Gender and Violence and Blame by Magonsdaughter

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm glad this thread didn't die while I was away.

Just some general responses to some of the conversation -

I can't abide victim blaming. No one deserves or is responsible for violence being inflicted upon them, even though they may have made poor choices which may have resulted in being in the wrong place or with the wrong person.

The long winded discussions around protection through strength or martial arts are pretty immaterial as far as I am concerned, especially when it comes to family violence. The violence I experienced impacted on me psychologically, so I couldn't make good decisions, couldn't demand to be treated how I thought I should be. Because victim blaming is so prevalent in our society, I felt responsible for the violence, and I felt ashamed for putting up with it, for allowing it to happen. I was so shamed I hid it from most people, even loved ones, long after the relationship was over, because of responses like Hero's. It took me a long time to be able to talk about it and not feel dirty and sullied, or weak and pathetic, when I was never any of those things.

My then partner used violence and put downs and humiliation because he felt powerless and he hated feeling that I might have had any power over him. He had very sexist views in general which were not obvious when we met (except in hindsight) but basically his needs and wants were always more important than mine. When I think back on it, I was barely human to him, just an accessary, someone to make him feel better, meet his needs.

It was hard to leave because I had been told for so long that I was worthless and unlovable and mad that I had started to believe it.

All these things are features of a violent relationship, so its not just about standing up for yourself physically. There are many ways that power can be abused in a relationship that make it hard to leave.

Magons: as I said to you already, I think you're actually very strong. I've never been in a domestic situation or even experienced psychical abuse from someone I know, but I do know what it's like to have someone play games to try to make you stay with them. That kind of manipulation is very hurtful, and it is really hard to break away. They make you apologize for things that weren't your fault. They tell you you're very important to them, but they don't really care about your opinions or your personal boundaries or your choices, they pressure you and override your personal decisions and pursue personal matters that are your business not theirs, and they don't actually care about you as a person. They tell you if you leave, they'll become suicidal, and they try to blame that on you. But you're not responsible for anyone's happiness but your own. And you stand your ground and get yourself away, and months later, they're fine and you know it was an act.

I didn't have anyone telling me that I was worthless though. :(

It's very hard what someone who is abusive will do to someone, it makes a very difficult situation to extricate yourself from, because you don't know what about them is real, if you actually would hurt them (and you care about if you're going to hurt them! After so many times they hurt you!), if they're really abusive. It is very hard to decide, no, this is abusive, and I'm not going to take this anymore.

So I say again, Magons. You're very strong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Military training videos... so much more effective than having to train people IRL!

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science/military-training-videos-playl
ist.htm#video-30217

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
BYTE- How do you feel about violent videogames? Do you buy them? Play them? Do you feel they're useful for catharsis, useful for practicing violence, or irrelevant to the way most people look at the world? Do you perceive, either thru your own experience of by observation of others, that there is an overall difference between genders in how these games are valued and viewed?

Depends on what you mean by violent, I tend to play games that don't even depict blood. MMORPGs mostly, there's fighting but it's not realistic. The only one I've played recently with any blood in it was the new Diablo, and you don't fight other people in that, you help people and have conversations with them, then you go out and fight zombies and undead things and monsters. But on the other hand, Diablo is pretty grim, it's a demonic invasion story so there's a lot of people who die before you can really help them.

I've never played FPS or RTS, which actually do have predominantly male gamers, but the gender gap is getting smaller. There are getting to be more girls who play those, they're kinda pioneers in the field and they catch a lot of flack from the dudebro crowd.

All the same, I'm not really comfortable blaming art for being the cause of social problems. That's how you get book burnings. Art is just a depiction of society. The only time you can say the art contributed to violence is when the violent actor lost the ability to tell the difference between fiction and reality. Even then, the art isn't to blame for that. The art just is, it's how people react to the art that potentially creates problems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:51 AM

I've actually heard that training videos and video games are a poor substitute for hands on training. It's like that simulated study you guys were talking about after the Sandyhook gunman, where they gave people some hand gun training then put them in a room, they were all carrying but a more experienced shooter came in with a paintball gun and tagged them all anyway.

The only way to get good with a weapon is to have experience with it, practice with it. And even with a hyper-realistic game like Call of Duty, there were some studies done suggesting that Call of Duty couldn't teach the kids where the safety on a real gun was or how to reload a new magazine, you had to already know how to do that from somewhere else, generally from experience with an actual gun. About all a video game can do is teach someone hand eye coordination and aim, and that's without factoring in that real guns can pull off-center.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Art is not the media. Commercial media isn't "just a depiction of society" it is a profit-generating enterprise geared towards people who are easily parted from their money... 18-49 year-old males is the prime demographic, so I'm told.

An actual depiction of society wouldn't look ANYTHING like what we currently see on TV, in the movies, or in videogames. It would involved a lot more actual working people who live much more impoverished lives, a lot more women, and a lot more people of color. Instead, it still focuses on white yuppies leading rewarding lives of intense engagement as detectives and lawyers.

I understand your point about videos not preparing someone for action IRL. You DO need actual physical practice. But looking at a lot of videos involving shooting may bring that action to the fore in a situation, when the best action might be to walk away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:58 AM

Well, that also says something about society then. The art itself isn't to blame for what's popular and in demand. It's not like big corporations are forcing violence on us. Violence in media is something society decided it wanted after it got sick of how stifling the Hayes Code was. Artists started testing the edges of the Hayes Code because art is about expression, and they push the edge because they know that's what creates interest among an audience. One trend later, pushing those boundaries got us to this level of violent depiction in about 50 years.

I still am not sure violent art actually causes more violence. It's not like the violence didn't exist anyway back when all the movies were sterilized. People in the middle east still killed each other. Husbands still raped their wives. Wars still happened. People talk about desensitization, but, isn't it more important to know that some things are real and they happen? I can't imagine living in a world where we keep everything bad all hushed up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 8:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The media is structured the way it is because they sell advertising time. Men between 18-49 are the prime demographic because (1) they have more discretionary income than anyone younger (2) they are parted from their money more easily than either anyone who is older, or women. Most women in that age group are busy taking care of children... buying diapers, groceries and other necessities.

That leaves one group over-represented by a large margin; and therefore the product is going to be skewed.

If art were just a representation of "what is", it would look just like reality. But it doesn't, does it?

Art... not individually made art for private contemplation, but art made for and distributed to the masses... is an expression of something else. What we hold dear, or think is important. It's a form of propaganda and a mechanism of social cohesion. When I look at our "art"- commercials, TV shows, videogames and so forth... what I see are paeans to individuality, competition, greed, and consumption, the founding core of our corporate culture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 8:20 AM

...I'm not sure that argument necessarily follows, unless we're prepared to argue there are no women who enjoy explosive action shows, splatter horror, or space cowboy shows.

The real difference between gender consumption of media isn't currently violence, it's how much romance in present in a show.

Also, what a show represents depends on the views of the creators. You say shows are all paeans to rugged individualism and consumerism, and yet a show like Star Trek promoted what appears to be a socialist society, and many of the producers, directors, and actors in Hollywood are liberal.

I don't deny there's propaganda, but the propaganda is all stuff like focusing on cops as heroes, or support our troops messages, or yanking messages they think might cause reactions that endanger public health. Like when the new redone series of V was preempted for a while because they were doing a storyline about tainted vaccines during a real world flu season crisis, it's obvious TPTB were concerned that the storyline would create real world risks. That's propaganda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 8:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And the choice is between violence and romance? So the heroine's role in the story is to cling like a vine to the heroic male?

There are few representations of women having true friendships with other women, and with men. No representation of people banding together, except in that tight male-female dyad. The solution to your problems... bad schools, crappy jobs, rapacious banks... if to have sex with some hot guy.

Out of all of the things they COULD portray, they focus on (1) sex (romance) and (2) violence nearly all of the time. If you took that out of the programming, there would be nothing left! (There go the cop shows.)

Just trying to point out that our media has a very narrow scope, on purpose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And the choice is between violence and romance? So the heroine's role in the story is to cling like a vine to the heroic male?

No... Not that I'm aware of. In fact there's a growing trend to have a schlubb boyfriend with a super girlfriend protecting him. Or bossing him around.

What you're talking about is more like garbage like Twilight, and I refuse to even touch that backwards oppressive drivel with a barge pole. At the same time, I can't deny it appears to still appeal to some portion of the population.

Both extremes of gender representations are pretty harmful.

But no, what I meant is, women are used to violence and action in media, some of them even enjoy it. But romance tropes in any media are still kinda kryptonite for a lot of guys. Girls are brought up with stories about princes, Guys are brought up with transformers and GI Joe, you get me?

And as a tomboy, it was a long time before I could see anything with romance tropes in it without feeling really embarrassed and kinda lessened, you know?

I'm sure there are guys who enjoy straight romance stuff, but I think they almost have to hide it because there's still such a strong gender role delineation in society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 8:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE, whether it's about a superhero girlfriend or a superhero boyfriend, it's still about sex and violence. It's so unrealistic that one can hardly say that's it's just an expression of the "real world", and it's so profit-driven that one can hardly claim that it just "gives people what they want".

Let me refer back to Umoja village in Kenya. I'm sure these women never saw this particular solution in the media. It's not violent, it's not corporatist (more cooperative), and it's not individualist. Our brains are trained by repeated exposure to expect certain things and to avoid certain things. We're driven like cattle by the media.

I have two friends who used to belong to the same cooperative with a lot of other well-meaning, highly intelligent and industrious men and women. Now, wouldn't THAT make a story!

BTW- in looking up this village (again!... every time I look it up, it's an internet adventure) I found this

6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule

Quote:
By standard definition, a matriarchy is a “family, group or state governed by a matriarch.” Anthropologists and feminists have since created more specific classifications for female societies, including the matrilineal system. Matrilineality refers not only to tracing one’s lineage through maternal ancestry, it can also refer to a civil system in which one inherits property through the matriline. This often leads to the division of such societies into matrilineal clans, or “matriclans.” Here are a few notable ones that still exist.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/132885#ixzz2Gkd3WHp0

ETA: I see you added to your post. I agree that the media reinforces gender stereotypes for the most part (if that's what you're saying)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:01 AM

Quote:
BYTE, whether it's about a superhero girlfriend or a superhero boyfriend, it's still about sex and violence. It's so unrealistic that one can hardly say that's it's just an expression of the "real world", and it's so profit-driven that one can hardly claim that it just "gives people what they want".

There's probably some truth to that. But I think it's also important to recognize there's a feedback from the consumers since the Hayes Code, and that media has evolved into this from the consumers wanting more boundaries pushed.

Oh man! It occurs to me that we've gone this long and we haven't even discussed Twilight, which is like the grand central intersection for a lot of the subtopics in this conversation!

It's basically a story about two unlikeable characters, where the female alternates between being a doormat, distressed damsel, and occasionally a petty selfish person, and then the much more experienced guy she meets who's dark, brooding, and abusive. It's a modern crappy Bronte story.

Thing is, there's all these vampires and werewolves, and a war between them both, shown in mostly implied violence. But most guys won't even touch those books. Why? Because the bad over done romance stinks up the stories like garlic.

At the same time this suggests there's a troubling part of the population that DOES like the woman clinging to the guy stereotype... And most of them are women.

Quote:
ETA: I see you added to your post. I agree that the media reinforces gender stereotypes for the most part (if that's what you're saying)

Yeah basically.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If you don't like the video games or movies that are out there, and if you don't enjoy the messages they convey, you are free to create video games and movies that convey a message you like.

The recent, explosive popularity of a game called Minecraft demonstrated that people can enjoy the creation of things just as much as they enjoy the destruction of things. However, Minecraft did not inspire a real-life building boom that I know of.

I am not interested in the least on any suggestion of mandating any change to movies, television, or video games that requires them to change their message or alter their format.

I emphatically believe it is possible to enjoy violent movies, television, and video games without becoming violent. I emphatically believe that video games and visual entertainment reflect what people think the public wants to see.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
At the same time this suggests there's a troubling part of the population that DOES like the woman clinging to the guy stereotype... And most of them are women.

Hello,

Yes. Most guys I know have no use for that tale. Too many women I know eat it up. Brooding dark stalker seems to have unexpectedly wide feminine appeal, coupled with 'two dudes fighting over me.'

But this is clearly not a fault of the shitty films or books. The author clearly tapped into something society wanted to consume.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:24 AM

There's nothing I know in literature that turns off guys faster to a story than the two guys fighting over a girl thing. I really don't know why girls romanticize it so much - in reality it's an extremely dangerous and volatile situation.

Then again, I suppose two girls fighting over a guy is a popular distaff counterpart trope. Or at least mud wrestling is. But it's not actually attractive when anyone acts like that in reality.

But more than that. Guys didn't even read the first Twilight book, where the werewolves and the rival love interest hadn't even made an appearance yet. And I think it's because guys can smell overdone romance stories like that a mile away, and generally it has no appeal to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The recent, explosive popularity of a game called Minecraft demonstrated that people can enjoy the creation of things just as much as they enjoy the destruction of things.

My Son's absolute favourite game, much to my appreciation.
He does play the violent one as well, but nowhere NEAR as much as Minecraft.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

At the same time this suggests there's a troubling part of the population that DOES like the woman clinging to the guy stereotype... And most of them are women.

I hate stories where women are treated like clinging vines or doormats. Bores the crap out of me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Magons: as I said to you already, I think you're actually very strong. I've never been in a domestic situation or even experienced psychical abuse from someone I know, but I do know what it's like to have someone play games to try to make you stay with them. That kind of manipulation is very hurtful, and it is really hard to break away. They make you apologize for things that weren't your fault. They tell you you're very important to them, but they don't really care about your opinions or your personal boundaries or your choices, they don't actually care about you as a person. They tell you if you leave, they'll become suicidal, and they try to blame that on you. But you're not responsible for anyone's happiness but your own. And you stand your ground and get yourself away, and months later, they're fine and you know it was an act.

I didn't have anyone telling me that I was worthless though. :(

It's very hard what someone who is abusive will do to someone, it makes a very difficult situation to extricate yourself from, because you don't know what about them is real, if you actually would hurt them (and you care about if you're going to hurt them! After so many times they hurt you!), if they're really abusive. It is very hard to decide, no, this is abusive, and I'm not going to take this anymore.

So I say again, Magons. You're very strong.

Thanks Ms Byte, I appreciate your comments. Yes, I can see I am strong, but it took me a long time to realise it. Happy with a great man for 17 years now, so the past no longer has any hold on me.

Hero's comments didn't hurt me, btw. I just wanted to point out that those sort of attitudes are what keep women shamed and silent about their abuse.

What you have described *is* abuse, even though it isn't physical. Sometimes that stuff is worse, because its hard to name and no one around you gets it. They just think he's lovely etc etc

Twilight and its porno offshoot 50 Shades are a worrying phenomenum, particularly if you are young and foolish and think that love should involve being a doormat.

Sig, I too have issues with violence in video games and films. I don't believe they soothe or relieve tension in any healthy way. You blow people to smithereens to relax, really? How about a run? According to educators, especially early childhood ones, they *do* impact on children's behaviour and shape their play.

The content of screen violence is so much more violent than 20 years ago, so much more graphic and obscene. As a society, our appetite for violent images is certainly increasing, and then there is the whole can of worms of pornography.

But again, like guns, people like this stuff. They don't want any infringements on their invididual liberty to watch and play as much depraved stuff as they choose. So again, we hit a dead end on what people are prepared to change.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:24 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, where WERE we in this thread????

HKCAV, CHRIS, AND TONY IIRC you all defended violent games and movies as "good clean fun". They don't get a "pass" from me because you think they're useful for catharsis and that they don't increase violent crime.

Oh golly. It's weird you got "good clean fun" out of my post about art and it's use and misuse.

Playing tons of first person shooters is, no doubt, fucked up. And no doubt the repetition can condition the mind. And yeah, I would worry about a teenager in my care who spent hour upon hour murdering people in his fantasy life. But I continue to believe that it's a public health issue and not an indicator for violent criminal behavior. I'm just not ready to say that such games are a cause of violence. I consider them a symptom.

One of my best friends in the world, a woman, was for years obsessed with playing first person shooters. She was very good at the headshot. Even just watching her play made me feel ill. I know she comes from a violent childhood, she was an "army brat," and that these games were for her cathartic. Does that mean I think the games are intrinsically cathartic? No. I tried to play them a couple times, but the whole exercise was too ugly and disturbing for me.

I've been interested lately in the divide between people who like horror movies and people who can't stand them. Many women I know are adamantly anti-horror movie. Not so much the men, though I know plenty who aren't fans. I don't like the mindless slasher torture porn kind of movies. I find them numbingly dull and depressing and in the case of the torture crap, of which I've seen perhaps ten whole minutes in a lifetime, heartbreaking and unwatchable. But I'm fascinated by what I call "good" horror movies and stories.

I don't think there's any doubt that the rise in the popularity of torture porn (I mean stuff like "Saw" or "Hostel") coincides with our country's decade long affirmation of torture as "just another tool in the tool box." And I also have absolutely no doubt that the increase in these movies being made and consumed by the public in no way contributed to our government embracing their policy of torture. I tend to see the process like this: people experience violence in their lives. It overwhelms them and causes their psyches to fixate on the issue, making them intensely curious. The movie "Saw" comes out and it's a huge, huge success because people are subconsciously drawn to the subject of torture. Your cynical marketers begin to see the shift in public tastes and exploit it.

What are you proposing we do about the violence in media? Censor it? We have ratings on the games you're talking about, however ineffectual that may be in keeping them out of the hands of children. What more can be done?

Quote:
This may be one of those gender dividing lines... males, on the average, may want to activate their flight-flight hormones. Females may find such activation dangerous. It would be interesting to see by gender who purchases these games and the average levels of violence between purchasers and non-purchasers and between heavy users and non-users.

Is it a cultural gender divide or a genetic one in your view? Our culture is so saturated with violence it's hard to know what the real sources of individual violence are. I think of parents putting their infant child in a dark room and closing the door; listening to their own child cry the way a baby cries when they fear death and letting it go on until the child has lost all hope of rescue, night after night. I think of doctors committing the first act of violence a boy child ever knows by hacking off the skin of the child's penis. Recently it's occurred to me that the curse "fuck you!" may be an unconcious wish that the person "get fucked," in other words, I wonder if it means "May you get raped!" I'm not sure, but it's certainly gonna make me think twice before I utter those words to anyone ever again.

Cause and effect is a difficult thing to figure out when it comes to culture and artistic expression. I don't have the answer. It's possible that there would be fewer school shootings if violent video games did not exist. But they do. Pandora's box has been opened. The apple has been eaten. Where do we go from here?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: Victim Blaming.

In case anyone hadn't noticed...
*cringing slightly*

There's one subfacet of victim-blaming that will instantly, absolutely, drive me round the bend foamy-rabid berserk, and thus may not actually entail a rational response.

"How DARE you defend yourself!"

Seriously, there's just no way in hell or heavens creation I am ever going to be even the slightest bit rational about it, being that I am fundamentally incapable of having any reaction BUT passionate berserk rage to even the mere concept of it.

Take yourself a long quiet moment and think about that a bit.
Consider why that is.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:46 AM

Frem, maybe be less oblique in your responses. I sometimes have trouble in working out what the point is you are trying to make.

I don't have an issue with people defending themselves, but using violence against violence always strikes me as a bit of a strange one. If you meet violence head on with violence, you run the risk of a lot of collatoral damage.

Don't get me wrong, if anyone comes near hurting a hair on my son's head, they would face the wrath of a lioness. But violence and the extent to which it is used is also a choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

"How DARE you defend yourself!"

Yeah, because only the *Authorities* can rationally & emotionless-ly judge what meets the strict & necessary guidelines for reasonable & constrained self-defence.

Bull-fracking-cowpies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Don't get me wrong, if anyone comes near hurting a hair on my son's head, they would face the wrath of a lioness.

And you would face the wrath of State prosecutors bent on extracting civil penalties for your actions.
Plus $'s for pain & suffering for the poor perp from your bite-wounds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:45 PM

really? sounds like in some states you can blow someone away with imunity on the 'stand your ground' defence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
really? sounds like in some states you can blow someone away with imunity on the 'stand your ground' defence.

Actually, it seems to work out here that if you KILL someone in a tussle it's BETTER for you than if you simply break their leg with a kick (or claw them Lioness style). I am truly disgusted by the legal (read:money) systems in place all over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:28 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Regarding the actual article that priest is whacked, he talks about men as inferior beings who can't control themselves, who aren't responsable for their actions and that is stupid and not acceptable to me.

Rape is always bad.

Anthropology is cool Signe.

My little brother loves Mindcraft, as does my little nephew, they like playing it together.

Videogames/violent movies: Our ancestors would go to hangings, watch people get eaten by lions at the Colecium and any number of other barbaric acts around the world historically. So playing a fake game about violence doesn't seem so bad in comparison. The flip side to that though is that if you're watching people get eaten by lions you know its absolutely real, you know the cause and affect and can really understand what that means, whereas when you shoot people up on your game consol you're removed from it, it being pretend. So I think the key here is enforcing the concept of cause and affect, the difference between pretend and real. I also think that making sure kids are playing age apropriate games when they're little is important because that way they can form proper cause and affect understandings and _then play those shoot 'em up games once they have those concepts down..

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:52 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I can't even understand where you're coming from.

I'm with ya Byte. Women are every bit as physically violent as men. They just hide it better, engage in different types of physical violence, and/or don't get convicted.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 2:45 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I can't even understand where you're coming from.

I'm with ya Byte. Women are every bit as physically violent as men. They just hide it better, engage in different types of physical violence, and/or don't get convicted.

-----

As in child abuse? Or self-harm? Or what do you mean by hide it better?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CHRIS, BYTE, HK, CTS, et al

Back in the '30s, tobacco companies wanted more people smoking. So they contracted with the studios to have all of their big-name stars smoke in all of their films: John Wayne, Lauren Bacall, Joan Crawford, Humphrey Bogart... . Smoking was cool, it was sophisticated, it was urbane. All of the scenes were wreathed in cigarette smoke.

Quote:
Glantz and Robert Jackler, MD... used once-secret tobacco industry documents to trace Hollywood-tobacco marketing deals to the early days of movie making, including Al Jolson in the silent film era. The study titled, "Big Tobacco in Hollywood, 1927-1951," published Sept. 24 online in the journal Tobacco Control."Commercial arrangements between the movie industry and tobacco companies were there from the very beginning," said Glantz, director of UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

And yanno what? IT WORKED! People... younger people especially... started smoking.

The tobacco industry did it again in the 1980s...

Quote:
The 1980s saw undertakings by four tobacco companies, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds (RJR), American Tobacco Company, and Brown and Williamson to place their products in movies...[and] television. Each company hired aggressive product placement firms to represent its interests in Hollywood. These firms placed products and tobacco signage in positive situations that would encourage viewers to use tobacco and kept brands from being used in negative situations. At least one of the companies, RJR, undertook an extensive campaign to hook Hollywood on tobacco by providing free cigarettes to actors on a monthly basis.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i81.full
And yanno what?? IT WORKED AGAIN! Adolescent smoking went through the roof! YAY! for the tobacco industry! Right?

Now think about religion. For a part of the population, it is thumped at them from the pulpit, the radio, the television, the internet, from home. Why do people believe in what is clearly unsupportable by simple daily observation? Because everyone else they know does. Because it's what they see, what they hear; it's thumped at them constantly.

Now think of pornography. If this isn't a content which the makers can claim fills a demand, I can't imagine what does. And yet women are complaining that men's approach to sex... which they once learned by trial and error and maybe a few magazines along the way... has become formulaic and devoid of personal involvement.

Now, imagine an entire visual media soaked with images of guns, shootings, knifings... killings of many kinds. Think of all of those detective shows, spy thrillers, westerns, alien invasion movies, zombie apocalypses, supernatural thrillers, World War II movies, robbery-and-mayhem video games. Wow, images of death multiple times a day, as many times as you want. It's kind of hard to avoid, actually.

Propaganda works. What you're seeing is nothing more and nothing less than a propaganda campaign. Like ALL good propaganda, it taps into at least one essential drive of the human psyche... in THIS case sex, acceptance, and safety. Just look at WULF. The guy could hardly express his righteous rage without resorting to a stirring movie clip. I don't believe that violent images are about catharsis as much as they are about addiction.

So, we are awash in fictionalized violence which (BTW) studies have shown desensitize people to ACTUAL violence. Maybe that is why 40% of the people in the USA think that the answer to gun deaths is MORE GUNS! In my observation, behind every idiocy is a successful propaganda campaign, and this is nothing more than an addiction.

As far as past expression of violence... there is a HUGE difference in actual violence versus fictionalized violence. ACTUAL violence makes people more afraid of it, fictionalized violence creates a kind of numbness. People see death on TV a dozen times a day, but until you have sat with someone who is dying, you have no idea what death is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

What on Earth can you possibly be suggesting be done?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The Iriquos were a matricharcal(sp) society before the coming of the Europeans.

Not many ppl know that. I believe the original work was done by Morgan, yes?

There is some question as to how many matrilineal societies "white man" may have destroyed when their traders and generals would only meet with/ pass rewards through men. Because, in the white world, when they said "take me to your leader" if they were taken to see a woman they may have kept simply repeating the question unilt some guy was shoved in front of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY, I would ban all broadcast and cable media. It's not an expression of "freedom" it is a totally controlled top-down propaganda tool which creates a synthetic reality. I would make sure the internet stays free... and I mean REALLY free, not subject to copyright restrictions. Democratic, bottom-up communication.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:50 AM

See, this is where I see television and movies and other propaganda laden cesspits as an important stop gap. Because so long as a medium TPTB has already taken over exists and so long as the TPTB think the internet is - LOLWUTICANHASCHEEZEBURGERBBQ - looks photoshoped lightng is bad - moon landing was faked - tht vidio sux cockmonger - they don't have as much reason to try to control or contain it.

I salute the brave soldiers of the internet and their equally brave brain cells for taking the burden of this task from the rest of our shoulders.

Sometimes I wonder if it's because of PN's singlehanded stalwart reporting efforts that this board hasn't been raided.

Also eventually the old obsolete technology can become havens for hobbyists, like ham radio, which can also be useful tools if no one's expecting that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I can't even understand where you're coming from.

I'm with ya Byte. Women are every bit as physically violent as men. They just hide it better, engage in different types of physical violence, and/or don't get convicted.

-----

As in child abuse? Or self-harm? Or what do you mean by hide it better?

Child abuse is always an overlooked problem.

But what I'm kinda thinking of is there's this condescending attitude towards women, like if a lady starts throwing ceramic-ware and beer bottles at her boyfriend's head, it seems to get laughed off and nobody ever does anything about it because 1) the guy is perceived to have deserved it 2) the girl is just a girl and not a threat, and 3) women are a mystery.

The guy probably doesn't own up to being scratched up by a hellcat or bruised by her hitting him unless the cops get involved for a domestic disturbance call. And then domestic abuse is probably not likely to get called on the girl unless she's like my aunt and she and her husband have broken each other's ribs in a fistfight on the kitchen floor. It seems to have to be really serious for the woman to be implicated in domestic abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY, I would ban all broadcast and cable media. It's not an expression of "freedom" it is a totally controlled top-down propaganda tool which creates a synthetic reality. I would make sure the internet stays free... and I mean REALLY free, not subject to copyright restrictions. Democratic, bottom-up communication.

Hello,

Is this an attempt to be comical? You would remove the rights of people to broadcast? To consume their favored programs via paid cable services?

And what will you do when the totally free internet produces violence and porn in epic, saturating quantity?

You seem to enjoy freedom so much that you would extinguish all undesirable forms of it in order to secure it.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

And what will you do when the totally free internet produces violence and porn in epic, saturating quantity?

o.o

>_>

I was under the impression that the internet is already mostly p0rn, blue dart contests, and stupid skateboarding injuries.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

And what will you do when the totally free internet produces violence and porn in epic, saturating quantity?

o.o

>_>

I was under the impression that the internet is already mostly p0rn, blue dart contests, and stupid skateboarding injuries.

Hello,

What is a blue dart contest?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
But what I'm kinda thinking of is there's this condescending attitude towards women, like if a lady starts throwing ceramic-ware and beer bottles at her boyfriend's head, it seems to get laughed off and nobody ever does anything about it because 1) the guy is perceived to have deserved it 2) the girl is just a girl and not a threat, and 3) women are a mystery.

Hello,

This is a very apt observation. When a woman slaps a man or throws something at him, both in reality and in television and movies, it is seen as acceptable behavior. He shouldn't have said what he said, or cheated on her, or whatever other behavior was found wanting.

I have the feeling that if a man slaps a woman or throws objects at her, it is perceived entirely differently.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:59 AM

It's, um, when you've eaten a lot of beans and you have a lighter or match or some other portable device that can create a sustained flame (probably not an arc welder or flamethrower. Note to Self: try both).

But you have to be careful it doesn't backfire on you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:40 AM

HKCAVALIER

Signy,

You're talking about a culture-wide conspiracy of some kind. You're obsessed with a "they" that's trying to destroy an "us." That kind of thinking can also be the result of media saturation. Us and them. But it's also supported by religion, and is promoted by our militaristic government. It's part of a psychology that longs for control.

But control is an illusion, so the mind obsessed with control generally ends up with domination. And the psychology that longs for control and domination is particularly susceptible to addictive processes and substances. The addict is trying to control aspects of her life that are by their nature uncontrollable--doubt, fear, loneliness, sorrow. Signy, I think you're kinda fear-mongering in your fight against the fear-mongers; fighting fire with fire and when you do that the house burns down.

The fabulous little "they" you've included me in with Messrs Isall and T and Mses Mite and Sky are all people, I believe, who have a deep appreciation for the folly, the danger, of too much of this longing for control. So we're never mad enough at "them" for you. We're never willing to do what you demand must be done as quickly as you require it to be done. And lord knows, we don't think properly.

We're all people who question the need for "leaders" and "masters," full stop. And not just politically/externally, but psychologically/internally. Follow your heart is as good a path as any and better than most, but in this upside-down and backward world you have to find your heart first. People who demand control all too often think they can skip that step. They think they can reach straight for the answers and fix the problem. Feelings just slow you down.

Do you really think there are military operatives striking deals with game designers to promote a murderous culture? You think that's why a game like Grand Theft Auto exists? And yeah, as Anthony said, if that's all true, what the heck are we gonna do to combat it?

Me, I think combat is a problem, conceptually. I'm a much bigger fan of integration. Now conflict, of course, is unavoidable at times and it's part, I think, of how our minds deal with certain realities. But I do think it's possible, if we're lucky and we're paying attention, to choose what form our conflict takes. I think the best form is internal conflict. And I think violent art and imagery can be used and processed as part of our internal conflict. Like an extention of our dreams. That's what I mean by catharsis.

That seemed to piss you off. You seem to have disdain for this idea of catharsis. Is that true?

Of course, catharsis is actually the antithesis of control. The catharsis that the ancient Greek audience had at the end of Oedipos the King when he put out his own eyes had nothing to do with control or a prescription for how to live (Don't fuck your mother), nothing to do with propaganda. It was something mysterious about the difficulty of being human, something to do with our eternal vulnerabilities and definitely the dangers of thinking we have all the answers.

This extraordinary violence in our culture is happening, right now. It's bigger than all of us, right now. It's like a wildfire, out of control. I think trying to combat it actually just makes it stronger. Trying to control it just makes it more dangerous.

I think we need to learn that "them" is just "us" when we get fixated on one problem and ignore a whole lot of others. "They," for some reason, don't understand the situation as "we" do. So, educate them. But first, learn to understand them better, not as the "them" that's trying to destroy us, but as people, like "us," who are just doing the best they can with what they're given.

Am I just making excuses when I talk like this? Am I being defeatist?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The fabulous little "they" you've included me in with Messrs Isall and T and Mses Mite and Sky are all people, I believe, who have a deep appreciation for the folly, the danger, of too much of this longing for control.

Yep. And I loved that scene in Jurassic Park where Ellie was yelling at John about control. A real message amongst the dino antics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:07 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Frem, maybe be less oblique in your responses. I sometimes have trouble in working out what the point is you are trying to make.

I don't have an issue with people defending themselves, but using violence against violence always strikes me as a bit of a strange one. If you meet violence head on with violence, you run the risk of a lot of collatoral damage.

There is that.

I was hoping to inspire a certain introspection and see if anyone else would make the same connections and if they internalized them - cause basing on that understanding we could get down to the nitty-gritty, but apparently I've been too vague and failed here, and thus will have to spell it out, and try to do it without lecturing/pontificating, and keep a grip on my temper, and try to be rational about it....
*sigh*
Not gonna be easy that, and it deserves a far better treatment than I am likely to give it, but I will try, okay ?
Might take a bit, post New Years disaster cleanup, and seeing to the pet of someone here in the hospital due to a medical issue, which isn't technically part of my job, but given my affinity for animals, well...

Speakin of, in the meantime here's a picture of Molly, since she was trying to "help" while I was TRYING to take pictures of something else, little attention whore.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

But what I'm kinda thinking of is there's this condescending attitude towards women, like if a lady starts throwing ceramic-ware and beer bottles at her boyfriend's head, it seems to get laughed off and nobody ever does anything about it because 1) the guy is perceived to have deserved it 2) the girl is just a girl and not a threat, and 3) women are a mystery.

The guy probably doesn't own up to being scratched up by a hellcat or bruised by her hitting him unless the cops get involved for a domestic disturbance call. And then domestic abuse is probably not likely to get called on the girl unless she's like my aunt and she and her husband have broken each other's ribs in a fistfight on the kitchen floor. It seems to have to be really serious for the woman to be implicated in domestic abuse.

I think there is some truth here. It doesn't even up the numbers, but it does men that male victims of family violence get a raw deal and are often not taken seriously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:38 AM

Quote:
Do you really think there are military operatives striking deals with game designers to promote a murderous culture? You think that's why a game like Grand Theft Auto exists? And yeah, as Anthony said, if that's all true, what the heck are we gonna do to combat it?

At least one game has been sponsered by the American military, and some others do their work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/11/19/video-games-effe
ctive-form-of-recruitment-for-army.aspx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
And yeah, as Anthony said, if that's all true, what the heck are we gonna do to combat it?

Hello,

Apparently, ban various media.

The righteous are so often willing to do the hard work that the unjust villains can't do themselves.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HKC... while I appreciate your deep psychological insight, it will not stop foreclosures and unemployment. There is indeed an "us" and a "them". All you have to do is look around and see that the world isn't functioning for most people, that most wealth floats to those produce the least but who are masterful at placing themselves at the carotid of a some vital societal function... trade, work, communication... and sucking the lifeblood out of it. No deep insight and inner balance is going to erase that.

What does government do? Throughout history, it's main function has been to distribute "excess" wealth. Government and wealth have always been tied together. But how does one get others to accept unequal sharing? You can't control everyone with force. There has to be some minimum buy-in, the society needs to share common paradigms and memes about what is "right", what is "good", who is supposed to do what, who gets the rewards, who is protected.

That Indian woman who was raped and beaten and tossed out of a bus on her head... Do you know why there is such an outcry?? Because she was a med student, an upper caste woman of the middle class. This kind of thing... it's not supposed to happen to med students. But it happens all the time to Dalit teenagers, those rapes are even photographed by the rapists and STILL the conviction rate is very low and nobody cares.

So the answer is: Yes, there is a "culture-wide conspiracy". There is one in India, there's a different one here, another in Russia, pretty much all over the world and throughout history. And if you look at the bases for each one, it's almost universally in favor of those in power. I wonder why.

I'm not angry. I don't even understand why you would see it that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:49 AM

HKCAVALIER

I'm aware of that, M. And one or two or five examples doesn't change a dang thing, does it? What do you think is going on here?

A lot of software gets it start in some branch of military R&D, a lot of tech does, period. The internet itself started out as a military application. Does that mean we should get rid of our computers?

It's still a leap of some magnitude, I think, from there to a coordinated propaganda campaign that's destroying our culture and turning our youth into addicts. Are you onboard with Signy's analysis?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hello, Is this an attempt to be comical? You would remove the rights of people to broadcast? To consume their favored programs via paid cable services?

Is THIS an effort to be comical? PEOPLE would have the right to "broadcast", via internet, their art works, productions, opinions etc. I specifically said that the internet should be free. How does that impinge on your freedom? I thought that was guaranteed?

Quote:
To consume their favored programs via paid cable services?

Well, nothing prevents you from buying whatever is on the net.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:00 PM