The Duty and Function of the Strong Male Class(and some talk about rape)

[Microcosm]

I've been thinking about the so-called "Call to Men" that has acquired publicity over the past few days concerning Brock Turner's rape of a 23-year-old girl while she was unconscious.

Long story short, she was incapable of any conscious consent and the guy took advantage of her; however, two boys riding by on bicycles ran to her rescue and restrained Turner who was later arrested.

Call it sexist if you'd like, but I think society could benefit from a sizable class of strong, morally appropriate males, a sort of hero class to help stop criminal acts of violence. Note that this idea is not my own. I first read about it an opinion article on CNN written by Leslie Morgan Steiner(Read Here (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/opinions/men-and-bystander-intervention-can-stop-rape-leslie-morgan-steiner/index.html)).

It has been shown that men are more naturally inclined to play the role of strength in society. Of course, history has shown that pretty much any human being with a strong will to persevere, including women, can achieve strength to challenge that of men. Still, it seems that men have a sizable monopoly on this role even in the common view of relationships, that is that men defend their partners.

Women and men alike in acting out against violent crime such as rape should realize however that no such group as "men" should be defined as perpetrators. I agree with the statement that men should be the ones who are responsible for their own morality and should thus be adequately informed about rape prevention and the severity of rape, and I also believe that men in general are in a much better place than women to put a stop to rape. Males should all be made aware of the moral wrong of rape while not being accused of it without having committed it and without being presented or treated as perpetrators under the same conditions.

A large number of men are needed to protect society's victims and society's weak from violence. A man who cannot act against violence is lacking in his duty to protect those around him. Would you agree?

If men are naturally more capable of fighting violence and violence is indeed a cancer spread among those who are often defenseless, then it seems selfish and truly depraved for a man to be inept at fighting against it.

-

As a side note, I do respect a man's right to choose to be weaker and also those who are physically inept from fighting violence such as elderly men. My main focus here is to promote and discuss how men ought to act and to what extent men have a duty to act against violence in society and how their existence as men affects this extent.

[Just JT]

Immnot so sure I agree with everything you say. One being a theme that men are the stronger protector of the general population. Plenty of women do the same types of things in our world to protect the "weaker" if you will. I don't think people choose to be weaker, it's simply a genetic male up of who they are. But maybe we should also not limit the discussion to only women that are victims of rape as well.

Seems to me that the characteristics of the stronger, weaker, protector, and victim crosses gender lines. Just that one line isn't talked about to much. But it is a good topic, worth talking about

[Microcosm]

Immnot so sure I agree with everything you say. One being a theme that men are the stronger protector of the general population. Plenty of women do the same types of things in our world to protect the "weaker" if you will. I don't think people choose to be weaker, it's simply a genetic male up of who they are. But maybe we should also not limit the discussion to only women that are victims of rape as well.

Seems to me that the characteristics of the stronger, weaker, protector, and victim crosses gender lines. Just that one line isn't talked about to much. But it is a good topic, worth talking about

I concede that many women are quite capable of protecting others in various ways. Perhaps a more accurate way to word it would be to say that this hypothetical protector class consists largely of males due to both their tendency to be more protective and strong as well as their ability to provide an overpowering effect, a more pressuring effect, over criminal violence offenders. This overpowering effect is much more difficult to produce in women and many factors play into it that many able-bodied men, those which I suggest ought to make up this class, have.

So, another way to see it is that men have the potential to have a more overpowering effect on people than most women. This is largely produced by certain physical features such as prominent broad shoulders and height, natural tendencies to protect, and general manly character.

This isn't to say that all men are like this, but it is to say that men would have an easier time carrying this out as a unified class against violence.

Edit: I didn't respond to the first part about people choosing to be weaker. Everyone, excluding the obvious folks with physical or mental disabilities, has the ability to learn how to protect others, and I am arguing that they have a certain civic responsibility to do so, and I am also arguing that men, being, as a general whole, more inclined to protect and such, ought to make up the class that defends among people and communities as natural agents and citizens(aka not trained police officers and such).

The weakness I refer to is not necessarily only in the sense of physicality, but also as weakness which stems from a lack of knowledge about self-defense and the defense of others in violent situations.

[DriveAlive]

I think this is a very interesting point that holds a lot of truth. I do not care what new millennial science is saying, but men are biologically stronger and serve as protectors. Why not use this advantage for a good cause and direct it toward stopping rape.

[FuTo]

I think men are only stronger bcuz society encourages women to be "damnsels in distress' for men to rescue. I know some girls who can lift more than guys and its because they work out as much if not more than the guys at my school. A lot of my girl friends don't work out because they think its a guy thing and they feel that if a guy knows that they are stronger he will lose interest in her.

[DriveAlive]

I think men are only stronger bcuz society encourages women to be "damnsels in distress' for men to rescue. I know some girls who can lift more than guys and its because they work out as much if not more than the guys at my school. A lot of my girl friends don't work out because they think its a guy thing and they feel that if a guy knows that they are stronger he will lose interest in her.

I am sorry but this is biologically incorrect. The male body is designed to be stronger and have more muscle mass. This is what testosterone is for. It is not sexist and there are exceptions to everything.

[phuckphace]

Brienne of Tarth?? checkmate shitlord.

lol. anyway, while I'm glad to hear that Turner got caught, he only got 6 months which is basically nothing (people have served longer sentences for marijuana ffs). in cases like this where the evidence of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, the perp should get a minimum of 20 years in my opinion.

[DriveAlive]

In some southern states, child rapists get the death penalty. It has been proven that pathological rapists are incapable of being rehabilitated. While these privileged college frat boy rapists are not the same as pathological rapists, they should not be let off lightly. If the courts do not want to do their jobs, convincing men to serve as women's protectors and give these college rapists a good ass-beating is a good start.

[phuckphace]

the death penalty for this sounds neat in theory but in practice they'll just rot on death row for 69 million years on the taxpayer's dime so it's basically useless for its intended purpose. at the very least a 20 year prison sentence gets them out of the way for a while.

[Uniquemind]

the death penalty for this sounds neat in theory but in practice they'll just rot on death row for 69 million years on the taxpayer's dime so it's basically useless for its intended purpose. at the very least a 20 year prison sentence gets them out of the way for a while.

Unless it's a black ghost agent hit.

Someone who is hired by the gov, and does professional hits on criminals costly to the taxpayer and does so because that person enjoys that work with a specifically identified antisocial personality and legally doesn't exist.

^ fantasy dark thought.

---


No to be honest I am more interested in the phenomena of rape and sexual violence to see it's underlying causes for the urge to precede an act of power expressed in sexual gratification and control.

It's mostly about control, but I think for men I am unsure if power and sexual opportunity to choose their mates are mutually exclusive concepts.


I think you can start teaching boys at a young age BEFORE puberty hits to respect women and how to deal with the realities of rejection.


Reflecting a lot on manifestos of various violent shooters and criminals who have had grudges against womenkind, there seems to be a pattern here and a certain misogyny there that needs explaining.

What causes them to snap versus another guy who handles rejection better and can move on with life without being fixated.

[phuckphace]

I don't think there's any use for these elaborate theories that seek to deconstruct the power/control paradigm of whatever and whocares. I think it's more simply and elegantly explained in cases like Turner's as a group of individuals who lack any instilled moral discipline and acted because they had the opportunity to do so.

it really is that simple: amoral person sees enticing opportunity (intoxicated/unconscious woman) and acts on it because he can, because sex feels good and in the belief that her unconscious state will allow him to get away with it.

[Stronk Serb]

I agree.

[sqishy]

I'm adding in here that rape is not solely perpetrated by a male, with a female victim.
The opposite can and does occur as well, along with between the same sex too.


How big would this sizeable proportion be ideally for the population, for you?

What aspects of a given male person would be 'needed' to give him the duty to defend others in this way?

[Judean Zealot]

I agree with you in the sense that if Nature puts one in a situation in which they have more power or potential, they are morally obligated to do so. I also agree that on the whole, males are physically stronger than females (lol, not me though). So I agree, but it pays to point out that there's no reason not to include women who qualify into this force or whatever - so long as one prevents feminist activists from lowering the physical standards to make it more "inclusive".

[Flapjack]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this thread.
informed about rape prevention
What rape prevention would you want people to be informed about?

A large number of men are needed to protect society's victims and society's weak from violence. A man who cannot act against violence is lacking in his duty to protect those around him. Would you agree?


I will respect anyone that tries to protect the weak, whether it is the younger kid being picked on in a school or an elderly person being robbed however it must be judged case by case.

For example if an elderly person is being robbed, it will often be best to not directly intervene. Intervening may make you feel manly but it puts you and the victim in a greater risk. No matter how tough you think you are, you are not tougher than a bullet or knife. Instead the wannabe hero should call the police ASAP and record number plates and if possible take photos of the criminal.

Now lets get onto the sexist half of this thread. Why does the gender matter?

[lliam]

Call it sexist if you'd like, but I think society could benefit from a sizable class of strong, morally appropriate males, a sort of hero class to help stop criminal acts of violence.


Is this really just about protecting the weak maidens from the evil dragon, or is the virgin generally the icon for to have an open eye on all the crimes around to protect the weak instead of closing the eyes as it often happens?

IMO

1st version: it's pure sexistic
2nd possibilty: it isn't, but should include brave women anyway

because in such cases, as you mentioned, machismo isn't really required, but individuals who do not avert their eyes, possibly strictly and engage.

[Microcosm]

Now lets get onto the sexist half of this thread. Why does the gender matter?


I'd like to say that sexism is usually only a problem if you're denying certain rights and privileges to women in a professional sense.

Grouping men and women apart from each other based on their physical abilities and characteristics is sexist by definition, but it's not sexist in a bad way. It's a fact that men are generally and naturally stronger and more adept at dealing with violence.

I believe I mentioned earlier that some women could do this, but it is a very small minority. Even a woman who is a body builder just isn't as intimidating as a male body builder(in most cases, obviously).

You've got to agree though that having a strong class of protectors would help tremendously in reducing these cases of violence. If we keep allowing people to shun this responsibility and allow violence in this way on such a mass scale, we're not helping society by allowing them to make their own choices, we're allowing them to deny their responsibility to protect the weak which effective puts society in danger.

Sexist or not, it makes sense. Calling it sexist is simply a pointless statement to make and it doesn't help your response.

Having Trained women in the police force and military is okay because they have been trained to act. Most people haven't. In day-to-day life, we'd want people all around us, walking our streets, who are not only naturally inclined to act against violence but are also naturally able to do so.

It's been shown time and time again that men are a better fit for this category. Without training, men can still act as a unified class against violence. Most women wouldn't want to do it and wouldn't be able to do it.

Males are more naturally adept at being physically tough in general.

What rape prevention would you want people to be informed about?

I mean that all men are informed about both the moral implications of rape(why it's bad) and, more in focus in this thread, how they should react in the case of rape. They should be prepared to deal with it.

I realize that most people know that rape is wrong, but I think that more widespread knowledge of victim accounts and such in crime-ridden areas would deter people from considering rape.
lliam this post should also answer your response.

I'm adding in here that rape is not solely perpetrated by a male, with a female victim.
The opposite can and does occur as well, along with between the same sex too.

You're right. It does happen, but it is far less often. Which makes sense as men tend to have a better ability to assert sexual desires on others.

Men also rape other men, which is a large problem as well. Men knowing how to fight back would help here just as much.

How big would this sizeable proportion be ideally for the population, for you?

Preferably all able-bodied males ought to be able to respond against violence and to know how to properly judge a violent situation.

The average woman would benefit from knowing these things, but would have a harder time putting them to use.

Notice how I said the average woman. There is a minority of exceptions.

There should be enough to have people around to fight against most violent situations. It's hard to put a number on that, maybe 60-75% of the male population?

What aspects of a given male person would be 'needed' to give him the duty to defend others in this way?

This is a good question. Answering this will help to make my point that men are better suited for the job a lot clearer.

Attribute #1 is height, the significance of which is shown in one's ability to be more intimidating in a violent situation against a violent offender.

Men are, on average, taller than women. Analyze the information here: http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_height.php

Attribute #2 is the often natural broad shoulders. This is generally a male attribute.

Attribute #3 is deeper voice. This is a generally masculine trait and it allows someone to be more intimidating and assertive.

Attribute #4 is weight, or sheer ability to overpower. Look at the charts by gender bit here: http://diet.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Age_and_Weight_Chart . In a fight, having more weight gives you a big advantage. Energy is a product of mass and velocity. So, having more mass and knowing how to utilize that mass allows you to pack a more powerful punch.

Men have the ability to cultivate these attributes much easier than women do and more naturally. So, if a large portion of men did so, society would be safer for it as there would be more people around to effectively protect others.

bcuz society encourages women to be "damnsels in distress' for men to rescue. I know some girls who can lift more than guys and its because they work out as much if not more than the guys at my school. A lot of my girl friends don't work out because they think its a guy thing and they feel that if a guy knows that they are stronger he will lose interest in her.

I believe males have developed these physical attributes over women because of many years of evolution in which males were always seen as the protectors. This goes all the way back to prehistoric times and it makes sense that males would evolve a better physical strength than women for this reason. Also, it's scientifically proven. The presence of high testosterone levels in men contributed greatly to their overall strength capabilities.

[Vlerchan]

I had a better post, that addressed comments specifically, and then lost it. This will have to do.

I'm approaching it under three headings. I have other issues - vigilantism, and the undermining of procedural justice is quite major - but I will focus on these ideas first.

Legal Schema

The first point to consider is the legal schema that the Hero-class will be founded on. It's worth noting that as of the moment there are laws in place that allow for defence of others, and citizens arrest. Woman aren't excluded from accessing the rights contained here - that would be unconstitutional (voiding equality under the law). That a legal obligation to come to defence of others exists also wouldn't be unprecedented: It exists under British and Irish common law, contingent on the relationship between a victim and the bystander.

It would be unconstitutional but this could be expanded to all men (i.e., all men have a legal obligation to defend victims of crime), other than those that have applied for an exemption. This seems to be what the OP desires. There is issues with this that will be outlined later in the post but for the moment being:

I don't agree with voiding equality under the law. So I'm opposed to legislating for any hard version of these recommendations.

Education

The second point to consider is the education that will imform our Hero-class - and all people, actually. It should be aimed at helping them identify situations of rape.

So, 18 year olds should be required to take a multiweek course in rape (and sexual assault) law. This should cover the legal history, the current legal basis of the act - statute and case-law - and then thoroughly discredit the myths that surround it. There should be an exam at the end - problem questions preferably - and it's passing should be required by a. people working in environments that require significant interaction with vulnerable people (medical workers, social workers, police officers, bouncers and nightclub staff, etc.), and b. people attending college.

We could just train our Hero-class but it's optimal to take advantage of economies of scale here. There's obvious reasons that those who work with vulnerable people would require training.

Educating woman, in particular, though, should help them with dispelling guilt, reporting their own experiences, helping friends, and engage more generally with the crime.

Comment on the Hero-class

The OP states that the sexism which might be contained in his suggestion isn't sexist 'in the bad way'. This - I figure - revolves around a misunderstanding of what makes sexism bad. The issue with sexism - in particular state-sanctioned sexism - is that it impedes the allocation of resources that might have been otherwise optimal. In this case the resourse being systematically misallocated is the competence-of-violence of a given population.

We can be sure that some woman exist at the right-tail of competence - i.e., are competent - and we can be sure that some able-bodied men persist at the left-tail of competence - i.e., are incompetent.

Odds are excluding woman won't be too injurious insofar as woman retain the right to intervene on the basis of their own decision - reflecting on their own competences. But for incompetent men the situation produces is wholly suboptimal. It impinges men that might otherwise have been more successful finding help elsewhere. The likelihood is that it will also lead to a counter-intuitive demand for arms in anticipation for these situations.

However, the big issue here is that as information is imperfect it can be difficult for agencies to completely exempt incompetent men from their legal obligations.

---

There is, I understand, an expectation that education in matters of self-defence should be undertaken. In that case, I don't see why woman can't opt into this.

You said it was fine for woman that were trained to act in dangerous situations, which is what I presume is the aim of self-defence education.

I'm adding in here that rape is not solely perpetrated by a male, with a female victim.
I feel I should mention that I included teaching people the full extent of sexual assault law, because within a number of jurisdictions it is.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

Perhaps it pays to educate the youth not only with regards to the law (the consequences if and only if they get caught), but also to teach a compelling and methodical system of objective ethics?

[Vlerchan]

Perhaps it pays to educate the youth not only with regards to the law (if and only if they get caught), but also to teach a compelling and methodical system of objective ethics?
The use of teaching them rape law in particular is that it allows them to identify situations of actual rape. This makes both interventions and reporting of incidents easier.

I also feel that a system of ethics should be instilled as objective throughout the education of the youth. I'm more than content too on the preservation of a Catholic monopoly on Irish education to this end.

[lliam]

@lliam this post should also answer your response.


Not really. I looked at your intro post from another aspect. Namely the aspect of the latent machismo behind your intentions.

This news that was the inspiration for these considerations ao yours, wasn't of particular importance to me. However, when it's just abeout this, another post from me would be offtopic.


My view is that:

During 20th century, women fought for the so-called equality. At the end of the last millennium, this was culminating in the favor of girls when it comes to education and social equality.

In the last decade we began to realize that the boys were neglected. It was recognized even that boys were in danger of being losers of equality because the general focus mainly lay on the girls and young women in case of social advancement and such.


And here I see that your ideas are based on this historical reflection of bad educational planning. Because even we guys noticed, that we are at a disadvantage, often really without able to name it.


My personal belief is, that in the 21st century it is completely out of date, to think just about gender roles or even argue about it. The gender equality is a reality, even if feminists mays see it differently.


So if in this thread it's just all about to protect the weak, it can't be just a gender issue, but it should mainly be a discussion about how to encourage people, not to close their eyes before bullying, abuse, rape and other crimes.

[Flapjack]

I mean that all men are informed about both the moral implications of rape(why it's bad) and, more in focus in this thread, how they should react in the case of rape. They should be prepared to deal with it.

I realize that most people know that rape is wrong, but I think that more widespread knowledge of victim accounts and such in crime-ridden areas would deter people from considering rape.


Why don't we educate everyone on concent. In the USA there seems to be many misconceptions on concent when it comes to sex. There is a victim blaming culture and that needs to stop. Blaming rape victims on how they dress, accusing them of lying and telling girls in school they can't wear certain clothes because they would distract the boys.

It needs be tought in schools that concent can be revoked at any time, even people in marriages can be raped by their partner and that a drunk person cannot concent.




Attribute #1 is height, the significance of which is shown in one's ability to be more intimidating in a violent situation against a violent offender.

Men are, on average, taller than women. Analyze the information here: http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_height.php

Attribute #2 is the often natural broad shoulders. This is generally a male attribute.

Attribute #3 is deeper voice. This is a generally masculine trait and it allows someone to be more intimidating and assertive.

Attribute #4 is weight, or sheer ability to overpower. Look at the charts by gender bit here: http://diet.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Age_and_Weight_Chart . In a fight, having more weight gives you a big advantage. Energy is a product of mass and velocity. So, having more mass and knowing how to utilize that mass allows you to pack a more powerful punch.

Men have the ability to cultivate these attributes much easier than women do and more naturally. So, if a large portion of men did so, society would be safer for it as there would be more people around to effectively protect others.


Then why not just say that those that are physically powerful protect the weak, stupid message to put out there, but not sexist.

My best friend's girlfriend does kick-boxing and MMA and I am pretty sure she could beat the crap out of most men. But she's nice:)

It is clear from your idea about the deep voice that you fantasies the alpha male role.

Telling men they should intervine to protect the victim may sound nobel, but it is stupid. Being some 300lbs pound guy, built like a gorilla, ex SAS and world boxing champion will not protect them from a bullet.

Could a wannabe hero stop a robbery? Yeah he could. But the robber could also pull out a gun and shot him dead and put the victim in more danger. Anyone that witnesses a crime should try to take photos, record number plates and call the police ASAP.

[Judean Zealot]

telling girls in school they can't wear certain clothes because they would distract the boys.

So you don't agree that a skimpily clad girl in the classroom will distract a boy, or that to walk the streets like that puts one at greater risk of sexual assault? It seems pretty intuitive to me. It's not justifying rape or blaming anyone, it's simply a sensible precaution for women to take.
Telling men they should intervine to protect the victim may sound nobel, but it is stupid. Being some 300lbs pound guy, built like a gorilla, ex SAS and world boxing champion will not protect them from a bullet.

This is just wrong. Usually a rapist will not have a gun. The book that you liberals love to hate has a lesson that would serve you well.
Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord.

[Flapjack]

So you don't agree that a skimpily clad girl in the classroom will distract a boy, or that to walk the streets like that puts one at greater risk of sexual assault? It seems pretty intuitive to me. It's not justifying rape or blaming anyone, it's simply a sensible precaution for women to take.
Nope I generally don't. Where I am from there is no official school uniform and there is no real dress code apart from you must where a shirt and no flip flops.

Will dressing a certain way increase the risk of cat calling and rape? Maybe a little but women who dress modestly still get the same.

My point is a women should have the right to chose the whether to walk her dog in the nude or dressed like a nun. Any sexual assult against her cannot be justified by what she wore nor should she be shamed.

[Judean Zealot]

Nope I generally don't. Where I am from there is no official school uniform and there is no real dress code apart from you must where a shirt and no flip flops.

Will dressing a certain way increase the risk of cat calling and rape? Maybe a little but women who dress modestly still get the same.

My point is a women should have the right to chose the whether to walk her dog in the nude or dressed like a nun. Any sexual assult against her cannot be justified by what she wore nor should she be shamed.

As I've explicitly written, of course it doesn't justify sexual assault, but considering that it makes women a target, it ought to be a recommended precaution.

Edit: And how would you know that boys in your school aren't underperforming due to distraction? Biology, after all, suggests otherwise.

[Flapjack]

As I've explicitly written, of course it doesn't justify sexual assault, but considering that it makes women a target, it ought to be a recommended precaution.
I don't think that recommendation should be in schools but I see no harm in a parent advicing their daughter with that advice.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't think that recommendation should be in schools but I see no harm in a parent advicing their daughter with that advice.

Schools don't allow all sorts of things to make kids safe - why should this be different?

[Flapjack]

Schools don't allow all sorts of things to make kids safe - why should this be different?
Telling girls to dress a certain way does not make them safe. It is sexist. Teenagers need to express themselves and clothing is how many chose to do this. Telling girls to cover more is also slut shaming.

[Vlerchan]

So you don't agree that a skimpily clad girl in the classroom will distract a boy, or that to walk the streets like that puts one at greater risk of sexual assault?
I'm sceptical that the first point has a long-run impact on human capital acquisition, and so I don't see it as mattering a huge amount.

The second point is probably false. The literature on criminal-targeting seems to document that criminals target perceived vulnerability and those that seem easier to control.

It is sexist.

Teenagers need to express themselves and clothing is how many chose to do this.
Both sexes should have a dress code.

Teenagers are also free to express themselves outside of school hours.

[Flapjack]

I
Both sexes should have a dress code.

Teenagers are also free to express themselves outside of school hours.
I undertand schools having uniforms and uniforms can be good! But why a dress code when there is no school uniform? What dress code would you have?

[Jinglebottom]

I undertand schools having uniforms and uniforms can be good! But why a dress code when there is no school uniform? What dress code would you have?
My school doesn't have a uniform, but girls aren't allowed to wear anything revealing (shorts, crop tops, etc...). It is not sexist, it's quite fair in my opinion. Our world is full of creeps.

[Vlerchan]

But why a dress code when there is no school uniform? What dress code would you have?
By dress code I meant uniform, which should consists of shirts for both sexes, slacks for guys, and skirts for girls.

In general, it should be modelled against the attire worn in a professional environment.

Our world is full of creeps.
I have never understood why the burden this problem creates should be imposed on girls. Presumably, girls aren't so naive to also not realise this risk when they choose to dress, too.

[Flapjack]

My school doesn't have a uniform, but girls aren't allowed to wear anything revealing (shorts, crop tops, etc...). It is not sexist, it's quite fair in my opinion. Our world is full of creeps.
How is that fair if it just applies to girls?

By dress code I meant uniform, which should consists of shirts for both sexes, slacks for guys, and skirts for girls.

In general, it should be modelled against the attire worn in a professional environment.

Yeah I like this as it takes the pressure off of poorer studenst:) I do love having no uniform though!! I had uniform up untill I started college:)

[Jinglebottom]

How is that fair if it just applies to girls?
I don't know about you, but here your average guy wears a t-shirt and pants. What do you consider "revealing" for a guy?

[Microcosm]

lliam,

Gender equality is not true in various cases including average physical strength. That doesn't mean however that one sex is inherently better than the other. Females are typically better at nursing children for instance and men are better at gaining muscle and strength. Those are facts, not the "machismo" speaking.

I'm not talking about male supremacy. I'm talking about how we can make use of the natural advantages that most men have over women to deter violence.

For others who have mentioned it including Vlerchan that women could be involved in this Hero class, I do agree that some could. When talking about how this effects the general populous though, we have to talk about it in terms of averages and generalizations as this class would act in all parts in society and in different locations. Therefore, it is the majority part of this class that acts in most places. The majority in today's society would most likely end up being males and, I believe, males are more naturally fit for the job for reasons I have explained earlier.

Females could participate, no doubt. I just don't see them being a major subset of the Hero class due to the feminine attitude prevalent among most females.

As Vlerchan said, education on rape is beneficial for all people.

Also, I never said they should close their eyes to those issues. I've made it quite clear that rape awareness and prevention tactics should be promoted for all people.

Why don't we educate everyone on concent. In the USA there seems to be many misconceptions on concent when it comes to sex. There is a victim blaming culture and that needs to stop. Blaming rape victims on how they dress, accusing them of lying and telling girls in school they can't wear certain clothes because they would distract the boys.

It needs be tought in schools that concent can be revoked at any time, even people in marriages can be raped by their partner and that a drunk person cannot concent.Why don't we educate everyone on concent. In the USA there seems to be many misconceptions on concent when it comes to sex. There is a victim blaming culture and that needs to stop. Blaming rape victims on how they dress, accusing them of lying and telling girls in school they can't wear certain clothes because they would distract the boys.

It needs be tought in schools that concent can be revoked at any time, even people in marriages can be raped by their partner and that a drunk person cannot concent.

I agree. I think though that it should be focused on more in crime-ridden areas that are more likely to produce rapists.

Then why not just say that those that are physically powerful protect the weak, stupid message to put out there, but not sexist.

My best friend's girlfriend does kick-boxing and MMA and I am pretty sure she could beat the crap out of most men. But she's nice

It is clear from your idea about the deep voice that you fantasies the alpha male role.

Telling men they should intervine to protect the victim may sound nobel, but it is stupid. Being some 300lbs pound guy, built like a gorilla, ex SAS and world boxing champion will not protect them from a bullet.

Could a wannabe hero stop a robbery? Yeah he could. But the robber could also pull out a gun and shot him dead and put the victim in more danger. Anyone that witnesses a crime should try to take photos, record number plates and call the police ASAP.

Clearly, if someone points a gun at you, you shouldn't try to attack them. Most people who are raping someone probably don't have guns. Also, in many parts of the world guns are not prevalent. Saying the physically powerful should protect the weak is a good idea because doing so can prevent violent crime in the making. If you saw someone getting raped, I would hope that you would intervene if they are drunk and maybe even if they have a knife. I know I would.

I agree that the cops should be called, but if someone who is weak is being attacked and there is no one around to stop them but you, and you know that you can effectively overtake the assailant, you'd frankly be an ass hole not to intervene.

[Vlerchan]

Females could participate, no doubt. I just don't see them being a major subset of the Hero class due to the feminine attitude prevalent among most females.
That's fair enough - and I agree.

I feel there's problems with legislating for this - besides just emphasising these notions in education, and maintaining current statute - though.

When talking about how this effects the general populous though, we have to talk about it in terms of averages and generalizations as this class would act in all parts in society and in different locations.
I'm not sure what aim it serves to lean so heavily on a gendered account of the consequences, here. In fact I'm quite sure posing it like this only does a disservice to your argument.

It's fine to set expectations - but probably unwise to emphasise the gender divisions so strongly.

I think though that it should be focused on more in crime-ridden areas that are more likely to produce rapists.
The vast, vast majority of rapes are committed by people that know the victim.

I haven't come across good statistics on location but I'm imagining the "[stranger in the] alley"-stereotype is quite off.

[Microcosm]

That's fair enough - and I agree.

I feel there's problems with legislating for this - besides just emphasising these notions in education, and maintaining current statute - though.

The formation of a hero class would likely take place among private education sectors and by societal movements. Any legislation meant to make people do these things seems like it could get out of hand and trample on rights. Strong people who are willing to be vigilant for violence and willing to act out against it can participate, but no one would be forced to by law.

Perhaps violent crime law education could be enforced, though, but not necessarily programs to build strength, learn to defend yourself, etc. although I do think those would be useful and would probably be attended voluntarily if the movement were to catch on with many people.

This is why I said earlier that I'd like to see about 60-75% of males educated on violence, ethics, and strong enough to act against it.

As for females, I think that any participation would occur more naturally at about 10-20%.

I'm not sure what aim it serves to lean so heavily on a gendered account of the consequences, here. In fact I'm quite sure posing it like this only does a disservice to your argument.

It's fine to set expectations - but probably unwise to emphasise the gender divisions so strongly.

Perhaps. I'm only trying to be realistic in how this would or could naturally occur in today's society, in which case I do think the hero class would be comprised largely of males.

The vast, vast majority of rapes are committed by people that know the victim.

I haven't come across good statistics on location but I'm imagining the "[stranger in the] alley"-stereotype is quite off.

That is true, but rape isn't the only violent crime to be acted against. People in these areas could be educated on other prominent violent crimes as well as rape.

[Flapjack]

I agree. I think though that it should be focused on more in crime-ridden areas that are more likely to produce rapists.

Noooo this is steryeotyping buddy. Most rapes happen by people the victim knows. Even if there are more rapes in the poorer areas, everyone should be targeted.


Clearly, if someone points a gun at you, you shouldn't try to attack them.

Because all gunmen annoynce the fact they have a gun?


Most people who are raping someone probably don't have guns.
Because most rapes aren't the violent stereotype of a girl being attacked down an alleyway.


Saying the physically powerful should protect the weak is a good idea because doing so can prevent violent crime in the making.

Nope, even if the wannabe hero does not value their own life, it could make things more dangerous for the victim. This message also puts pressure on smaller men to act 'manly' and so them trying to prove themselves could get them killed.


If you saw someone getting raped, I would hope that you would intervene if they are drunk and maybe even if they have a knife. I know I would.

If the perfect situation arises where there is no one but me the rapist and the victim and the rapist is small drunk and unarmed then of course I would. But if I was in the USA it would be stupid to try anything and there are so few situations where this would be succesful compared to the very high risk involved.

Why would you try anything if he has a knife?! If you have some real military training and want to attempt to get the knife from him and restrain him etc etc then go for it. But everyday men don't and they will get stabbed. I also think you underestimate how easy it is to die from a knife.



I agree that the cops should be called, but if someone who is weak is being attacked and there is no one around to stop them but you, and you know that you can effectively overtake the assailant, you'd frankly be an ass hole not to intervene.
Obviously and anyone, regardless of gender, should do. But they don't have to.

[Microcosm]

Noooo this is steryeotyping buddy. Most rapes happen by people the victim knows. Even if there are more rapes in the poorer areas, everyone should be targeted.

Le sigh. I said that. Everyone can benefit from the knowledge.

Because all gunmen annoynce the fact they have a gun?

You'd analyze the situation before acting. Most people would hesitate before shooting anyways, threatening to shoot so that you'll back up. It's a case by case thing.

Because most rapes aren't the violent stereotype of a girl being attacked down an alleyway.

But many rapes are preventable in public areas like bars and bathrooms.

Nope, even if the wannabe hero does not value their own life, it could make things more dangerous for the victim. This message also puts pressure on smaller men to act 'manly' and so them trying to prove themselves could get them killed.

How does someone standing up for another person endanger the victim?

I've clearly stated previously that people who aren't confident that they can effectively restrain the assailant shouldn't try. I'm saying that most people should prepare beforehand and have the knowledge and strength necessary to be able to.

and you know that you can effectively overtake the assailant,

The message isn't to blindly give up your life for someone when you can't effectively save them. It is, however, to prepare yourself such that you can effectively save them.

If the perfect situation arises where there is no one but me the rapist and the victim and the rapist is small drunk and unarmed then of course I would. But if I was in the USA it would be stupid to try anything and there are so few situations where this would be succesful compared to the very high risk involved.

Why would you try anything if he has a knife?! If you have some real military training and want to attempt to get the knife from him and restrain him etc etc then go for it. But everyday men don't and they will get stabbed. I also think you underestimate how easy it is to die from a knife.

It is, again, determined by a case-by-case basis. Learning how to deal with an assailant with a knife or a gun or whatnot would be part of the learning process that trains those who volunteer to be part of the social hero class, perhaps.

Obviously and anyone, regardless of gender, should do. But they don't have to.

I'd be quite angry at the person if they didn't act under those circumstances, but again I suppose it depends on the situation.

[Flapjack]

I'd be quite angry at the person if they didn't act under those circumstances, but again I suppose it depends on the situation.
So would I my friend:)

[sqishy]

You're right. It does happen, but it is far less often. Which makes sense as men tend to have a better ability to assert sexual desires on others.

Men also rape other men, which is a large problem as well. Men knowing how to fight back would help here just as much.

Right.



Preferably all able-bodied males ought to be able to respond against violence and to know how to properly judge a violent situation.

Would you go for having this be implemented in some legal form?

If so (with counsel from Vlerchan :D ), taking a situation where rape is committed in sight of able-bodied men and these men do nothing, should they be liable for failing to do their duty by physically stepping in?


There should be enough to have people around to fight against most violent situations. It's hard to put a number on that, maybe 60-75% of the male population?

Would this proportion be liable as I said above?



The average woman would benefit from knowing these things, but would have a harder time putting them to use.


Do you mean in the sense of physical ability?



Notice how I said the average woman. There is a minority of exceptions.


Brienne of Tarth has already been mentioned.



This is a good question. Answering this will help to make my point that men are better suited for the job a lot clearer.

Attribute #1 is height, the significance of which is shown in one's ability to be more intimidating in a violent situation against a violent offender.

Men are, on average, taller than women. Analyze the information here: http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_height.php

Attribute #2 is the often natural broad shoulders. This is generally a male attribute.

Attribute #3 is deeper voice. This is a generally masculine trait and it allows someone to be more intimidating and assertive.

Attribute #4 is weight, or sheer ability to overpower. Look at the charts by gender bit here: http://diet.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Age_and_Weight_Chart . In a fight, having more weight gives you a big advantage. Energy is a product of mass and velocity. So, having more mass and knowing how to utilize that mass allows you to pack a more powerful punch.

The trends in physiology support you here, yes.


Men have the ability to cultivate these attributes much easier than women do and more naturally. So, if a large portion of men did so, society would be safer for it as there would be more people around to effectively protect others.


Are you suggesting that most men should be encouraged to build up on these abilities, because they are already 'a step forward' than women?



I feel I should mention that I included teaching people the full extent of sexual assault law, because within a number of jurisdictions it is.

Understood.



I also feel that a system of ethics should be instilled as objective throughout the education of the youth. I'm more than content too on the preservation of a Catholic monopoly on Irish education to this end.

Can these ethics not be taught without Catholicism?

[Microcosm]

Would you go for having this be implemented in some legal form?

No. It would preferably be a sort of social movement.

If so (with counsel from @Vlerchan ), taking a situation where rape is committed in sight of able-bodied men and these men do nothing, should they be liable for failing to do their duty by physically stepping in?

Legally, I don't think so. It's hard to say. I think they bear some degree of blame from the public, but I suppose they have ought to have no legal obligation as that would be against equality under the law.

Brienne of Tarth has already been mentioned.

She'll show those men who's boss.

Are you suggesting that most men should be encouraged to build up on these abilities, because they are already 'a step forward' than women?

I think so, yes. In today's society, I think that's the way it could work.

Of course, if there were a society in which women were not by vast majority feminine, while the physical ease with which they could gain strength would not be equal, I imagine it would still increase their numbers in the proposed hero class.

[sqishy]

No. It would preferably be a sort of social movement.

Alright.



Legally, I don't think so. It's hard to say. I think they bear some degree of blame from the public, but I suppose they have ought to have no legal obligation as that would be against equality under the law.

More of a stigma rather than a crime then.



She'll show those men who's boss.

Indeed!



I think so, yes. In today's society, I think that's the way it could work.

Of course, if there were a society in which women were not by vast majority feminine, while the physical ease with which they could gain strength would not be equal, I imagine it would still increase their numbers in the proposed hero class.

If certain men do not build up on these 'given' better abilities, would it be acceptable to see this as shameful, or in some way a disappointment?(gauging where you are at)

Do you mean physiological femininity?

[Microcosm]

If certain men do not build up on these 'given' better abilities, would it be acceptable to see this as shameful, or in some way a disappointment?(gauging where you are at)

If there was less than about 60% of men with this ability, the individual would only partially be at fault, but also in a sense the whole society would suffer for it. So, rather than shameful it would produce a less safe environment for all people as a result.

Do you mean physiological femininity?


Both in the physiological sense and the mental sense. Obviously in the mental sense people can interpret it differently, but I think many females wouldn't feel the need to act. Also, as long as there is a significant number of men and even some women able to act then they wouldn't have to anyways.

[lliam]

lliam,

Gender equality is not true in various cases including average physical strength. That doesn't mean however that one sex is inherently better than the other.




Well, that's why it is called: All people are equal, regardless of their gender, origin, religion and blah ...

Therefore, best we don't refer to physical differences, but discuss about individual differences.

[Microcosm]

Well, that's why it is called: All people are equal, regardless of their gender, origin, religion and blah ...

Therefore, best we don't refer to physical differences, but discuss about individual differences.

The problem arises though that such a thing is super ineffective when you want to initiate social and societal change. You can't just talk about one person compared to another. You've got to think big-picture, large-scale.

[sqishy]

If there was less than about 60% of men with this ability, the individual would only partially be at fault, but also in a sense the whole society would suffer for it. So, rather than shameful it would produce a less safe environment for all people as a result.

An indirect carelessness of sorts?



Both in the physiological sense and the mental sense. Obviously in the mental sense people can interpret it differently, but I think many females wouldn't feel the need to act. Also, as long as there is a significant number of men and even some women able to act then they wouldn't have to anyways.

I get the physiological sense, but not the mental sense. Why would they not feel the need to act, for you?

[Microcosm]

An indirect carelessness of sorts?


Perhaps.

Why would they not feel the need to act, for you?

I've always seen most women as more emotional and the effects of trauma can be much more prominent in the average woman than in the average man.

This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917414/) found that "Women had an overall twofold higher PTSD prevalence than men."

This is supported by Dr. Sonja Batten, who said that “In the general population, women are twice as likely as men to develop posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Source for second statement: http://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/2013/April/PTSD-Study-Men-Versus-Women.asp

I imagine this effect is due to evolution and the role of men and women as it has been since the prehistoric ages until the modern age of women's equality activists. I'd imagine women aren't as mentally accustomed to violence due to these roles as they were.

[sqishy]

I've always seen most women as more emotional and the effects of trauma can be much more prominent in the average woman than in the average man.

This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917414/) found that "Women had an overall twofold higher PTSD prevalence than men."

This is supported by Dr. Sonja Batten, who said that “In the general population, women are twice as likely as men to develop posttraumatic stress disorder.”

Source for second statement: http://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/2013/April/PTSD-Study-Men-Versus-Women.asp

I imagine this effect is due to evolution and the role of men and women as it has been since the prehistoric ages until the modern age of women's equality activists. I'd imagine women aren't as mentally accustomed to violence due to these roles as they were.

Why would attempts in alleviating a violent situation, increase mental damage from experiencing that situation?

[Microcosm]

Why would attempts in alleviating a violent situation, increase mental damage from experiencing that situation?

In most cases, you have to fight fire with fire and restrain the person. Exposure to that would likely induce stress.

[sqishy]

In most cases, you have to fight fire with fire and restrain the person. Exposure to that would likely induce stress.

I say that ability to cope with this stress is a psychological trait of confidence and ability to keep calm and reassured with the situation, as well as general mental sensitivity to sense information (example being the autistic to non-autistic spectrum that everyone is on).

[Microcosm]

I say that ability to cope with this stress is a psychological trait of confidence and ability to keep calm and reassured with the situation, as well as general mental sensitivity to sense information (example being the autistic to non-autistic spectrum that everyone is on).

PTSD is the inability to cope with stress and the lack of confidence and calmness.

I might be understanding you wrong.

[lliam]

The problem arises though that such a thing is super ineffective when you want to initiate social and societal change. You can't just talk about one person compared to another. You've got to think big-picture, large-scale.


I'm already there. But every big pic is made of any existing individuals.

Anyway, you can't ignore the individual factor, cause just the behavior of an individaul or ignoring rights of an individual and such can be the flaw that that knocks any big plan out.

Same belongs to larger scales


And the better the details are been worked out, only then a big pic will look really perfect

Believe me, I've almost worked two month on such big pic (oil painting). This thingy with the details wasn't only about an technical, but was also an deep spirtual experience.

[Microcosm]

lliam

But this plan isn't denying individuals rights. Actually, it's helping to enforce them.

All individuals in a modern society have the right to not have to experience violence. The hero class would be established to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Since the hero class is not a government-sanctioned class and rather a social movement to protect the weak and ensure a safe community, it neither denies rights nor discriminates as I have already said that women would be involved, but as a very small minority. The reasoning for this I have already provided and their small involvement is merely a prediction. I think the class would be weakened as a whole if too many people who weren't actually capable of dealing with violence were involved and I don't think there are as many women who would be willing to do such a thing as there are men.

I've justified this with reference to feminine mentality and physiology rather than abstract bigotry.

Low female participation rates, I believe, would occur naturally for these reasons. That is my prediction as it pertains to society as I see it today and the nature of the majority of females in society.

Which, as I have previously stated, does not imply inferiority, but merely what I believe to be an accurate generalization of the female population as I see it and as physiology suggests.

[Porpoise101]

I'm mostly agreeing, but I think that this should be extended to all citizens. We need to have a youth population trained to deal with crime, emergencies, and crises. It would make society stronger and it will instill discipline in the youth. It would also probably help out the military as the recruits will already be quality men and women. So, everyone must know self defense, basic law, and civics. People who want to pursue this further should get some sort of pathway into a law enforcement career as well.

Hitler got one thing right: Paramilitary youth is pretty good.

[sqishy]

PTSD is the inability to cope with stress and the lack of confidence and calmness.

I might be understanding you wrong.

It is yes.

No sane person can endure beyond a certain degree of bad experience, and not develop PTSD.

Lower inherent ability to cope with stress/etc is a factor in where that critical degree is. However, it is not an essential aspect of being a woman, compared to a man.

[Stronk Serb]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this thread.

What rape prevention would you want people to be informed about?


I will respect anyone that tries to protect the weak, whether it is the younger kid being picked on in a school or an elderly person being robbed however it must be judged case by case.

For example if an elderly person is being robbed, it will often be best to not directly intervene. Intervening may make you feel manly but it puts you and the victim in a greater risk. No matter how tough you think you are, you are not tougher than a bullet or knife. Instead the wannabe hero should call the police ASAP and record number plates and if possible take photos of the criminal.

Now lets get onto the sexist half of this thread. Why does the gender matter?

It's not about toughness. I saw some gypsies with knives robbing a elderly woman and a lone guy intervened on her behalf. Before they noticed him, one was on the ground, the other got smacked in the neck and was gasping for air, so when the third turned with his knife, he got his wrist twisted. I could intervene against one, but anything more is slim chances. Mist of them are cowards, attacking in a pack like hyenas.

[Flapjack]

It's not about toughness. I saw some gypsies with knives robbing a elderly woman and a lone guy intervened on her behalf. Before they noticed him, one was on the ground, the other got smacked in the neck and was gasping for air, so when the third turned with his knife, he got his wrist twisted. I could intervene against one, but anything more is slim chances. Mist of them are cowards, attacking in a pack like hyenas.
Yeah I have never thought of scum that attack the vulnerable in groups as tough, what's the point?

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah I have never thought of scum that attack the vulnerable in groups as tough, what's the point?

Just pulling out and caling the cops won't do any real good. It takes time to get there, the pictures could be blurred etc, I could understand calling the cops and intervening in order to buy time for them to get there, of course if you can handle it.