- Dec 29, 2003
- AFL Club
Thanks for the detailed reply. My postulation was that to truly understand a situation like the one being discussed you have to experience it for yourself which for me (an old separated white male) is impossible. I have zero problem with discussion on it or any subject, my reply was merely part of said discussion, hell I comment on a lot of stuff I have never experienced.
An element of what I have elucidated, is the quandary: there is NO neat solution. Can Yael Stone find a neat just resolution. I doubt she can, and she herself made this point. There is no recourse to being hit-on. Women would need to right this disparity and make a distribution of women tigers like Angelina Jolie which/who/feminine distribution took the reins in pursuit of male partners. (ofcourse this happens now, albeit, on this Victorian distribution from heterosexual ranks). But there is little one can do but laugh if a man looks to flash his penis at you. It is risible. If one says laughter then invites a physical retaliation, that in itself, is an illegal act, in follow up to dropping one's drawers in front of someone, so you have racked up two, count them, 2, potential illegal acts. One which is greater than a misdemeanour, and should see you locked up. Whether male or female as victim. If we seek aspiration to Victorian morality, we wont have women flirt with potential suitor, nor an elder, senior, male squire, but this has occurred, one can easily prevent the ratcheting tension at higher strata, by never flirting to begin with. For legit true Victorian era stuff, you can require a chaperone for supervision, but then one responds, like Neil Armfield did, there is a necessary air of flirtation in rehearsal room for exposition, to play-out the characters.
What the zeitgeist seeks to change is the disparity in power. And the older males holding all the cards at their disposal. They fail to recognise, part of the equation is time and experience and the rise(ing) through the ranks to the top echelons. And this has disproportionally been men rising through the ranks because that is how society comported itself.
The best lack all conviction, while the worstthat is Yeats and not Hanna Gadsby.
Are full of passionate intensity
Are full of passionate intensity
There are traits to those who hold the upper echelons of industries, common to both men and women, and undergraduate psychology students would have no doubt come across this distribution. People behave in ways that are not acceptable in polite society. This is not an apologia, I am asserting that being human is not a neat etiquette school at Wesley or MLC. There are all dints and corruptions in our make-up. We have a criminal code which seeks to rein in and deter our worst excesses.
We have also seen campaigning in the media with non-profit charities, charity is the new feel good drug. Danny Green does a punch campaign, which I find quite absurd and lacking in self awareness. Ofcourse, boxing gyms and training centres speak of the discipline taught in training and boxing education, just like martial arts. My point, lots of folks are getting-off on this charity boondoggle, making themselves feel good. Apart from the IPA and Chris Berg no one seeks to defend liberty. We have unparalleled freedom from time yore, but now we are reining this in. I posit, that a comfortable life in the West in a modern city like Melbourne or Sydney, has contrived its own simulacra tension, with a little help from the Beltway states in y'America[sic].
guess what, below is men being violent, but exercising freedom to act in any way, extreme or other. A growing city with myriad other epidemiological* inputs; tiffs occur.
If men can't get laid because of their aesthetic endowment nor their charisma, they will resort to other means. If this same psychological predisposition women also don't have their putative talents recognised, they will also resort to alternative means for acclaim. We are all one, in this human experiment, and this phenomenon will live and die on its validity, as judged through the lens of history. how pretentious and navel-gazing does that sound? <very>