A closer look at Clam Chowder Crowder (ftr I coined that)
Because that is what they do in this country.
Woman claims sexual harassment, then this machine of bulling goes on.
1 1st the pussy grabber or whatever, plays the victim and say she is lying..(O'Rielly to the NYT, 'think of my kids', no, you should've when you were doing the assaulting)........if that doesn't work
2 Smear the actual victim, i.e. say she is a slut, she wears slutty clothes.....if that doesn't work
3 Sic attorneys on her to scare her.....if that doesn't work
4 settle w/out admitting guilt and where she can't say shit.
You saw it play out in the campaign w/Trump, i.e. the self described pussy grabber (or in other, words sexual assaulter.)
LOL at Fox "news" for feeling they can go after HW, and at the hypocrisy of the RW.
LW kicked HW to the curb, at least. Trump is still head of the RW party.
O'Reilly Settled New Harassment Claim, Then Fox renewed His contract.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment.html
San Francisco crowned the ‘world’s best’ city to live: survey
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...o-live-survey/
There are many retarded laws in America, but cash settlements from alleged sex abusers is right up there with the worst. It defies belief.
No justice or protection for women, while it also leaves men vulnerable to false accusations.
As for Fox News. I doubt there's a more dangerous media organization anywhere in the world.
If you can't sexually harass women freely when you're rich and powerful then what's the point?
The bottom line of why shaming the victim works so well is that 1 million years of evolution has hard-wired us into being very critical of female promiscuity, much more so than rich old men using power to "abuse" young women. There is actual biological/selection reasons for this, as female promiscuity at the population level is historically bad for a number of reasons, e.g. (1) STDs that screw up your reproductive junk and make you less likely to have healthy offspring, (2) From the males perspective if your mate sleeps around there is a much lower chance your offspring is even yours, and this is a evolutionary disaster.
Of course one could argue because of medicine, birth control, etc. we live in a society where these concerns are not as valid anymore. But they are still a vital part of our psychological hardwiring.
Also, again for PC reasons we are being hyper critical of "This country" when in reality this is a feature of human societies in general and just how things have always been in every society. In most societies it is not even an issue because they don't even recognize old men taking sexual advantage of young women as even being a problem worth addressing in the first place. There is no "abuse" and no "victims," it is just how life works.
Not necessarily true. What you write makes sense, and I also tend to think about things from an evolutionary perspective. But it is easy to fall into the trap of creating an evolutionary story that fits what we observe in society. It is less clear that evolution actually brought us to this point. It may be at least partly cultural.
We know about how human societies have worked in recorded history. We know a lot less about how it worked before that. There is some evidence that for pre-agricultural humans, who were hunter-gatherers, sex was a communal activity like it is for bonobos. The men hunted together and the women raised the children together and had joint responsibility. Children may not even have known who their father was and vice-versa. It may have been only with the development of agriculture, which allowed people to stay put on one piece of land, that the concept of individual ownership (of mates as well as land) came to be. Even today in the few small and isolated hunter-gatherer societies remaining on earth, there is a lot less possessiveness and jealousy.
Even if what you say is completely true, it is a fact of life in modern industrial civilization that we must temper some of our basic instincts and question whether they are still useful.
HILLARY WON
No. Human adolescence is way too long and human children are way too weak and dependent. You would never find a single evolutionary biologist who would argue there is any chance humans were ever raised the ways you are speculating. The amount of help from extended family/community probably differed some, but evolutionary biologists are very confident the basic family structure was a pair bond, where the man "worked" for food and provided shelter/protection and the female stayed home and raised children and did domestic work. And in this evolutionary context, it is very predictable why we evolved a strong disposition to viewing disfavorably female promiscuity.
As far as questioning whether our basic instincts are still useful and tempering them, I would agree with you. The problem is that because of PC culture we can't even acknowledge these instincts even exist. Privately most educated people would agree with what I said, but publicly if someone said what I said they would be labeled as misogynist and roundly denounced. I don't think we will ever be able to rationally move beyond our instincts, because it is not politically correct to even acknowledge we have any. Instead, social sciences are literally making up a completely false natural history that has no basis in reality, and making up false terms like "rape culture" and "toxic masculinity" and "white privilege" which do nothing but provide animosity and division.
Do you mean evolutionary psychology?
I guess. I don't really make a big distinction between psychology and natural history. Our understanding of how our brain mechanically works is reaching the point where it isn't necessary or practical to make such a distinction IMO.
For example, by mapping the parts of our brains that fire, scientists have determined that when it comes to decision making, we mainly use the reptilian parts of our brains; which means much of our decision making is emotional and "instinctive," and then our cognitive centers come in after the fact and make up rationales for the decisions we make.
Congratulations sir, you are right. The reptilian part of our brain makes almost all of our decisions. Consciousness is a fluke, and likely an evolutionary error. It is something our reptilian brain allows us to have to pass the time. There is so much to this. Anyway, well done. A+ for the day.
Hongkonger.........a barrel of a man....
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
A rich man who dodged the draft, claiming bone spurs, says he doesn't consider someone who was a POW a war hero... same guy can't take the high road in a dispute with a woman whose husband was just killed fighting for our country... and you guys support him like he's a Godsend.
What in the holy fuck is wrong with you people?
There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)