ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   It is the job of men to challenge the culture that enables people like Weinstein (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330036)

user104658 17-10-2017 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9660728)
Who said it was? The fact remains that for now there is this nuance for some, nobody is expecting anything, nobody wants anyone to be a hero and put themselves in danger that's your projection perhaps?

I would still counter that it is impossible to judge whether or not women are more perceptive to external threats than men when men (including in any study) are likely to mask fear, anxiety or identification of a threat with bravado / humour / anger as that is the socially expected and accepted response. It's equally likely that all people are on average just as likely to assess situations and intentions in the same way, with men being statistically less likely to vocalise their perception of that situation as threatening.

For the rest... this entire thread is based on the concept that men should challenge other men? Partly on a societal scale (which I agreed with, groups of male friends shouldn't encourage or copy their mates sexism in peer settings and should call it out) but also on two other levels.

First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.

The second was quite explicitly that men should be expected to step in in specific, acute situations such as sexual harassment on public transport, moreso than individuals in general, because aggressors are more likely to listen to men, with the underlying message being that "men are tougher and more able to stand up to these things". That is a massive problem. It's trying to tackle macho culture by ENCOURAGING macho culture. It's impossible.

user104658 17-10-2017 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9660737)
I'm not sure about Corey Haim but it could definitely have been a reason why he ended up a drug addict and dying so young :(

IIRC he didn't come forward about anything but the "other Corey" has said that this was the case. That's off the top of my head though, from an interview that he gave.

Niamh. 17-10-2017 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9660739)
IIRC he didn't come forward about anything but the "other Corey" has said that this was the case. That's off the top of my head though, from an interview that he gave.

Well those two worked together alot back in the 80's and 90's so it would be pretty likely if Corey Feldman had been abused then Cory Haim probably had been too as they would be around the same people

Oliver_W 17-10-2017 11:36 AM

The discussion about danger perceptions between the two genders is interesting but slightly o/t, maybe it warrants its own thread? But yeah, as far as I know men are better in "flight or fight" situations and making snap decisions due to endocrine and brain chemistry? Though that's slightly different, it's more about how to react to a presented possible threat, rather than perceiving them.

DemolitionRed 17-10-2017 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9660708)
But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

Science has proved on average that men's brains are wired differently to women. I agree there are expectations within society regarding 'manning up' and as boys grow into men, there's a huge amount of conditioning.

When it comes to wiring, we can only work on the law of averages (the most common connectivity patterns tested this far)

Perhaps I should have said, "on average, cognitive science shows that most women are more intuitive than men (around danger)" and not made it sound like a sweeping generalization.

Kizzy 17-10-2017 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9660738)
I would still counter that it is impossible to judge whether or not women are more perceptive to external threats than men when men (including in any study) are likely to mask fear, anxiety or identification of a threat with bravado / humour / anger as that is the socially expected and accepted response. It's equally likely that all people are on average just as likely to assess situations and intentions in the same way, with men being statistically less likely to vocalise their perception of that situation as threatening.

For the rest... this entire thread is based on the concept that men should challenge other men? Partly on a societal scale (which I agreed with, groups of male friends shouldn't encourage or copy their mates sexism in peer settings and should call it out) but also on two other levels.

First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.

The second was quite explicitly that men should be expected to step in in specific, acute situations such as sexual harassment on public transport, moreso than individuals in general, because aggressors are more likely to listen to men, with the underlying message being that "men are tougher and more able to stand up to these things". That is a massive problem. It's trying to tackle macho culture by ENCOURAGING macho culture. It's impossible.

It's not always about threat, a threat has an altogether different vibe there is more at play body language, words, and the charged situation itself with which to piece together a response. Intuition is based on something much more subtle here's an example of a study..

'For the study, 90,000 people were shown different photographs of people’s eyes. They were then asked to say what they thought that person’s mood was. The results: women consistently outperformed men.'

I don't agree with the premise of the thread that men need to police other men far from it, like you say it is applauded when men step in but they shouldn't be however it's impossible to say whether they do it due to a false sense of duty or just due to the fact they are witness to a crime. With everyone the bystander effect throws up those who step up and those that don't, male and female.

Kizzy 17-10-2017 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 9660743)
The discussion about danger perceptions between the two genders is interesting but slightly o/t, maybe it warrants its own thread? But yeah, as far as I know men are better in "flight or fight" situations and making snap decisions due to endocrine and brain chemistry? Though that's slightly different, it's more about how to react to a presented possible threat, rather than perceiving them.

If you can't perceive a threat how can you be better at reacting to it?... :/

Beso 17-10-2017 11:55 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/new...oman-tube.html

This video of the truth and you at last years tibb get together may illustrate your point vicky.

Oliver_W 17-10-2017 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9660747)
If you can't perceive a threat how can you be better at reacting to it?... :/

A man drawing a knife is a presented threat which needs to be reacted to, a shifty looking man who just seems dodgy is a possible threat, which apparently women would be better at judging the likelihood of him being an actual danger.

Kizzy 17-10-2017 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 9660751)
A man drawing a knife is a presented threat which needs to be reacted to, a shifty looking man who just seems dodgy is a possible threat, which apparently women would be better at judging the likelihood of him being an actual danger.

A man with a knife is an actual threat not a perceived one.

Oliver_W 17-10-2017 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9660755)
A man with a knife is an actual threat not a perceived one.

Dat's wight wabbit.

My argument was that while women might be better at assessing whether or not something is a threat, men are better at reacting to the actual threat.

Kizzy 17-10-2017 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W;9660761[B
]Dat's wight wabbit.[/B]

My argument was that while women might be better at assessing whether or not something is a threat, men are better at reacting to the actual threat.

I'll ignore the bit in red. That is your opinion based on what exactly?

James 17-10-2017 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 9660749)

I don't know if it is relevant to this thread, but I read this BBC article recently where they did an informal social-experiment in a public park, where they had two actors: in one scenario they had a man shouting at a women for an hour and a half, and in the other the roles were reversed.

When it was the man shouting at the women 7 passers-by stopped to help, and with the roles reversed 1 person stopped.

Here is the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5...d-4516962d5c44

Video here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/e...9-82a82dbf6ec5

Oliver_W 17-10-2017 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9660784)
I'll ignore the bit in red. That is your opinion based on what exactly?

Genetic differences between the two sexes. The article below outlines how male physiology better enables them to respond with fight or flight. The example given is a gunpoint robbery and how each gender would respond, and the biological reasons behind this. Obviously there are other dangerous situations which may or may not require a fight or flight response.
Spoiler:

You are walking alone in a dark alley late at night when, all of a sudden, you feel the barrel of a gun pressed to the back of your neck and hear a voice saying: "Give me your wallet or I will kill you." What do you do? The answer is: it depends on whether you are a man or a woman. If you are a man, you either run away as quick as you can or you turn around and punch the guy in the face. If you are a woman, you try to talk yourself out of the situation: "Are you sure you want to do this?" you ask the robber, or "If you put the gun away, we can talk about the situation and I will see what I can do to help you."

Physiologist Walter Cannon - a pioneer of research on stress - argued in the 1930s that "fight-or-flight" is a universal physiological response to stress shown not only by all humans, but by animals as well. This response is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system - the part of our nervous system that deals with automatic functions such as breathing. Under stress, this system is activated, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, hastening breathing, and otherwise readying you to face down your enemy or to run. Thousands of studies inspired by Cannon described and documented this response in a variety of species and situations. The vast majority of these studies, however, were conducted with males.

A new study conducted in Australia suggests that the difference between men and women in their responses to stress may boil down to a single gene. The authors of this study argued that the SRY gene that men have on their Y chromosome - right between the gene for flipping through TV channels with the remote control and the gene for not putting the toilet seat down after peeing - causes their fight-or-flight response, while women use different genetic and physiological mechanisms to deal with stress.

Kizzy 17-10-2017 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 9660814)
Genetic differences between the two sexes. The article below outlines how male physiology better enables them to respond with fight or flight. The example given is a gunpoint robbery and how each gender would respond, and the biological reasons behind this. Obviously there are other dangerous situations which may or may not require a fight or flight response.
Spoiler:

You are walking alone in a dark alley late at night when, all of a sudden, you feel the barrel of a gun pressed to the back of your neck and hear a voice saying: "Give me your wallet or I will kill you." What do you do? The answer is: it depends on whether you are a man or a woman. If you are a man, you either run away as quick as you can or you turn around and punch the guy in the face. If you are a woman, you try to talk yourself out of the situation: "Are you sure you want to do this?" you ask the robber, or "If you put the gun away, we can talk about the situation and I will see what I can do to help you."

Physiologist Walter Cannon - a pioneer of research on stress - argued in the 1930s that "fight-or-flight" is a universal physiological response to stress shown not only by all humans, but by animals as well. This response is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system - the part of our nervous system that deals with automatic functions such as breathing. Under stress, this system is activated, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, hastening breathing, and otherwise readying you to face down your enemy or to run. Thousands of studies inspired by Cannon described and documented this response in a variety of species and situations. The vast majority of these studies, however, were conducted with males.

A new study conducted in Australia suggests that the difference between men and women in their responses to stress may boil down to a single gene. The authors of this study argued that the SRY gene that men have on their Y chromosome - right between the gene for flipping through TV channels with the remote control and the gene for not putting the toilet seat down after peeing - causes their fight-or-flight response, while women use different genetic and physiological mechanisms to deal with stress.

Is there a link to this article please? How do XX males deal with stress then?

Niamh. 17-10-2017 01:17 PM

If you click the underlined part of the post it will link you to the article Kizzy

Kizzy 17-10-2017 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9660824)
If you click the underlined part of the post it will link you to the article Kizzy

Ah, isn't technology fabulous?... ;)

Niamh. 17-10-2017 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9660830)
Ah, isn't technology fabulous?... ;)

:laugh:

Beso 17-10-2017 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James (Post 9660792)
I don't know if it is relevant to this thread, but I read this BBC article recently where they did an informal social-experiment in a public park, where they had two actors: in one scenario they had a man shouting at a women for an hour and a half, and in the other the roles were reversed.

When it was the man shouting at the women 7 passers-by stopped to help, and with the roles reversed 1 person stopped.

Here is the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5...d-4516962d5c44

Video here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/e...9-82a82dbf6ec5

Thanks. I will read it after work.

Oliver_W 17-10-2017 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9660823)
How do XX males deal with stress then?

As in a transguy? I guess he'd have much the same response as any other biological female. That said, testosterone fuels some of the behaviours we deem "aggressive", so if he'd started HRT he might be more inclined to fight an attacker off.

Kizzy 17-10-2017 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 9660871)
As in a transguy? I guess he'd have much the same response as any other biological female. That said, testosterone fuels some of the behaviours we deem "aggressive", so if he'd started HRT he might be more inclined to fight an attacker off.

No, as in an XX male with no SRY gene.

Vicky. 17-10-2017 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9660734)
Does the guy get the money? This and similar happened to me a couple of times a week when I was at University, I could have made a fortune!

Well, the genital lunging less frequent but the arse groping was literally constant. I don't think I ever got licked, to be fair. Though I did once get essentially forced to have a girl stick her tongue in my face as I was being lowkey threatened "not to make her feel bad" by a group of mainly guys she was with.

And have literally just realised that I was therefore technically sexually assaulted :umm2:...

Yes, its kind of scary when you realize isn't it. When I thought about it all properly, I remember 10 clear instances of being sexually assaulted, one clear cut case of rape, and one dubious rape case where I don't actually know if it was rape or not as I was forced into it but I just did not say no enough or physically fight enough, and if I had I may well have been able to 'get out of it' if i tried harder rather than just have the ridiculous instinct to freeze. Where previously I thought I had 'only' been assaulted once, and raped once. Too much of this behavior is just something people expect. When no...it really should not be 'normal' to be groped by strangers at all.

I feel I should reply to all (or most of) your posts in here in more detail when I have more time as kind of busy at the moment but your replies have made a lot of sense to me too and yes, there is a kind of self fulfilling prophecy issue to so much of this. And maybe it is sexist to think men are listened to more by other men than women are. But I genuinely do believe this to be the case.

Vicky. 17-10-2017 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James (Post 9660792)
I don't know if it is relevant to this thread, but I read this BBC article recently where they did an informal social-experiment in a public park, where they had two actors: in one scenario they had a man shouting at a women for an hour and a half, and in the other the roles were reversed.

When it was the man shouting at the women 7 passers-by stopped to help, and with the roles reversed 1 person stopped.

Here is the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5...d-4516962d5c44

Video here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/e...9-82a82dbf6ec5

These are done/posted quite regularly.

Vicky. 17-10-2017 04:45 PM

This one I can answer quite quickly though.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9660738)
First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.

Men are not actually responsible for the actions of other men on an individual level though, would have thought that would maybe go without saying. Men (as a class) are responsible for what can lead to individual men feeling so...'backed up' in their misogyny though. Some women are misogynistic too. And some are more passive. Not saying they aren't. But it seems a bit silly to get into cases of individuals though. As there are exceptions to all rules.

Don't really understand the Muslims part. IF the absolutely huge majority (infact very nearly all) of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim people then I do think it would be totally acceptable to allude to this being a problem predominately with one part of society. And to ask why this is. And what 'normal' Muslims could/should be doing to stop this anomaly that seems to be making one race hugely more dangerous than other races. And I would question why others did not think that these things were fair to say/ask actually.

Nearly all sexual violence is committed by men. Against both women, and against other men.

Infact, violence in general is nearly always committed by male people.

user104658 17-10-2017 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9660946)
This one I can answer quite quickly though.

Men are not actually responsible for the actions of other men on an individual level though, would have thought that would maybe go without saying. Men (as a class) are responsible for what can lead to individual men feeling so...'backed up' in their misogyny though. Some women are misogynistic too. And some are more passive. Not saying they aren't. But it seems a bit silly to get into cases of individuals though. As there are exceptions to all rules.

Don't really understand the Muslims part. IF the absolutely huge majority (infact very nearly all) of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim people then I do think it would be totally acceptable to allude to this being a problem predominately with one part of society. And to ask why this is. And what 'normal' Muslims could/should be doing to stop this anomaly that seems to be making one race hugely more dangerous than other races. And I would question why others did not think that these things were fair to say/ask actually.

Nearly all sexual violence is committed by men. Against both women, and against other men.

Infact, violence in general is nearly always committed by male people.


Not to turn into the new Truth here, but this simply isn't true. Most assaults that result in serious injury are committed by men, as men are more physically capable of causing serious injury without a weapon (and most violent incidents don't actually involve weapons). It's also true that there is MORE violence is committed by males. "Nearly always" however is a gross exaggeration; the domestic violence stats are close to being 50/50 by many measures. The main difference being that female-on-male domestic violence is (again) far less likely to result in serious injury, and also much less likely to be reported (very, very rare in fact). I personally actually know far more guys who have been slapped / kicked / had objects thrown at them by their female partners than females who have had their male partners get physical with them... it's just much more widely accepted for some reason. A guy stays out late with his friends and gets home to an angry girlfriend and she lobs something at him, he tells his friends the next day, it gets a "LOL". A girl gets home from a night out and her angry boyfriend chucks a boot at her and she tells her friends about it... at the very least he's he's going to be considered her "violent boyfriend" from that point on, and they'd probably encourage a police report.

As of course - they should. Domestic violence is never acceptable, in any form... my point isn't that it should be fair game, just illustrating how massively skewed official violence stats are because of social conventions. It's impossible to gauge that way. But most anonymous stats asking the simple question "have you ever been struck violently by a partner" show that the stats across genders and sexual orientations are pretty much all equal.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.