Forestluv

I wish more men could use this collective experience to transcend their identification to maleness. Throughout history, women have wanted to talk openly about their experience with domestic violence. Yet for hundreds / thousands of years women have been shamed into silence. Domestic violence and shaming has been asymmetric against women. They have had to carry the greater burden, by far. It's not even close. And now, some men get a little taste of it and contract into a male identity about how men are being shamed and silenced. And some men go even further and say that the social system regarding violence is asymmetrically against men! I understand the individual and collective consciousness of self / identity preservation, yet I wish more men would have an awakening and realize "Omg, this is what women have had to endure for centuries. So this is what it's like". This can lead to deeper understanding of power dynamics and violence. It can lead to empathic understanding with women and the asymmetric burden they have had to endure. Yet it seems for most men, this realization doesn't come easy. Given history and current asymmetric power dynamics, I don't think it's enough for men to simply say "what about us men? We are victims of violence too. Let's focus on creating more laws and improving the system to help men". I don't see that as balanced. Based on asymmetry, I think it would be more balanced for men to say "Let's invest 80% of our limited resources into education and protective services to reduce male violence against women and 20% of our resources to reduce female violence against men". Yet most men would have an extremely strong resistance to this. When men have 80% of power and control over resources, even a 50:50 split seems unfair to them.

This case also reflects socio-economic issues in court systems. This man was in a lower caste, if he was in an upper caste - he likely would not have been imprisoned. In the U.S. low income people are not within the same justice system as upper class people. For example, using DNA analysis on old cases have identified many innocent people in jail. And poor people are disproportionately affected. Especially poor people of color. It's not just a gender thing.

Gotcha. Looks like I misinterpreted your post. As well, men also make false accusations regarding violence. Men rarely falsely accuse a woman of rape. Yet men also falsely accuse women of malicious behavior. When two or more people are entangled within a web of violence, there are all sorts of lying going on. When I volunteered in a psychiatric ward, I commonly had long discussions with people entwined in domestic violence abuse. They were clearly in an abusive situation (as shown by physical wounds), yet they also mixed truth and lies. It seemed like lying is part of survival in the world they lived in. And there were many forms of lies. For example, some women would lie by saying their wounds were self-imposed or accidents. If a woman's only real option is to return to the domestically violent environment, she will often try to protect the abuser by lying to minimize his involvement. If she tells the truth, it can enrage the abuser and cause her more harm. Women can be violent and I consider false accusations that lead to imprisonment to be violence. Yet in general - men are more violent - both in degree and frequency.

I agree that there are a range of impacts from mild to severe. It depends on the person. A female jogger that gets ambushed and raped could be traumatized and have PTSD for years. It's not a minor thing. This is why women are very mindful about there surroundings - especially isolated areas like jogging in the middle of a forest. Women often take precautions like bringing pepper spray, running with a dog, being extra alert and only running during peak hours of the park. Men don't have to have this mindset and it's difficult for most men to imagine living in such a reality. I agree there is a spectrum of degrees regarding consent, rape and harm. I am not excluding "milder" forms of rape - yet if they go far enough on the milder side, I would consider it sexual harassment, not assault. For example, I would consider a boss isolating a female employee and fondling her breasts to be sexual harassment, not rape. I think harm degree is an important factor, yet to me the way you are engaging with whether false accusations or rape is worse isn't oriented toward overall harm reduction. My own experience involved the woman lying, stalking and sending legitimate threats on my life that included hiring a hitman to beat / kill me. I would consider this a relatively mild harm. It had a big impact on me for about two years, yet I was able to recover from it and don't have any lasting damage. I didn't file a police report or press charges because I wanted to avoid social stigma, I was afraid that it would enrage her and she would actually severely attack me, and I didn't think there was a good chance she would actually be convicted. So, I also have an idea of what it's like not reporting a crime (such as women not reporting rape / domestic violence incidents). Some forms of false accusations can be quite violent. Yet for me, the experience gave me some insight into what it would be like to be a woman in a domestic violence situation, which asymmetrically impact women. I wasn't like "Men are victims of domestic violence to!!". I was like "Omg, so that's kinda what it's like". This motivated me to volunteer in shelters for domestic violence (which were about 90% women).

If by "some cases" you mean 2% of mild rape cases, yea. . . Yet don't portray rape as generally being "mild discomfort and a sense that boundaries were overtaken". That describes spitting on a person, not physically forcing your penis into their vagina / anus against their will. I spent years volunteering in a psychiatric ward. Many of those cases involved rape. And rape is usually not an isolated event. There is generally more going on. And the impact of rape and domestic violence goes much deeper than "mild discomfort" and "overtaken boundaries". You have no clue what the actual impact is. And I also have personal experience with being falsely accused. That sucks too.

You are creating a construct in which a woman is fueled by hate to attack a man. If all of a sudden, a random woman that hates men accused me of rape to make a man suffer - of course it is a crime fueled by hate. Yet it's not that simple. The point I'm trying to make is that you seem to have a narrow lens and are extrapolating that into generalities and hyperbole. Yes, false accusations against men are an injustice and have a terrible impact on men. Yet an honest, fair conversation would include the bigger picture of social harm regarding rape and domestic violence. This is a much broader and deeper social illness than false accusations. I recently watched a documentary on the domestic violence of non-deadly strangulation. It is the most common form of domestic violence, yet rarely reported because the woman is often in a terribly weak position and non-deadly strangulation usually doesn't have obvious physical injury. And it often has relatively mild prison sentences. Yet it is violent behavior, causes extreme harm and is the #1 predictor of future abuse and murder. Are there some false accusations of non-deadly strangulation? Of course. About 2% of cases are false accusations. And those false accusations are awful. Yet if we hyper-focus on these false accusations, it can be counter-productive in solving the larger issue of domestic violence. There is a difference between consider false accusations in the larger context of reducing violence vs focusing on false accusations in a way that distorts overall violence and becomes counter-productive to reducing violence. Right now, we could eliminate false accusations of non-deadly strangulation right now - we could decriminalize it. Presto!! No more false convictions!! Yet overall, this would increase the occurrence of non-deadly strangulation. Again, the small percentage of innocent men sitting in prison right now is an awful injustice, worthy of attention. I've watched many interrogation interviews and prison documentaries. I've volunteered within prisons systems and I've imagined what it would be like to be falsely imprisoned. I'm not making light of that. Yet in addressing that issue, we also need to be mindful of the underlying crime. It's not right to reduce harm to 10 people in a way that will increase harm to 100 people.

In developed countries, it would be extremely rare to receive a 20 year sentence for rape. It would need to be a severe case of rape with evidence. It's rare that an innocent person would be falsely convicted of rape and spend 20 years in jail. Within any justice system, a small percentage of innocent people will be falsely imprisoned. It's not just rape. It happens with a variety of crimes. It's valid to ask how we can improve the justice system. And there are lots of problems with justice systems. Yet this needs to be balanced within the context of various harms. Each society has limited resources and needs to decide where to invest resources to best reduce harm.

If that is the only lens a mind is capable of perceiving through, the mind will have a distorted view. I'm not saying the view is wrong. I'm saying if that is the only piece of the map you are capable of seeing, you won't be able to construct a map with good understanding. If a mind can only see pit bull attacks, it will have a distorted view of dogs and how society creates laws and rules about dogs.

Yes, there are categorical differences. You bring up a good example of that categorical difference, yet it is still biased and contracted within one perspective. There are also other categorical distinctions. For example, increasing the threshold to persecute and convict for rape would further leverage gender dynamics - it would empower men and disempower women. This would not be true for other false accusations, like theft. If we raise the threshold to persecute and convict for theft, it would not asymmetrically empower men and disempower women (since both genders have roughly equal potential to commit theft and be victims of theft). As well, selectively examining if rape and false rape accusations have similar harm has value, yet being contracted within the individual level, dismisses the population level. At the societal level, rape and domestic violence cause more societal harm than false accusations of rape and domestic violence. Both individual and societal levels need to be considered when deciding where to invest limited resources and constructing public policy. I'm not saying your categorical difference is wrong. Rather, it is selectively focused within one narrative.

@Parththakkar12 False accusations is a piece within a larger context. Simply focusing on one piece of a larger system will create distorted views. For example, we could focus on the fact that a small percentage of people that receive a vaccine have serious adverse side effects. That is a problem. However, if we stay contracted within that piece it will create a very distorted view. Imagine being an alien and the only information you have is that humans stick a needle into an arm, inject something and a few people get seriously sick. It would make no sense to have vaccinations. We would take the side of people that were harmed by vaccinations. Yet this is a distorted, contracted view. A greater understanding comes from zooming in and out. We would need to zoom out to see the larger context. . . "Oh. . . in the bigger picture, vaccinations are intended to give people immunity from a pathogen". However, if someone is contracted within anti-vaccing, they will not be able to zoom out and see other components of a larger picture. A narrow lens has some value, yet is within a larger context. For example, false accusations of rape is a problem - yet that is one piece of a larger social illness of rape and domestic violence. To have a high conscious understanding, one would need to be able to zoom into aspects of the social illness (such as false rape accusations, valid rape accusations, domestic violence, non-deadly strangulation, support services, justice system etc.) and also be able to zoom out. If a mind is locked into one component, it will have a limited, distorted view. For example, if someone spent their life working in a shelter for battered women, they might get contracted into that reality. Similarly, if a man believes society is out to get him for one false move, that will distort his vision.

That is not the framework I'm using. I'm not condoning false rape allegations. I'm looking at the larger social system. To me, you are hyper focused on on a specific cause-and-effect relationship and extrapolating from that. And for the record, I do understand what it's like to be falsely accused. I broke up with a vindictive woman who then falsely accused me of impregnating her. I knew she was lying because she had her tubes tied. Several months later it was obvious she wasn't pregnant and was lying. Yet this is part of life. There are some people that are unhealthy (both men and women). Yes, my confidence took a hit and I didn't date for about three years. Yet during those years I did a lot of introspective work. What was it about me that got involved with this woman? Why didn't I see red flags? Why was she attracted to me? . . .I was able to grow as a man and guess what? I don't find myself in those situations anymore. And it's not that society changed around me. There are just as many unhealthy people. The reason I don't find myself in those situations anymore is that I changed. However, this does not condone her behavior. What she did was still messed up.

I would make a distinction between being in unhealthy relationships vs a woman flat-out trying to entrap and falsely accuse a totally innocent guy. I've been in relationships with unhealthy women that were narcissistic and vindictive. This is part of being in relationships and it goes both ways. Guys can also be narcissistic and vindictive. As well, it's rare for one person to be 100% devil and the other person to be 100% angel. Even in relationships in which she went waaaay over the line into psycho zones, I was not 100% angel. It wasn't like I was an innocent bystander and some random woman I never met accused me of raping and impregnating her. As I've matured, my sensor has gotten much better. And part of that was me taking responsibility and looking at myself. Yes, there was input from others, yet there was also something about me that was attracting this drama into my life and why I was engaging in it. Systems created by men are not going to screw men over for one false flirting move with women. Unless a false move involves a child.

This is an excellent question. I think we as a society need to decide what is appropriate. And it's absolutely necessary for women to have a voice in the discussion. Imagine a group of male fraternity boys deciding what is inappropriate sexual behavior on a college campus. They work behind closed doors and get no input from women. Do you really think that would lead to a fair policy? You keep using extreme phraseology. It's not true that "one false move and you're dead". As a professor at a college I need to be mindful of how I interact with female students and colleagues. For example, I don't allow a female student in my office with the door closed. As well, I do not touch female students (except for hugs at the graduation ceremony). For many men, it's super easy not to creep on women. Yet for other men, it's not so easy. They may think "wait a minute, if I brush aside a student's hair and whisper in her ear, would that be 'inappropriate'? This is so hard!! If I make one false move I'm toast!". There is an element of being able to read a situation and intuitively "getting it". Yet is someone is wearing a self-absorbed narrow lens, it will distort their perception and make it much harder to intuitively know what is socially inappropriate. 99% of the time, I intuitively know what is inappropriate. I don't even have to think about it. It's very rare that I have to consciously think about what is inappropriate. The last example was a year ago when a female student asked me to go out to dinner with her to discuss her career options. She was a research student in my lab. . . It seemed like a grey area and I had to think about it. I decided it would be ok to go out for lunch at a cafe on campus, since this is much more casual and transparent. Yet with that said, there are a small percentage of females with the intention of entrapment.

I would say the perception that a man who flirts with a woman has a good chance of being "killed by society" is a highly distorted view. It's context-dependent and men need to learn what is inappropriate in a given situation. For example, it would be highly inappropriate for a professor to sexually advance on his female students. Likewise, it would be inappropriate for a boss to use his power to isolate his female workers and sexually advance on them. The list goes on and on. . . There is innocent flirting that is mutual and "flirting" that is unwelcomed / borderline sexual harassment. There needs to be consequences for that form of "flirting". Unfortunately, many men are so self absorbed that they don't understand boundaries and what is inappropriate. I would disagree that "being a man" means being able to sexually advance on any woman you want in any circumstance. I would define "being a man" includes understanding when making sexual advances is inappropriate.

This depends on how we define "masculinity" and "being a man". If we define "being a man" as drinking a six pack of beer at a sporting event, getting into a brawl, driving home drunk and not letting anyone tell you how to live your life - then we would consider any laws / rules trying to prevent this behavior to be "an agenda trying to repress masculinity and making men scared of being men". Interpreting social dynamics through a narrow lens and generalizing as if it was a wide lens will create distortion. Notice how sneaky assumptions are, by examining the assumptions. "If 'they' want you dead if a woman says a word against you and if a woman get raped and everyone is on her side and if a man who gets falsely accused is finished as a guy, then society is biased". Assumptions can cause distortion.

Spiral Dynamics is closely related to identity. When people interpret it as a hierarchal structure, they will often dismiss the framework or mis-access their development (as being higher). This isn't unique to Orange. If you asked someone centered in Blue if they are rational and base their beliefs on evidence (Orange), they will say "yes". What would happen if we flipped the structure of SD such that we placed Orange higher than Green or Yellow. We could say that Green is lower because it's emotional and doesn't value facts and evidence. We could say Yellow is lower because Yellow gets lost in big picture thinking isn't grounded in an objective reality. Here, Orange would have "permission" to say "Yes, I'm at Orange - more evolved than Green and Yellow". This dynamic is seen in all sorts of developmental areas. Yet I would say SD mis-assessment is much more common than for self assessment in things like learning math or a foreign language. Most intermediate level students learning Spanish will generally assess themself at an intermediate level.

An old thread, The OP’s last visit to the forum was n 2019.

The thread has become overly personalized and antagonistic.

For sure. And not just this forum, there are many spaces we can create that involve groundless not-knowing. Yet grounding comes in handy at times.

@Zion You ask good questions with a curious mind. Good questions can often reveal a variety of good insights - coming from different perspectives. There is no one objective meaning of terms such as ‘‘balance’ and 'equality'. We create the distinctions. That is the beautiful interplay between formless and form. While exploring this area, I would *balance* differences and similarities. I would treat the two *equally*

Nice first post.

Sounds backwards to me. I’ve found it more important to “double check” expert/masters of spirituality by psychedelics.

There are pros and cons about whether or not to have mitigation restrictions. Yet let's be fair and objective. Death rate frequency is only one metric when considering public health. There could be a virus that has a 0% death rate, yet causes 40% of the population to experience paralysis and blindness. The hospitals become filled with people. Even though everyone survives, there is a major stress on the health care system and there are no beds or doctors available for other illness like strokes, broken bones, cancer treatment etc. The virus has a 0% death rate, yet we would still consider it to have a severe public health impact. What about starving children in Africa? What about abused children? What about the Uyghur people in China? What about. . . What about. . . These issues are not mutually exclusive. Yet one person cannot address every issue simultaneously. If I speak about a health care crisis in a pandemic, it doesn't mean that it is the only social issue. The issues of crappy fast food, cigarettes etc are also social health issues, yet they also have distinctions. Each health care issue has it's own dynamics. For example, crappy fast food has a negative impact on social health. It increases obesity, diabetes and mortality. Yet there is a balance between individual freedom and social good. Most people would agree that we should not allow restaurants to serve Anthrax Burgers, regardless of how delicious they might be - because the social harm would be immediate and severe. Yet where to draw the line with crappy fast food gets trickier, because the health implications are not as immediately severe. Things like cigarettes are totally different. If someone eats McDonald's burgers, it doesn't directly impact the health of another person. Yet if someone is smoking, it impacts people around them. Therefore, it is easier to justify having indoor smoking bans than having burger bans. Similarly, covid is contagious. If someone has covid in public, that puts people around them at risk. Therefore, it is much easier to justify public policies. Yet I do agree with you about proportionality. We should administer our limited resources proportional to harm.

It's relative to how "replicated" is defined. It is impossible to 100% replicate any experiment. To do so, one would need to travel back in time to have the exact same conditions. Today I did an experiment testing the effect of a drug on locomotion of fruit flies. It is impossible to 100% replicate that experiment. There is no way to get every single variable exactly the same. It is impossible to have the flies, food, drug concentration, temperature, humidity, lighting, handling etc. to be exactly the same. There will be some variability of conditions if we try to reproduce the experiment. The question is the level of experimental variability we are willing to accept and the variance within results we are willing to accept. I think the article made good points about how science can be sloppy.

Replication is an issue in improving science, yet keep in mind that "replication" is relative. It is impossible to absolutely replicate an experiment and results. There is a zero percent chance of absolute replication. This raises the issue of what counts as "replicated". What are the thresholds we set? What level of error and variance do we allow between experiments? The article you linked defined "replication" in an partially misleading way. For example, if a drug study shows an increase of joint mobility of 17% and another tries to replicate the experiment and finds a 28% increase in joint mobility, it was technically not replicated - since the second study improved mobility even more. Yet this is misleading because the studies replicated efficacy. Suppose we do a similar drug study 10x and find the following percentage of improvement relative to controls: 12%. 15%, 8%, 22%, 3%, 10%, 7%, 1%, 24%, 19%. Technically, no experiment was "replicated". Yet that is extremely misleading since ALL of the experiments shows improvement over controls. From this perspective, the result is replicated and, taken together, would be very strong evidence that the drug has efficacy. Yet with that said, the article brought up a lot of valid concerns about replication - particularly in the psychological sciences.