Crikey, I've never looked at it that way.So far as discussion about people being abused, bullied, raped, robbed or otherwise taken advantage of is concerned, to me it seems an issue of too much detail obscuring what's really going on.
Is it really men assaulting women?
Is it really bosses taking advantage of workers?
Etc.
Or is it really a case that whoever has the stronger position is taking advantage of (abusing, bashing, robbing, whatever) the person in the weaker position? That is, it's about relative strength and any detail beyond that is a reflection of that strength but not itself the cause.
Take any example and it's the stronger person in that context who abused the weaker person. Because if the weaker person tries to abuse the stronger then, if they truly are stronger, they can win the fight.
Men are on average physically stronger than women so no surprise that men assaulting women is far more common than women assaulting men. But if a particular woman is stronger than a particular man then the risk is she assaults him not the reverse. It's not gender that determines it, it's just physical strength.
Bosses are usually in a stronger position in the workplace than employees. Hence it's far more common that bullying in a workplace comes from above rather than below or at most extends sideways. Frontline workers generally can't bully boards and CEO's to any major extent - if they think they are it's only because the victim is allowing them to do so for whatever reason.
Relating to that is the concept of strength in numbers.
A group of average women could easily overpower a single man in a physical fight if they're determined to win.
A group of workers, more commonly known as a union, sure can bash management over the head if they want to.
Etc.
If there's one thing someone in power fears most it's the formation of a large, co-ordinated group below them. Hence pretty much anyone trying to "break" something follows the same basic pattern of dividing those below into manageable chunks then, ultimately, individuals.
In business terms if management wants to abandon (for example) the blue collar workforce side of its' operations and outsource that whilst keeping the white collar side then the first step is to divide them. Physically if possible, get the office to one site and the workshop to another site, but ultimately split them by any means possible.
Next step divide the workshop into construction and maintenance or whatever other groups of work can be identified. The more groups you can find, and the smaller they are and the fewer people in each, the better.
Now split each of those groups on the basis of profession, trade or other position.
Instead of a group of (say) 100 workers you've now got a few electricians, a few labourers, a few welders, a few plumbers and so on. Lots of little groups with no more than a few people in each.
If at all possible, recruit a spy. Someone in the workshop who's on your side. You'll do some deal with them that gives them a cushy job when it's all over but in the meantime their job is to inform you.
Now do everything you can to create conflict between the groups. A "musical chairs" situation is a perfect way to do that - if everyone knows someone's going then all of sudden it's a very different environment.
Via your spy, find out which group the others hate the most and blame for all their troubles. Get rid of them first - the others won't come to their rescue.
Then do the next. Rinse and repeat. At all times denying you're going to get rid of the whole thing, insisting it's just downsizing and you're keeping the most valuable. That way, you keep the conflict going, you keep tensions high, and you keep everyone at each other always glad to see someone go and it wasn't them.
Once there's not many left, you can now drop the bombshell and just hand the few remaining a redundancy and shut the whole thing.
Done.
If you've worked in big business or government during a period of turmoil and downsizing then you've probably seen some version of that play out. Change the details to suit but the basic concept is very standard.
Whilst issues of abuse and so on are very real and not to be made light of, if the aim is to understand what's really going on then we need to grasp that it's the strong abusing the weak and that's the attribute of relevance. If the victim had greater strength in the relevant area (physical, emotional, whatever) or the perpetrator had sufficiently less strength then it wouldn't happen.
Bullies don't go around looking for the strongest person with the most friends they can find then target them, right? Nope, they go after the one who's relatively weak and with the smallest network of allies and thus the lowest effective strength. Or in other words, they look for a power imbalance firmly in their favour. Most would've seen that at school and it applies right through society.
That generically explains a great many things. People get stuck on the details of the perpetrators and victims but in truth the only one that matters is relative strength in the relevant area (eg physical, financial, etc) and the stronger party choosing to exploit it.
Ok, let’s test this theory.So far as discussion about people being abused, bullied, raped, robbed or otherwise taken advantage of is concerned, to me it seems an issue of too much detail obscuring what's really going on.
Is it really men assaulting women?
Is it really bosses taking advantage of workers?
Etc.
Or is it really a case that whoever has the stronger position is taking advantage of (abusing, bashing, robbing, whatever) the person in the weaker position? That is, it's about relative strength and any detail beyond that is a reflection of that strength but not itself the cause.
Take any example and it's the stronger person in that context who abused the weaker person. Because if the weaker person tries to abuse the stronger then, if they truly are stronger, they can win the fight.
Men are on average physically stronger than women so no surprise that men assaulting women is far more common than women assaulting men. But if a particular woman is stronger than a particular man then the risk is she assaults him not the reverse. It's not gender that determines it, it's just physical strength.
Bosses are usually in a stronger position in the workplace than employees. Hence it's far more common that bullying in a workplace comes from above rather than below or at most extends sideways. Frontline workers generally can't bully boards and CEO's to any major extent - if they think they are it's only because the victim is allowing them to do so for whatever reason.
Relating to that is the concept of strength in numbers.
A group of average women could easily overpower a single man in a physical fight if they're determined to win.
A group of workers, more commonly known as a union, sure can bash management over the head if they want to.
Etc.
If there's one thing someone in power fears most it's the formation of a large, co-ordinated group below them. Hence pretty much anyone trying to "break" something follows the same basic pattern of dividing those below into manageable chunks then, ultimately, individuals.
In business terms if management wants to abandon (for example) the blue collar workforce side of its' operations and outsource that whilst keeping the white collar side then the first step is to divide them. Physically if possible, get the office to one site and the workshop to another site, but ultimately split them by any means possible.
Next step divide the workshop into construction and maintenance or whatever other groups of work can be identified. The more groups you can find, and the smaller they are and the fewer people in each, the better.
Now split each of those groups on the basis of profession, trade or other position.
Instead of a group of (say) 100 workers you've now got a few electricians, a few labourers, a few welders, a few plumbers and so on. Lots of little groups with no more than a few people in each.
If at all possible, recruit a spy. Someone in the workshop who's on your side. You'll do some deal with them that gives them a cushy job when it's all over but in the meantime their job is to inform you.
Now do everything you can to create conflict between the groups. A "musical chairs" situation is a perfect way to do that - if everyone knows someone's going then all of sudden it's a very different environment.
Via your spy, find out which group the others hate the most and blame for all their troubles. Get rid of them first - the others won't come to their rescue.
Then do the next. Rinse and repeat. At all times denying you're going to get rid of the whole thing, insisting it's just downsizing and you're keeping the most valuable. That way, you keep the conflict going, you keep tensions high, and you keep everyone at each other always glad to see someone go and it wasn't them.
Once there's not many left, you can now drop the bombshell and just hand the few remaining a redundancy and shut the whole thing.
Done.
If you've worked in big business or government during a period of turmoil and downsizing then you've probably seen some version of that play out. Change the details to suit but the basic concept is very standard.
Whilst issues of abuse and so on are very real and not to be made light of, if the aim is to understand what's really going on then we need to grasp that it's the strong abusing the weak and that's the attribute of relevance. If the victim had greater strength in the relevant area (physical, emotional, whatever) or the perpetrator had sufficiently less strength then it wouldn't happen.
Bullies don't go around looking for the strongest person with the most friends they can find then target them, right? Nope, they go after the one who's relatively weak and with the smallest network of allies and thus the lowest effective strength. Or in other words, they look for a power imbalance firmly in their favour. Most would've seen that at school and it applies right through society.
That generically explains a great many things. People get stuck on the details of the perpetrators and victims but in truth the only one that matters is relative strength in the relevant area (eg physical, financial, etc) and the stronger party choosing to exploit it.
Another strawman, you really are an egregious turdOk, let’s test this theory.
So when it comes to children, both adult males and adult females are in a basically equal position to over power children. Based on your theory females and males should be sexually abusing children in similar numbers.
However this isn’t the case, Males are by far the largest percentage of child molesters.
now before WayneL jumps in and googles a case where a female has abused a child, I know it exists, but males do it far more often.
So how is this a strawman?Another strawman, you really are an egregious turd
That was never any part of my argument.So how is this a strawman?
I am responding to Smurf’s hypothesis, I was done talking to you, did you not see the comment I was replying to?That was never any part of my argument.
I draw your attention to your post #202 where you reference me.I was done talking to you.
#202 - I wasn’t referencing your past argument or directing my at you or saying comment had anything to do with you, I was just trying to cut you of before you made a red herring argument about a super rare case of a female molesting a child.I draw your attention to your post #202 where you reference me.
You also edited your #204 after I responded to you.
Yeah righto, like I said...#202 - I wasn’t referencing your past argument or saying my comment had anything to do with you, I was just trying to cut you of before you made a red herring argument about a super rare case of a female molesting a child.
Eg, I was simply saying the was no need for you to hit Google and try and find a rare case of a female pedophile, I already know they exist, and that is irrelevant to my point.
My point is that something makes males carry out those assaults in far larger number than women, and it can’t just be more strength as smurfs hypothesis implies.
#204 - the edit just added the second paragraph for clarification.
Look read the comment I was replying too, then read my reply.Yeah righto, like I said...
The very nature of sexual abuse, the physical act, makes a male perpetrator more likely since, at the risk of stating the obvious, a man does have a far greater ability to dominate physically in that context. Without going into graphic detail, I'm sure everyone understands that a man has the ability to physically force it in ways that a woman can't. The crime being dominated by males is thus not surprising.So when it comes to children, both adult males and adult females are in a basically equal position to over power children. Based on your theory females and males should be sexually abusing children in similar numbers.
96% of sexual assaults on children come from men, 4% from women, I think there is more to it than just men been stronger.The very nature of sexual abuse, the physical act, makes a male perpetrator more likely since, at the risk of stating the obvious, a man does have a far greater ability to dominate physically in that context. Without going into graphic detail, I'm sure everyone understands that a man has the ability to physically force it in ways that a woman can't. The crime being dominated by males is thus not surprising.
But if we include all forms of abuse then I'd expect it's rather different.
How many women have psychologically abused their children in some way of which there are numerous options?
Constant putdowns and holding back their development.
Denying access to the father for reasons that have nothing to do with the children or their safety and are simply about the breakdown of the adult relationship.
Poor role model via drug use, alcohol, diet, smoking etc or, worse still, directly exposing the children to such things.
Not engaging in activities beneficial to the child simply because they're of no interest to the mother and/or detract from something she wants to do. Male dominated activities being the obvious example.
All up there's a lot of ways children can be abused, it's by no means limited to sexual abuse. Obviously sexual abuse is a particularly serious one but it sure isn't the only one.
Another one there is the education system. How on earth are we producing high school graduates who lack the ability to apply maths to everyday situations or who've never done anything at all involving the use of tools?
Or who don't understand basic concepts such as personal finances, how governments are elected or that people normally start at the bottom and work their way upwards in a career?
Or who don't even have the ability to engage in critical thought?
I could argue those failings are abuse of a different sort. They're a failure to prepare them for the adult world, setting them up for failure unless someone realises in time and corrects them, and boys seem to be the ones most commonly falling through the gaps.
In a more general sense, well I'm a male who's shorter than average at 5'6"
Now if I walk through a park late at night, and encounter a dozen people all 6' tall, physically fit and intending to kill me, then does anyone seriously think the gender of those people will determine the outcome? Male, female or anything else makes no difference there - between them they've got far more physical strength than I have and that being so, they have the ability to win a physical fight unless I'm armed.
Ok, so 96% of sexual assaults on children are done by men, you believe this might be due to male anatomy.The very nature of sexual abuse, the physical act, makes a male perpetrator more likely since, at the risk of stating the obvious, a man does have a far greater ability to dominate physically in that context. Without going into graphic detail, I'm sure everyone understands that a man has the ability to physically force it in ways that a woman can't. The crime being dominated by males is thus not surprising.
But if we include all forms of abuse then I'd expect it's rather different.
How many women have psychologically abused their children in some way of which there are numerous options?
Constant putdowns and holding back their development.
Denying access to the father for reasons that have nothing to do with the children or their safety and are simply about the breakdown of the adult relationship.
Poor role model via drug use, alcohol, diet, smoking etc or, worse still, directly exposing the children to such things.
Not engaging in activities beneficial to the child simply because they're of no interest to the mother and/or detract from something she wants to do. Male dominated activities being the obvious example.
All up there's a lot of ways children can be abused, it's by no means limited to sexual abuse. Obviously sexual abuse is a particularly serious one but it sure isn't the only one.
Another one there is the education system. How on earth are we producing high school graduates who lack the ability to apply maths to everyday situations or who've never done anything at all involving the use of tools?
Or who don't understand basic concepts such as personal finances, how governments are elected or that people normally start at the bottom and work their way upwards in a career?
Or who don't even have the ability to engage in critical thought?
I could argue those failings are abuse of a different sort. They're a failure to prepare them for the adult world, setting them up for failure unless someone realises in time and corrects them, and boys seem to be the ones most commonly falling through the gaps.
In a more general sense, well I'm a male who's shorter than average at 5'6"
Now if I walk through a park late at night, and encounter a dozen people all 6' tall, physically fit and intending to kill me, then does anyone seriously think the gender of those people will determine the outcome? Male, female or anything else makes no difference there - between them they've got far more physical strength than I have and that being so, they have the ability to win a physical fight unless I'm armed.
Looks like budget surplus will be huge. Debt down to $517,000,000,000. Fantastic result.So please enlighten me
Who do we owe this money to?
Where in these times of raging debt in all countries
did and Does the money come from?
The interest we pay who gets that?
Security we offer what is it really who are those who have it?
WowLooks like budget surplus will be huge. Debt down to $517,000,000,000. Fantastic result.
Better inflows, cutting of some previous government profligacy, inflation causing wage rises bringing in more taxes, greater corporate profits, strong commodity prices, low unemployment, more income from gas due to tax changes, more control of government waste.
This had to happen to afford tax cuts.
Government reveals 'embarrassing' surplus thanks to 'barn-burning revenues'
In an extraordinary turnaround, updated financial statements show the government is swimming in cash.www.abc.net.au
Knobby good question about where did the trillons come from. My guss oil rich states that just about own everything these days.Looks like budget surplus will be huge. Debt down to $517,000,000,000. Fantastic result.
Better inflows, cutting of some previous government profligacy, inflation causing wage rises bringing in more taxes, greater corporate profits, strong commodity prices, low unemployment, more income from gas due to tax changes, more control of government waste.
This had to happen to afford tax cuts.
Government reveals 'embarrassing' surplus thanks to 'barn-burning revenues'
In an extraordinary turnaround, updated financial statements show the government is swimming in cash.www.abc.net.au
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?