at 1 arms length" then; blaming the European women for attacks (if they're real and I think quite some of them definitely are, no matter the invented stories and possible hoaxes played out) on their sexual integrity.I find it rather shocking to see that those thoughts are present here on the philosophy forum where morality, non-violence and freedom of choice (without being molested for that choice) are the core values... Edit: same holds for men of course; they have the same rights to dress the way they like without being harrassed by crazy women or gays.
AccuTron Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 .. I get it, you don't like them acting like that. This isn't really a "white knight" thing, though. They are people who didn't deserve to be attacked. Never said otherwise. I never once defended the actions of the rapist, that was one of my initial statements. Should I have used a bigger font, it seems so ignored? It was an attack, I get it. Really I do, it's not that difficult. I just took the opportunity of an event to look more deeply into it. It's not about whether I like anyone acting like that, it's about the results. (You did that too, shot the messenger to avoid the message). It's about the unspoken contract embedded in the whole structure, a contract which would, by my proximity, want to enslave me to it's content. And I'm not defending the confusion! It's confused! Defending confusion is what happens when one refuses to look at aspects of it. You think somebody hired me to point out the obvious??? It's merely an opportunity to look further. Like if you go to an honest doc for one thing, say AHH, and find something else. This news story is a big AHHH if you want to look into it. And by the way, my very first brief response was because of a statement by a public official within the story, so it's hardly off topic.
Torero Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 It's about the unspoken contract embedded in the whole structure, a contract which would, by my proximity, want to enslave me to its content. This really is Chinese to me. Which "contract"? And an "unspoken contract"? How can you have a contract when you don't speak about it? Embedded in the "whole structure"? Which structure? Enslave you? If you agree to a contract by free will, how is that enslaving? Women, and especially German women (I've lived 3 years in the country) are very well able to defend themselves. I really don't get what you want to bring across...
AccuTron Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Thanks AccuTron, I never understood MGTOW until now. MGTOW can't differentiate easily differentiate between a prostitute and a woman out on the town because they can't see the difference. MGTOW presumably can't easily differentiate between a woman who will ruin them and a good women for the same reason, right? But such differences do exist so it must be that they lack the intelligence to pick up on the cues. I wonder if good women pick on that fact that MGTOW can't pick up on the fact that there are differences and then judge them as not being suitable partners owning to deficiency in the ability to provide owning to insufficient intelligence and therefore do nothing encourage MGTOW men who then project all of this onto women because of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Not to say the fairer sex is completly beyond reproach, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me. I didn't say that a MGTOW (nonsense on the surface since it's not a defined category other than people who don't want something) couldn't figure it out. I said that a spaceman's scanner couldn't, that it was a pure data observation. I made that clear. It's prepping the topic. Frankly, what you said is nonsense. It's not about a person's inability to discern. Clearly the rapists aren't doing so because they don't even care. It's about the mixed signals, and how they interact with unspoken expected social contract. How many times do I have to repeat myself? -- I'm not defending the rapists. And as to your line about a man not being able to discern between good and ruin...what the heck is that? The internet is overstuffed with tales of men being not able to do that, and it's not about how they/we start, virtually nobody starts a MGTOW, it's about the deceit we encounter, and the profound lack of (undistorted) education on the topic. Which wasn't my primary intention, it was about the hidden social contracts inside the festival/societal structure as a whole, upon which the festival event simply put the spotlight. OK, I think I'm starting to understand what you're talking about. Now, one question: Do you really know what the women raped and assaulted in Europe were wearing or doing at the time of the attacks? Or is it an assumption that they were scantily clad and "jiggling?" What happens to your theory if that is not true? Doesn't look very "jiggly" to me. How do you account for that in your theory? Right, not jiggly. Not at a festival either, for what that's worth, which isn't much. Rapists and attackers, bad people. Plenty of it all over. Perhaps I've generalized too much, but it's a general condition -- The rapists are bad; the women are victims. Got it. Now...let's take this as a general science problem, like it was soil dynamics or building failures or chemistry. Let us call the festival, or the festival embedded within the larger state, The System. (Physics talk, not political talk.) The System is known to run for a long time within normally understood variation, with no damaging events (not counting somebody stubs a toe). Introduce Material A. (Let this be the immigrants.) The System has a large negative event. Why? To analyze a chemical reaction, one studies ALL of it, not just the favorite parts, unless that's specifically the task. To understand a building collapse, one must completely investigate, to see what underlying causes may have led to the overt cause. To analyze ground for special development, one must honestly know all the structures many meters down, not just a few feet. We may first note that Material A is not homogenous. Rapist molecules are a minority; non-rapists are the majority. The "chemical reaction" occurred anyway, and this is one path for investigation. Keeping with the chemical metaphor, one would have to know the composition of the system, the substrate, all that stuff, to really claim to understand the chemical reaction. Otherwise, it's just "we put stuff on it, and it fizzed a bit." I'm analyzing the substrate. I agree, this phenomenon has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with cultural warfare. That is more or less what I've been struggling to say. In historical warfare, one first sees the armies, but that's just the beginning. The underlying social strata are going to be heavily affected. When those rapists crashed into that festival, what are the unspoken social contracts that they also crashed into? Not the women, it's well stated elsewhere the women were primarily crashed into, got that. What else, is the question? 1
AccuTron Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 From Donna I can "understand" knowing his other posts, but AccuTron, really? Women shouldn't be able to wear whatever they want, else it is somehow "understandable" that men are grabbing them? Whut? I never said they shouldn't be able to wear what they want, or that grabbing is okay. (I'd have to dig to find the understandable usage.) I'm saying that given the women's feeling of safety in doing so, they are using an unwritten contract that applies to all males in proximity, no matter what. The contract states that males in general should protect a woman, no matter her own behavior. This is really most of what I'm trying to get at. This claiming that I'm defending the rapists is poor reading comprehension. This festival event didn't mean that the women were supposed to be attacked; how many times do I say that? I'm saying that such an event highlights the need for immediate response to the situation, and in the general case, with police not present -- or there probably wouldn't be a trouble to begin with -- every male in proximity is sort of socially conscripted to fill in. It's voluntary to act, of course, but I'm just pointing out the existence of that protective structure, which by the way, nobody else seems to even recognize. And how is that structure going to be strained by social change?
Torero Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 I never said they shouldn't be able to wear what they want, or that grabbing is okay. (I'd have to dig to find the understandable usage.) OK, clear. I'm saying that given the women's feeling of safety in doing so, they are using an unwritten contract that applies to all males in proximity, no matter what. Huh? What "contract"? You think a women, dressed 'provocatively' expects from other men to protect her when she is by herself and bad men are attacking her? That's not my experience with women and less with women of the self-confident "German" kind... The contract states that males in general should protect a woman, no matter her own behavior. This is really most of what I'm trying to get at. This claiming I'm defending the rapists stuff is poor reading comprehension. I am protecting my friends and girlfriend very much. I even had a case where some drunk f*ck touched my girlfriend in the most intimate places. Other than many other Dutch or German guys I am not a sissy who just stands there and does nothing. I went to that guy, on a packed dance floor, and shouted in his ear (he was very short). In a reflex and against my nature (also I had some drinks) I bit him in his ear... Then I walked away from the dance floor and nobody came after me. Also that guy not. This happened in Prague where men are a bit more male than in Holland and Germany, in my experience. Now what "contract" is there for a girl who goes out alone? The girl is responsible for her own dress code and behaviour, isn't she? If she's attacked/molested/raped etc. and she cries for help, of course as a good male you try to protect her, don't you? But is that a "contract"? No, it's just trying to protect someone who is harrassed. Just like you would do to a male victim who gets attacked (and you know the story behind it; it may be a fight between criminals or so, and I wouldn't step in between that...), right?
AccuTron Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 This really is Chinese to me. Which "contract"? And an "unspoken contract"? How can you have a contract when you don't speak about it? Embedded in the "whole structure"? Which structure? Enslave you? If you agree to a contract by free will, how is that enslaving? Women, and especially German women (I've lived 3 years in the country) are very well able to defend themselves. I really don't get what you want to bring across... The contract is described in the post before yours, maybe it wasn't yet posted at that time. Enslave, in the sense that the expectation exists. Perhaps too strong a word. Are you saying that if you saw a German woman being attacked, even by only one assailant, you'd just say "Oh heck, she's German, I'm off to Starbucks?" I doubt it, because of the unspoken contract, social and/or genetic, to defend the woman. The festival event is an opportunity to explore that under larger, more strained, and changing, circumstances. That's mostly what I'm trying to say. My path from there is about my perception that this expectation of defense is or is not recognized. The lady of the castle in St. Julien's story, or in any castle, is well aware that the men at arms in the castle are the reason she isn't meat to the next biggest castle. No mystery, no denial. The lady of a castle is not likely to run over the drawbridge in a negligee and expect a happy time unless it's a very secure province, secured by men at arms. Social contracts. What irks me, and I see this very much, is the entitlement attitude of many women, without any responsibility for honesty in return. (I'm aware of the problem of labeling large groups, yet at least once in these very forums, and from LOL Feminism online, women have said as much, that women who are self aware and self controlled are, if I recall correctly, "less than one percent" and "I can count them on one hand." Ain't just me.) Wanna' feel entitled in general? Otay, just do it someplace else. Expect me to put myself in harms way when it gets out of hand? Nope. That is me, I'm telling you my data, how I feel. No way I'm the only one. That's a social change of note. Yes, it is voluntary for me to "Go to Starbucks." (Begging the question of how many white feathers may follow.) Those ladies in castles, or villages, know there are bad guys, probably rapists. And the local males protect them. Not historically denied or deniable. Yet there's an existing attitude which strikes me as pervasive, that those men at arms aren't really necessary today, they're just kept around because they look good. The other end of the contract, the self control of the protected subject, is being neglected. This is a problem. I put it to you that it is corrosive over the long haul. MGTOW is a gigantic change. Men in general are distancing from women in general. The generalized reason is an imbalance in social contracts. When a man is expected to risk himself, and the protected person is not expected to be honest, the change is going to get worse. Yes, plenty of women have parties no problem, goes on all the time. Plenty of women are behaving well. But the social flavor is changing. It doesn't have to be everyone, just enough.
Guest Gee Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 I didn't say that a MGTOW (nonsense on the surface since it's not a defined category other than people who don't want something) couldn't figure it out. I said that a spaceman's scanner couldn't, that it was a pure data observation. I made that clear. It's prepping the topic. Frankly, what you said is nonsense. It's not about a person's inability to discern. Clearly the rapists aren't doing so because they don't even care. It's about the mixed signals, and how they interact with unspoken expected social contract. How many times do I have to repeat myself? -- I'm not defending the rapists. And as to your line about a man not being able to discern between good and ruin...what the heck is that? The internet is overstuffed with tales of men being not able to do that, and it's not about how they/we start, virtually nobody starts a MGTOW, it's about the deceit we encounter, and the profound lack of (undistorted) education on the topic. Which wasn't my primary intention, it was about the hidden social contracts inside the festival/societal structure as a whole, upon which the festival event simply put the spotlight. Right expect if you assert a spaceman's scanner can't detect a difference between a prostitute and a non prostitute then your claiming their is no empirical difference between the actions of a prostitute and the actions of a none prostitute. So what your saying is you can't tell the difference. But there is a difference. So what your really saying is your not smart enough or your perception of reality is so distorted that you can't tell the difference.
Recommended Posts