We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to. — JustSomeGuy

Not if we aren't predisposed to it. Ever since I turned 18, the question 'what do I want' has been followed by 'why do I want what I want'. Not to pat myself on the back, but this level of critical introspection, while probably common to most philosopher-types, doesn't seem to be generalised. A hell of a lot of people seems to be comfortable at stopping themselves at the first line of motive inquiry : 'what do I want', 'what should I do', 'what is good', etc...

Even the ones who end up going against the norms rarely seem to do so out of a conscious choice, but rather through a process of internalized and perhaps inversed values. Changing yourself truly demand clarity of introspection, something which I would be quick to add I do not have... Perhaps once I get in the habit of asking myself consistently "why do I think that this is why I think that this is what I want?". I'll give myself at least another decade.

The primary source of my nausea lies in the fact that you felt a response was even required. I am unsure whether it is just a laziness of mind or if you genuinely felt it necessary but the content was so profoundly sophomoric that I was disgusted it was even taking place by you. Probably a strong adjective upon reflection, blame it on my hormones. That's what people do when women speak with force.

As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case. — Akanthinos

I think so, but you know HR is an important part of this discussion because they are often responsible for undermining bullying victims and fail to enforce the rights of employees. The psychological, physical and emotional impact of workplace bullying and harassment - including sexual harassment - is actually quite profound and rather than addressing the actual problem, HR can demotivate the victim, ignore the complaints or are unresponsive to reports and even potentially pressure the victim to leave because their role is to protect the organisation from liability and thus protect the hierarchical chain of command. This leads to the prevalence of workplace bullying and harassment particularly by those abusing their authority and while things are starting to change because people are becoming aware of this problem, so many cases of sexual harassment could be prevented by developing better procedural and cultural practices.

And the worse... I have literally dozens of such stories. — Akanthinos

Yeah, not sure, but your workplace sounds profoundly toxic.

If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women. — JustSomeGuy

I disagree with this; men are more capable of inflicting physical violence and not that they are more violent. Violence can also include bullying and harassment, gossip and slander, ostracising and even getting others to do physical harm for them and it makes women just as capable of being aggressive as it can men. We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed.

I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to. — JustSomeGuy

You are exactly right that violence is both unpleasant and primitive, but it is used as a form of power and when reflecting on statements relating to assertiveness and how women apparently respond to this, it is all really just socially constructed nonsense, automatons behaving in ways that they think they are required to in order to be categorised into a fixed archetype. When I think of power, I think of someone who can go against the norms despite the pressure, who can identify with what they actually want and not follow because it pleases others, who stands above the herd; to turn the other cheek requires more greatness in character, when most would assume it to be a form of weakness.

It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim. — JustSomeGuy

The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle?

That would be a workable flirty conversation only if you had already engaged in sexually exploitative behavior and were in the eager queue to take off on runway # 1, like, she facing you, your arms around her waist, she pressing herself against you, her lips a tongue flick from yours, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Well, yes. I didn't mean to suggest that I just walked up to someone and these were the first things I said.

Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me — Michael

If I was single and I was approached with these exact words I would have one of three responses depending on the level of attraction:
1) Oo you do have good moves but Thank you I am not interested. Sweet smile~
2) I would kiss him and continue on with conversation. Coy smile with intrigued eyes~
3) I would ask him where he wanted me to kiss him. Lick of the lips and sultry drop in the eyes~

Does that help? Non-verbal communication can be misconstrued but coupled with verbal confirmation it can still be very flirty and it seems like both parties can figure out what is being said.

Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome"?
Because "mad cow" was already taken. — Bitter Crank

:-O

No?

As a Mother I would suggest not within ear shot. I would say you should ask Timmy about it but Timmy is in the well at the moment. lololol

If BC does not flag this reply, moderators kindly please delete, thank you.

I disagree with this — TimeLine

You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

"Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life determined by testosterone remain in man, attenuated and suppressed by familial and social inhibitions, but still manifesting in various intensities and forms from thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that effects their realization."

"The action of testosterone on the brain begins in embryonic life. During the fourth to fifth month of pregnancy a surge of fetal testosterone occurs reaching adult testosterone levels which induces anatomical and organizational changes in the male embryos brain. Even earlier at the DNA level, the number of CAG repeats in the genes of the androgen receptors appear to play a role in the expression of aggressive behavior. Men with fewer CAG repeats have more active androgen receptors and enhanced testosterone action."

We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed — TimeLine

This, too, goes against our current understanding of human biology, as explained in the quotation I just cited.

The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle? — TimeLine

While I think comparing the hormonal changes that happen during this stage of the menstrual cycle with a bad night's sleep is disingenuous, you're probably right that my word choice wasn't quite fitting. Irrationality isn't technically a very scientific term.
However, as I have already said, my only point in bringing this up was as an example of biological differences between males and females. I did not say or imply that men are more rational than women. I wasn't meaning to comment on women's rationality at all, only at one of the many biological differences between men and women.
For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words.
This is not scientific evidence, this is anecdotal. But seeing as how eight out of eight or 100% of the women I have been closest to in my life have both clearly displayed what I would characterize as irrational behavior, and verbally confirmed on multiple occasions that they, too, view themselves as being irrational during this time, I feel confident concluding that it is a common occurrence among females during this stage of their menstrual cycle. I will not try to argue that there is scientific evidence for irrationality, since I personally don't believe that is possible due to irrationality being a fairly subjective term. I also won't try to argue that my experience with these 8 women applies to all women. But I find it perfectly reasonable for someone with my experiences to conclude that the biological/hormonal changes that happen during the pre-menstrual stage often cause women to be more irrational during this time.

As a Mother I would suggest not within ear shot. I would say you should ask Timmy about it but Timmy is in the well at the moment. lololol — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Timmy is in the well? What does that mean? A code, obviously...

In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. — JustSomeGuy

That is often true - disqualifying is an important aspect of looking for the right people. And if you disqualify someone as not right for you, there's nothing wrong with that. There are many people in God's garden... Some like to ride on the town bicycles, and others look for more expensive & exclusive ones ;)

I appreciate your treating my statements reasonably, without reading your own prejudices into them as others have done. But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations. Some here seem to believe that men aren't allowed to have a preference against women who sleep around, because it implies you are "shaming" them. I have male friends who prefer women who do sleep around, does that mean they are shaming women who don't? I also prefer women with a good sense of humor, does that mean I'm shaming women who don't have a good sense of humor? Obviously not. It's not about shame or respect, it's about preference and compatibility.

"slut-shaming" — JustSomeGuy

Oh yeah, I already know that it's the favourite past-time of Michael Mitch Mike and The Dark Willow to accuse people of slut-shaming >:O

You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence. — JustSomeGuy

What I am attempting to convey is that this aggression can also be influenced by oestrogen. While I agree that testosterone can be a mediator for male aggression, oestrogen and its metabolites can also stimulate or inhibit neurons that make one more or less sensitive to stimuli from other neurons and thus can change ones mood (what you have referred to as 'irrational' whereas the word you probably should be saying is 'irritable'). It actually remains unknown as to the extent of the effect between either physiological/biological and social on our aggressive behaviour. Poor sleeping patterns can also amplify aggression through fatigue and even depression/anxiety. While molecular mechanisms can underlie aggressive behaviour, my concern is sociological and not biological.

Just as much as drugs and alcohol can exasperate the symptoms of someone who has pre-existing mental health condition, both men and women are impacted by hormonal and other physiological fluctuations because of defective neural circuits psychologically; regions like the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, ventral striatum and other areas of the brain that regulate emotions are not male only or female only. Any functional abnormalities increase the susceptibility for impulsive aggression and violence and this is gender-neutral considering both men and women have the same brains. How these brains develop - our childhood, upbringing, diet/health etc - together with the social and environmental impact can influence or moderate our aggressive behaviour. A man who punches a man is no different to a woman who slanders a woman; both are forms of aggression.

My problem is how this aggression can manifest and that latter is largely social. Men somehow appear justified for being aggressive and women are justified for being irrational and it is this that I have a problem with. First of all, I believe the word we should be using to justify women' behavioural changes due to menstrual cycle as irritable and not irrational, as per the following definitions:

Irrational: Not logical or reasonable.
Irritable: Having or showing a tendency to be easily annoyed or made angry.

But this is not a linguistic problem in my opinion, it is a cultural one where people generally respond to women' emotional changes as lacking any rational 'ought to be' behaviour. Women are not supposed to present themselves as feeling agitated in as much as men are supposed to; it is not the way women are supposed to behave (so unlady-like) just as much as men are feminine and weak if they are pacifists. So aggressive women can appear - socially - to be calm, respectful and lady-like but underlying their behaviour is nasty, vicious and aggressive because the social conditions allow it (office gossips, for instance). Conversely - and more problematic - is when you look at clusters of behaviour in demographics where women experience hysteria where the prevalence of somatization disorders tend to be aligned with high levels of domestic violence, both of which are 'normalised' behaviour. These pathological symptoms and even other concepts like masochism or neurosis become attributed exclusively to women rather than as a result of other culturally entrenched behaviours such as discrimination, violence, lack of education, restrictions of movement etc. So, the woman is temporarily 'irrational' which is merely a way of silencing her way of attempting to articulate her frustrations.

For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words. — JustSomeGuy

You said it yourself, 1 in 4 of your partners have behaved differently and while it can certainly be biological; i.e. that girlfriend could have had endometriosis and so her hormonal fluctuations could have been extreme, this is not the case in general. Also, note the following quote:

"Listen to people when they are angry. Because that is when the real truth comes out."

Although, I kind of saw an image of you with a quizzical look being surrounded and sandwiched by so many ladies. :P

But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations. — JustSomeGuy

I think that your preferences should remain isolated from such discussions for this reason, because it can easily be interpreted as suggesting how women ought to be. I have chosen - independent and irrespective of religious or social determinants - to voice my own decision to not have sex until I fall in love and so am waiting to find the right person I am compatible with, but there is no morality there, nothing that makes me 'pure' or better than other women who choose to be promiscuous. It is just my independent choice and so I should refrain from bringing this up in discussions especially ones like this unless, for instance, the topic is about whether there is morality in decisions like promiscuity or monogamy. What would be the point if I were to say that I prefer men who exhibit strength by showing kindness and friendship over those that exhibit strength physically because the latter is brute and lacks intelligence? None.

I think that your preferences should remain isolated from such discussions for this reason, because it can easily be interpreted as suggesting how women ought to be — TimeLine

So I shouldn't share my opinions because it's possible someone might misinterpret my words and become offended? That's ridiculous.

I have chosen - independent and irrespective of religious or social determinants - to voice my own decision to not have sex until I fall in love and so am waiting to find the right person I am compatible with, but there is no morality there, nothing that makes me 'pure' or better than other women who choose to be promiscuous. — TimeLine

Of course there isn't; I never claimed anything of the sort. I never even implied it. The fact that a few of you took what little I said and made such huge leaps and assumptions about my meaning says a lot about you, not me.

What would be the point if I were to say that I prefer men who exhibit strength by showing kindness and friendship over those that exhibit strength physically because the latter is brute and lacks intelligence? None. — TimeLine

You are more than welcome to say that whenever and wherever you want to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing personal tastes in romantic partners (or anything else, for that matter). If a person gets offended by something like that, that's their own fault. You're reinforcing one of the biggest problems in our society today, which is that everybody feels they have the right not to be offended. You don't. Nobody does. And for the record, what you said is much more "offensive" than what I said. You're insulting someone's intelligence, while all I did was comment about different personality types and compatibility. Like I said, anything you took from what I said beyond that was your own responsibility, not mine. It would be like if I were to accuse you of saying you think men who lift weights are all idiots. Clearly, that's not what you said. I would be twisting your words and reading into them something that you didn't actually say. This is exactly the same as what you have done.

Halsey's poem is powerful testament

The FT is not in the forefront of radical leftist feminist political correctness, so its seeming disquiet about this latest exposure of what I hope I can be excused for calling institutional sexual harassment might be worth some consideration and analysis.

"The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital ..."

"It is for men only. "

"... the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.

All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned."

There is more... Ignoring the multiple claims of shock, ignorance, zero tolerance, and so on, it is clear from the get go, that 'charity' is being used as a justification for - well let's say 'a boys' night out.'
(a) no wives, but one of the auction items is plastic surgery for a wife-upgrade, another a ticket to host a lap-dancing party.
(b)Men, or rather companies, pay, and women are hired to 'entertain'.
(c) the women were obliged to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Now one does not need to pretend that the women were entirely innocent, in order to feel that the deliberately contrived power and gender alignment is wrong, and that the whole way the event is organised could hardly have been better arranged to elicit sexual harassment. And this is what it takes to make a couple of million quid 'trickle down' from the movers and shakers to sick children.

This isn't a problem just for women, it's a problem for anyone who is in a vulnerable position. There is abuse everywhere where people are vulnerable - for example, homeless children are more likely to become involved in prostitution, child-trafficking, etc. than those who have a family to care for them.

So how can you fix the problem without seeking to make people invulnerable? Because we all know what kind of totalitarianism we end up with when we seek to be invulnerable.

The only means I see is education and loyalty.

The law is useless actually for such things. If people want to do something in the first place, then they will do it, whether it's legal or not. That's why education is necessary, so they don't want to do it in the first place, and they look down on it and oppose it when they see it happening. But, let me tell you, most men I have met, would have no problem, if they could, to attend such parties, and even worse. The only thing that holds them back is that they lack the power.

So then, the only way to fix the issue, seems to be, that we ourselves become the kind of people that, even if we were made absolute dictators of the whole world, would not engage in such activities. There is no other way.

I broadly agree, and I think this is what the 'me too' movement, at its best, is doing - educating. And that is why I think Germaine Greer, for instance is entirely wrong to focus on 'consent':

Acknowledging to the Sydney Morning Herald that “what makes it different is when the man has economic power, as Harvey Weinstein has”, Greer said that “if you spread your legs because he said ‘be nice to me and I’ll give you a job in a movie’ then I’m afraid that’s tantamount to consent, and it’s too late now to start whingeing about that”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/23/germaine-greer-criticises-whingeing-metoo-movement

It's not about the innocence of women being the measure of the guilt of men, it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable.

it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable. — unenlightened

But society is just man writ large. So we have created those social structures because they represent who we are.

Yeah but, no but... the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'. The way the event was structured educated the participants as to the acceptability of the values and behaviours that it produced. It is teaching young women and powerful men how to behave, not passively reflecting how they already behave. And that is where the light needs to be shone.

If people want to do something in the first place, then they will do it, whether it's legal or not. — Agustino

Well that's not true. Fear of breaking the law is a pretty good motivator.

the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'. — unenlightened

Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them.

Well that's not true. Fear of breaking the law is a pretty good motivator. — Michael

Don't be naive. Someone is not afraid of the law if they understand the procedures, they have (or can make) connections with the decision makers, and can influence them. The law doesn't implement itself, it needs people to be implemented. Things need to pass through certain procedures, and through multiple hands, in order for the law to do things. These are social matters.

For example, someone may go to their local police station and file an accusation that, for example, you hit them. That accusation then needs to be passed onto a decision-maker who will decide if an investigation needs to be started, or there is no basis for it. If an investigation is started, then that will need to be passed onto the courts as well.

At every step of the way, there is an opportunity for something to go wrong. At the person who takes the accusation first and sends it over to his boss, if there is corruption, the papers will get lost. If the papers pass from that person to his boss, and there is corruption, his boss can find a reason for not starting an investigation into your case. And so on across the entire chain, to the highest levels.

So society is more important than the law - society governs how the law is implemented. If a homeless child from the street gets kidnapped, who is there to start an investigation into his case? If someone from a regular but stable family gets kidnapped, on the other hand, there will be a lot of people to report it, follow up, and make sure that an investigation is started and pursued to the end.

So society is more important than the law. These social structures determine the very possibilities for someone to use the law in the first place.

If you have a guys’ place, you have a guys place. I have a hard time letting go of that. Maybe I’m not gonna have a choice.

If you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, then you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position.

Donald Trump Jr. on SiriusXM radio program The Opie & Anthony Show back in 2013.

The acorn does not fall far from the tree.

the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'.
— unenlightened
Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them. — Agustino

No and no. Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and...

Because they and we already know better. It was set up to indulge and legitimise foul behaviour, and everyone involved knew it, hence the non-disclosure agreements.

Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and... — unenlightened

So you're telling me those grown-up men would not have behaved like that, if they did not wish the organizer to set up a party like that? :s That's silly beyond belief - of course not! When they themselves told that organizer, do a party like this, if you want our money, how would it be possible for there to have been a "good sprinkling of wives" etc.?

It was set up to indulge and legitimise foul behaviour, and everyone involved knew it, hence the non-disclosure agreements. — unenlightened

Yeah, they set it up for themselves as they wanted to. If the organizer wouldn't agree, they'd find someone who would, and so on so forth.