Either we the citizenry, alongside those who enforce the law, use violence when necessary to maintain order, or the bad people will use violence to have their way with us.
From the CDC linked "study" in the LA Times article: "Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes."
This is just as insane as the "1 in 4 college coeds are raped" statistic that has been floating around the decades. If that were actually true, no father would EVER send his daughter to college.
IN the case of the LA Times (and CDC), it's clear the definition of "sexual violence" is deceptive here. Most people think of "sexual violence" as rape, but in many studies like this, any woman who has ever had her ass groped on a subway is a "sexual violence" victim. The dead giveaway is the "1 in 3 men" line. There is absolutely no way that 1 in 3 men have been victims of anything that any normal human being would call "sexual violence".
It seems that having sex with the "wrong" guy constitutes sexual violence. That's the only way it could even be remotely possible for over half of women to have experienced physical sexual violence in their lifetimes.
We in the West live in arguably the safest moment in history for women. Men have become utterly terrified to even make eye contact with a woman. The only people who aren't getting with the program are criminals and social predators, many of whom are, unfortunately, Black and Brown. But women seem to think these are the people who are going to come save them from the White male aggressor.
Look at this ridiculous, damn near malicious PSA out of far-left UK:
Keep in mind, the portrayal of this young White lad is exactly how they used criticize the portrayal of Blacks as criminals: ugly, almost sub-human. It wouldn't shock me at all if a woman was behind the "screenplay" of this PSA.
Because the problem in Britain isn't rampaging groups of Muslim men. It's white blokes from Warwickshire terrorizing brown women on the Tube.
Progressive women have convinced themselves they don't need men. Technology (ironically most of it created by men) can now provide for all their needs. Smith and Wesson makes women physically equal and Planned Parenthood makes them sexually equal.
We live on a little farm, 40 minutes from the nearest "city" which is 50,000 pop. My neighbours don't lie and steal. Except once i was in town and my neighbour asked to borrow some plumbing supplies (he knew where i kept them), then texted to say sorry he'd taken a few fresh warm cookies i'd left on the counter (i was happy he liked them - he helps us all the time). That is community - not the psychotic yelling in an apartment at the top of his voice next to a lying, thieving potential murderer. Urban life is crazy and neurotic.
Something a lot of leftists and urbanites don't understand: community means you actually mind the business of others. By minding the business of others, you're cognizant of what the other person's comfort zone is and what their red lines are. Then you establish and respect those boundaries. Good fences are the only way to make good neighbors.
As with most things left-wing, their definition of community is: stay within your own four walls and ceiling, but don't mind it if someone encroaches on your property. Otherwise, you may die and your violator may go to prison. You don't want that, do you?
Why care about the average woman, when the average woman wants to immasculate men. I think this violence against women can in the long term be good society by showing we need masculinity. I'm all for this; it will be good long term. You gotta break some eggs...
Women have enhanced their prerogatives and diminished their responsibilities for more than a century, and true enough that has led to huge structural issues in society. However, the eggs that get cracked will be men.
This boils down to what matters more: that evil be punished or that good emerge? Given the nature of societies, if we get to the point where this is forced upon us, life will be a shadow of the glory of today (and today isn't all that great on many levels).
No, just no. Average women are not what you see on twitter. And if you think violence against women will show masculinity on a positive side……you need to read history. Chivalry. Real men protect and cherish women.
The average woman is definitely trying to immasculate men. You can see this through voting patterns, divorce statistics, ridiculing of men, putting themselves on a pedestaled, HR focus in corporate, on and on and on. I used to go to war and kick doors for equal tights. No more. Your terms are acceptable; we are competitors now.
I see the assymetry somewhat diffently going forward... Although I agree with you at current time.
Men of power, who suppress other men, at least in the western world assumes power through institutions. That is; they weild power through the institutions they manage. The power of the institutions is backed up by real power; from the warrior class - and I'm not talking about police officers. The warrior class is rejecting the legitamacy of the institutions, hence the institutions assume power they no longer have. This is also called a power vacuum (which is dangerous). The strong who "powerful men" currently try to suppress hold the real power and the asymmetry in real power is anomalous in how great it is compared to just a few years ago.
I think both of you are correct. Most women may not be as crazy as they are on social media, but it doesn't matter, either, because, as you pointed out, men and women are competitors now.
There exists an inherent asymmetry in the conflict, however: men need to be suppressed, often by other men, for women to be able to be competitors.
That’s a dreadful attitude. Not all women think like that…me for example. My approach over my life has been to avoid dangerous places. Easier in a small city in Canada than NYC I admit. I’ve always been cautious and so far so good. My parents had true crime books around the house and reading them was instructive.
I once read somewhere that the customer demographic for the true crime genre skews female. This speaks to the vulnerability of women, but it also makes you wonder why women don't take a harder line against crime. If anything, they seem to prefer the opposite.
Women have a far less punitive attitude towards criminals and more easily sympathize with them. Young women are uniquely at risk of victimization, yet they often take the most permissive tack against criminals.
When it comes to the woman on the train, I find it apropos that you bring up the word "Karen". After that word took off, most white women I know, and of all ages, are constantly afraid of being called a Karen, so much so that they will back down from defending or advocating for themselves in even the smallest, most trivial social interactions. For instance; I've gone out with my family and, if something's wrong with the food and my mom makes a comment, my sisters immediately start gibbering, "Oh, don't be a Karen", as if my mother simply (and politely) informing the wait staff that the food came out wrong would somehow be confrontational, aggressive, and in the wrong to... ask for the food she actually ordered. My mom even prefaces some of her statements with, "I know this sounds like a Karen thing to say", sometimes. Another time, I was out with a friend and we were waiting for someone to help us. A staff member was too engrossed with their phone to notice that we were standing there. I said something to get their attention, and my friend groused something to the effect that if she said something, she'd be a "Karen" for doing it. Which, yeah - she probably would, because the entire point of the term seems to have shifted since it's inception. When the phrase started becoming popular, it was widely used to classify a certain type of customer in the service industry that gets disproportionately belligerent, and that's fine. Working in the service industry, those people exist. But, as time has gone on, the phrase seems to have changed to refer to a woman who complains about any negative interaction in public, wrongly OR rightly. A woman receives an incorrect order and politely asks for it to be corrected? Karen. A woman tries to get the attention of an employee who's jerking around on their phone instead of working? Karen. A woman is approached by a pack of "amiable urban youths" and gives them the cold shoulder? Oh, that's not just Karen behavior, that's racist Karen behavior.
The point is, pretty much anything can get a woman labelled as a Karen, it seems, and women - especially white women - now live in a world where the ever-present panopticon of social media means that they could make a simple request or an innocuous actions and have a dozen cameras whipped out, record her, and have her face plastered across TikTok as the next big Karen freakout video. Imagine if you make a request of a barista and THEY'RE the ones that respond with disproportionate anger, but you end up looking like the Karen for "instigating" and, when the cameras come out, all that's recorded is "OMG EPIC BARISTA LOSES IT ON STUPID KAREN!" Nobody would ever want that to happen, but for women, that's basically social suicide. Clearly, they would rather take the passive route and allow themselves to be walked over than risk being labeled as a "Karen". And, again, I understand why, but it's just kind of amazing that this one word, proliferated by social media, has them all so whipped. My conspiratorial inclinations lead me to want to believe that it was by design - by who, I can't say - to cow the public into accepting lower standards of service as the quality of service (and employees) at the vast majority of places plummet, and more amenable to the current state of anarcho-tyranny as a whole (rest assured, if a woman complained about their neighbor stealing a package, they would be a "Karen" because, c'mon - it's just paper towels! Don't be so stingy. Maybe he needed it more. It's a "Karen" thing to complain about). I kind of doubt it, though. I think it's just the way those kind of words come (and hopefully go, one day), ratcheted up and magnified by the omnipresence of social media and the literal panopticon it creates.
"Karen" used to refer to a female customer who makes unreasonable, frivolous demands. I suppose it's always been racialized, but it at least used to mean someone who was being ridiculous or overly difficult. BTW, Black women are seldom referred to as "Karens." That said, we all know they exist and their defining characteristic is them instantly accusing everyone within earshot of racism.
I used to use the term, but not anymore, because now it's lost its original meaning. It's just shocking, as you said, how a single slang term has terrorized millions of White women into submission. It's difficult not to believe that it wasn't by design, because the results, from the Regime's perspective, were perfect.
I am certain it was emergent, not by design. The regime is composed of dull midwits. However, these women absolutely act as a layer of defense against collapse so of course it was amplified incredibly.
I agree with you that the woman on the train made a quick calculation to go along with the blunt request of the group rather than risk violence. For so many rowdy young men to be involved, the odds are strong that one would take extreme offense if she did not obey the request. It reminds me of Dr.Joyce Benenson’s great work “Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes” that explains how women must put their own safety and reproductive health first in any social interaction. At times, that comes with this difficult decision. I’m sure you’d immediately grasp the significance of that book’s great insights. I really think that many female politicians of both parties (at least the ones we currently have) simply are not equipped to fight this onslaught of crime. Their maternal instinct for equality and nurturing has been directed by the media and propaganda to sympathize with the exact people who must be stopped. Then, when the crime continues, they somehow shame the men who are not even in control to do something. So this woman on the NYC council lambasts men categorically while herself being in a position to put pressure on the DA or change laws to stop it. The willful blindness of those in power is too much at times. As an aside, have you ever witnessed a female politician or DA come down really hard on crime and change laws to punish criminals more harshly? I truly can’t think of one. It’s a sincere question.
You're correct. I've never seen a female politician or DA ever take a hard tack against crime. That said, it's a hard position for any politician to take, even male. Women are obviously more expected to toe the line, which is why you won't find many who'll take a hard stand against crime and disorder.
It’s hard to explain something that is so present yet unmentioned. I think it comes from a female politician’s understanding that criminals are indeed dangerous and that perhaps if those criminals identify her as the reason for their harsher sentence, they might go after her personally once out of jail (or have one of their associates get her). That overwhelming biological need for self preservation somehow inhibits her from seeing that she and everyone else will actually be in danger if these criminals keep walking the streets and committing crimes. It’s that or their nurturing instinct run amok.
Of course, this doesn't explain why they criminalize men who attempt to protect them from the real bad people. It's almost like they feel more threatened by the protectors than the predators.
From the CDC linked "study" in the LA Times article: "Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes."
This is just as insane as the "1 in 4 college coeds are raped" statistic that has been floating around the decades. If that were actually true, no father would EVER send his daughter to college.
IN the case of the LA Times (and CDC), it's clear the definition of "sexual violence" is deceptive here. Most people think of "sexual violence" as rape, but in many studies like this, any woman who has ever had her ass groped on a subway is a "sexual violence" victim. The dead giveaway is the "1 in 3 men" line. There is absolutely no way that 1 in 3 men have been victims of anything that any normal human being would call "sexual violence".
It seems that having sex with the "wrong" guy constitutes sexual violence. That's the only way it could even be remotely possible for over half of women to have experienced physical sexual violence in their lifetimes.
We in the West live in arguably the safest moment in history for women. Men have become utterly terrified to even make eye contact with a woman. The only people who aren't getting with the program are criminals and social predators, many of whom are, unfortunately, Black and Brown. But women seem to think these are the people who are going to come save them from the White male aggressor.
Look at this ridiculous, damn near malicious PSA out of far-left UK:
https://twitter.com/Klaus_Arminius/status/1777090310096510979
Keep in mind, the portrayal of this young White lad is exactly how they used criticize the portrayal of Blacks as criminals: ugly, almost sub-human. It wouldn't shock me at all if a woman was behind the "screenplay" of this PSA.
Because the problem in Britain isn't rampaging groups of Muslim men. It's white blokes from Warwickshire terrorizing brown women on the Tube.
Progressive women have convinced themselves they don't need men. Technology (ironically most of it created by men) can now provide for all their needs. Smith and Wesson makes women physically equal and Planned Parenthood makes them sexually equal.
As a woman, i 100% think she felt threatened and hoped to deflect attention until she could get to a safer place
We live on a little farm, 40 minutes from the nearest "city" which is 50,000 pop. My neighbours don't lie and steal. Except once i was in town and my neighbour asked to borrow some plumbing supplies (he knew where i kept them), then texted to say sorry he'd taken a few fresh warm cookies i'd left on the counter (i was happy he liked them - he helps us all the time). That is community - not the psychotic yelling in an apartment at the top of his voice next to a lying, thieving potential murderer. Urban life is crazy and neurotic.
Something a lot of leftists and urbanites don't understand: community means you actually mind the business of others. By minding the business of others, you're cognizant of what the other person's comfort zone is and what their red lines are. Then you establish and respect those boundaries. Good fences are the only way to make good neighbors.
As with most things left-wing, their definition of community is: stay within your own four walls and ceiling, but don't mind it if someone encroaches on your property. Otherwise, you may die and your violator may go to prison. You don't want that, do you?
Why care about the average woman, when the average woman wants to immasculate men. I think this violence against women can in the long term be good society by showing we need masculinity. I'm all for this; it will be good long term. You gotta break some eggs...
Women have enhanced their prerogatives and diminished their responsibilities for more than a century, and true enough that has led to huge structural issues in society. However, the eggs that get cracked will be men.
This boils down to what matters more: that evil be punished or that good emerge? Given the nature of societies, if we get to the point where this is forced upon us, life will be a shadow of the glory of today (and today isn't all that great on many levels).
No, just no. Average women are not what you see on twitter. And if you think violence against women will show masculinity on a positive side……you need to read history. Chivalry. Real men protect and cherish women.
The average woman is definitely trying to immasculate men. You can see this through voting patterns, divorce statistics, ridiculing of men, putting themselves on a pedestaled, HR focus in corporate, on and on and on. I used to go to war and kick doors for equal tights. No more. Your terms are acceptable; we are competitors now.
I see the assymetry somewhat diffently going forward... Although I agree with you at current time.
Men of power, who suppress other men, at least in the western world assumes power through institutions. That is; they weild power through the institutions they manage. The power of the institutions is backed up by real power; from the warrior class - and I'm not talking about police officers. The warrior class is rejecting the legitamacy of the institutions, hence the institutions assume power they no longer have. This is also called a power vacuum (which is dangerous). The strong who "powerful men" currently try to suppress hold the real power and the asymmetry in real power is anomalous in how great it is compared to just a few years ago.
I think both of you are correct. Most women may not be as crazy as they are on social media, but it doesn't matter, either, because, as you pointed out, men and women are competitors now.
There exists an inherent asymmetry in the conflict, however: men need to be suppressed, often by other men, for women to be able to be competitors.
That’s a dreadful attitude. Not all women think like that…me for example. My approach over my life has been to avoid dangerous places. Easier in a small city in Canada than NYC I admit. I’ve always been cautious and so far so good. My parents had true crime books around the house and reading them was instructive.
I once read somewhere that the customer demographic for the true crime genre skews female. This speaks to the vulnerability of women, but it also makes you wonder why women don't take a harder line against crime. If anything, they seem to prefer the opposite.
I don’t know any women who are soft on crime but I am older (72). It’s sounds like a fad among some young women.
Women have a far less punitive attitude towards criminals and more easily sympathize with them. Young women are uniquely at risk of victimization, yet they often take the most permissive tack against criminals.
When it comes to the woman on the train, I find it apropos that you bring up the word "Karen". After that word took off, most white women I know, and of all ages, are constantly afraid of being called a Karen, so much so that they will back down from defending or advocating for themselves in even the smallest, most trivial social interactions. For instance; I've gone out with my family and, if something's wrong with the food and my mom makes a comment, my sisters immediately start gibbering, "Oh, don't be a Karen", as if my mother simply (and politely) informing the wait staff that the food came out wrong would somehow be confrontational, aggressive, and in the wrong to... ask for the food she actually ordered. My mom even prefaces some of her statements with, "I know this sounds like a Karen thing to say", sometimes. Another time, I was out with a friend and we were waiting for someone to help us. A staff member was too engrossed with their phone to notice that we were standing there. I said something to get their attention, and my friend groused something to the effect that if she said something, she'd be a "Karen" for doing it. Which, yeah - she probably would, because the entire point of the term seems to have shifted since it's inception. When the phrase started becoming popular, it was widely used to classify a certain type of customer in the service industry that gets disproportionately belligerent, and that's fine. Working in the service industry, those people exist. But, as time has gone on, the phrase seems to have changed to refer to a woman who complains about any negative interaction in public, wrongly OR rightly. A woman receives an incorrect order and politely asks for it to be corrected? Karen. A woman tries to get the attention of an employee who's jerking around on their phone instead of working? Karen. A woman is approached by a pack of "amiable urban youths" and gives them the cold shoulder? Oh, that's not just Karen behavior, that's racist Karen behavior.
The point is, pretty much anything can get a woman labelled as a Karen, it seems, and women - especially white women - now live in a world where the ever-present panopticon of social media means that they could make a simple request or an innocuous actions and have a dozen cameras whipped out, record her, and have her face plastered across TikTok as the next big Karen freakout video. Imagine if you make a request of a barista and THEY'RE the ones that respond with disproportionate anger, but you end up looking like the Karen for "instigating" and, when the cameras come out, all that's recorded is "OMG EPIC BARISTA LOSES IT ON STUPID KAREN!" Nobody would ever want that to happen, but for women, that's basically social suicide. Clearly, they would rather take the passive route and allow themselves to be walked over than risk being labeled as a "Karen". And, again, I understand why, but it's just kind of amazing that this one word, proliferated by social media, has them all so whipped. My conspiratorial inclinations lead me to want to believe that it was by design - by who, I can't say - to cow the public into accepting lower standards of service as the quality of service (and employees) at the vast majority of places plummet, and more amenable to the current state of anarcho-tyranny as a whole (rest assured, if a woman complained about their neighbor stealing a package, they would be a "Karen" because, c'mon - it's just paper towels! Don't be so stingy. Maybe he needed it more. It's a "Karen" thing to complain about). I kind of doubt it, though. I think it's just the way those kind of words come (and hopefully go, one day), ratcheted up and magnified by the omnipresence of social media and the literal panopticon it creates.
"Karen" used to refer to a female customer who makes unreasonable, frivolous demands. I suppose it's always been racialized, but it at least used to mean someone who was being ridiculous or overly difficult. BTW, Black women are seldom referred to as "Karens." That said, we all know they exist and their defining characteristic is them instantly accusing everyone within earshot of racism.
I used to use the term, but not anymore, because now it's lost its original meaning. It's just shocking, as you said, how a single slang term has terrorized millions of White women into submission. It's difficult not to believe that it wasn't by design, because the results, from the Regime's perspective, were perfect.
I am certain it was emergent, not by design. The regime is composed of dull midwits. However, these women absolutely act as a layer of defense against collapse so of course it was amplified incredibly.
I agree with you that the woman on the train made a quick calculation to go along with the blunt request of the group rather than risk violence. For so many rowdy young men to be involved, the odds are strong that one would take extreme offense if she did not obey the request. It reminds me of Dr.Joyce Benenson’s great work “Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes” that explains how women must put their own safety and reproductive health first in any social interaction. At times, that comes with this difficult decision. I’m sure you’d immediately grasp the significance of that book’s great insights. I really think that many female politicians of both parties (at least the ones we currently have) simply are not equipped to fight this onslaught of crime. Their maternal instinct for equality and nurturing has been directed by the media and propaganda to sympathize with the exact people who must be stopped. Then, when the crime continues, they somehow shame the men who are not even in control to do something. So this woman on the NYC council lambasts men categorically while herself being in a position to put pressure on the DA or change laws to stop it. The willful blindness of those in power is too much at times. As an aside, have you ever witnessed a female politician or DA come down really hard on crime and change laws to punish criminals more harshly? I truly can’t think of one. It’s a sincere question.
You're correct. I've never seen a female politician or DA ever take a hard tack against crime. That said, it's a hard position for any politician to take, even male. Women are obviously more expected to toe the line, which is why you won't find many who'll take a hard stand against crime and disorder.
It’s hard to explain something that is so present yet unmentioned. I think it comes from a female politician’s understanding that criminals are indeed dangerous and that perhaps if those criminals identify her as the reason for their harsher sentence, they might go after her personally once out of jail (or have one of their associates get her). That overwhelming biological need for self preservation somehow inhibits her from seeing that she and everyone else will actually be in danger if these criminals keep walking the streets and committing crimes. It’s that or their nurturing instinct run amok.
Of course, this doesn't explain why they criminalize men who attempt to protect them from the real bad people. It's almost like they feel more threatened by the protectors than the predators.