New Year Eve's Coordinated Sexual Assault Attacks in Cologne

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the distinction. However, saying that the onus is on western women to conform the expectations of these refugees is backwards. They are coming to a foreign counry, seeking "asylum". It is the refugees' responsibility to act properly, not for women to jealously guard their bodies from encroachment.

I agree with points both of you are making. But, I would like to point out that part of what is going on is not simply that these men are raised as incurable misogynists (something that I don't believe is even true for the most part), but that they also get the message that Western women are complete sluts. So, the casual brushing that is ignored just reinforces that belief. That is not to suggest that the onus is on Western women to change, but just to offer an explanation. The men still need to change their behavior (and get a more realistic view of sexual mores).

Also, while I agree with the poster who had personal experience in the Middle East, based on my own experience in the region, I would add that what she is saying does not necessarily apply when there are huge power imbalances. In the case of Sri Lankan or Filipino maids, for instance, it can often be open season.

[Anonymous]

Because non Arab women are somehow simpering flowers that cringe when molested by men. Do you even get how ridiculous you sound?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the distinction. However, saying that the onus is on western women to conform the expectations of these refugees is backwards. They are coming to a foreign counry, seeking "asylum". It is the refugees' responsibility to act properly, not for women to jealously guard their bodies from encroachment.

I agree with points both of you are making. But, I would like to point out that part of what is going on is not simply that these men are raised as incurable misogynists (something that I don't believe is even true for the most part), but that they also get the message that Western women are complete sluts. So, the casual brushing that is ignored just reinforces that belief. That is not to suggest that the onus is on Western women to change, but just to offer an explanation. The men still need to change their behavior (and get a more realistic view of sexual mores).

Also, while I agree with the poster who had personal experience in the Middle East, based on my own experience in the region, I would add that what she is saying does not necessarily apply when there are huge power imbalances. In the case of Sri Lankan or Filipino maids, for instance, it can often be open season.

It is not for the women to change their behavior for these men. They are in host countries with new mores. Shape up or ship out. If they were not assimilated prior to this they should not have been let in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

In Cologne about 120.women called the police to report assaults that evening. That was smarter than :fighting back" given the circumstances don't you think?

I really don't think this PP talking about the Middle East was trying to say anything bad. I'm not He Who Must Not Be Named's biggest fan, but he's right that we should try to not be outraged by every little thing. Let's focus on the most important stuff.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Quote from He Who Must Not be Named:"Might I make the suggestion that you concentrate on behaviors and actions rather than cultures and religions?"

Cultures matter. That's just how the world works. For example, in the U.S., males (especially white males) have been raised for generations to think they have some sense of ownership or superiority over others, whereas their female counterparts were raised differently. In some parts of the U.S., this is a more pronounced part of the culture than in others. Each culture throughout the world may have taught similar lessons to a larger or smaller degree. They certainly all have their idiosyncrasies. But certainly what we choose to teach males and females about each person's relative worth in society matters. And that's part of each society's culture.

Cultures matter, but they are not definitive. If all white males are raised in a misogynistic culture and culture is determinative, then all American white males would be misogynists. Do you hold that view? On a broader level, many white males are Trump supporters, but many white males aren't. Clearly, white male culture in the US is not homogeneous or there are other factors besides culture at play. That is even more true when you are discussing a religion that spans continents and which has significant internal cultural differences. Going back to your original example, the issue with misogynist white men is not that they were white. If they were misogynist green men, it would be just as bad. The problem is that they are misogynist. Why not focus on that?

If the green men demonstrate through their behavior and actions that they may be more misogynistic than other men, then I would absolutely want to analyze the green men's culture to figure out if there are societal underpinnings to explain why the green men show so much more discrimination toward women than others do.

I am not suggesting otherwise. I would assume that a serious analysis would determine that factors other than greenness were responsible.

Fine, so assuming that the factors were greenness, with broken family, from a lower socio economic level, with mental issues, from a particular sect of green religion. Then we should not let those green people into the country. Assuming all those 1000 men had those issues. A serious analysis might also proclaim otherwise, the fact is, you don't know either.

You know, I'm a bleeding heart liberal who would never close the door on a legitimate refugee. So, if the study came to specific conclusions like you suggest, I'd hope that such folks could get some sort of specialized accommodation that is more than a door slammed in their faces. You are correct that I don't know what a serious analysis would discover. So, I avoid making blanket statements about all members of a religion, culture, ethnicity, etc. I think the people we should focus on are those who commit violence against women. That is the common trait that they have.

If these study came to specific conclusions like you suggest, I know I would choose the preserve the safety of the women already in my country vs some refugee with traits that pose a danger to those women. If the people who commit violence against women have those particular traits...one of them including the religion and culture they come from, then no I don't welcome them. Its not a blanket statement if there's a high probability and incidence of that happening. If the accommodations require substantial resources on my part, I have better things to spend those resources on.

What is offputting is how much you care about those "potential refugees" regardless of how many crimes they commit, instead of the victims they committed atrocities against. For all the protestations that you find this crime terrible, you have not even tried to view it from the woman's perspective at all.

I don't think I'm going to bother engaging someone who is so disoriented that she actually replies to herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the distinction. However, saying that the onus is on western women to conform the expectations of these refugees is backwards. They are coming to a foreign counry, seeking "asylum". It is the refugees' responsibility to act properly, not for women to jealously guard their bodies from encroachment.

I agree with points both of you are making. But, I would like to point out that part of what is going on is not simply that these men are raised as incurable misogynists (something that I don't believe is even true for the most part), but that they also get the message that Western women are complete sluts. So, the casual brushing that is ignored just reinforces that belief. That is not to suggest that the onus is on Western women to change, but just to offer an explanation. The men still need to change their behavior (and get a more realistic view of sexual mores).

Also, while I agree with the poster who had personal experience in the Middle East, based on my own experience in the region, I would add that what she is saying does not necessarily apply when there are huge power imbalances. In the case of Sri Lankan or Filipino maids, for instance, it can often be open season.

It is not for the women to change their behavior for these men. They are in host countries with new mores. Shape up or ship out. If they were not assimilated prior to this they should not have been let in.

And to add to the above, that explanation, is completely not acceptable at all. Just because innocuous behaviors by women in Western countries means they're viewed as sluts by these men, does not mean we should allow these men who have these views into those countries to prey on these women. It may be understandable, but absolutely totally NOT acceptable.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the distinction. However, saying that the onus is on western women to conform the expectations of these refugees is backwards. They are coming to a foreign counry, seeking "asylum". It is the refugees' responsibility to act properly, not for women to jealously guard their bodies from encroachment.

I agree with points both of you are making. But, I would like to point out that part of what is going on is not simply that these men are raised as incurable misogynists (something that I don't believe is even true for the most part), but that they also get the message that Western women are complete sluts. So, the casual brushing that is ignored just reinforces that belief. That is not to suggest that the onus is on Western women to change, but just to offer an explanation. The men still need to change their behavior (and get a more realistic view of sexual mores).

Also, while I agree with the poster who had personal experience in the Middle East, based on my own experience in the region, I would add that what she is saying does not necessarily apply when there are huge power imbalances. In the case of Sri Lankan or Filipino maids, for instance, it can often be open season.

It is not for the women to change their behavior for these men. They are in host countries with new mores. Shape up or ship out. If they were not assimilated prior to this they should not have been let in.

And to add to the above, that explanation, is completely not acceptable at all. Just because innocuous behaviors by women in Western countries means they're viewed as sluts by these men, does not mean we should allow these men who have these views into those countries to prey on these women. It may be understandable, but absolutely totally NOT acceptable.

I think there are options between closing the door completely and allowing them to pretty on women. But, I expect trying to have such a nuanced conversation with you is futile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

In Cologne about 120.women called the police to report assaults that evening. That was smarter than :fighting back" given the circumstances don't you think?

Yes--in fact I said as much. You can't do the responses that are effective in a place packed with men and no room to swing a handbag. But these men have been in the streets every day for months "accidentally" bumping into women or brushing against them with no push back at all from European women. And they have totally gotten the wrong idea.

Yes, maybe the onus is on the woman when it should be on the man. But I would bet the rate of harassment would abate if women yelled and cursed at every Arab man who casually brushed up against her. Unfortunately, I don't think western police would back up a woman who inflicted any harm with her handbag.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the distinction. However, saying that the onus is on western women to conform the expectations of these refugees is backwards. They are coming to a foreign counry, seeking "asylum". It is the refugees' responsibility to act properly, not for women to jealously guard their bodies from encroachment.

I agree with points both of you are making. But, I would like to point out that part of what is going on is not simply that these men are raised as incurable misogynists (something that I don't believe is even true for the most part), but that they also get the message that Western women are complete sluts. So, the casual brushing that is ignored just reinforces that belief. That is not to suggest that the onus is on Western women to change, but just to offer an explanation. The men still need to change their behavior (and get a more realistic view of sexual mores).

Also, while I agree with the poster who had personal experience in the Middle East, based on my own experience in the region, I would add that what she is saying does not necessarily apply when there are huge power imbalances. In the case of Sri Lankan or Filipino maids, for instance, it can often be open season.

It is not for the women to change their behavior for these men. They are in host countries with new mores. Shape up or ship out. If they were not assimilated prior to this they should not have been let in.

And to add to the above, that explanation, is completely not acceptable at all. Just because innocuous behaviors by women in Western countries means they're viewed as sluts by these men, does not mean we should allow these men who have these views into those countries to prey on these women. It may be understandable, but absolutely totally NOT acceptable.

I think there are options between closing the door completely and allowing them to pretty on women. But, I expect trying to have such a nuanced conversation with you is futile.

One knows an debate has petered out when the opposing party starts insulting the other party's intellect such as "nuanced is futile" or "disoriented" instead of focusing on the points made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

In Cologne about 120.women called the police to report assaults that evening. That was smarter than :fighting back" given the circumstances don't you think?

Yes--in fact I said as much. You can't do the responses that are effective in a place packed with men and no room to swing a handbag. But these men have been in the streets every day for months "accidentally" bumping into women or brushing against them with no push back at all from European women. And they have totally gotten the wrong idea.

Yes, maybe the onus is on the woman when it should be on the man. But I would bet the rate of harassment would abate if women yelled and cursed at every Arab man who casually brushed up against her. Unfortunately, I don't think western police would back up a woman who inflicted any harm with her handbag.

And the point being made again. It is not up to women in the west to yell and curse at Arab men who casually brush up against her. This is their country and it is their norms. It is up to the men coming into the country to fit in. If they can't, they should not be there. These women, who have live in their own home countries behaving in social norms all their lives, should not have to change. And if the social climate changes because these immigrants can't behave, that should be remedied.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Quote from He Who Must Not be Named:"Might I make the suggestion that you concentrate on behaviors and actions rather than cultures and religions?"

Cultures matter. That's just how the world works. For example, in the U.S., males (especially white males) have been raised for generations to think they have some sense of ownership or superiority over others, whereas their female counterparts were raised differently. In some parts of the U.S., this is a more pronounced part of the culture than in others. Each culture throughout the world may have taught similar lessons to a larger or smaller degree. They certainly all have their idiosyncrasies. But certainly what we choose to teach males and females about each person's relative worth in society matters. And that's part of each society's culture.

Cultures matter, but they are not definitive. If all white males are raised in a misogynistic culture and culture is determinative, then all American white males would be misogynists. Do you hold that view? On a broader level, many white males are Trump supporters, but many white males aren't. Clearly, white male culture in the US is not homogeneous or there are other factors besides culture at play. That is even more true when you are discussing a religion that spans continents and which has significant internal cultural differences. Going back to your original example, the issue with misogynist white men is not that they were white. If they were misogynist green men, it would be just as bad. The problem is that they are misogynist. Why not focus on that?

If the green men demonstrate through their behavior and actions that they may be more misogynistic than other men, then I would absolutely want to analyze the green men's culture to figure out if there are societal underpinnings to explain why the green men show so much more discrimination toward women than others do.

I am not suggesting otherwise. I would assume that a serious analysis would determine that factors other than greenness were responsible.

Fine, so assuming that the factors were greenness, with broken family, from a lower socio economic level, with mental issues, from a particular sect of green religion. Then we should not let those green people into the country. Assuming all those 1000 men had those issues. A serious analysis might also proclaim otherwise, the fact is, you don't know either.

You know, I'm a bleeding heart liberal who would never close the door on a legitimate refugee. So, if the study came to specific conclusions like you suggest, I'd hope that such folks could get some sort of specialized accommodation that is more than a door slammed in their faces. You are correct that I don't know what a serious analysis would discover. So, I avoid making blanket statements about all members of a religion, culture, ethnicity, etc. I think the people we should focus on are those who commit violence against women. That is the common trait that they have.

If these study came to specific conclusions like you suggest, I know I would choose the preserve the safety of the women already in my country vs some refugee with traits that pose a danger to those women. If the people who commit violence against women have those particular traits...one of them including the religion and culture they come from, then no I don't welcome them. Its not a blanket statement if there's a high probability and incidence of that happening. If the accommodations require substantial resources on my part, I have better things to spend those resources on.

What is offputting is how much you care about those "potential refugees" regardless of how many crimes they commit, instead of the victims they committed atrocities against. For all the protestations that you find this crime terrible, you have not even tried to view it from the woman's perspective at all.

I don't think I'm going to bother engaging someone who is so disoriented that she actually replies to herself.

Not PP but "disoriented"? Did not those two consecutive posts make sense? If so, then reply. If not, why not? I thought they made sense. Dont start being nasty because people disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

In Cologne about 120.women called the police to report assaults that evening. That was smarter than :fighting back" given the circumstances don't you think?

Yes--in fact I said as much. You can't do the responses that are effective in a place packed with men and no room to swing a handbag. But these men have been in the streets every day for months "accidentally" bumping into women or brushing against them with no push back at all from European women. And they have totally gotten the wrong idea.

Yes, maybe the onus is on the woman when it should be on the man. But I would bet the rate of harassment would abate if women yelled and cursed at every Arab man who casually brushed up against her. Unfortunately, I don't think western police would back up a woman who inflicted any harm with her handbag.

+1. Thanks for wading into the mine field.

[Anonymous]

http://www.dw.com/en/reports-asylum-seekers-among-cologne-attacks-suspects/a-18966406

According to the newspapers' reports, citing officers on duty on New Year's Eve, officials checked the IDs of at least 100 people present at Cologne's central station on December 31 after their behavior became conspicuous. Seventy-one people were identified, 11 people were remanded into custody and 32 criminal complaints were registered, according to the Welt am Sonntag (WamS) report.
"There were, quite to the contrary of what was said publicly, identity checks on numerous people," the WamS quoted an unnamed officer as saying. "Most of them were recently-arrived asylum seekers."

The first internal police report on the event - a so-called "wichtige Ereignis Meldung" ("important event announcement") - spoke of a crowd mainly of "North African and Arab" origin. According to the Kölner Stadt-anzeiger, the officer leading the team at the station wanted the report to include mention of the Syrians and asylum seekers, but the senior officer writing the "WE-Meldung" decided not to, saying it would be "politically awkward."

"For the mostly Arabic offenders, sexual assault was the priority, or, to express it from their point of view, their sexual amusement was thepriority. A group of men would encircle a female victim, close the loop, and then start groping the woman," WamS quoted the officer as saying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just why I was reluctant to wade in. Obviously if the man is obviously groping her, women of all cultures fight back. But Western women tend to let go the casual brushing that could be accidental, giving the benefit of the doubt.

An Arab woman wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt--she'd cause a scene even for the mildest of contact that could be inappropriate. And her response could be wildly disproportionate by our standards, but no one would call her on that as it is her right to defend her honor however she sees fit.

My colleague's wife would have been arrested for what she did if it had happened here and undoubtedly charged with assault. She also likely would have been subject to a civil suit for the harm she inflicted.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the distinction. However, saying that the onus is on western women to conform the expectations of these refugees is backwards. They are coming to a foreign counry, seeking "asylum". It is the refugees' responsibility to act properly, not for women to jealously guard their bodies from encroachment.

I agree with points both of you are making. But, I would like to point out that part of what is going on is not simply that these men are raised as incurable misogynists (something that I don't believe is even true for the most part), but that they also get the message that Western women are complete sluts. So, the casual brushing that is ignored just reinforces that belief. That is not to suggest that the onus is on Western women to change, but just to offer an explanation. The men still need to change their behavior (and get a more realistic view of sexual mores).

Also, while I agree with the poster who had personal experience in the Middle East, based on my own experience in the region, I would add that what she is saying does not necessarily apply when there are huge power imbalances. In the case of Sri Lankan or Filipino maids, for instance, it can often be open season.

It is not for the women to change their behavior for these men. They are in host countries with new mores. Shape up or ship out. If they were not assimilated prior to this they should not have been let in.

And to add to the above, that explanation, is completely not acceptable at all. Just because innocuous behaviors by women in Western countries means they're viewed as sluts by these men, does not mean we should allow these men who have these views into those countries to prey on these women. It may be understandable, but absolutely totally NOT acceptable.

I think there are options between closing the door completely and allowing them to pretty on women. But, I expect trying to have such a nuanced conversation with you is futile.

Not PP. You're probably a good person, I think, so no outrage from me tonight. But I notice you seem to understand nuance a lot more when we are talking about discrimination or violence by men against women, as opposed to discrimination or violence by whites or Christians against blacks or Muslims. I'm guessing you disagree?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP. You're probably a good person, I think, so no outrage from me tonight. But I notice you seem to understand nuance a lot more when we are talking about discrimination or violence by men against women, as opposed to discrimination or violence by whites or Christians against blacks or Muslims. I'm guessing you disagree?

I try to understand nuance wherever humans are concerned. I am not a good/evil type of guy. I think all of us have our flaws and none of us are perfect. I think I can find good in everyone. I could probably find bad as well, but I don't make much of an effort so I don't really know. I have posted here before about what I consider the legitimate concerns among poor white people that they are being left behind. I think minorities and immigrants (and women in some cases) make easy -- if inaccurate -- targets for their anger. I don't agree with their positions on such matters, but I understand. You can decide whether or not that is nuance.