Male sexual abuse at the hands of women

Have a search for "Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems" on youtube. One-sided, perhaps, but backed up with statistics and offering good insight into the Chinese system, and decent food for thought.

Politicians do so because that offers a better chance for re-election. The media does so because of demand from the market (not that I'd advocate against the free-market, but it serves to explain why tribalism flourishes amongst newspapers etc). I disagree about academics though - generally, I think they remain committed to impartiality and evidence-based arguments, and this is because their wages are not footed on the basis of their popular appeal.

If had bothered with some more reliable research - Wikipedia is pathetic - you'd notice psychologists and GPs blabber on about how men don't want to, or refuse to see them on the basis than men are supposed to be in "control" ....

The gender gap, when it comes to attempted suicide, is getting smaller ... hence more men are attempting suicide ... and the gap between suicides COMMITTED is increasing, hence more men are taking their own lives.

I think that academics and the media are able, by concerted action, to model mass opinion as they choose. They can't change everyone's mind but they can persuade most people who have other things to do than critically evaluate political and philosophical statements that some policy is uncontroversial or desirable in a vague sense.

The media itself doesn't have much agency, it is the technical side of the operation. Academia originates ideas. The academics can originate, by and large, whatever ideas they like. They could for instance have originated the idea that it is a woman's duty to have children. You might consider that idea out of character as it strikes us as right wing, but it is not; this idea was promulgated by the academia in East Germany and many other Warsaw Pact countries, and therefore became part of policy. The choice of modern feminism instead is arbitrary.

People who advocate the Chinese system, or any dictatorial system, it seems to me, only target a mechanism and not the ultimate root of the problem. Having to assemble a mob or at least a semi-ambivalent mass of compliant voters is a chore that the priestly caste must perform to enact their policies and actually serves as a brake on their ability to do so. Giving all power to this priestly caste just places us directly in the grip of their insanity. Currently the government must fund academics to persuade the media to persuade the public to support a change. In the priestly-bureaucrat model, the ruling class just does whatever it likes. China's general failure to produce what we would regard today as an adequate society until the 1990s, and only then under heavy external pressure and with heavy use of external example, is easily explicable in this context.

What we need to do is depoliticise society, placing religious-type decisions about how live should be lived and according to what values back into the hands of individuals. The success of the English-speaking countries, I think, is thanks to the fact that it has been the most depoliticised part of humanity for the past three or so centuries. The most politicised society on earth today is North Korea, where even haircuts are determined centrally by the government.

Have a search for "Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems" on youtube.

The problem is that academic research (at least in the non-STEM fields) is heavily affected by political ideals in the first place.The primary source of funding is after all from the government, and this will almost never be allocated to academics deemed too 'controversial'. Furthermore, there is immense reporting bias and selectivity from the media/government in terms of what academic research is made known to the wider public. For example, that men and women have different cognitive profiles from birth is well known and understood in biology/psychiatry, but is given short shrift in popular opinion. Another one is the government convening a task force of experts with a view to reclassifying the dangers of drugs, only to expressly reject their findings because of the potential political fallout from the findings (which stated that cannabis and LSD were less dangerous/addictive than tobacco and alcohol). I do not find academics themselves culpable for this.

The hope for a system that borrows elements of the Chinese system is not that it does whatever it likes, but that it chooses to implement policies/reforms based on their objective merit. Obviously ensuring this actually happens is easier said than done, but that is the goal which 'excess democracy', as seems to be occurring in the West, is failing to achieve.



I would agree with the general need for depoliticisation. The question is, in the context of where the West stands today, how do we go about doing so?

I think he is right that democracy is not important in state success, at least not directly. Rather, the politicisation of society is. The PRC has made some economic progress as a dictatorship but it has done this by partially depoliticising its economy, and this point is missed in the talk. (To be fair, most Americans don't seem aware of this either. Americans dramatically overrate the democracy component and underrate the liberty component. William J Bernstein is possibly the best American author on why America was so successful; notably he is an MD who writes these books as a hobby, and isn't part of the government-academia complex.)

The question then is whether democracies or dictatorships are likely to result in more politicised societies. The PRC has gone from being one of the most politicised societies in human history - on par with North Korea - to a still heavily politicised society but one that is less so than before. So to my mind it is not a strong argument for the case that dictatorships result in less politicised societies.

The main problem with non-democratic societies, which is secondary to the question of politicisation but nonetheless important, is that governments do not fall gracefully. When the PRC hits its first recession this has the potential to break them. Civil wars and violent revolutions are almost always disasters and almost never serve to depoliticise societies. The USSR was able to avoid this problem by isolating itself from the world markets and redistributing money and jobs internally so that there were no major recessions. However, this is not consistent with market-driven rapid growth to which the PRC's citizens are now accustomed.

What I expect will happen is that membership of the CPC will be progressively opened up to the point where the PRC becomes a single party state in which the people democratically choose what sort of single party they want. Li touched on the beginnings of this process in his talk, with membership being opened to private sector businessmen and professionals. In effect that's just the sort of property qualification franchise that the UK had in the 19th century.

I think it's to be expected that this research is heavily or even primarily influenced by political concerns, when almost all funding for political research comes from governments either directly or indirectly. The semi-objective STEM research is being railroaded by entirely politicised humanities "research". This is not a corrupt system, it is the system working as designed.

Universities originally existed to train priests and lawyers, not to arrive at truth. Today, they sell propaganda to governments. More than that; since these governments are now staffed by professional politicians, who are specialised in selling rather than composing policies, the government has lost much of its agency in controlling the academic system it funds. Instead, academics are paid to advise the government what academia should be funded. The calibre of person who makes up the government is no longer up to the task of critiquing this advice let alone composing different advice.

If we want an open society the whole system simply has to be destroyed.

I don't see that taking the unofficial and indirect bureaucratic control of the state, and making it official and direct, is going to do much to serve that goal.

One problem is there's not really any such thing as objective merit. Li said that the current President spent 30 years going through the system, so it must be at least that old; well, the policies the PRC enacted 30 years ago were rather different to the ones it enacts today, and that's not because of a change in their objective merit, but rather a change in levels of support for certain policies amongst the bureaucratic class of which he is part.

People are weak and fallible. They don't know what is objectively best, many considerations of best are not objective anyway (is it best to teach Julius Caesar or Of Mice and Men to school children?), and even if everything were objectively known and knowable, you've already recognised that many people choose to believe other things anyway, since they like those things more.

An open society would let people arrange railways, schools, manufacturing, and marriage contracts however they like. Some of these arrangements would fail and disappear, others would persist. We would likely not converge on a single objectively best way, but we would arrive at a set of ways that well suit people given their goals and values. The PRC has made some economic progress by handing over parts of its economy from the bureaucrats to this market system; I suspect those parts directly controlled by the elite bureaucracy are just as dysfunctional as they ever were.

So the use of bureaucrats is their enlightened ability to see that they need to abolish their own jobs. I think that the moderate improvement in the PRC - coming only after tremendous harm was inflicted for decades by the socialist system - is the very most that can be expected from this method.

I think you are exaggerating the extent to which research is politicised. Certainly, as you and I have both stated, funding targets play a part - but on the whole there is still a wide variety of views expressed in these less-objective disciplines. Also the impact of such research has considerably less effect on the public, in my opinion, than you suggest.

The point is that without the need to appease populism (and with appropriate structure), there is a better chance of taking the more effective route. Perfect objectivity is of course an impossible goal, but it is certainly possible to strive for more of it. Taking the example of the PRC, the change in policies may not simply be down to changing support from the bureaucrats, but a reassessment over time of what the actual best policies for the country are (of course, in practice, bureaucrat inertia would certainly have affected things).

Many parts of our democratic system are already devolved into technocratic institutions whose members are selected on merit, not by the vote. These include the independent judiciary for interpretation and execution of the legal system, and the independent central banks for economic management (at least, in terms of setting monetary policy). It is no coincidence that these institutions have been bastions of competence and effectiveness, in sharp contrast to our elected representatives.

How exactly would you go about making society more 'open'?

Wrong again, men commit suicide more often than women do --- Source: My mum.

". Women are more likely to have been treated for a mental health problem than men (29% compared to 17%).This could be because, when asked, women are more likely to report symptoms of common mental health problems. (Better Or Worse: A Longitudinal Study Of The Mental Health Of Adults In Great Britain, National Statistics, 2003)

Depression is more common in women than men. 1 in 4 women will require treatment for depression at some time, compared to 1 in 10 men. The reasons for this are unclear, but are thought to be due to both social and biological factors. It has also been suggested that depression in men may have been under diagnosed because they present to their GP with different symptoms.* (National Institute For Clinical Excellence, 2003)

Women are twice as likely to experience anxiety as men. Of people with phobias or OCD, about 60% are female.* (The Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report, 2001)

Men are more likely than women to have an alcohol or drug problem. 67% of British people who consume alcohol at ‘hazardous’ levels, and 80% of those dependent on alcohol are male. Almost three quarters of people dependent on cannabis and 69% of those dependent on other illegal drugs are male. (The Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report, 2001. "

Source. Not your Mum. ������


http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/men-women/

Let's be honest, you just misread my original post and you can't admit it.

I know more men commit suicide. However as you just agreed in your post, more women attempt suicide, showing that they're less able to cope with mental problems.

I'm not agreeing or admitting to anything whatsoever with someone who has no to little experience with mental health issues, or has never worked or had work experience in this particular type of field ...

I spent 3 weeks in a mental institute internship, and I can safely say that 78% (precisely) of the in patients were MEN diagnosed with severe mental issues ... A small minority were women.

You're doing what a lot of ignorant, judgemental people say: "Men are physically stronger than women, therefore they must be emotionally stronger" - NO.

Anyway, it's obviously a big deal to make you understand, so we'll leave it at that - let's agree to disagree.

You realise you're agreeing with me right? More men have mental issues than women, but despite that, more women try to kill themselves. This shows that women are less able to handle their mental issues, hence are mentally weaker.

You realise you're agreeing with me right? More men have mental issues than women, but despite that, more women try to kill themselves. This shows that women are less able to handle their mental issues, hence are mentally weaker.

Omfg how stubborn are you lol?

I'm not sure if you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying or if you still can't admit that you misread my original comment.

No, you're far too stubborn. Bloody mancunians

Stop lumping all feminists together as if they are one homogenous group. There are plenty of feminists that will agree with you. It's like saying all socialists are Leninists.




Also this was posted on the Guardian which gets flack for being a platform for "feminnazis" Explain that one

from the article...

"The only correct response to learning about the prevalence of male victims is not to treat female victims as a lower priority, but all victims as a higher priority."

Job done, we can all stop arguing now.

Male sexual abuse at the hands of women is just something I cannot wrap MY head around tbh.

It can happen read this
A man in russia tried to rob her shop and threatened her with a gun, so she floored him, locked him up in her utility room force fed him viagra and raped him for 3 days, he sustained injuries to his penis.
http://rt.com/news/hairdresser-turns-robber-into-sex-slave/