Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/519663411...#sp=show-clips

    The linked story goes like this. The Harvard men's soccer team had developed a list of the girls soccer team. The list rated the woman on a number scale in regards to sexual attractiveness and physical appearance. It went on to ascribe a preferred sexual position for each girl based on their looks. For example, one girl was described as plain looking and ascribed a sexually conservative outlook, so they figured she would prefer missionary position.

    Upon discovering this, "locker room talk" the men's soccer team was shut down for the year and forfeited the rest of it's games. The men were roundly decried as being "sexist" and "objectifying the women" who were all highly insulted by the whole ordeal.

    ---end story summary---

    Point #1 - war on men, nature of a man attacked
    This story is a prime example regarding the "war on men". The war on men takes basic aspects of men and the male psychology and demonizes it. For example, grading a woman's sexual appearance. Is a generally inherent way men are wired. Men are highly visual creatures and it represents such a strong influence on men that to demonize it's expression is to demonize what it is to be a man. Further this aspect of men has no counter part in woman, so they can not possibly understand it. Finally, this aspect of being a man is used in just about every aspect of our society.

    Consider this video which makes my point.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WZFeA4FzI


    Point #2 - Arbitrary standard
    Secondly the war on men demonizes actions that are not illegal and not even socially wrong. It applies an arbitrary standard that is slanted against men (per point #1). Here the men produced, as far as I can tell, a private list for their club. It does not appear that this list was published so as to shame the woman, and was indeed "locker room" talk. In that it occurred specifically in the locker room. This is arbitrary because the university has said nothing regarding the many other lists grading men and women based on their sexual attractiveness. Or does one think that the university has banned "People magazine" or perhaps maxim magazine is not allowed? The point is, if other publications are allowed on campus that produce sexual appearance grades for people, then why are their own students punished for doing the same, and in a private manner no less.

    Point #3 - Privacy/ locker room talk
    The idea of "locker room talk" is being attacked here. Implying that all statements are inherently public. As they said, "The whole world is our locker room". This demonizes the private thoughts of people and punishes them for private thoughts that are made public without their consent. If a woman's private parts are made public without consent, we recognize that is a violation. Why then are private thoughts not also recognized as a violation of that persons privacy? (man or woman) These men are being held as being rude, even when their comments were made in a socially acceptable place. (IE private place).

    Point #4 - Demeaning woman

    Demeaning implies that the respect of others is diminished by ones actions. The only ones this is occurring to are the men. It is not demeaning to be subject to the human condition or to express ones normal human condition. To think so is immature and ignorant of the human condition. That is the Kindergaden class kids screaming "O you farted!". The men are expressing basic male behavior, and are being demeaned because of it. The woman who is #1 or their list is not.

    -----
    conclusion
    ----

    Men inherently see woman in a sexual manner. It is the way men are wired. This does not necessarily mean that the man devalues her other assets like personality, intelligence, talent, skills. To assume it does is sexist and bigoted against men. Harvard, and maybe woman in general need to grow up and recognize that the reason our society is neck deep in cleavage, legs and basically all things attractive females posses on every bill board, sign and news outlet.. is because that is appealing to a basic Human fact about men.
    At the very least, I ask that if you are going to demonize men for their basic traits, at least be consistent and verbally berate any woman who is playing upon those base drives.


    ---Thoughts? Is Harvard being unreasonable? Are they attacking men for being men?

    DISCUSS!
    To serve man.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This story is a prime example regarding the "war on men". The war on men takes basic aspects of men and the male psychology and demonizes it. For example, grading a woman's sexual appearance. Is a generally inherent way men are wired. Men are highly visual creatures and it represents such a strong influence on men that to demonize it's expression is to demonize what it is to be a man. Further this aspect of men has no counter part in woman, so they can not possibly understand it. Finally, this aspect of being a man is used in just about every aspect of our society.
    I agree that men are wired to visually appreciate women and likewise have a sexual attraction to women. But this does not excuse any and all behavior that a man may engage in because of that. Misbehavior that is rooted in such appreciation is still misbehavior. And pointing out that some men have misbehaved is not a demonization of the root urges that contributed to the misbehavior.

    A man setting up a hidden camera in the girl's locker room and secretly recording them undressing would also be an example of a misbehavior rooted in these urges. And likewise, it is not at all wrong to condemn the man who does this nor is it reasonable to see this as a criticism of men's sexual urges in general.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point #2 - Arbitrary standard
    Secondly the war on men demonizes actions that are not illegal and not even socially wrong.
    if you are using this event as an example of something that is "not illegal and not even socially wrong", I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that what these men did is not socially wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point is, if other publications are allowed on campus that produce sexual appearance grades for people, then why are their own students punished for doing the same, and in a private manner no less.
    That is a question, not an argument. I bring this up because forming one's argument as a question basically shifts the burden to the respondent when the burden should be yours. If I were to answer that question and point out that the women in Maxim are not girls at their school, then you can question my reasoning and therefore the burden is on me to defend my argument when the burden should be yours.

    So if you want to make the point that there is some inconsistency or double-standard, you have the burden to make the argument. And as I said, questions are not arguments.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The idea of "locker room talk" is being attacked here. Implying that all statements are inherently public. As they said, "The whole world is our locker room". This demonizes the private thoughts of people and punishes them for private thoughts that are made public without their consent. If a woman's private parts are made public without consent, we recognize that is a violation. Why then are private thoughts not also recognized as a violation of that persons privacy? (man or woman) These men are being held as being rude, even when their comments were made in a socially acceptable place. (IE private place).
    But it's not just a comment nor private thoughts. They published a list so it's written material. So your argument is based on a false premise.

    I'm pretty sure if it was strictly a private conversation about women's relative attractiveness, this wouldn't have happened.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Demeaning implies that the respect of others is diminished by ones actions. The only ones this is occurring to are the men. It is not demeaning to be subject to the human condition or to express ones normal human condition. To think so is immature and ignorant of the human condition. That is the Kindergaden class kids screaming "O you farted!". The men are expressing basic male behavior, and are being demeaned because of it. The woman who is #1 or their list is not.
    If she's #1 on the list strictly based on being the most f***able, yeah, it is demeaning to her.

    And if anyone demeaned the men on the soccer team, it's the men themselves. This excuse for their behavior based on them showing their basic urges is balderdash. I have the same urges as every other man and I've managed to not do something that degrading to my female peers.

    When one grades women in this fashion the scale goes from top to bottom so not only are the "hot" women being rated as being hot, the less attractive ones will be at the bottom of the list so these women are more or less being officially designated as "dogs" which one does not have to do in order to act on one's sexual desires. In college, if I was attracted to a girl, I had a desire to try to get with her and might tell me male friends that I wanted to have sex with her but there was nothing in my sexual desires that made it necessary, or even desirable, to make a list of all of the women in my locality and rate them from first to worst. I tried to date the ones I was attracted to and I didn't pursue the ones that I wasn't attracted to.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Men inherently see woman in a sexual manner. It is the way men are wired. This does not necessarily mean that the man devalues her other assets like personality, intelligence, talent, skills. To assume it does is sexist and bigoted against men.
    It would be bigoted and wrong to say that ALL men do that (not to mention engaging in a hasty generalization fallacy). But it's certainly not unfair to say that some men sometimes do view women as mere sexual objects and that is wrong. And it's also wrong for men to portray that specific message.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    At the very least, I ask that if you are going to demonize men for their basic traits, at least be consistent and verbally berate any woman who is playing upon those base drives.
    But then these men are not being demonized for their basic traits. They are not in trouble just because they have sexual desire for women. And they are not in trouble for merely expressing sexual desire.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    The men aren't being attacked for being men - attacked isn't even the right word. They're being punished for being assholes. The governing principle in play here is how, as a society, we must determine whether this is something we will tolerate. Clearly, our society doesn't appear to tolerate it, thankfully.
    I don't have any children, but if I had a daughter, I would not be happy at all if she were the subject of such sexist behaviour, and I would want to take steps to ensure that it didn't happen to her. Likewise, if I had a son, I would be very ashamed to know he was participating in something that caused others to fell less than they are.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I agree that men are wired to visually appreciate women and likewise have a sexual attraction to women. But this does not excuse any and all behavior that a man may engage in because of that. Misbehavior that is rooted in such appreciation is still misbehavior. And pointing out that some men have misbehaved is not a demonization of the root urges that contributed to the misbehavior.
    I agree, however what is misbehavior is generally based (at least for me) in violating some other persons rights.
    So, if their personal expression didn't violate anyone rights then you have no grounds to call it misbehavior.

    If you seek to call it rude, then we should examine that.
    Suppose we agree that it is rude to fart in front of a woman. It then comes out that men are farting in the locker room and having huge fart battles, rating farts based on smell, intensity, longevity, flammability, and appearance when applicable. Are these men being rude to woman? No of course not, because there is a specific aspect of rudeness missing. Namely the presence of a woman. The same seems to be the case here. I would agree that if these guys walked up to each woman and shouting out their sexual grade, that would be rude. In private.. well, men are going to fart. And woman should not be incensed when they find out men do in fact fart in private even if it is a giant fart battle to the death.

    Long story short.. support that it is misbehavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    A man setting up a hidden camera in the girl's locker room and secretly recording them undressing would also be an example of a misbehavior rooted in these urges. And likewise, it is not at all wrong to condemn the man who does this nor is it reasonable to see this as a criticism of men's sexual urges in general.
    That is because it violates that persons privacy.
    Is this an example of woman's privacy being violated, or men's? answer as I understand it, is the men's privacy is being violated.. unless you can show me where they intended to publish this info outside of their club. I don't mean that as a shifting the burden, simply stating the evidence I require to change my mind on this point.

    If not the woman, then your example is fundamentally flawed.

    What then is the underlying principle? Because it can't be privacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    if you are using this event as an example of something that is "not illegal and not even socially wrong", I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that what these men did is not socially wrong.
    I offered several examples. First is all of the advertisement focused at exploiting mans inward tendency to rate woman's sexual attractiveness.
    Second is all the main stream publications that do EXACTLY that. Namely rate woman on attractive scales.

    Then I point to Harvard's lack of any restriction on those.

    So, I have supported my assertion. Do you have a response? Or any basis for an objection?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That is a question, not an argument.
    It was a question intended to highlight the general social acceptable nature that is arbitrary being singled out in this case.
    Was my point not clear? and if so, is it more clear now?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I bring this up because forming one's argument as a question basically shifts the burden to the respondent when the burden should be yours. If I were to answer that question and point out that the women in Maxim are not girls at their school, then you can question my reasoning and therefore the burden is on me to defend my argument when the burden should be yours.
    I question, not the girls in maxim, but point to the social norm, and the the lack of objection from the school in regards to that social norm outside of this example.

    Perhaps some modesty rule would show that they care about this in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it's not just a comment nor private thoughts. They published a list so it's written material. So your argument is based on a false premise.

    I'm pretty sure if it was strictly a private conversation about women's relative attractiveness, this wouldn't have happened.
    Not published to the general public.. was it?
    I could be wrong, but it seemed to be an internal list of the team.
    The report said it was a "scouting report", which implies internal nature.

    *Note important issue, I would love to be shown wrong on this, otherwise not much point discussing it more, it stands as private conversation between men,even though it is written. (written =/= public).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If she's #1 on the list strictly based on being the most f***able, yeah, it is demeaning to her.
    Why? What in the world is "most beautiful girl" established in relation too?
    Is it something other than sexuality? Please explain.
    Does calling "****ability" make the inherent workings of a mans mind more unacceptable? Do you find "sexual attraction" some how distinct and different than "****ability"?

    If not, then your using language and profanity as an illogical weapon against a logical point. (Ie poisoning the well fallacy.. no that's not right?)

    *Just a note, there appears to be more to the scouting report than simply looks. Such as attitude towards sex, sexual experience. **


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if anyone demeaned the men on the soccer team, it's the men themselves. This excuse for their behavior based on them showing their basic urges is balderdash. I have the same urges as every other man and I've managed to not do something that degrading to my female peers.
    What because you don't say it out loud in private or a private group, means you haven't demeaned them?
    So a racist, isn't a racist, unless he says it out-loud or in a private setting? (I doubt it)

    The problem is, they are calling the act of grading woman demeaning, and that act is done almost innately by nearly every man ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    When one grades women in this fashion the scale goes from top to bottom so not only are the "hot" women being rated as being hot, the less attractive ones will be at the bottom of the list so these women are more or less being officially designated as "dogs" which one does not have to do in order to act on one's sexual desires. In college, if I was attracted to a girl, I had a desire to try to get with her and might tell me male friends that I wanted to have sex with her but there was nothing in my sexual desires that made it necessary, or even desirable, to make a list of all of the women in my locality and rate them from first to worst. I tried to date the ones I was attracted to and I didn't pursue the ones that I wasn't attracted to.
    Maybe if you call it "Swipe right or left" it will sound more socially acceptable to rate woman based on looks?
    Your argument is ********.
    It happens, and your position that it is demeaning is indefensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It would be bigoted and wrong to say that ALL men do that (not to mention engaging in a hasty generalization fallacy). But it's certainly not unfair to say that some men sometimes do view women as mere sexual objects and that is wrong. And it's also wrong for men to portray that specific message.
    You lost me. are you objecting to that line you quoted?

    ---------------

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The men aren't being attacked for being men - attacked isn't even the right word. They're being punished for being assholes.
    What for having a private list?
    I don't think we have the same idea of what being an asshole means.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The governing principle in play here is how, as a society, we must determine whether this is something we will tolerate. Clearly, our society doesn't appear to tolerate it, thankfully.
    Well that is ********. Come on, I already gave two main stream examples, and I could list them all day long if you like.
    It's obvious our society doesn't simply tolerate it, but it is actively sold to people... "swipe right".

    Concede this point, or don't bother responding. It's simply too obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I don't have any children, but if I had a daughter, I would not be happy at all if she were the subject of such sexist behaviour, and I would want to take steps to ensure that it didn't happen to her.
    Support that it is "sexist".

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Likewise, if I had a son, I would be very ashamed to know he was participating in something that caused others to fell less than they are.
    Don't teach your kids to be ignorant of the human condition. As to what your going to teach your kids.. I don't see the relevance here.
    Society is a certain way right now, and if you wish to push your convictions on other so as to limit their access to society... well aren't you intolerant.


    ---------------Edit----
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us...port.html?_r=0
    New York times commenting on the story


    The school News Paper that broke the story.
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...r-2012-report/

    This one is relevant to the question of privacy. The letter was produced in 2012 and was sent to a specific mailing list.
    Further

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The document and the entire email list the team used that season were, until recently, publicly available and searchable through Google Groups, an email list-serv service offered through Google.
    Personally, this seems like it was intended to be private and for the conversation here we should not consider it a public publication. I think evidenced by the fact that it existed for 4 years without anyone outside the group reading it... apparently. Further, the fact that this is a 4 year old event makes the punishment even more disproportionate IMO.
    Thoughts?
    Last edited by MindTrap028; November 5th, 2016 at 06:18 PM.
    To serve man.

  5. Likes Someguy liked this post
  6. #5
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Long story short.. support that *it is misbehavior.
    "It" in this case being the locker room talk of the Harvard's men's soccer team; talk that these men intentionally kept private precisely because it would be rightly regarded as unseemly at best in mixed company.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because from my position Justice flows from God (just like morality).
    Ephesians 4:29 - Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

    Proverbs 16:28 - A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.

    James 1:26 - If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

    Proverbs 20:19 - Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.

    Matthew 12:36 - I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

    Psalm 101:5 - Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not endure.

    Psalm 34:13 - Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.

    Titus 3:2 - To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

    Proverbs 17:4 - An evildoer listens to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a mischievous tongue.

    Proverbs 26:20 - For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.

    2 Timothy 2:16 - But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

    Proverbs 10:18 - The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.

    Romans 1:29 - They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

    Exodus 23:1 - “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

    Leviticus 19:16 - You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord.

    Philippians 4:8 - Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

  7. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I agree, however what is misbehavior is generally based (at least for me) in violating some other persons rights.
    So, if their personal expression didn't violate anyone rights then you have no grounds to call it misbehavior.

    If you seek to call it rude, then we should examine that.
    Suppose we agree that it is rude to fart in front of a woman. It then comes out that men are farting in the locker room and having huge fart battles, rating farts based on smell, intensity, longevity, flammability, and appearance when applicable. Are these men being rude to woman? No of course not, because there is a specific aspect of rudeness missing. Namely the presence of a woman. The same seems to be the case here. I would agree that if these guys walked up to each woman and shouting out their sexual grade, that would be rude. In private.. well, men are going to fart. And woman should not be incensed when they find out men do in fact fart in private even if it is a giant fart battle to the death.

    Long story short.. support that it is misbehavior.
    I am not arguing that it is misbehavior. I am responding to your argument which seems to forward that because these men were acting on their natural sexual urges, what they did was not misbehavior (as in something worthy of punishment). Behavior based on natural sexual urges does not make it uniformly acceptable.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is because it violates that persons privacy.
    Is this an example of woman's privacy being violated, or men's? answer as I understand it, is the men's privacy is being violated.. unless you can show me where they intended to publish this info outside of their club. I don't mean that as a shifting the burden, simply stating the evidence I require to change my mind on this point.

    If not the woman, then your example is fundamentally flawed.
    No it's not. You apparently don't realize what it is an example of. I'm providing an example of something that is rooted in a man's natural sexual urges but is undoubtedly misbehavior thereby demonstrating that being rooted in natural sexual urges does not save an activity from being misbehavior.

    As you correctly stated, what this hypothetical person did is a violation of privacy and that would be the basis of considering his behavior punishable. The fact that he's acting on his natural sexual urges does not change that. And likewise the fact that the soccer team were acting on their natural sexual urges does not change the fact that their behavior was wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I offered several examples. First is all of the advertisement focused at exploiting mans inward tendency to rate woman's sexual attractiveness.
    Second is all the main stream publications that do EXACTLY that. Namely rate woman on attractive scales.

    Then I point to Harvard's lack of any restriction on those.

    So, I have supported my assertion. Do you have a response? Or any basis for an objection?
    I do. Your argument assumes that the basis of the team's punishment is merely the fact that they rated women but you have not supported that that is the basis of their punishment. If it isn't, then your argument is not valid for you have misidentified the basis of their punishment and therefore cannot say that society tolerates the same thing they were punished for. So you need to support that the basis of punishment is what you, at this point, seem to assuming that it is.

    Just because they rated women does not mean that that in and of itself was the basis for punishment. If you want to argue that it was the basis, you will need to support that.

    So again, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that what the men did was socially acceptable.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It was a question intended to highlight the general social acceptable nature that is arbitrary being singled out in this case.
    Was my point not clear? and if so, is it more clear now?
    Your point will be clear when you state it directly. Asking a question and then stating what issue the question addresses is likewise not making an argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I question, not the girls in maxim, but point to the social norm, and the the lack of objection from the school in regards to that social norm outside of this example.
    But you are assuming that the issue regarding Maxim is the basis for the punishment. You have to support that that really is the case before you can support that there is some kind of inconsistency or double-standard.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not published to the general public.. was it?
    I could be wrong, but it seemed to be an internal list of the team.
    The report said it was a "scouting report", which implies internal nature.
    Regardless, it is NOT the same thing as a private thought or a private conversation. So your argument regarding those things does not apply.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why? What in the world is "most beautiful girl" established in relation too?
    Is it something other than sexuality? Please explain.
    Does calling "****ability" make the inherent workings of a mans mind more unacceptable? Do you find "sexual attraction" some how distinct and different than "****ability"?

    If not, then your using language and profanity as an illogical weapon against a logical point. (Ie poisoning the well fallacy.. no that's not right?)
    I'm intentionally using the term because it very well applies to the "scout report" and dampening what the report is about (not beauty, but sexual appeal) is misrepresenting what it is. Women do generally do find it demeaning to be seen it no other terms than how ****able they are, even if they rate high on the list.

    I'm just saying that women in general find that kind of thing demeaning. Maybe you think they shouldn't if they are near the top of the list, but it doesn't change the fact that they generally do.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What because you don't say it out loud in private or a private group, means you haven't demeaned them?
    So a racist, isn't a racist, unless he says it out-loud or in a private setting? (I doubt it)

    The problem is, they are calling the act of grading woman demeaning, and that act is done almost innately by nearly every man ever.
    Maybe in their heads. But again, the scout report is not in someone's head.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Maybe if you call it "Swipe right or left" it will sound more socially acceptable to rate woman based on looks?
    Your argument is ********.
    It happens, and your position that it is demeaning is indefensible.
    But then the burden is yours, here. You started the thread and therefore you have the burden to show that the judgment was wrong before I have any burden to show the opposite. So if you want to argue that the judgment was wrong because it was not demeaning to women, then you need to support that before I have any burden to support the opposite conclusion.

    So I'll worry about supporting that it's demeaning once you support that it's not demeaning.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You lost me. are you objecting to that line you quoted?
    I'm objecting to your claim that I (or anyone in particular) is demonizing men based on their basic traits. I have no problem with the general fact that men generally have a sexual attraction to women nor do i have a problem with every single action a man might take in regards to that attraction.

    It's only CERTAIN actions that a man might take is what i have a problem with.
    Last edited by mican333; November 6th, 2016 at 05:57 AM.

  8. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Anyone remember the female Duke student who made a powerpoint of her male sex partners, along with numerical scoring and graphic descriptions of the sex they had? And presented it in class? And everyone thought it was fantastic?

    Guess that's just the male privilege of being reduced to a sex object and be dehumanizingly assigned a number for our worth.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  9. Likes MindTrap028, Someguy liked this post
  10. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Anyone remember the female Duke student who made a powerpoint of her male sex partners, along with numerical scoring and graphic descriptions of the sex they had? And presented it in class? And everyone thought it was fantastic?
    Actually, I never heard of that. Can you provide support that this happened?

  11. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  12. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What for having a private list? I don't think we have the same idea of what being an asshole means.
    Apparently not, but if a group of people I knew started to talk about someone behind their back and make specific sexist and derogatory comments, I'd think they were assholes. The fact that they did it privately doesn't make them lesser assholes. Just picturing their "locker room" talks, the only description that comes to mind is "assholes".

    Well that is ********. Come on, I already gave two main stream examples, and I could list them all day long if you like. It's obvious our society doesn't simply tolerate it, but it is actively sold to people... "swipe right".
    I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Are you comparing what those assholes did to what magazines do? On what basis can that comparison be made to support your opinion that the school isn't justified in punishing them?

    Support that it is "sexist".
    Is "what they did isn't even sexist" part of your OP? I'm not sure it is. Since what they did is widely being considered to be sexist, then if you wish to challenge that as part of your OP, you'll have to support it. Also, you're ignoring the main point of that statement regarding "if I had a daughter". Why?

    Don't teach your kids to be ignorant of the human condition. As to what your going to teach your kids.. I don't see the relevance here.
    So you say "don't teach your kids to ... ", and follow up with "what you teach your kids is irrelevant". Ok, moving on.

    Society is a certain way right now, and if you wish to push your convictions on other so as to limit their access to society... well aren't you intolerant.
    I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. What does my shame if my son did this have to do with pushing convictions or limiting access to society?

  13. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Anyone remember the female Duke student who made a powerpoint of her male sex partners, along with numerical scoring and graphic descriptions of the sex they had? And presented it in class? And everyone thought it was fantastic?

    Guess that's just the male privilege of being reduced to a sex object and be dehumanizingly assigned a number for our worth.
    If that's the way you want to view, I won't try to change your opinion. From reading the links you provided, I hold a different opinion on it.

    But if you are saying that that is essentially the same as the Harvard soccer team situation, you will need to support that assertion.

  14. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Of Men

    Well, as a man, i can say that while I find women attractive and sexy, I don't primarily think of them as objects of conquest. Nor do I make lists of them or rate them or the like. Never have, and it never occured to me to do so. But if we want to generalize men.... We are the cause of most violence, most crime, and most warfare in pretty much every society in which we play a role which is to say, all of them. Not all women are innocent of these things, but their contributions in these areas of significant imorality and malphesance pales in comparison to our own. So, while any individual man may well be blameless (such as myself) I can say that a general disparagement of male behavior is probably well aimed compared to nearly any other demographic you might want to discriminate by.

    None of that is to justify any discrimination on my own sex, but if you have to declare war on one of the sexes, it should be mine.

    Privacy


    The #1 rule of privacy, is don't get caught. So long as no one knows you are doing it, you are home free with whatever it is you are doing. Get caught, and you have to face up to whatever it was you did, even if you didn't think anyone would find out. Folks should not go snooping into peoples private matters, but if you are doing something shamefull in private, and it gets out, well you still have to face up to whatever it was you got caught doing. Mind you, this is a social standard. We discount private information (imporperly discoverd) from legal procedings to ensure whe don't have an incentive for the state to snoop on us. But... if law enforcement didn't have to snoop, then private don't mean **** cause it ain't private once it gets out.

    I have some sympathy for the boys here. It's stupid and rude, but if they didn't get found out, no serious harm done. But it got out, so they have to account for being disrespectful asshats.

    Respect

    I think that is the key here. What they did was not a crime. But as fellow colleget athletes it was unsportsmanlike and disrespectful to fellow athletes and alumni. They appologised and face some repercussions as they should. Its not a dire punishment, its a serious one, but perhaps it will teach them to show some respect next time, or at least not leave evidence of it next time. It isn't just that they were bing lugheads about sex, its that they were disrespecting another athletic group at the school while being lugheads about sex. Had they been rating playboy bunnies or even soccer players outside their school/league I doubt anything would have come of it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. Likes MindTrap028, Dionysus, mican333 liked this post
  16. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    "It" in this case being the locker room talk of the Harvard's men's soccer team; talk that these men intentionally kept private precisely because it would be rightly regarded as unseemly at best in mixed company.
    Yea, do you agree that being done in private is relevant to if something is "rude" or not? Or maybe rather that the company one is in is relevant to what is and is not "socially acceptable"?


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ephesians 4:29 - Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

    Proverbs 16:28 - A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.

    James 1:26 - If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

    Proverbs 20:19 - Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.

    Matthew 12:36 - I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

    Psalm 101:5 - Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not endure.

    Psalm 34:13 - Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.

    Titus 3:2 - To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

    Proverbs 17:4 - An evildoer listens to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a mischievous tongue.

    Proverbs 26:20 - For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.

    2 Timothy 2:16 - But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

    Proverbs 10:18 - The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.

    Romans 1:29 - They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

    Exodus 23:1 - “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

    Leviticus 19:16 - You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord.

    Philippians 4:8 - Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
    Ah, so now you would like to live in a theocrcy?
    Shall I break in on some atheist only party and proclaim you all "socially unacceptable behavior" because you break the 10 commandments?
    Or perhapse kick you out of school (where I am in power) because you fail the first commandment, and thus are "socially unacceptable behavior"?

    I doubt it.

    I guess ultimatly the question your quotes beg, is.. wheret these guys supposed to be christian? If so, you have done well to show that they are failing to act like ones.
    That they are guilty of washing the outside of the bowl, or white washing a tomb.


    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I am not arguing that it is misbehavior. I am responding to your argument which seems to forward that because these men were acting on their natural sexual urges, what they did was not misbehavior (as in something worthy of punishment). Behavior based on natural sexual urges does not make it uniformly acceptable.
    I guess that would fall under point #4. (Demeaning woman)
    I was just thrown off by your repeated use of the word "misbehaving".

    I am attacking the ideas of what is "uniformally acceptable" and pointing out that some are arbitrary, and unequally and unjustifiably target men and typical male behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No it's not. You apparently don't realize what it is an example of. I'm providing an example of something that is rooted in a man's natural sexual urges but is undoubtedly misbehavior thereby demonstrating that being rooted in natural sexual urges does not save an activity from being misbehavior.

    As you correctly stated, what this hypothetical person did is a violation of privacy and that would be the basis of considering his behavior punishable. The fact that he's acting on his natural sexual urges does not change that. And likewise the fact that the soccer team were acting on their natural sexual urges does not change the fact that their behavior was wrong.
    The assertion that it is "wrong" is being attacked, You are simply begging the question.

    Further your missing my point about the roots of the cause. I'm not saying that the roots justify the action.
    I'm saying that it is the very root itself that is being attacked as the action in and of itself does not violate anyones rights.
    This is like demonizing the aggressive tendancy of men. Sure it is the cause of Murder, and wars etc..etc.
    But it is so inherent to the male psycology that to demonizie the root is arbitrary, and unreasonable.
    The same is the case here. Your example is fundementally flawed because it included the violation of the rights of another.
    Show me an example where anothers rights are not violated, that you feel should be punished. (that is of course equally rooted in some primal expression).


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I do. Your argument assumes that the basis of the team's punishment is merely the fact that they rated women but you have not supported that that is the basis of their punishment. If it isn't, then your argument is not valid for you have misidentified the basis of their punishment and therefore cannot say that society tolerates the same thing they were punished for. So you need to support that the basis of punishment is what you, at this point, seem to assuming that it is.

    Just because they rated women does not mean that that in and of itself was the basis for punishment. If you want to argue that it was the basis, you will need to support that.
    Fair enough.
    If I'm mistaken, then what was the basis for the punishment? It seems self evident to me, but I could be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So again, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that what the men did was socially acceptable.
    This seems to be a very different question, and doesn't follow from your argument preceding it.
    As to this challenge I already have offered argumentation.
    It was socially acceptable in the group they were in (the club) and among the members who recieved it. This evidenced by the participation, and the lack of any descent.
    I argue it is socially acceptable at the macro level of our society. Namely popular culture, evidenced by magazines etc.

    That I have offered support for this assertion is pretty much beyond debate. You are welcome to challenge the validity, but dont' waste our time by making challenges devoid of merit or possibly reading.

    Here is another bit.
    The woman didn't care when they heard about it. (gasp)
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Members of the women’s squad who had been featured in the 2012 report said they had initially brushed off the news but said the story became more unbearable after it picked up traction in the mainstream media, which they blamed for latching on to the story because of Harvard’s name.
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...104-story.html

    So nobody cared, until the media made it a thing, and told everyone that they needed to care about this, and that this was socially unacceptable.

    That is 3 levels of society I have shown felt it was socially acceptable or socially neutral behavior at the time.
    I know you won't be convinced until I have shown that every mouth breather in the world has raised up their actions as the gold standard.
    But You must admit, that I have offered something that sorta kinda, may be "Evidence" if you wanted to be really loose with the word.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But you are assuming that the issue regarding Maxim is the basis for the punishment. You have to support that that really is the case before you can support that there is some kind of inconsistency or double-standard.
    I honestly don't see alternative or competing explinations as to the cause of the punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    “Based on that review, I understand that this practice appears to be more widespread across the team and has continued beyond 2012, including in 2016, and that current students who participated were not immediately forthcoming about their involvement,” Scalise wrote in a message to Harvard’s athletes.
    It appears that the "these practices" is directly related to men rating woman in a scouting report in their group.
    That "it" (said action) was repeated as a yearly ritual.

    I'm having trouble seeing what else they are talking about. Especialy because they want to send the guys to sexual assualt prevention classes. (because, you know men rating woman is just going to lead to sexual assault).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Regardless, it is NOT the same thing as a private thought or a private conversation. So your argument regarding those things does not apply.
    sure it does, and I see no reason to accept your word that it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm intentionally using the term because it very well applies to the "scout report" and dampening what the report is about (not beauty, but sexual appeal) is misrepresenting what it is. Women do generally do find it demeaning to be seen it no other terms than how ****able they are, even if they rate high on the list.

    I'm just saying that women in general find that kind of thing demeaning. Maybe you think they shouldn't if they are near the top of the list, but it doesn't change the fact that they generally do.
    When it is addressed to them, you have a point.
    Otherwise, not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Maybe in their heads. But again, the scout report is not in someone's head.
    destinction without a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then the burden is yours, here. You started the thread and therefore you have the burden to show that the judgment was wrong before I have any burden to show the opposite. So if you want to argue that the judgment was wrong because it was not demeaning to women, then you need to support that before I have any burden to support the opposite conclusion.

    So I'll worry about supporting that it's demeaning once you support that it's not demeaning.
    I actually did offer an argument for that exact point.
    I guess we can all hold our breaths while you come around to addressing it, instead of ignoring it's existance because you don't like it or find it convincing.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm objecting to your claim that I (or anyone in particular) is demonizing men based on their basic traits. I have no problem with the general fact that men generally have a sexual attraction to women nor do i have a problem with every single action a man might take in regards to that attraction.

    It's only CERTAIN actions that a man might take is what i have a problem with.
    In this case, such positions are arbitrary and baseless.. as argued in the OP.


    ---------
    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Anyone remember the female Duke student who made a powerpoint of her male sex partners, along with numerical scoring and graphic descriptions of the sex they had? And presented it in class? And everyone thought it was fantastic?

    Guess that's just the male privilege of being reduced to a sex object and be dehumanizingly assigned a number for our worth.
    Please don't cloud the discussion with examples of social inconsistancy proving the point of arbitrary standards slanted against men.

    No one cares, that is why no one heard of it.


    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think that is the key here. What they did was not a crime. But as fellow colleget athletes it was unsportsmanlike and disrespectful to fellow athletes and alumni. They appologised and face some repercussions as they should. Its not a dire punishment, its a serious one, but perhaps it will teach them to show some respect next time, or at least not leave evidence of it next time. It isn't just that they were bing lugheads about sex, its that they were disrespecting another athletic group at the school while being lugheads about sex. Had they been rating playboy bunnies or even soccer players outside their school/league I doubt anything would have come of it.
    I agree, and that is why it is completely arbitrary.
    Why in the world would it be o.k to dehumanize and disrespect woman as long as they are from somewhere else?
    Do you think the school would actually try to defend it's action based on the limiting factor of "it was about class mates, but it would have been o.k. if the girls were not attending the same school"?
    To serve man.

  17. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/519663411...#sp=show-clips

    The linked story goes like this. The Harvard men's soccer team had developed a list of the girls soccer team. The list rated the woman on a number scale in regards to sexual attractiveness and physical appearance. It went on to ascribe a preferred sexual position for each girl based on their looks. For example, one girl was described as plain looking and ascribed a sexually conservative outlook, so they figured she would prefer missionary position.

    Upon discovering this, "locker room talk" the men's soccer team was shut down for the year and forfeited the rest of it's games. The men were roundly decried as being "sexist" and "objectifying the women" who were all highly insulted by the whole ordeal.

    ---end story summary---

    Point #1 - war on men, nature of a man attacked
    This story is a prime example regarding the "war on men". The war on men takes basic aspects of men and the male psychology and demonizes it. For example, grading a woman's sexual appearance. Is a generally inherent way men are wired. Men are highly visual creatures and it represents such a strong influence on men that to demonize it's expression is to demonize what it is to be a man. Further this aspect of men has no counter part in woman, so they can not possibly understand it. Finally, this aspect of being a man is used in just about every aspect of our society.



    ---Thoughts? Is Harvard being unreasonable? Are they attacking men for being men?

    DISCUSS!
    Your first point i would say is an unsupported bunch of assumptions.
    The brain is far more malleable than you give it credit for. What you are calling hard wire is really nothing more than learned behaviour. It is not an automatic reaction to get an erection every time a woman walks by nor is it natural to want to display sexual prowess every time. The only reason these boys have for their behaviour is that they chose to behave in that manner. While most of them probably just followed along without bothering to make a conscious choice.

    Actually women are quite capable of acting just as immaturely as men do. There is no behaviour men can produce that women cannot. And yes, it is because they fully understand what such behaviour means that their outrage is justified. Which brings us to point two. Once these kind of pictures are out on the net they become an influence. These boys are asking for the right to behave badly in private. The harm in this is fairly obvious.

    Looking back over the thread i appear to differ with most I am going to argue that it is learned behaviour, not some stereotype image that is questionable at best. That women can and do behave in that manner as well. because it is learned, not because of gender.
    The boys actions should not be condoned because it reinforces a behaviour that stereotypes men and women.
    Last edited by SoylentGreen; November 20th, 2016 at 08:48 AM.

  18. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am attacking the ideas of what is "uniformally acceptable" and pointing out that some are arbitrary, and unequally and unjustifiably target men and typical male behavior.
    You are using this incident of an example so you need to support that this particular punishment is an "arbitrary, and unequally and unjustifiably target men and typical male behavior".

    And let me point out that as this is your argument the burden lies on you to support it before I have any burden to provide a contrary position. And asking me questions regarding this does not qualify as support for your position so please make whatever argument you may have in support and actual argument/statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The assertion that it is "wrong" is being attacked, You are simply begging the question.
    No. I was not stating that it was wrong. I'm saying that if it is wrong, being rooted in natural urges does not change that. Again, the burden is yours so I have no burden to weigh in on whether they are indeed wrong until you make the case that they weren't.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further your missing my point about the roots of the cause. I'm not saying that the roots justify the action.
    I'm saying that it is the very root itself that is being attacked as the action in and of itself does not violate anyones rights.This is like demonizing the aggressive tendancy of men. Sure it is the cause of Murder, and wars etc..etc.
    But it is so inherent to the male psycology that to demonizie the root is arbitrary, and unreasonable.
    The same is the case here. Your example is fundementally flawed because it included the violation of the rights of another.
    Show me an example where anothers rights are not violated, that you feel should be punished. (that is of course equally rooted in some primal expression).
    You are begging the question that the root is being demonized. When you support that is when I will accept an argument based on that premise.

    As far as an example of where rights are not violated in a school setting, no problem. Cheating on an exam doesn't violate anyone's rights and yet should be punished (unless you are going to use a very lax definition of what a right is).




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fair enough.
    If I'm mistaken, then what was the basis for the punishment? It seems self evident to me, but I could be wrong.
    Shifting the burden. It's your argument that they were being punished for a particular reason and therefore it is your burden to show that that is the case. I have no burden to show that it's for a differing reason until you support that your original assessment is correct. And it's not like you have an impossible task here. I'm sure it won't take much research to find the official reason for the punishment.

    Of course you may argue that the "official" reason is a lie and they were, in fact, being punished for a reason other than the official reason but you will have to support that if you do.

    In the meantime, your argument for the reason of punishment is unsupported and rejected on that basis.

    On a side note, and please take my word for this, if I sincerely agree with any particular point of yours I will accept it. So if I actually agreed with you on this issue, I would not reject it. But as I do reject it, you will need to support it before I will consider accepting it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This seems to be a very different question, and doesn't follow from your argument preceding it.
    As to this challenge I already have offered argumentation.
    It was socially acceptable in the group they were in (the club) and among the members who recieved it. This evidenced by the participation, and the lack of any descent.
    I argue it is socially acceptable at the macro level of our society. Namely popular culture, evidenced by magazines etc.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that what these guys did is socially acceptable at the macro level (which is what I was referring to). Just saying that it's accepted in popular culture and magazines is not support that it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So nobody cared, until the media made it a thing, and told everyone that they needed to care about this, and that this was socially unacceptable.
    Wrong. From the article you linked:

    "“The sad reality is that we have come to expect this kind of behavior from so many men, that it is so ‘normal’ to us we often decide it is not worth our time or effort to dwell on,” six women’s players wrote in an op-ed for the Crimson, expressing disappointment that “close friends” on the men’s team had been quietly carrying out the sexist practice.

    But the women asked the men and others to join them in hoping the story would lead to a more “productive conversation” on so-called “locker room talk” that extends far beyond the world’s locker rooms.

    “We are human beings, and we should be treated with dignity,” the women wrote. “We want your help in combating this. We need your help in preventing this. We cannot change the past, but we are asking you to help us now and in the future.”"


    That doesn't sound like not caring to me.

    And besides that, the men apologized. Again, from the article:

    "The 2016 men’s team apologized Friday in an open letter in the Crimson, saying that “no woman deserves to be treated in this manner.”

    “We accept responsibility for the mistakes and serious lapses in judgment that have led us here, and, in addition to accepting the sanctions from the Athletic Department, are shifting our focus toward the concrete actions we can take to address the fundamental issue of sexism in our community,” said the apology, which was attributed collectively to the team."



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is 3 levels of society I have shown felt it was socially acceptable or socially neutral behavior at the time.
    I know you won't be convinced until I have shown that every mouth breather in the world has raised up their actions as the gold standard.
    But You must admit, that I have offered something that sorta kinda, may be "Evidence" if you wanted to be really loose with the word.
    Actually, evidence shows that it's not socially at the first two levels.

    The men apologized, indicating that even they did not find it socially acceptable.
    The school and the women decided that it wasn't socially acceptable.
    And you have provided NO evidence that it's socially acceptable at a macro level. Just vaguely mentioning magazines does not suffice. You don't need to provide overwhelming evidence but you do need to provide some.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I honestly don't see alternative or competing explinations as to the cause of the punishment.
    I don't have to offer a competing explanation until you support your own explanation. Just saying "this is the reason" without support does not show that it is the explanation. You could say "they were punished because they were soccer players and I don't see any competing explanations" but that wouldn't mean that you are right about that. So you need to say "they were punished because of (your reason) and here is the evidence" before you can support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It appears that the "these practices" is directly related to men rating woman in a scouting report in their group.
    That "it" (said action) was repeated as a yearly ritual.

    I'm having trouble seeing what else they are talking about. Especialy because they want to send the guys to sexual assualt prevention classes. (because, you know men rating woman is just going to lead to sexual assault).
    Well, if the men rated the women on their academic achievements, I doubt there would be any problem. So the issue is not "rating" women in and of itself.

    If you don't understand what the issue actually is, then you really have no basis to say that they did not deserve punishment for it. Did the school say that they were being punished just for assigning a number to various women? Of course not. So what is the issue? Again, if you don't know, then you have no argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    sure it does, and I see no reason to accept your word that it doesn't.
    There's no difference between someone having a private thought and a person writing that thought down for others to see?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    When it is addressed to them, you have a point.
    Otherwise, not at all.
    So women never find it demeaning when men talk about them to each other in a strictly sexual manner? That's ridiculous. Of course many women find that demeaning.

    I'd really like to not have to debate the obvious with you.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    destinction without a difference.
    Of course there's a difference between thinking something and communicating it.

    If I were to flame you right now in this post (write down an insult), you would have reason to be upset with me and could report it.

    If I just thought something bad about you, none of that applies.

    That's a difference.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I actually did offer an argument for that exact point.
    I guess we can all hold our breaths while you come around to addressing it, instead of ignoring it's existance because you don't like it or find it convincing.
    Which argument of yours have I ignored? Please repeat it. If you can't or won't, then retract your accusation of me ignoring it. And I would appreciate it if you would say "I retract it" for personal accusations should be followed by a personal retraction (if you do retract it).




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In this case, such positions are arbitrary and baseless.. as argued in the OP.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the issues that I have with certain actions are arbitrary and baseless.

    You not knowing what the basis is does not mean that the basis is arbitrary.

  19. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It isn't just that they were bing lugheads about sex, its that they were disrespecting another athletic group at the school while being lugheads about sex. Had they been rating playboy bunnies or even soccer players outside their school/league I doubt anything would have come of it.
    I'm not so sure about that.

    Not many years ago, the President of Harvard was a man named Lawrence Summers. Larry was trying to solve the riddle of why there are so few women in math and engineering careers. He looked at statistics showing how younger girls have a smaller deviation from the mean in mathematics scores than boys, and he included that information in a speech. Basically, he suggested that because some boys performed much higher in math and logic than their peers, those high performing males were the ones who did best in higher levels of math and science, and eventually entered careers related to those fields. He didn't claim that boys were all naturally better than girls at math, or that women were somehow inferior. He just offered a theory, backed by some statistics, that might explain why certain careers fields didn't have as many women. He even said he wanted to be wrong, and hoped someone would effectively shoot down his theory.

    What happened? He was pilloried by feminists, other academics and the media as a sexist. Despite his making multiple apologies, his critics never let up, and he finally hung tail and resigned from Harvard in semi-disgrace.

    In summary, the culture at elite liberal universities generally, and Harvard specifically, will not condone any male act that is viewed as even remotely sexist. It doesn't matter who the supposed sexism is directed at, or whether it is overt or private. If it even hints that women are inferior to men in any way, someone's head will roll.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. Likes MindTrap028, Ibelsd, Someguy liked this post
  21. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/519663411...#sp=show-clips

    The linked story goes like this. The Harvard men's soccer team had developed a list of the girls soccer team. The list rated the woman on a number scale in regards to sexual attractiveness and physical appearance. It went on to ascribe a preferred sexual position for each girl based on their looks. For example, one girl was described as plain looking and ascribed a sexually conservative outlook, so they figured she would prefer missionary position.

    Upon discovering this, "locker room talk" the men's soccer team was shut down for the year and forfeited the rest of it's games. The men were roundly decried as being "sexist" and "objectifying the women" who were all highly insulted by the whole ordeal.

    ---end story summary---

    Point #1 - war on men, nature of a man attacked
    This story is a prime example regarding the "war on men". The war on men takes basic aspects of men and the male psychology and demonizes it. For example, grading a woman's sexual appearance. Is a generally inherent way men are wired. Men are highly visual creatures and it represents such a strong influence on men that to demonize it's expression is to demonize what it is to be a man. Further this aspect of men has no counter part in woman, so they can not possibly understand it. Finally, this aspect of being a man is used in just about every aspect of our society.

    Consider this video which makes my point.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WZFeA4FzI


    Point #2 - Arbitrary standard
    Secondly the war on men demonizes actions that are not illegal and not even socially wrong. It applies an arbitrary standard that is slanted against men (per point #1). Here the men produced, as far as I can tell, a private list for their club. It does not appear that this list was published so as to shame the woman, and was indeed "locker room" talk. In that it occurred specifically in the locker room. This is arbitrary because the university has said nothing regarding the many other lists grading men and women based on their sexual attractiveness. Or does one think that the university has banned "People magazine" or perhaps maxim magazine is not allowed? The point is, if other publications are allowed on campus that produce sexual appearance grades for people, then why are their own students punished for doing the same, and in a private manner no less.

    Point #3 - Privacy/ locker room talk
    The idea of "locker room talk" is being attacked here. Implying that all statements are inherently public. As they said, "The whole world is our locker room". This demonizes the private thoughts of people and punishes them for private thoughts that are made public without their consent. If a woman's private parts are made public without consent, we recognize that is a violation. Why then are private thoughts not also recognized as a violation of that persons privacy? (man or woman) These men are being held as being rude, even when their comments were made in a socially acceptable place. (IE private place).

    Point #4 - Demeaning woman

    Demeaning implies that the respect of others is diminished by ones actions. The only ones this is occurring to are the men. It is not demeaning to be subject to the human condition or to express ones normal human condition. To think so is immature and ignorant of the human condition. That is the Kindergaden class kids screaming "O you farted!". The men are expressing basic male behavior, and are being demeaned because of it. The woman who is #1 or their list is not.

    -----
    conclusion
    ----

    Men inherently see woman in a sexual manner. It is the way men are wired. This does not necessarily mean that the man devalues her other assets like personality, intelligence, talent, skills. To assume it does is sexist and bigoted against men. Harvard, and maybe woman in general need to grow up and recognize that the reason our society is neck deep in cleavage, legs and basically all things attractive females posses on every bill board, sign and news outlet.. is because that is appealing to a basic Human fact about men.
    At the very least, I ask that if you are going to demonize men for their basic traits, at least be consistent and verbally berate any woman who is playing upon those base drives.


    ---Thoughts? Is Harvard being unreasonable? Are they attacking men for being men?

    DISCUSS!
    I believe there are two sides to blame here. The Harvard example was one in which "locker room talk" was allowed to creep outside the locker room.
    "which were, until recently, publicly accessible through the 2012 team’s Google Group"
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...eport-harvard/

    The team published their ratings publicly which is how they were found. I think this is a very different situation than had the team been punished for doing the same thing, but in a private (i.e. behind the locker room doors) manner. So, we have a culture which is much more sensitive to masculine behavior and we live in a social network culture where things that should be private tend to get shared. This is a problem as it places much more pressure on men to cave towards social norms imposed by women and the men who feel comfortable adhering to those norms.

    There is an attack on masculinity and the Harvard case is an example where masculine behavior is heavily scrutinized when made public. I do think, though, there is some shared responsibility in this case. I also think there are better examples. There are colleges who have requested that faculty and students refrain from using the word man in generic cases (i.e. man hours). Students at Yale have requested that English lit majors are no longer required to take an English poets course because it is deemed too white and too male. So, there is this sort of attack on males and white males in particular as they are deemed as a threat to minority culture and safety.

    In reality, I think the attack is by a loud minority, but they are sort of a scary minority as they have roots in socialism and social justice and resemble the attitude of students from the Communist purges in Russia and China. We have seen members of this minority promote violence and conduct violence. We see this crowd at the anti-Trump rallies where they are protesting the results of a fair and free election. If they are protesting, then one has to wonder, what is it they would like to see happen? Overturning the election results? They seem to consider that the results are invalid because white folks decided the outcome. I heard Van Jones on CNN call the election a whitelash because, clearly, white people only vote along racial lines. White votes, and particularly male white votes, must be rooted in racism and colonization. I do think we are heading into a very strange era and if the left continues down this road, then they will, essentially, force us into another civil war. If your entire world view is built upon identity politics, then you are truly building yourself up for a large letdown when people do not see the world like you. I mean, for liberals, voting for Clinton was a choice between a woman and a white man. So, voting for Trump must have been sexist and racist espousing anger and disbelief. For conservatives, voting for Trump was really just an economic plea and, maybe a middle finger to the establishment. You can see how one side would be emotionally more invested which is why liberals took the streets with their pitchforks and demanded justice.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  22. Likes MindTrap028, Someguy liked this post
  23. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    What happened? He was pilloried by feminists, other academics and the media as a sexist. Despite his making multiple apologies, his critics never let up, and he finally hung tail and resigned from Harvard in semi-disgrace.

    In summary, the culture at elite liberal universities generally, and Harvard specifically, will not condone any male act that is viewed as even remotely sexist. It doesn't matter who the supposed sexism is directed at, or whether it is overt or private. If it even hints that women are inferior to men in any way, someone's head will roll.
    You sure about all that. Here is a paper on the Harvard website about an empirical study of gender gaps in mathematics. The professor who wrote it was and still is a professor at Harvard.

    http://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/pub...ap-mathematics


    Summers resigned voluntarily and was given a one year paid sabatical, gave him a subsiidised 1 millin dollar loan for his house and other goodies. I wouldn't call that semi-disgrace.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  24. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You sure about all that.
    Pretty much, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Here is a paper on the Harvard website about an empirical study of gender gaps in mathematics. The professor who wrote it was and still is a professor at Harvard.
    I see nothing in the abstract that anyone would find controversial. I assume you've read the paper and found something, so please do share it.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  25. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I see nothing in the abstract that anyone would find controversial. I assume you've read the paper and found something, so please do share it.
    So you would say that what Summers said was worthy of controvercy?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sports: Soccer (football, futbol) is the most pure team sport.
    By thegreenape in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 4th, 2009, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •