agrajagthetesty said:
(I'm going to use a lot of electrons here, my apologies! My style is to respond to specific points individually, and I find this layout easier to work with.)
So do you agree with me that the 60% figure isn't reliable, since it relies on that flawed assumption?
It's not *proof* of anything, certainly. But it's not that far out of line with the huge numbers of other suspected false claims. Either the police are structurally paranoid, or people just lie to them a lot. Maybe both. Honestly, I couldn't tell you which I believed, but in most of my life, I have not been too paranoid. I *want* to believe you're right, but for every decent person, I see many who are not so decent.
This is unfortunate. But corruption is pretty much a fact of life in this world. I like to think it's still within our scope to debate the issues, though.
Sure, but in a practical sense, I don't trust an investigation to yield much practical use. If you somehow manage to get something out of it, more power to you.
I think to a certain extent, we won't get very far towards agreement on this particular topic. Our approaches are too different. You say that "there are countless men who will accept a completely one-sided relationship"; I look at my experiences and the studies I've read and see a different picture. You separate "hate of women" from being "extremely frustrated about women"; I think both feelings involve sexism, as being "frustrated" about a group of people requires generalisation and some level of belief that the members of that group are all the same. Ultimately, we're probably both approaching the issue according to the point of view of our own gender. Which is, you know, unsurprising.
Frustration easilly leads to hate. I think that this hate being projected onto a large mass of people is the default, actually, rather than requiring a belief that all are the same. It takes effort to distinguish, especially if one finds one's prejudice confirmed over and over again. These prejudices and social memes are sometimes even taken way out of context and considered to be fundamental biological factors, and that we should cater to them as much as we can. It may express itself as sexism, but ultimately it's little more than an intellectual and emotional faillure of humans who are either unable or unwilling to evolve beyond simple tribalism. A lot of people simply like to see the world in simple terms...
There are some things you say which I will respond to directly, though. First, the idea of "having it both ways". I certainly can't speak for "women", but I can say that for myself, gender-related chivalry is unwanted - insulting, in fact. It relies on an assumption that women are helpless to do things for themselves.
That is how it originated, and I can certainly see women being offended by it. However, not every woman cares where it came from. Personally, I have met a handful of women who were, like you, offended by it. Some even made every effort to ensure it was not applied to them - to the point of cutting men out of their lives entirely.
However, and this may be yet another cultural thing, while Dutch women are extremely enthusiastic about declaring themselves independant and powerful, the majority of them still cling to traditional gender roles in specific areas. (And so do many men.) If you're curious, you should look up how Dutch women balance their careers and personal lives. Despite all the advances in women's rights that have been made in the Netherlands, Dutch women are far less independent than their american counterparts. The notion that a woman *needs* to be taken care of is considered pretty offensive by most women here, but a man who doesn't want to support a woman is still not often going to be appreciated. (This should be viewed in the context of Dutch culture having a very different work ethos. Working hard to support oneself is not by definition going to earn respect here.)
In addition, many men rely on it to be what they consider charming. I don't think it does them much good, but for some, it may be their only chance.
Second, I'm very glad to hear that you can't fathom defending rape! And I agree that hate of women is not a fundamental part of men. Misogyny is societal, and women are capable of perpetuating it too.
Third, I am encouraged to see you say this: "I myself am one of countless males on the internet who have never been with a woman, and likely never will. But I try not to let that turn into anger. People don't choose what they are attracted to, I can't hold them responsible for what they feel when they see me." This contrasts with many men on these forums, who do seem to resent women for not expressing attraction to them, and it's nice to see someone take a reasonable approach. I also happen to think that those men's resentment and sense of entitlement are off-putting and therefore likely to perpetuate the cycle of women's lack of interest, whereas the feelings you express aren't.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. While I do not hate women, I *am* a frustrated individual. The world is not how I imagined it was, growing up. The media turned me into a hopeless romantic, only for me to wake up in an incredibly cynical and selfish society. I believe that for the most part, on a practical level, emotional commitment and reciprocity have gone out of fashion. Having a rational attitude towards one's place in society doesn't make a person more attractive. I've seen horrible misogynists, rapists, violent sociopaths, have no problems finding partners, and I know men far better than I who have never enjoyed so much as a woman's smile. There are countless men who have no better perspective than finding peace in solitude.
Fourth, I think that wanting to "criticize women" without being lumped into a group with unpleasant feelings towards women is... kind of unrealistic? Since "criticising women" as a homogeneous group relies, again, on generalisation. One can criticise individual women, of course, and sometimes tendencies among women (depending on the specifics, and as long as one can prove those tendencies and isn't relying on stereotypes) - but "criticising women" as a whole means taking a group of roughly 3.5 billion people and talking about them as if they're all the same.
Criticising women can be on an individual basis, it can be a generalization, etc. The response will often be the same, regardless of context. In a practical sense, it is very common attract an unwanted personal army by criticizing a woman. (Though it's also common for an ad-hoc counter-army to form.)
It seems from this that we have different definitions of peer pressure - I was imagining a culture-wide phenomenon while your definition requires only a group holding the same opinion. In that case, my thoughts on the false-charge-supporting people you describe are pretty much the same as your thoughts on the existence of people who support or defend rape: it seems there must be some people like that out there, but I find it impossible to fathom or understand.
A culture-wide phenomenon could find expression in peer pressure, but a specific kind of peer pressure doesn't need to be a culture-wide phenomenon.
All it takes is a different or missing sense of right and wrong. If someone is raised with the notion that up is down and down is up, they will die fighting for that notion, regardless of what gravity has to say on the matter. We were raised with a different morality, and as such we can't understand it on an emotional level.