Speaking of entitlement feminism...
I never accused you of being blind to it, just that you tend to have a certain bias towards inflating the nefarious things that men do and glossing over the ones that women do.
As for stats on gaslighting: well, no, which you knew before you even asked the question, since the entire point was that it works on a man's say-so only, whether the woman is actually crazy or not, and there can be no unbiased data.
In that case, I fail to see how I could possibly view that as a valid counter-argument or counter-point. We could assume that 50% of women in mental institutions got "gas lit" or 10%.
As for how often it happens now, how often have you seen a woman ad-hominemed with the suggestion that she's crazy/emotional/menstruating/whatever, and therefore no one needs to listen to her? It's just not quite as bad now as it was in the Victorian era because it's harder to lock people up in psych wards without their permission.
http://www.helium.com/items/1846276-gaslighting
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... slighting/
http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/20 ... %E2%80%9D/
http://jebrown.us/Relationshop/Definiti ... hting.html
In all fairness, I have known my share of emotional/illogical women, and I'd wager on women overall being more inclined to emotional behavior than men. Or it could just be that women are more likely to express their emotion through physical manifestations of it (facial expressions, body language) and thus are interpreted as being more emotional.
Your sources here are discredited by their own one-sidedness, if someone is upset at my behavior, their reaction of X, is just as valid as my reaction of why. For instance, if you're telling me off for something I said that upset you, then my reaction of "grow a pair ffs" is no worse or better than yours.
What your articles theme as "gas lighting" is in fact largely a refusal to validate the subjective experience of another person.
It reminds me of something I heard said about people being offended, "Being offended is an active act, you don't just *become" offended, you elect to take offense".
When I hang out with my male friends, its fairly common to make derogatory comments to and about them. Questioning their manhood is fairly common, so are comments about their sexuality, appearance, behavior and a host of other things. Every guy realizes that these are not meant in a serious manner, even though they occasionally have a grain of truth to them. However, if a woman enters our "reality" making similar comments to her will 8/10 times cause her to react negatively, In this case is the problem the woman or the men?
WRT. the GAO report: yes, there are weaknesses in it. There are weaknesses in any study; it does not lessen the impact of my claim that the source is not perfect. However, overall, it did account for many of the factors that you previously claimed hadn't been accounted for, and still found a significant pay gap; rather than just your pull-quote, I suggest that any interested readers look it up (GAO report to congress on women's earnings) and read at least the introduction themselves.
It does actually lessen your claim, because your claim was related to a perceived presence of discrimination, which isn't proven by the report as the causality for the lower wages is not found or described with every variable taken into account. As I've said about every report anyone has ever linked me on the topic, "It proves that there is a wage cap, but proves nothing of what in fact causes it".
It's somewhat akin to the methodology of christian debaters:
"What caused the big bang"
"I don't know"
"Then god did it".
LOGIC FAIL
You CANNOT prove a negative! So the fact that there's no proof that autistic men are not more likely to rape is moot point. The fact that there is no proof that they ARE means that is neither reasonable nor fair to assume that they are any more dangerous than NT men. I cannot believe that stupid blogger who studied science can't figure this out.
I completely sympathize with women to do whatever is necessary to avoid being raped. However, the trouble is that a lot women are being given BAD ADVICE and here in the US rape is not uncommon. And FYI bub, I have known several women who have been raped and guess what? Most of them were raped by people they were familiar with; one of them was raped by her own f*cking father! My first gf confided in me that her first bf raped her(when she was fully conscious and with physical force)when she was in High School and his stupid ass never got charged with it. That's the ugly truth: Date rape is much harder to prove in court then stranger rape, even though it is far more common. Another friend was raped by a sailor on a cruise boat in the Galapagos Islands. She had seen him many times before, and even met him and was not fearful of him at all..........Until the day he snuck up and attacked her when she was strolling along the deck.
One of the best ways to avoid rape is not to go out alone at night; especially to places where alcohol flows freely and there a lot of drunk guys around. Don't accept drinks from men at bars, clubs, and parties. That suave charming stranger who you just met and buys you a drink and then offers you a ride home is far more likely to rape you than that weird, socially awkward guy who tries to hit on you in a crowded public place. Unfortunately, human instincts and intuition are just NOT infallible! You need to use a combination of trusting your instincts and using your Brain to avoid trouble and know when you're in a dangerous situation.
Rape in public places is extremely rare. When stranger rape does happen(and by that I mean where the victim has no chance to meet their rapist before he attacks), it almost always happens in places that are hidden from view and or deserted(which includes late at night) like wooded parks or even out in the woods. If a woman is walking alone in a place that is either woodsy or totally deserted and she encounters a male stranger who is bigger than her, then she does have a legit reason to be scared.
Last edited by AspieRogue on 10 Oct 2012, 2:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I certainly hope that Vexxxy can learn to understand and make use of logic someday!
One of the paragraphs I quoted in the OPost was the stupid b***h getting butthurt about her being judged in return for the judgements she passed on autistic men. Oh the HORROR! What this really about is not women truly being in danger of rape, it's about their inability to learn to take what they dish out: Judgement of others. Some say "judge not others lest though be judged", I say judge and prepare to be judged.
Also,
BUMP!
You know what's REALLY a buncha s**t? Apparently, if you go out drinking with a girl, you BOTH get drunk and have sex, and then she decides AFTER THE FACT that she wishes she hadn't had sex with you, according to law, you've just committed rape, because apparently her judgement is lowered when she's under the influence of alchol... And I guess guys are just totally immune to alcohol... What the f**k ever. It takes two people to have sex, not one, and if you don't like someone's advances, it's in your place to tell them so and/or fight back/run away if needed. If someone starts touching you in a way that makes you uncomfortable, and you just sit there and take it, then you can't call it rape. You're also an idiot for just letting it happen.
Actually, if someone starts touching you(and you're a guy)in a way that makes you uncomfortable then you have every legal and moral right to tell them to stop AND resist if they refuse to oblige! And you are an idiot if you just sit there and let it happen. But in our overly litigious society I think it's best to not have sex with drunk people(or maybe even when you're drunk)and refuse to have sex with a drunk chick who offers or tries to get in your pants. Believe it or not, from the standpoint of the law a woman can rape a man and a drunk chick making advances on you and refusing to stop when you tell her slu*ty ass so is considered rape.
Or that it's best to record every sexual act you ever undergo from start to finish (with consent). Then you can be sued for invasion of privacy instead.
The legal system, nor public opinion, will never consider it so, though. Crikey, many have enough problem dealing with more 'traditional' rape claims.
That all women should be allowed complete control of men?
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
I don't like PMs
You have no proof that you are not a rapist, so it's same for women to assume by default that you are. Sorry!
Sure. And what is the problem with that?
I have to earn their trust. And you know what? Women trying to approach me would have to earn trust too. I don't trust anybody by default and it would be lame for me to expect otherwise from other people.
This ultimately means that the fair thing to tell women is that autistic men are NOT any more dangerous than normal men despite their strange behaviors and social awkwardness and that there is no reason why they should be feared.
Autistic men are in average equally dangerous. So, women should be equally wary of all men, including autistics and NTs.
real danger signs and certain situations that they need to watch out for: Like leaving your drink unattended at a bar/club for some guy to spike with roofies or GHB, or agreeing to go home with a guy you just met at a bar/nightclub after getting drunk(or even tipsy); regardless of how charming he may be or how much you may trust him or feel safe being alone with him.
Err, it is as if you are not paying attention. The blog post you quoted is simply saying that just because a man is autistic, you shouldn't stop making those precautions. It is saying just that, be as careful around autistic men as you are around NTs. And being careful means exactly what you are mentioning there.
_________________
.

