Peterkin

Shouldn't we wait until they commit crimes, the way we waited 4000 years for them to prove intelligence and competence and adulthood to the satisfaction of men?

Maybe all maybe some maybe none maybe some some of the time maybe one once in awhile maybe all the time but not about the same thing... Sho. Arose - what does that mean in biological terms? Why? When? By what mechanism? In response to what stimulus? What? Okay. What about dead languages, and ancient ones? Didn't they also use words (which are symbols for things, events and acts?) Why is another kind required? Birds and groundhogs make specific sounds to stand for things and events; they express possession, intention, warning, persuasion and call to arms - those are ideas - with symbolic utterances. Where is the difference in kind? Sez who? On what evidence? You've never met a rat, a crow, a dog, a chimpanzee or an elephant.

I don't think Ontario has anything to brag about in that department. We only look like we're ahead, because we're lagging behind in the race backward.

Why invent a word everyone understands and yet has no definition? In fact, it is defined in ever bill and charter of rights. It means that nobody can legally be deprived of opportunity, political franchise or freedom of speech and action based on their race, creed, colour or gender. While it's certainly open to debate in its ramifications, the concept is solidly embedded in the democratic ideology. Oddly enough, nobody brings this up when it's a question of two white men being unequal: nobody seems to think the dumb blond middle-aged one should have different rights from the smart red-haired old one. Or that a short man ought to be paid more than a tall man. Not in the voting booth. No struggle: just make an unequivocal X against a name.

No worries - What have I ever lost to you? Who they think is more likely. And they are often wrong. When they are right, they take credit; when they are wrong, they shift blame. I had to lift this out, because I wonder what 'pandering' means in this context. If they're not pandering to voters, then to whom? And if it doesn't win them votes or power, then why? If that's what they're saying, nobody will understand them, and many of their fans will think it's too deep and/or profound for lesser men to understand. That's too profound for anyone to understand.

Politics, too. Well, if men are who the voters want running their government, who are we to select women candidates? Works out quite neatly.

Does this mean that all male nurses should be paid more than all female nurses, throughout their career, because a few of each might be accused of sexual misconduct and some of the accused might be innocent, but the male ones would be more likely to suffer consequences? That's some insurance package! Teachers have always been both male and female, though not not necessarily both in the same culture at the same time. But you still think all male teachers and no female teachers deserve that same sexual misconduct risk bonus? Voters can only choose from the candidates they're offered. They do not exclude groups; the party nomination and candidate selection procedures do the excluding before voters have any say at all. Since our current systems of government were all exclusively masculine domains until a century ago, it has been necessary for all-male and then predominantly male legislatures to change the rules and allow female participation. It has been a very slow process, but there are progressives in every generation.

We can talk about anything, whether we understand it or not. And we do talk and think about all kinds of things that don't affect us directly, and try to understand them. We study distant galaxies, as well as cans of soup that fall on our toes, and we did get to understand a great many of the processes in the universe to which we don't attribute consciousness or intelligence. (Unless... But the believers in supernatural intelligence are not consistent in their attribution, which leads me to suppose they understand the foundations of their belief less than we do ours.) I find that humans talk far more confidently about things they don't know than what they do know. Nevertheless, we can theorize, project, suppose, guess, and surmise, as well as observe, weigh and measure. It is sometimes the wildest surmise that inspires the experiment that leads to understanding. We can't know. Probably, we can never know. If the universe is one great big conscious Difference Engine, sooner or later it will decree, "Let there be light" and then we shall see.

At some interfaces, yes, they do blend - or at least overlap. We draw a big black line between consciousness and deductive intelligence when it comes to computers, and some people still draw that line between humans and other animals, while other just lump all pattern-formation into a comprehensive 'intelligence', without any lines at all. I think all those distinctions are arbitrary, ill-defined and differently understood by different people. Even the vague, general notion changes with each advancement in neuroscience. 'Processes' was too broad a term, since those of us who don't subscribe to a divine creator behind the universe consider the workings of the universe unconscious. But if we restrict the term to 'thought processes', the question makes more sense. Like the human programming is the consciousness behind computer intelligence. I'm inclined to agree. (Isn't it odd, people who believe in a god credit him for the skill of surgeons and soccer players when successful, but don't blame him for their failures? If a computer screws up, it's always the programmer's fault.) Indeed! Ants have quite a sophisticated system of communication. https://www.antkeepers.com/facts/ants/communication/ I suspects humans systematically underestimate the intelligence of other species... Though, I can't imagine very much autonomous cortical activity in each tiny ant brain, the colony is so interlinked as to have a collective intelligence far greater than its individual members'. This article is about memory https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/an-ant-colony-has-memories-that-its-individual-members-don-t-have/ That doesn't mean the colony is a conscious entity, only that it shares information, a small amount of which is available to each of its individually less intelligent but conscious members. For a 'person' to take a test, being conscious is a prerequisite. That particular example is a vocabulary test - maybe for ESL students? Of course an army requires each soldier to think! Not to devise strategy or make tactical decisions, but to deploy their learned skills and co-ordination to maximum effect, and to protect one another, and respond to changes in a developing situation. It's the same kind of limited thinking that ants or factory workers or migrating swallows have to do. Where did this different language come from? Who did the programming?

That would depend on the door. Garage? Bathroom? Loading dock?

The motivations are not in evidence and are not readily discernible from statistics. I know about some of the motivations, and their origins tend to lie in the cultural roles assigned to people, and how fragile their egos are as a result of childhood and societal influences long before marriage. In sports threads, we're constantly hearing that men are inherently more aggressive than women - why would it be any different in domestic situations? Can you think of reasons why women would want to abuse their mates? In my limited - statistically negligible - experience, wife-beaters do not intend to abuse, and are [more or less] genuinely sorry after each episode. That's one reason the women stay: the men always promise it won't happen again; "I don't know what came over me." "I didn't mean it!" "It's just that you made me sooo angry..." The operative there is 'you made me'. It's the partner's fault. (In actual fact, the anger is may well come from failures and humiliations outside the home, and simply come to a focus on the most convenient target. Much like a child that's being punished kicking the dog on his way to the corner.) And abused women do often provoke incidents; they, too, have all this blocked rage building up over time. That's why the situation typically escalates from yelling to slapping to punching to broken bones and hospitalization - and sometimes death. Alcohol frequently plays a part, which also tends to escalate, from occasional overindulgence and uninhibited speaking out, to habitual weekend inebriation and more forceful acting out, to full-blown alcoholism and uncontrolled violence. This applies to both sexes. The frustrated wife may get a little tipsy at a party and make some jocular cutting remarks... and end up being drunk every night, throwing tableware at him. Verbal abuse is far more varied, subtle and difficult to pin down. More kinds of motivation and more kinds of purpose. But that, too, usually escalates as the victim becomes less responsive, and the original cause (jealousy, insecurity, fear, ambition, frustration, need to control, need to assert ego) remains unsatisfied. It always remains unsatisfied, because no change takes place ion the abuser's psyche, where the original problem lies. Domestic violence statistics usually reflect social issues: the home is just the small stage on which every man and woman is the star of their own drama.

That last line should have read : "from either side", since most abusive relationships are unequal: most of the power is on the abuser's side - and that just becomes more lopsided over time. Whatever happened between the lovely people in the OP, there probably was some inequality of power there, too. Couples who are both domineering, emotionally insecure and volatile either kill each other quickly or blow up the relationship quickly.

The only way I have seen laws change is through challenge. Make exceptions, find loopholes, allow exemptions, bend it, clip it, break it where necessary and go to court and appeal and appeal and appeal. It's a hard, ugly slog almost every time. We went through it with women's suffrage, divorce law, reproductive rights, gay rights, end-of-life rights... every damn time we want Abraham's sons to loosen their stranglehold on other people's personal autonomy.

I'm not sure how things stand now, either. In my outdated experience, women who suffered repeated abuse were more likely to be financially dependent, or simply too intimidated to leave. They might have nowhere to go, especially with children. And the husband (it was usually a husband, not a boyfriend, which meant that for a large percentage of women in that situation, religion made it more difficult) I think - at least I'm led to believe - that social services have improved since the 1970's and 80's. The biggest obstacle, though, was fear, and I think it still is. Abusers are vengeful; that's part of what makes them abusers in the first place. It's still not uncommon for a man to track down and kill his escaped wife and children. A woman is less likely to kill the man who leaves her, and far less likely to hurt or kill the children. To the extent that holds, men are better able to walk away from a toxic relationship. Not that there can't be other complications, extortion, blackmail, spiteful communications, making trouble at work.... from both sides. We have a lot of sick puppies in this litter!

Perhaps not neatly, as they do very often occur together, but emotional abuse does also occur without physical violence. Physical abuse is often a form of lashing out or venting of frustration not caused by, and sometimes not even related to the victim; at other times, it's retaliation for perceived wrongs or insults; sometimes it's just a way to prove dominance. Psychological abuse is more often an attempt to control (own) the other person by depriving them of self-esteem and the will to resist. Anyway, the truth is out there and it's not about celebrity misfits, though they, too can be subsumed in the statistics.

Statistics and studies are available. Here's a bunch of them from all over the world: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=intimate+partner+emotional+abuse+statistics&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart and a clear, very accessible overview from Canada (2012) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/stop-family-violence/prevention-resource-centre/family-violence/psychological-abuse-discussion-paper.html CDC 2021

That's not my example. I didn't say prepubescent. Apparently, sexual orientation has a wider range of of ages at which people recognize it in themselves than gender identity; it may not happen until after puberty. . https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/sexual-orientation.html I was using this as an analogy for how society can make people hate what they are. I don't know. I suppose it would vary from person to person, the same way it does with heterosexuals. Some confident, outgoing individuals act on their feelings; shy, introverted ones usually don't. But nobody else - who isn't an expert or a very observant parent - would know until they have expressed it, by word or deed. In communities where authoritarian rule is out in the open and non-conformity is closeted, the child would expect to be slapped down, and not express his feelings. In communities where bigotry is hidden behind a tolerant facade, a child might not know how people really felt about 'her kind' until too late to hide it. All depends... Why would they blame themselves for something that's accepted? They are normal, if other people don't convince them otherwise. That cart keeps getting ahead of that horse. The 'dire consequences', like suicide or running away or self-mutilation only happen as a result of persecution, not self-hate. Anyway, trans kids don't. They identify with a gender at too early an age to understand the concept of normal and abnormal. They simply identify themselves as the expression of the gender they feel they are - and then either hit that wall of prejudice or experience that acceptance. Maybe 'we' should not take it upon ourselves to tell anybody anything about themselves.

That depends on how others - and which others - express their wishes. Most early childhood wishing does no damage at all. Wishing you had super powers or were really a princess or a sports hero or a movie star is routine and harmless. But they wish these attributes and successes as something extra - not instead of their identity and personality, but to achieve those goals as their actual self. What makes anyone wish to be other than themselves? This was an insurmountable problem for a lot of boys who realized they were gay at a time when society punished that identity with every resource in its possession from shaming to imprisonment, with frequent beatings in between. Of course they would wish to be accepted - but if that could not happen, they would wish to change. So much so, that they would undergo horrid courses of re-education. That wasn't so long ago, either, and it isn't so far away still. Only 13 states, as of 2019. https://www.history.com/news/gay-conversion-therapy-origins-19th-century Nobody feels 'different' without being told they are. And the family and society who tell a child he or she is different must first be aware that the child does not identify with the assigned label. IOW, it can only be deliberate and unaccepting. Friends do not do this. Parents, coaches, clergy and lawmakers and other bigots do this. If most of us could get over t that prejudice, we don't really need to the door very much wider to get over this one.

Sure. But the thread is specifically about him as the victim. Like I said, they probably had a sick relationship; they probably hit and threw things at each other (which, barring use of firearms, would give him a clear advantage); they probably abused other substances (at least he certainly looks like he's been doing so for a while); neither was helpless or without recourse. In short: not a good example of the topic. I offered some real case studies. I'm done with gossip.

I don't see it proved anywhere that he was a victim at all. It's obvious that he was not helpless. I find him entirely unconvincing as representative of any victims of domestic violence.

If the subject is domestic violence against men, I'm interested, because that's a real problem and real people are not only suffering but also passing on a pattern of toxic relationships to their children. If the subject is the poor little movie star whose only recourse against his terrible wife is a team of 8 attorneys with all the resources of an international law firm, unlimited funds and an army of social media connected fans, I lost interest.

I thought he won a lawsuit for defamation. I'm not aware that she was convicted of abuse. It sounds to me as if the two of them fought and they each say the other started it, just as children very often do. I admit that this sordid pair hasn't interested me enough to find out the details, but I don't see evidence that the man was a victim of abuse. Domestic abuse is a serious issue, and abused men generally do not get justice - even in the rare case when they seek it. To cite this particular man as their representative is to do the real victims an injustice. And, IMO, trivialize and sensationalize and misdirect any discussion of the subject. There is a ton of real information available. We don't need to get our 'facts' from tabloid fare https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=male+victims+of+domestic+violence&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart eg

Where does it stand?

How best to start including men who are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse ? Not with those two people as the standard-bearers for their sex. Domestic violence is a serious issue. This is a frivolous (if pathetic) celebrity lawsuit.

Why start by assuming that they are confused? Which children are confused about what subjects? What is confusing those particular children about those particular subjects? Why are we not asking: Are we confusing children with garbled and contradictory information - or outright lies? How about by our insistence on a version of reality that conflicts with the evidence of their senses and personal experience? I mean, of course, about other things, like God and Democracy, fair play and truth-telling. I don't see the relevance of the question or the provocation to sarcasm.