I am aware that he had to be persuaded by his assistant to stop the experiment, when he wanted to force the participating men to suffer still more egregious and traumatic assaults. That is one reason I wrote this comment, which was removed from the site:
"Since when has Zimbardo cared about his fellow men's experiences? Since when has he been a compassionate, empathetic, or understanding person? Does anyone actually believe he's interested in identifying the source of male angst?"
TED moderator's email response:
"Your comment ... has been removed. TED coment threads are a welcoming place for differing opinions, but we ask that you write all comments in a way that is thoughtful and constructive.
"... Comments that are insulting ... do not make for constructive conversation."
Well. Fuck me.
Meanwhile, the comment made by some self-serving bitch, claiming that men are "spoiled" by the sense of suprematism with which we were (allegedly) universally raised, remains publicly visible. But what of my response to it, which expressed that a woman should not presume to speak on how men are universally raised? Deleted, under the same rationale as quoted above.
And this was my response to TED:
"Hmm...so you support and give platforms to doxxers and proven harassers of MEN, like Steph Guthrie, but when someone uses the exact rhetoric that feminists ALWAYS resort to ("You aren't [x] and can't speak on issues relating to [x]"), against an ignorant sexist woman, this is crossing some line. Again, you condone and give platforms to literal harassment campaigns, and are attempting to claim the moral high ground over a faggot (which is what you clearly see me as) trying to defend his sex. Think on that, love. ;)"
(Obviously I'm just trying to put them on the defensive—but I really do think there's something to the idea that gay men, like me, who receive more than our fair share of attention from the opposite sex, are naturally more willing to call self-serving women out on their bullshit, compared to are those who view women as worthy objects of erotic worship. See various studies on the "Women are wonderful" effect.)
Basically, what I've found is that women's perverted sense of propriety and seemliness has replaced logic as the sine qua non for functional discourse. Ostensibly "general" comments, such as "You men all feel entitled, and that's the whole problem," are rationalized as permissible and "tolerant"—as almost any women would rationalize them—, whereas structurally (though not fallaciously) "ad hominem" comments such as "You have no idea what you're talking about and how dare you construct this fantasy about how men think," are "unacceptable" barriers to "constructive conversation."
"Feels over reals," in short, is the preferred heuristic for determining an idea's "validity" and "acceptableness" today. It's no wonder that men's motivation and brilliance are being stifled when female mediocrity, passive aggressiveness, and prudish, judgmental impracticality are judged equal to research, analysis, and hard work—be it intellectual or physical or both.