Asherian Command wrote: Teach women to stay away from certain areas. Travel in packs. Ensure that you do not go somewhere and buy a drink from a stranger. There should be more steps taken to prevent it. But we cannot punish every single man on the planet and generalize. Because that is damning a large group of people.
And the constant threat of physical abuse or rape doesn't?
There's a time and place for everything. Not wanting people to bother you while you're out doing God knows what isn't a sign of a "psycopath", as some in this thread would claim. There's plenty of times when one can be social with someone without having to force a conversation on someone. A simple "hello", "how do you do", etc. is fine, but why on earth would you assume that you're so interesting a person that any random person would like nothing more than to talk to you? If anything, that seems anti-social to me.
I agree with everything in that video. She is right in regards to criminalizing speech in public places would disproportional target minorities and the poor and unsolicited speech is a first amendment issue.
She gets it all right on every angle. Thanks for exposing me to that Video blog, I gonna listen to more of their stuff.
Asherian Command wrote: Instead it should be thought about. Where are you most likely to get attacked or raped. If you give that out there is more likely a chance that you will be raped. Basically areas where there is more raped reported. Like school campuses, in this certain area of new york. Stay away from there. Teach women that to defend themselves. Teach women how to kick ass. Teach women to stay away from certain areas. Travel in packs. Ensure that you do not go somewhere and buy a drink from a stranger. There should be more steps taken to prevent it. But we cannot punish every single man on the planet and generalize. Because that is damning a large group of people.
1) This is just ridiculous "blame the victim" nonsense, and what people mean when they talk about "rape culture". Essentially what you're saying is "rape happens and we just have to accept it, so make sure you do everything you can to make sure you're not the one who gets raped". You're proposing a situation in which the potential victim has the biggest obligation to stop a crime, and every woman has a life full of reminder after reminder that they could be raped at any moment if they aren't careful at all times. And if they do get raped you've guaranteed that the current trend of constantly blaming the victim and asking why they didn't prevent the crime will continue. Why do you think that this is in any way a good situation?
2) You're making the incorrect assumption that most rape is the "stranger jumps out of the bushes" kind when most victims know the rapist. Staying away from "bad areas" doesn't do anything when you discover that you trusted a potential boyfriend too early and he wouldn't accept "no" as an answer. In fact, this kind assumption just helps the "she really wanted it" defense when there was no "bad area" or drugged drink involved.
(Rapists in my opinion, I think there punishment should be if they brag about it, sterilization, if they abused her, held her or him against their will, drugged her, I think sterilization is the only way to go in that case. Get them out of the genepool.)
1) You're making the mistake of assuming that rape is about making babies, not power. Sterilizing a rapist is going to do absolutely nothing to keep them from repeating their crime.
2) You're making the even worse mistake of assuming that there's some kind of "rape gene" that can be kept out of the gene pool. This is just laughably wrong, rape (like other crimes) is caused by social influence and individual decisions, not genes.
Based Mom is awesome. I agree on certain things. I.E. people think this should be human rights biggest concern. when it should be stopping the united states from using bloody drones and blowing children up. But Alas I am talking to a wall there.
Peregrine seems to forget that assuming leads to terrible debating.
Peregrine I am assuming you are smart individual, but immediately when you wrote that response. I had a long think as to why you wrote it, without I don't know... confirming that is what I meant?
You know assumption is basically as my friend puts it the death of free thought.
1) This is just ridiculous "blame the victim" nonsense, and what people mean when they talk about "rape culture". Essentially what you're saying is "rape happens and we just have to accept it, so make sure you do everything you can to make sure you're not the one who gets raped". You're proposing a situation in which the potential victim has the biggest obligation to stop a crime, and every woman has a life full of reminder after reminder that they could be raped at any moment if they aren't careful at all times. And if they do get raped you've guaranteed that the current trend of constantly blaming the victim and asking why they didn't prevent the crime will continue. Why do you think that this is in any way a good situation?
Sorry. But Are you reading the post I am talking about?
Where am I blaming the victim?
Where?
I have said that you need to be careful and aware.
To be ready if it happens. If it does. RUN.
"rape happens and we just have to accept it, so make sure you do everything you can to make sure you're not the one who gets raped".
O.O What. What.
No. You buffon. I am suggesting preventive ideas and ways to prevent it. Rape culture does not exist. There are not peoples in the millions being raped. That is persona being pursued by many and that is the image that is being given off. I reject that.
Rape does happen. And we must do more than we are currently doing, and fitting status quo. We should ensure that it is taken more seriously. Instead of well right now.
2) You're making the incorrect assumption that most rape is the "stranger jumps out of the bushes" kind when most victims know the rapist. Staying away from "bad areas" doesn't do anything when you discover that you trusted a potential boyfriend too early and he wouldn't accept "no" as an answer. In fact, this kind assumption just helps the "she really wanted it" defense when there was no "bad area" or drugged drink involved.
For gods sakes where have I said that it is someone jumping out from the bushes. I didn't say that. Rape occurs between people who know each other. Right now that is what is happening. Where the hell did I make that assertion? WHERE DID I SAY THAT!
You made that up. You put words into my mouth and misrepresented my opinion. That is stupid and you have no place in this argument to put words into my mouth. This is not the first time you have done this.
Do not assume. You will anger people by doing that.
The thing I have stated is that there should be studies into where this happens, not as to who do it. This is completely different. from what you are thinking. I am suggesting that maybe certain areas such as economical statuses might have more of a certain thing. That is what I am talking about. That certain areas in the country are either more prone to it like murder, like theft, happen. Rape does happen, and I am not saying it doesn't, but we need to think what type of area, has more of it. What types of areas, should you avoid. This is to say places like dorm parties. Like parties in general. To be cautious.
That is what I am saying. Being cautious and aware.
Do not immedately think I am blaming the victim. I am not. I am saying that more preventive things must be done. More thought must be put into it. Because right now most people have no bloody idea about it.
1) You're making the mistake of assuming that rape is about making babies, not power. Sterilizing a rapist is going to do absolutely nothing to keep them from repeating their crime.
2) You're making the even worse mistake of assuming that there's some kind of "rape gene" that can be kept out of the gene pool. This is just laughably wrong, rape (like other crimes) is caused by social influence and individual decisions, not genes.
Oh for christs sakes. DID I SAY THAT?
No. I said thats form of punishment you moron! To disencourage idiots from attempting it. That is prevention. That is what you do. Right now going to jail for rape is kind of a joke. Compared to many things. Especially if you are white.
I have only assumed one thing. You know what that is... Nothing. I don't assume. I don't work absolutes. Saying I do is wrong.
I have not said that it is hereditary in anyway way. You assumed that. That is your fault.
It will keep them away because they will be in jail, with no ability to use their tool. I suggested military service as a janitor, and to be imprisoned. To work for their rest of their life for ruining someone elses. See the problem is that I said that. And you ignored it. The thing is that the prison system of course also has to improved as well. If you are a child rapist for example. You will not survive one day in a prison. Because even murderers think they are higher than a child rapist.
So my thoughts are this punish them severely and disencourage that from happening and then to reform them completely.
They will not make the same thing happen if they have been sterilized and being monitored. So basically their lives are being watched and ensured that they can not in anyway ever procreate or have sex. Period.
And the constant threat of physical abuse or rape doesn't?
There's a time and place for everything. Not wanting people to bother you while you're out doing God knows what isn't a sign of a "psycopath", as some in this thread would claim. There's plenty of times when one can be social with someone without having to force a conversation on someone. A simple "hello", "how do you do", etc. is fine, but why on earth would you assume that you're so interesting a person that any random person would like nothing more than to talk to you? If anything, that seems anti-social to me.
I encourage talk and discussion and communication between all peoples. But I think we can tell one someone is off their game, and we actively avoid them. Sometimes it is fine to do so. But that is up to the person to decide.
The entire thing is subjective. So There will be certain cases where it is fine. Like I know a few people who have been raped. I asked them the following. "Did you watch your drink?" The response is usually on the lines. "No a guy gave it to me." My response to that is. "Always watch. Your bloody drink. Get your own drink. Make them drink it. You know as a test."
If they refuse to drink it. Chances are they spiked it. Then by all means throw it at them and embrass them infront of everyone. not only would that anger them, but the entire crowd would turn on them faster than a dog seeing food at the end of the day.
Where you write a long list of all the ways in which the solution to rape is to make potential victims prevent the crime.
No. You buffon. I am suggesting preventive ideas and ways to prevent it.
You're suggesting ways to prevent it that depend on the assumption that there are just places/times/whatever when rape happens, and all you can do is avoid being there. For example, why should we just take it for granted that women going out alone are taking a serious risk and tell them to avoid doing that?
Rape culture does not exist. There are not peoples in the millions being raped.
Sigh. Did you even read the part where I said that "rape is always out there lurking and waiting for you to make a mistake and become vulnerable" is what people mean when they talk about rape culture? It isn't about some kind of assumption that every woman will be or has been raped, it's about how, as a woman, you're expected to be constantly aware of the possibility that you could be raped and make rape avoidance a part of your life.
For gods sakes where have I said that it is someone jumping out from the bushes.
You didn't say it explicitly, you just implied it based on the "solutions" you offered. Avoiding "bad areas" is only relevant advice if you assume that the most common rape danger is the "stranger jumping out of the bushes" kind where you just have to watch out for potential rapists and avoid them. It is useless advice if the most common rape danger is from someone you know and trust already.
No. I said thats form of punishment you moron! To disencourage idiots from attempting it. That is prevention. That is what you do. Right now going to jail for rape is kind of a joke. Compared to many things. Especially if you are white.
Err, lol? Going to prison is NOT a joke. The issue with light sentences for rape isn't that prison is a nice happy place where people aren't punished sufficiently it's that the length of a prison sentence for rape is often laughably short compared to other crimes, and that's assuming the rapist is even convicted instead of found innocent based on some ridiculous "it wasn't really rape, I just got her really drunk" or "she had sex with other men so of course she said yes to me" argument. The solution is to give appropriate prison sentences and stop accepting such pathetic excuses, not to make prison even more of a sadistic hell than it already is.
And if you want to accuse me of making assumptions then yes, I made an assumption. I assumed the best possible interpretation of your argument for sterilization as punishment: that sterilization directly prevents a crime somehow. If it's being used as nothing more than a horrible consequence to threaten people with then congratulations, you've gone back to the days when cutting off body parts was considered an acceptable punishment. I think it should be obvious why that is not something we should have again.
It will keep them away because they will be in jail, with no ability to use their tool.
You do realize that a lot of rape happens in prison, right?
They will not make the same thing happen if they have been sterilized and being monitored. So basically their lives are being watched and ensured that they can not in anyway ever procreate or have sex.
Sigh. You do realize that sterilization doesn't prevent a person from having sex, right? It just makes it so that you can't make babies as a result of having sex. Also, did you know that a lot of rape happens with hands/objects/etc and even a "cut everything off" approach to sterilization isn't going to stop it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: The entire thing is subjective. So There will be certain cases where it is fine. Like I know a few people who have been raped. I asked them the following. "Did you watch your drink?"
The response is usually on the lines. "No a guy gave it to me."
My response to that is. "Always watch. Your bloody drink. Get your own drink. Make them drink it. You know as a test."
Wow, so your response to someone telling you that something horrible happened to them is to lecture them on how they could have prevented it by doing this "obvious" think that you thought of? Do any of these people ever talk to you again after this conversation?
Asherian Command wrote: They say we live a rape culture. They put out this ridicilous numbers with very little evidence and take the facts already given and inflating them to ridiculous numbers.
Some feminist (as with any group) are pants-on-head crazy. But just because those people exist and can be discredited, doesn't mean that feminism as a whole is discredited, or that it is baseless.
I think "rape-culture" is a problematic term. It is a sort of hyperbole which ends up polarizing people. Obviously a real (honest to god) rape-culture, would involve a lot more rape in a more organized and legal manner. But we do live in a culture where women are frequently objectified, and where men learn to treat women in a certain way, and women learn to be treated in a certain way. The point is we are a culture that abuses women. Subtle things like attitudes to women in the work place, talking about their looks, sexual "banter", pinching in bars -- these kind of things are commonplace. Rape is the extreme end of that abuse. While you might not agree that we live in a 'rape-culture' (I don't agree that we do) -- but I hope that as a reasonable person -- you might consider the idea that culture has a bigger part to play in rape than we might like to admit. Even though the blame falls squarely on the rapist, rapists are still to some degree a product of their culture.
I mean I am hit on all the time. I am a guy, I am cat called and I don't like it. But I know not to be hyper senstive and to strike out at people.
IF someone says hi. I say hi back, even if I don't find them attractive. Because I am not a judgmental jerk.I understand in this day and age it is actually hard to not be a white man. But the fact is that you cannot ignore the experience of one.
I don't think wanting more respect for women (or black people) needs to be viewed as an attack on white men. And when you talk about being hit on "all the time" I don't think you fully appreciate how relentless it is for some women. I've had my ass pinched in bars by girls occasionally, but I've never come home covered in bruises from it happening all night. I've never not wanted to go to a place because of it, and I've never worn denim shorts under my street clothes because I'm scared of being penetrated. But this is just a fact of life for many girls.
I do also agree that women are probably raped more then men. That is a definite fact. But saying that x percentage of y are more likely to be raped is... misinformed ... But we cannot punish every single man on the planet and generalize. Because that is damning a large group of people.
Sadly women are most likely to be raped by people they know. I know two girls who have been drugged and raped, one was also raped as child. Two members of my family who were raped. My friend's mother was raped during a burglary at her work, and I can think of four other friends who have confided in me that they were raped. Please don't tell me I'm misinformed. Asking for more respect for women is not 'punishing' men.
Err, lol? Going to prison is NOT a joke. The issue with light sentences for rape isn't that prison is a nice happy place where people aren't punished sufficiently it's that the length of a prison sentence for rape is often laughably short compared to other crimes, and that's assuming the rapist is even convicted instead of found innocent based on some ridiculous "it wasn't really rape, I just got her really drunk" or "she had sex with other men so of course she said yes to me" argument. The solution is to give appropriate prison sentences and stop accepting such pathetic excuses, not to make prison even more of a sadistic hell than it already is.
That is what I was meaning and alluding too.
You do realize that a lot of rape happens in prison, right?
Yes. It does. That is mostly because of the problem with prisons in general.
Sigh. You do realize that sterilization doesn't prevent a person from having sex, right? It just makes it so that you can't make babies as a result of having sex. Also, did you know that a lot of rape happens with hands/objects/etc and even a "cut everything off" approach to sterilization isn't going to stop it?
I didn't say how they would sterilize the person now did I
easiest way.... IS to 'cut' off the source.
Sigh. Did you even read the part where I said that "rape is always out there lurking and waiting for you to make a mistake and become vulnerable" is what people mean when they talk about rape culture? It isn't about some kind of assumption that every woman will be or has been raped, it's about how, as a woman, you're expected to be constantly aware of the possibility that you could be raped and make rape avoidance a part of your life.
I would like you to look at the definition
Its an assumption. So it is wrong.
Any assumption is based on human fact. Which is wrong. It is only factorable if it is proven by science and peer review. All cases associated with the study of rape culture have been inconclusive. There is no conclusive evidence that says we are living in a rape society. Any one that says differently is because of that issue.
Rape does exist. But we can take measurable ways to deflate or stop it from happening. That is not victim blaming. That is preventing Victims from occuring. It will prevent victims. And hopefully decrease the numbers.
There is no large amount of precentage of people getting raped. This is only because of number of growing amounts of people and population so you will see numbers rise. But rape has been going down. It is not as common as it used to be.
Rape culture is a concept that examines a culture in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.[1][2]
Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, trivializing rape, denial of widespread rape, or refusing to acknowledge the harm of certain forms of sexual violence that do not conform to certain stereotypes of stranger or violent rape. Rape culture has been used to model behavior within social groups, including prison rape and conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire countries have also been alleged to be rape cultures.[3][4][5][6][7]
Although the concept of rape culture is used in feminist academia,[8] there is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and to what degree a given society meets the criteria to be considered a rape culture.[3]
Rape culture has been observed to correlate with other social factors and behaviors. Research identifies correlation between rape myths, victim blaming and trivialization of rape with increased incidence of racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, religious intolerance, and other forms of discrimination.[9][10]
Wikipedia delves into it but then forgets to actually talk about it. It is widely debated. And only supported by one side of thinking. It basically states it exists. When it doesn't. Rape does exist. And to say it doesn't is stupid. Rape culture, meaning that rape is trivalized which I am not doing. Is not there. It is a fallacy. As most schools like to paint. It is not entirely one sided.
It is trivalizing if you say it only happens to women.
You didn't say it explicitly, you just implied it based on the "solutions" you offered. Avoiding "bad areas" is only relevant advice if you assume that the most common rape danger is the "stranger jumping out of the bushes" kind where you just have to watch out for potential rapists and avoid them. It is useless advice if the most common rape danger is from someone you know and trust already.
Because I assumed people were smart enough to know that is not what I was saying.
Bad areas include social areas. Such as parties. Not parks. Most rapes happen at home, or at social gatherings. (Or the start of one, which is the most crucial part and the only time something can be done without damaging the very sensetive victim. You can intervene during, but the best time to intervene is before. You must take steps to ensure it does not happen at all. That people take care of themselves, and each other. This can only be solved through group efforts. Not individual level which has not stemmed this at all.
It is a sort of hyperbole which ends up polarizing people. Obviously a real (honest to god) rape-culture, would involve a lot more rape in a more organized and legal manner. But we do live in a culture where women are frequently objectified, and where men learn to treat women in a certain way, and women learn to be treated in a certain way. The point is we are a culture that abuses women. Subtle things like attitudes to women in the work place, talking about their looks, sexual "banter", pinching in bars -- these kind of things are commonplace. Rape is the extreme end of that abuse. While you might not agree that we live in a 'rape-culture' (I don't agree that we do) -- but I hope that as a reasonable person -- you might consider the idea that culture has a bigger part to play in rape than we might like to admit. Even though the blame falls squarely on the rapist, rapists are still to some degree a product of their culture.
Agreed. Actually that is probably better than I could say. I think it doesn't exist mostly because it is an exaggeration and inflation of our culture. We can't really blame everything on culture. We can blame it on both individuals and our culture. Not one thing is more guilty than another.
don't think wanting more respect for women (or black people) needs to be viewed as an attack on white men. And when you talk about being hit on "all the time" I don't think you fully appreciate how relentless it is for some women. I've had my ass pinched in bars by girls occasionally, but I've never come home covered in bruises from it happening all night. I've never not wanted to go to a place because of it, and I've never worn denim shorts under my street clothes because I'm scared of being penetrated. But this is just a fact of life for many girls.
You have no idea. Being sent letters, phone calls, messages, getting notes slipped, getting whistled at. Yeah. I can relate to a womans problems because It happens a lot. But I didn't really say that It happens to me more. I am not self centered. It does happen to me but not in the frequency that it would be if I were to be a woman. If I were to be a woman i would go insane.
I know of this really beautiful arab woman, like she was just absolutely gorgeous, first time she got cat called (like really horrible cat calls in the states) she put on the Hijab, and that was the end of that. She was scared shitless of cat calls. She had never experienced it, because she was from the middle east.
I think though that the problem is that most people in the states are pigs. I am sorry but this culture is probably the most filthiest culture I have ever seen. Sexualization is basically everywhere. So It would be horrible to be a girl in the states.
Sadly women are most likely to be raped by people they know. I know two girls who have been drugged and raped, one was also raped as child. Two members of my family who were raped. My friend's mother was raped during a burglary at her work, and I can think of four other friends who have confided in me that they were raped. Please don't tell me I'm misinformed. Asking for more respect for women is not 'punishing' men.
Yeah :/ It does happen. But I am saying that precentage of women have this happen to them, it only puts fear into the public if you inflate the numbers. What I am saying is that there is sometimes where they inflate the number as a scare tactic which I don't think really helps. It just makes people afraid. Afraid to talk and afraid to meet new people.
I think in general people should respect each other more than they are currently doing. As someone saved someones life while everyone looked at me, while I was yelling at people to get help while they just walked on by, I know of the uncaring people of this country and of this planet and Cringe at it.
People are taught that someone will always come to aid them. We need more people that are self reliant because right now it is just pathetic. A lot of these rapes can prevented. And it is sad that they are not.
I can point to hundreds of crimes where women are killed and raped even though there was an onlooker nearby who did nothing and just didn't want to deal with it.
I guess in your world nobody is ever wrongfully convicted? I mean, what are you going to say to someone after you impose that punishment and then find out that they were innocent? "Sorry we cut off an important part of your body and destroyed your sex life, but hey, at least you'll be a warning to potential rapists"?
Any assumption is based on human fact. Which is wrong. It is only factorable if it is proven by science and peer review. All cases associated with the study of rape culture have been inconclusive. There is no conclusive evidence that says we are living in a rape society. Any one that says differently is because of that issue.
Err, lol? How exactly do you conduct studies on something that is so subjective? This isn't a physics problem where you can just run some experiments and determine a final number, you're talking about attitudes in society that can't be quantified in such a neat way.
It is widely debated.
It's debated, but that doesn't mean there's a legitimate debate. There's a debate about the age of the earth where some people think it is only 6000 years old and evolution is a satanic lie, but that doesn't make it a credible argument. If you look at the things that your wikipedia definition defines "rape culture" as including you'll find that they're all pretty indisputably accurate:
Victim blaming: yep, constantly. When it isn't open "she was asking for it by wearing that" kind of blaming it's endless talk about all the ways to avoid being raped (don't go out alone, avoid "bad areas", etc).
Sexual objectification: if you don't see this in society then you aren't even trying to pay attention.
Trivializing rape: rape jokes anyone? Or talking about how you "raped" someone when you beat them in a game?
Denial of widespread rape: yep.
Refusing to acknowledge "alternative" forms: yep. Drink too much at a party and get raped and you'll get an endless supply of people talking about how it wasn't "real" rape, it was just a case of regretting it the next day. Oh, and let's not forget the men: prison rape is "funny", and if a female teacher has sex with a male student you'll see endless comments about how lucky the kid was and how there's no way that's rape.
Bad areas include social areas. Such as parties. Not parks. Most rapes happen at home, or at social gatherings. (Or the start of one, which is the most crucial part and the only time something can be done without damaging the very sensetive victim. You can intervene during, but the best time to intervene is before. You must take steps to ensure it does not happen at all. That people take care of themselves, and each other. This can only be solved through group efforts. Not individual level which has not stemmed this at all.
Again, you're missing the point. A party is only a "bad area" if you assume that the rapist is some random stranger the victim just met at the party, and therefore the way to stop it is to avoid the rapist. Avoiding the "bad area" doesn't help at all if the rapist is someone the victim already knows and trusts. After all, what are you going to do when someone has a few drinks at a party and then leaves with their boyfriend? Follow them home and make sure the boyfriend behaves? The opportunity to avoid the rapist in that situation ended a long time ago.
I know of this really beautiful arab woman, like she was just absolutely gorgeous, first time she got cat called (like really horrible cat calls in the states) she put on the Hijab, and that was the end of that. She was scared shitless of cat calls. She had never experienced it, because she was from the middle east.
I think though that the problem is that most people in the states are pigs. I am sorry but this culture is probably the most filthiest culture I have ever seen. Sexualization is basically everywhere. So It would be horrible to be a girl in the states.
And this is exactly what people mean when they talk about "rape culture". It's just taken for granted that people are "pigs", and catcalling is just part of life. If you're lucky the only way that people will intrude sexually into your life without permission is random objectification and inappropriate comments. If you aren't lucky they'll decide their right to intrude includes more than that. And not only do you have to deal with the lesser forms of harassment you have to constantly wonder whether that guy who just made an inappropriate comment is going to be the one who doesn't take rejection well and escalates to more than just comments. Rape and worrying about rape and trying to avoid rape are just part of everyday life, and there's nothing you can do to escape it.
Asherian Command wrote: What I am saying is that there is sometimes where they inflate the number as a scare tactic which I don't think really helps. It just makes people afraid. Afraid to talk and afraid to meet new people.
I would certainly be in favour of women being less afraid, but I don't think it is feminists that are scaring women. All women will have some experience of being scared first-hand by men. Getting men to worry about this too is kind of the point.
It is really the age of over-reaction. In the Netherlands, Females would talk back and if they don't like the comment they give you the finger (or a knee )
They also should make a similar one in Japan, the would barely get 30 seconds of footage, probably from a few gaijins living in Japan.
Asherian Command wrote: What I am saying is that there is sometimes where they inflate the number as a scare tactic which I don't think really helps. It just makes people afraid. Afraid to talk and afraid to meet new people.
I would certainly be in favour of women being less afraid, but I don't think it is feminists that are scaring women. All women will have some experience of being scared first-hand by men. Getting men to worry about this too is kind of the point.
I don't specifically blame feminists I blame idiots who are given 'researchers' to 'studies' on this type of stuff. The fact is that these researchers are trained in social sciences in gender studies. They are not trained on how to do data or how to accurately comprehend it. It is also a lot of assumption and some of them believe that peer review is bull.
The major issue is that people are doing this to distrot society using it as a hammer. Does culture have problems. Yes of course it does. Culture always has issue and it is not perfect. Nor is it good. But blaming the entirety of everyone in the culture and using it as an ad homenimum attack is just unwarranted.
It is really the age of over-reaction. In the Netherlands, Females would talk back and if they don't like the comment they give you the finger (or a knee )
They also should make a similar one in Japan, the would barely get 30 seconds of footage, probably from a few gaijins living in Japan.
Agreed. I think the problem though is that japan has certain laws that are just.... interesting.... And... Well I don't like japan for its laws that it has.
easysauce wrote: Our culture wont protect its men, it will protect its women and even keep laws that favor women on the books, yet somehow, society is women hating as a whole.
Even for the OT, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
nkelsch wrote: I agree with everything in that video. She is right in regards to criminalizing speech in public places would disproportional target minorities and the poor and unsolicited speech is a first amendment issue.
Why do people keep raising this strawman? No one has suggested criminalizing anything. It was simple to show how common boorish behavior is.
nkelsch wrote: She gets it all right on every angle. Thanks for exposing me to that Video blog, I gonna listen to more of their stuff.
That's what she does. And for this she gets labelled "anti-feminist", "conservative" (despite being a registered Democrat) and, in one case, from a real champion of social justice (Matt Lees), "scum".
easysauce wrote: Our culture wont protect its men, it will protect its women and even keep laws that favor women on the books, yet somehow, society is women hating as a whole.
Even for the OT, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
nkelsch wrote: I agree with everything in that video. She is right in regards to criminalizing speech in public places would disproportional target minorities and the poor and unsolicited speech is a first amendment issue.
Why do people keep raising this strawman? No one has suggested criminalizing anything. It was simple to show how common boorish behavior is.
what do you expect to be done when they organization who created video calls for 911 training and incident reporting if they don't expect reports of harassment to be responded to by law enforcement? If they are expecting free speech to be classified harassment and be reported to police and responded to police, they are expecting enforcement of a law which means criminalization. And since they consider everything in that video, you have some issues... Like criminalizing or at least erroneous reporting of non harassment speech, liberal enforcement and interpretation of current harassment laws, and in general, another way for police to blanket harassment of the poor and minorities since that is where there is a higher rate of "street harassment".
The hollaback a position is the harassment is already criminal and needs to be reported and the people arrested., so people are calling for it.... They are just not being taken seriously and the laws don't support their definitions of harassment in public places at this time.
Yep. That's exactly how these people work too. They bring up some broad overarching societal issue, exclaim that we all need to do our part to do something about it, don't make any specific suggestions, and then wait for the law makers to come up with something they can actually push as policy.
This video and this thread are about sexist harassment of women. It's irrelevant what anyone says or thinks about other topics.
Why don't you first condemn such behaviour, then ask others to condemn similar behaviour towards men?
Apparently you think that because I haven't condemned sexist harassment of men, sexist harassment of women is acceptable.
So, in a thread about a video that alleges harassment of women, any talk about how its not harassment to say hi to people isnt allowed, and is in fact *irrelevant* in your own words.
got it, dissenting opinions even when backed by facts or comparable situations where the reverse happens, are not allowed...
... .
The thread is about harassment of women.
You can't discuss harassment of women by discussing harassment of men.
You can't excuse harassment of women by pointing out that men can get harassed.
When you do this, you create the impression that you don't want to engage with the subject. Why not? Presumably because you think it is all right to harass women, or maybe you don't believe it happens, though apparently you believe that harassment of men happens and is unacceptable.
I heard many times that women do have this problem in France too. I have no idea how to help with that, though. I obviously never do that, and I do not think any of my friend does. If they do, I am not aware of that. It is pretty hard to know if complete strangers are doing it, because you do not know if it is someone greeting someone they already know or if it is unwanted attention. And even if it is, I am usually too cowardly to speak up for myself, so I would not easily speak up for random strangers…
Well, in other words, I am not sure how I can help with that.
Kilkrazy wrote: You can't excuse harassment of women by pointing out that men can get harassed.
When you do this, you create the impression that you don't want to engage with the subject. Why not? Presumably because you think it is all right to harass women, or maybe you don't believe it happens, though apparently you believe that harassment of men happens and is unacceptable.
I think trying to identify does harassment in general happen or is it only/mainly specific to women?
It does help to address the issue if it is identified as a common part of the human condition.
To be identifying or exclaiming an "excuse" is less correct than looking for a cause of the behavior.
This was of some interest: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/harassment.html "Harassment refers to a wide variety of behavior which can violate both civil and criminal laws. What constitutes criminal harassment varies by state, but it generally entails targeting someone else with behavior meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize, and creating reasonable fear in the victim for their safety or the safety of their family."
With that definition in mind, regarding the video, what would be "proper" harassment?
The guy following for 5 odd minutes I think would meet the definition.
Many of the other interactions were poorly executed attempts at gaining attention with some sense of entitlement.
Note that it is targeting someone with the intent to bother the other person, me saying "God Bless" to you does not make me responsible for you feeling fear of an unsolicited comment from some stranger.
So, what "harassing behavior" do we stop?
What shall we make a law that is not already our there or make a stronger punishment?
Last I checked we have not stamped out rudeness or stupidity so I am not feeling a good chance for success.
All we can actively do is reward good behavior, discourage bad behavior and punish any that is contrary to law.
Being a realist, these encounters SHALL happen, be prepared to deal with them accordingly.
I am tired of you cannot "excuse this" it is "not acceptable", true, but it shall and will happen, too bad for you.
Take an active role and include others and nail people between the eyes for their lack of self control and poor manners.
Everything else is sounding more like complaining.
My wife has made some rather amusing reversals on comments and does not put up with any garbage.
I admire her wit and strength and she certainly needs no protection.
If more people act on what is "right" we would have less of these issues to point to.
This video and this thread are about sexist harassment of women. It's irrelevant what anyone says or thinks about other topics.
Why don't you first condemn such behaviour, then ask others to condemn similar behaviour towards men?
Apparently you think that because I haven't condemned sexist harassment of men, sexist harassment of women is acceptable.
So, in a thread about a video that alleges harassment of women, any talk about how its not harassment to say hi to people isnt allowed, and is in fact *irrelevant* in your own words.
got it, dissenting opinions even when backed by facts or comparable situations where the reverse happens, are not allowed...
... .
The thread is about harassment of women.
You can't discuss harassment of women by discussing harassment of men.
You can't excuse harassment of women by pointing out that men can get harassed.
When you do this, you create the impression that you don't want to engage with the subject. Why not? Presumably because you think it is all right to harass women, or maybe you don't believe it happens, though apparently you believe that harassment of men happens and is unacceptable.
IM not excusing any harassment of women by saying men get harassed, stop making things up, seriously, show some class and address my *actual argument* instead of the one you are making up despite being told multiple times.
Stop making such inflammatory, and insulting statements like suggesting I think harassing women is ok, or doesn't happen.
That is a low class shaming tactic to use to suggest that only a harassment supporter could claim saying HI isnt harassment.
I could simply state you think its ok to harass men, after its easier then actually reading and responding to what you actually wrote.
Im saying, that[u] IT IS NOT HARASSMENT TO SAY HITO PEOPLE. [/u] if you are not getting upset about people saying hi to men, because saying hi to men isnt harassment, then dont get upset when people say hi to women, because it TOO is not harassment.
this thread is about a video that claims it is entirely composed of harassing cat calls,
saying Hello is not harassing, out of 10 hours, 10 minutes of video came out, out of that 10 minutes, almost all of the so called harassment, WASNT!
its disingenuous to take things that are not harassment, and call them such.
again, saying HI is not harassment, harassment of women exists, but saying HI or politely approaching a woman is not harassment.
multiple times its been stated, "your not a woman you cannot understand" , despite the reverse being a sexist statement, and despite PLENTY of women also coming out as stating that saying hi is not harassment.
Actual harassment is wrong, but lowering the bar to the point where you are labeling those who say hi to people as harassers is incorrect factually, silly, and takes away from *actual* harassment.
When you lump *actual* harassment with imagined harassment, it gives the impression that you are trying to speak for *all* women, some of whom like the attention, most of whom do *not* see saying hi as harrassment, and it gives the impression you perceive natural male actions role fulfilling as evil, wrong, and harassing, when its not.
easysauce wrote: When you lump *actual* harassment with imagined harassment, it gives the impression that you are trying to speak for *all* women, some of whom like the attention, most of whom do *not* see saying hi as harrassment, and it gives the impression you perceive natural male actions role fulfilling as evil, wrong, and harassing, when its not.
This.
Quoting myself earlier:
Note that it is targeting someone with the intent to bother the other person, me saying "God Bless" to you does not make me responsible for you feeling fear of an unsolicited comment from some stranger.
It has boiled down to that men should not attempt to engage in conversation with an unfamiliar woman in the street since it would be perceived as a threat.
Too bloody bad.
On the street I am a psycho magnet, if there is anyone off their meds or recently out of jail they seem to find me.
I have had strange and sometimes scary moments but a can guarantee the person did not intend me harm... which made it even more scary.
I have had to adapt, I do not have a sign on me saying "crazy person not wanted" as well as women with a sign "strange men leave me alone".
So until either group gets a clue or we wear signs, all these awkward moments will keep happening.
Asherian Command wrote:There is no large amount of precentage of people getting raped. This is only because of number of growing amounts of people and population so you will see numbers rise. But rape has been going down. It is not as common as it used to be.
Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.
Sadly no. That was a woman explaining that 1-in-5 figure, so that can't be mansplaining. What that is is "internalised misogyny".
You need to learn your snazzy gender-based ad hominems. Life's easier with them (unless you live under the thumb of the heteronormative Patriarchy, in which case life is always hard).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly no. That was a woman explaining that 1-in-5 figure, so that can't be mansplaining. What that is is "internalised misogyny".
You need to learn your snazzy gender-based ad hominems. Life's easier with them (unless you live under the thumb of the heteronormative Patriarchy, in which case life is always hard).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly no. That was a woman explaining that 1-in-5 figure, so that can't be mansplaining. What that is is "internalised misogyny".
You need to learn your snazzy gender-based ad hominems. Life's easier with them (unless you live under the thumb of the heteronormative Patriarchy, in which case life is always hard).
It's actually an AEI piece, which is a conservative-leaning "think tank". One of its senior members is considered to be the founder of neoconservativism. Its sources are suspect, and its defense against counter-claims that indicate that other research has, so far, supported the 1-in-5 claim is dubious (not to mention weak). They have not, themselves, provided their own research on the subject. Throughout the early 2000s, they were the think-tank that basically supported the Bush plan (and they claim that the Bush tax cuts, which they supported, saved the economy from the recession that began during his tenure... this claim is dubious, at best).
The speaker in the video would posit that "attempted forced kissing" does not constitute assault. How she comes about this definition, frankly, escapes me. To me, it falls into the same neo-con definition of "not a real rape" that was making airtime a few years ago, which is to say that the point of the piece was to discredit the findings of the report, and then work backwards from the conclusion to find ways to discredit it, rather than start out with an examination of the data and reach an objective counter.
The now-viral YouTube video "10 hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" has attracted more than 27 million views, sparked conversations about street harassment, inspired a parody, and provoked controversy about depictions of race all in less than the span of a week.
Another consequence: Actress Shoshana B. Roberts, the woman at the center of the video, has received violent threats.
"I do not feel safe right now," she tells NPR's Arun Rath.
"I'm alerting the police as to which jurisdiction I'm in, so my local precinct knows," says Roberts. "So hopefully it can be prevented if somebody does attempt something."
But Roberts says she doesn't regret participating in the project, a PSA for the non-profit anti-street harassment organization Hollaback!, because it has raised the issue with a wide audience.
Initially, Roberts says she found out about the project from an ad on Craigslist posted by the video's director, Rob Bliss, looking for an actress for the project. Roberts says she frequently encounters street harassment and catcalls, and she has personally experienced sexual assault. She was fed up, Roberts says, and the ad struck a chord.
"I saw these key words — 'raising awareness,' 'street harassment,' 'we have to do something about it' — and I felt the need to step in," she says.
"And I was like, 'I can keep my composure. I can do this,' " she says. " 'I have acting training. I have martial arts experience since I was 9. Should I go for the kneecaps or the sternum if anybody tries anything beyond?' Because it escalates so quickly."
So if you wanted to help tap that down, other the prudent use of a flamethrower, what could you do?
Half of the people in the video only gave her a proper greeting, such as the time of day. So what they're saying is... Dont talk to women at all, because feminazis will get offended by you saying "Good evening" politely.
Psienesis wrote: It's actually an AEI piece, which is a conservative-leaning "think tank".
FAIL!
A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".
So try again, and this time without the genetic fallacy.
Psienesis wrote: It's actually an AEI piece, which is a conservative-leaning "think tank".
FAIL!
A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".
So try again, and this time without the genetic fallacy.
You mean like the rest of his post that you didn't at all address? There's also the fact that even if she is a registered Democrat, that doesn't preclude the organisation she works for from having any influence on her work, it just means that she's a registered democrat that works for a conservative thinktank.
I stopped reading his post when he attempted to dismiss the video with a genetic fallacy.
Looking at it now I can see he's talking about Bush, and studies supporting tax cuts, and so on. Red herrings, essentially. So, if he (or you, feel free to join the fun!) want to address the video with something more than "But... but... conservatives!!!", then by all means go right ahead.
Half of the people in the video only gave her a proper greeting, such as the time of day. So what they're saying is... Dont talk to women at all, because feminazis will get offended by you saying "Good evening" politely.
Don't you know? Evening and Morning are oppressive words founded by the Evil Patriarchy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I stopped reading his post when he attempted to dismiss the video with a genetic fallacy.
Looking at it now I can see he's talking about Bush, and studies supporting tax cuts, and so on. Red herrings, essentially. So, if he (or you, feel free to join the fun!) want to address the video with something more than "But... but... conservatives!!!", then by all means go right ahead.
Well for one, the point regarding their history with research studies is relevant, as if they do attempt to claim things regarding tax hikes counter to evidence, then that throws the quality of anything published by them into doubt.
For another, you're doing exactly what you moan about Peregrine supposedly doing; reading part of a post, realising that you disagree with it and so dismissing the rest of it as useless.
The point regarding the definition of sexual assault that Pseinesis made seemed relevant to me, in that Ms Sommers makes points about "real" sexual assault by dismissing drunken/drugged incidents, as if it is impossible for someone to be sexually assaulted whilst drunk, as well as her point regarding "forced kissing" and how those data points can be ignored, when the category also included forced touching and groping, which most people would agree is sexual assault.
Basically, she keeps on making broad statements about a single aspect of a data set in order to dismiss the entire section, when it has other aspects; a trend among those videos of hers that I have seen. She also did it in her catcalling video by dismissing it all as just homeless people harassing rich female lawyers, when that obviously isn't the entirety of the problem, only in this case she does it more subtly.
Ouze wrote: Today I learned the phrase "genetic fallacy".
I take it this isa reference genetic makeup that supposedly makes men superior to women? I've read genetic fallacy about 8 times now and still have no idea what it means.
Psienesis wrote: Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.
That's a fething *huge* number of people!
Source please
Didn't Sommers address that claim, and totally discredit the source?
No, she didn't. Just because Ms Sommers is critical of something doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong. She criticised the size of the study, as well as the criteria by which Sexual Assault is defined. It didn't discredit it, it cast doubt on some of the points made, and her claim that "it's actually 1 in 40" seems to just be pulled out of thin air.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".
Um, I'm from Oz here, so I'm not in full understanding of the US political systems (and it's attendant institutions), but what actually makes someone a 'registered Democrat'? Is there some kind of mechanism or regulatory body that ensures you cant be a conservative and a 'registered Democrat' at the same time?
Sheesh, people. Just watch both videos and make your own conclusions. I have no idea why people go 'oh, noes this is by a conservative/liberal source, automatic discredit!'
But then again, I come from a country with 1 political party and very very heavy media manipulation -_-
Koss cited the results of several studies that periodically updated the original Ms. survey showing a persistently similar ratio despite years of education about date rape: 1 in 4 or 5 women are the victims of rape or attempted rape, according to the legal definition, but only 1 in 4 of those women identifies her experience as rape.
So, there was some context there. Namely, that women who are raped will downplay the crimes committed against them because, well, read the link.
Also, of course, there are other surveys with similar numbers, just do some googling and see. It's a big problem and it has been for a long time.
lord_blackfang wrote: Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.
You gotta actually read the article, man; instead of picking out the half a sentence that sounds like what you want to hear. We call this "context".
I'll take up this concept, though. If a 12 year old girl (willingly) has sex with a 45 year old man in a state where the age of consent is 16, has a crime been committed?
Also, of course, there are other surveys with similar numbers, just do some googling and see. It's a big problem and it has been for a long time.
I did the googling years ago, I also did some reading and thinking. By the standards of the CDC survey, a married couple drinking a glass of wine and having sex could be considered assault. And even the CDC survey makes it pretty clear that violence and rape goes both ways.
Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape by any perpetrator in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.
An estimated 1 in 17 women and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%, respectively) experienced rape,physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.
Also keep in mind that a man being forced to penetrate a woman doesn't count as rape under US law.
Interestingly, the US Justice Department's numbers are about 1/10 of CDC's. It also shows that sexual assault numbers have been plummeting for many years, despite this alleged "rape epidemic" sweeping the globe. Their sample size is also more than twice as large as CDC's and the interviews are more in-depth.
I'd honestly be more worried about the insanely disproportional number of Native American victims of violent assault. The gap there is much, much higher than between genders.
lord_blackfang wrote: Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.
You gotta actually read the article, man; instead of picking out the half a sentence that sounds like what you want to hear. We call this "context".
I'll take up this concept, though. If a 12 year old girl (willingly) has sex with a 45 year old man in a state where the age of consent is 16, has a crime been committed?
Nice setup there. I either agree with you or I'm a monster and all my opinions can automatically be disregarded. Feminsts have taught you well.
A crime has been committed because a law was broken.
lord_blackfang wrote: [Nice setup there. I either agree with you or I'm a monster and all my opinions can automatically be disregarded. Feminsts have taught you well.
A crime has been committed because a law was broken.
Well, gee - didn't you just argue that
Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.
I mean, I'm not sure what "my feminist teachings" has to do with you making sort of a bad argument. The opinions and desires of the victim aren't always the paramount decision in deciding whether the law has been broken or not; or wlse when we tried cases, it would be (the victim) vs (the defendant), instead of The People vs (defendant).
lord_blackfang wrote: Also keep in mind that a man being forced to penetrate a woman doesn't count as rape under US law.
Rape isn't universally defined in the US, so I'd call into question any sort of sweeping statement as such - it varies by state.
Ouze wrote: I mean, I'm not sure what "my feminist teachings" has to do with you making sort of a bad argument. The opinions and desires of the victim aren't always the paramount decision in deciding whether the law has been broken or not; or wlse when we tried cases, it would be (the victim) vs (the defendant), instead of The People vs (defendant).
You're trying to construct an argument from two unrelated things. Law had nothing to do with the "rapes" in that survey so there's no comparison to the 12 year old example.
Two people having consensual sex after a glass of wine isn't a crime under any law but it counts towards the sexual assault ratio in the CDC study and this sort of manipulation is the basis of feminist "facts".
H.B.M.C. wrote: A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".
Um, I'm from Oz here, so I'm not in full understanding of the US political systems (and it's attendant institutions), but what actually makes someone a 'registered Democrat'? Is there some kind of mechanism or regulatory body that ensures you cant be a conservative and a 'registered Democrat' at the same time?
Damn, I wrote that exact same question, and then saw your message. It got me confused too. A quick look on Wikipedia gave me that link to an article where she goes on about how it is terrible that conservative people “have effectively been marginalized, silenced, and rendered invisible on most campuses.” And do you know who her first example is? Herself. If she sees herself as a conservative, and holds opinions that I consider conservative, why on earth would I consider her progressive just because she has some paper saying she supports the democratic party?
This is very mysterious to me.
lord_blackfang wrote: Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.
So, if someone has suffered something that fits the legal definition of rape, but do not know or realize it is the case, this should not be counted as a case of rape? What the hell are you arguing for?
lord_blackfang wrote: Two people having consensual sex after a glass of wine isn't a crime under any law but it counts towards the sexual assault ratio in the CDC study (snip)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, if someone has suffered something that fits the legal definition of rape, but do not know or realize it is the case, this should not be counted as a case of rape? What the hell are you arguing for?
Ah, yes. That special form of rape that you can do without the victim noticing. Thank god we have your kind so you can tell them that they've been raped and should feel victimized. Can't have women just walkin' 'round not knowin' they been raped.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two people having consensual sex after a glass of wine isn't a crime under any law but it counts towards the sexual assault ratio in the CDC study (snip)
Yeah, I think you just made that up.
Have you read the actual questionnaire?
I think it's also telling that the JD study, which interviewed 40.000 people, got to few positive rape reports to even make a reliable statistical analysis. There should be ~5.000 victims in that sample size going by your numbers.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, if someone has suffered something that fits the legal definition of rape, but do not know or realize it is the case, this should not be counted as a case of rape? What the hell are you arguing for?
Ah, yes. That special form of rape that you can do without the victim noticing. Thank god we have your kind so you can tell them that they've been raped and should feel victimized. Can't have women just walkin' 'round not knowin' they been raped.
Again, the article you sourced (a third of a sentence of) explains the context. I'm not mentioning this to you - you're obviously being intentionally obtuse - but I mention it to anyone else reading it.
" gak a drunk woman, better avoid her or I might get accused of sexual harassment! "
Is it funny if your sister? Your mother? Your daughter?
The urge to tell you people to go yourselves is strong...
Regardless of gender, helping someone on the street is risky business. They might be setting you up for a mugging, or genuinely need help but decide to sue you later as thanks.
Well as a matter of policy I tend to barrel through anyone on the street, especially ladies with baby carriages. You never know when theat baby carriage could be hiding a dwarf mugger with a gat.
Regardless of gender, helping someone on the street is risky business. They might be setting you up for a mugging, or genuinely need help but decide to sue you later as thanks.
You know, this is a good point. If you are reading this thread and live in the US it might be worth a quick new tab and google search to see if your state has a good samaritan law that applies to nonprofessionals; it's sort of a mixed patchwork.
Um, I'm from Oz here, so I'm not in full understanding of the US political systems (and it's attendant institutions), but what actually makes someone a 'registered Democrat'? Is there some kind of mechanism or regulatory body that ensures you cant be a conservative and a 'registered Democrat' at the same time?
Nothing to prevent any of that. Usually, depending on your local area, when you register to vote, it asks you to check one of several blocks for your desired party "affiliation"
Most people check either Republican or Democrat, but that has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. In fact, a ton of people use the conservative and liberal labels "wrong"
Case in point, conservatives in the US like Rand Paul, or Rick Santorum hold former President Ronald Reagan as one of the shining paragons of conservative virtue, when in fact, Reagan was actually a "classical liberal", the same as Mitt Romney (which is one part of the many, many reasons he failed in the last presidential elections)
Political Science FTW!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: And even the CDC survey makes it pretty clear that violence and rape goes both ways.
Does the CDC account for local laws? I have no idea if they've changed the laws yet, but growing up in Oregon, by law it was impossible for a man to be raped. He could be assaulted, or sodomized, but not raped
We are not mind readers so then we can only go by letter of the law of what is harassment to have an "official" means of dealing with it and getting others to not engage in it.
If we do not like the existing laws than pressure your government rep to have laws amended, get petitions going.
Aside from some political activism you have to deal with unwanted attention yourself and not expect others to handle it for you.
Some reference material I am digging into (lots o'links):
Police-reported violence against women:
•In 2011, the five most common violent offences committed against women were common assault (49%), uttering threats (13%), serious assault (10%), sexual assault level I (7%), and criminal harassment (7%). With the exception of sexual assault and criminal harassment, these were also the most frequently occurring offences against men. Women were eleven times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual offences and three times as likely to be the victim of criminal harassment (stalking).
So some interesting facts that women have a measureable strong reason to be concerned about sexual offences and criminal harassment to them over men. In regards to street interactions, strangers only represent 16% of violence against women AND men are responsible for 83% of police-reported violence committed against women.
Talizvar wrote: With the exception of sexual assault and criminal harassment, these were also the most frequently occurring offences against men. Women were eleven times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual offences and three times as likely to be the victim of criminal harassment (stalking).[/i]
So some interesting facts that women have a measureable strong reason to be concerned about sexual offences and criminal harassment to them over men. In regards to street interactions, strangers only represent 16% of violence against women AND men are responsible for 83% of police-reported violence committed against women.
That only accounts for, obviously, the reported crimes. It's been theorized that men are just as often assaulted or harrassed as women, but because of the "macho" standards, don't report it. I think we should also take into account that, at least in the US, the vast majority of sexual assaults or rapes are between two people who are "close" (ie, they know each other fairly well, are/were friends.... In short, it's not some dude jumping out of the bushes)
Also keep in mind that men who report being victimized by a woman physically or sexually tend to be laughed out of the police station / abuse shelter / hotline.
A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.
41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left.
lord_blackfang wrote: Also keep in mind that men who report being victimized by a woman physically or sexually tend to be laughed out of the police station / abuse shelter / hotline.
A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.
41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left.
In Sweden it is generally pretty safe to help out people on the street. People are pretty safe in general if what I am told of the US here on Dakka is true. There's probably different social expectations at play, though I do feel that it's slowly getting worse here in that regard.
In Sweden it is generally pretty safe to help out people on the street. People are pretty safe in general if what I am told of the US here on Dakka is true. There's probably different social values at play here, though I do feel that it's slowly getting worse here in that regard.
Could that be in part, because Sweden ranks among the top 10 in the UNs Gender Inequality Ranking? (despite the name, being top 10 here, is actually a good thing, as being near the top means that there is more gender equality than further down the list)
I think the real joke is men saying that women are overreacting, and going on about "crazy misandrist feminists". As much as I hate to generalize, men are much more prone to the violent type of overreaction than women are (bombs, genocide etc...), if men experienced half the gak that women put up with on a daily basis then they would be the most extreme, crazy, man-hating, bitches ever. I think I've lost count of all the times I've heard men blurt out phrases like "put them all on an island" or "bullet in the head" when discussing people they don't like. In comparison I think women take it on the chin quite well. Men really need to shut up about that.
first of all, to any woman ever, who experienced legitimate harassment, DO NOT TAKE IT ON THE CHIN... report, record, and prosecute actual instances of it.
That being said,
as we see here, women are allowed to generalize men as being more violent, despite for every alleged instance of men saying every woman should be on an island, there is a woman saying comparable things about men.
despite this claim being false, many will just accept it at face value, because we are culturally engineered to aggree that men are snakes snails and puppy dog tails, while women are sugar, spice and everything nice (even as children, the bad man good woman trope is reinforced)
In this very thread, men who brought up women who called for male genocide or castration, were laughed at and its "obviously only the outliers of women who say that" but when the opposite statement is made, its accepted as true and acceptable to the general public reading it.
The last part is especially true, "Men really need to shut up about that." men are told to shut up about everything, to suffer in silence, to man up....
got raped?
got abused by a woman domestically?
got half your lifes savings taken from you by someone who abused your trust in marriage?
SHUT UP, MAN UP, AND GET OVER IT!
unless its a teacher raping a boy, then its "awesome" or "nice"
Just look at the DV hotline statistics,
A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.
not only, are men NOT WELCOME to call in for help at all in 50-60% of the resources, 25% of those who called in to get help with domestic violence, were told to call a # that can help them stop being perpetrators of domestic violence.
so where are the feminist groups on this? why isnt there any outrage?
surely if women were told to feth off over 50% of the time they asked for help from DV hotlines, there would be a fempocalyptic outroar?
surely if women were told 25% of the time , that not only were they not eligible for help, but that they themselves are responsible for the violence directed at them, there would be an uproar?
Its at the point now, where a man cannot even state that NON harassing behavior is non harassing behavior, as perfectly natural actions like approaching women to initiate a relations ship that the man is *EXPECTED* to engage in are being toted as "harassment", even if not all woman find it harassing, even if plenty of woman enjoy it and respond positively to it.
Ashiraya wrote: ...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now.
As long as people keep talking about it unironically as if it were a real conspiracy/great power hovering above us all, mocking it will never get stale.
easysauce wrote: unless its a teacher raping a boy, then its "awesome" or "nice"
Yes. On this there is consensus. I have no idea how many threads I was ridiculed in on these fora for pointing this out; that a child raped by a teacher isn't something to celebrate and that the sentencing disparity between male and female defendants in those cases are a travesty.
Ashiraya wrote: ...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now
It's balancing the "ERMAHGERD PATRIARCHY EVERYWHEREZ" out.
You know, the only one of those two things I've seen on Dakka is people mocking the idea of patriarchy in posts that contain nothing else.
Regardless, how did we go from discussing whether 1 in 5 women were sexually harrassed or not to suddenly arguing about men being abused? That's some strong whataboutism going on there.
Ashiraya wrote: ...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now
It's balancing the "ERMAHGERD PATRIARCHY EVERYWHEREZ" out.
You know, the only one of those two things I've seen on Dakka is people mocking the idea of patriarchy in posts that contain nothing else.
Regardless, how did we go from discussing whether 1 in 5 women were sexually harrassed or not to suddenly arguing about men being abused? That's some strong whataboutism going on there.
Because you cannot have a discussion about equality without talking about how both (or all) sides are unequal?
In Sweden it is generally pretty safe to help out people on the street. People are pretty safe in general if what I am told of the US here on Dakka is true. There's probably different social expectations at play, though I do feel that it's slowly getting worse here in that regard.
Isn't Sweden in general a pretty nice place though? Like, if memory serves me even their rape statistics are higher or something (I could be wrong but I can almost swear that such is the case for both males and females).
In Sweden it is generally pretty safe to help out people on the street. People are pretty safe in general if what I am told of the US here on Dakka is true. There's probably different social expectations at play, though I do feel that it's slowly getting worse here in that regard.
Isn't Sweden in general a pretty nice place though? Like, if memory serves me even their rape statistics are higher or something (I could be wrong but I can almost swear that such is the case for both males and females).
We came in second (IIRC) in some statistics of reported rapes, which prompted the xenophobic nutters in Sweden to start ranting about how it's all the immigrant's fault. Considering the chronic underreporting of rape it's rather likely that it's due to a higher frequency of reporting.
Ashiraya wrote: ...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now
It's balancing the "ERMAHGERD PATRIARCHY EVERYWHEREZ" out.
You know, the only one of those two things I've seen on Dakka is people mocking the idea of patriarchy in posts that contain nothing else.
Regardless, how did we go from discussing whether 1 in 5 women were sexually harrassed or not to suddenly arguing about men being abused? That's some strong whataboutism going on there.
Because you cannot have a discussion about equality without talking about how both (or all) sides are unequal?
sure you can, it has been explicitly stated in this thread
You can't discuss harassment of women by discussing harassment of men.
You can't excuse harassment of women by pointing out that men can get harassed.
When you do this, you create the impression that you don't want to engage with the subject. Why not? Presumably because you think it is all right to harass women, or maybe you don't believe it happens, though apparently you believe that harassment of men happens and is unacceptable.
, that discussing anything other then how women are harassed by men is not welcome to the conversation,
IE: if the topic includes whether or not all the men were *actually* harassing anyone in the first place, then you can only talk about how harrassing they are. Any talk about how its not harassment is not welcome.
so sure, you can go ahead and have a conversation where you can only talk about one side of the issue, much in the same way you can have a room that you only allow people with one viewpoint into, while excluding other viewpoints, and end up with a room of people talking nonetheless.
It just doent make the conversation fair, balanced, or representative of reality when you take a two sided issue and only allow one side to be discussed.
that one side constantly seems to find it *acceptable* to omit the other side completely in these kinds of issues, does reinforce tho whole "Shut up, man up, get over it" approach to mens issues, and the "this is EVERYONES problem" approach to womens issues.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Complains about honesty in the discussion, strawmans Killkrazy's post. Is there a square for that on the Dakka bingo?
your calling my observation of a double standard a "strawman" is itself a strawman.
Its a valid point to make, the OP video alleges that *ALL* the mens actions in it were harassment,
not to meantion KK's suggestion that the only reason I could have for saying its not harassment to say Hi to woman is because I am ok with all actual harassment is itself a straw-man.
talking about how its not harassment at all to say hi to women on the street has been explicitly out lined as an unwelcome in a thread about a video that accuses all men who talk to women in the street as being harassing.
If you cannot see the double standard there, I cannot help you.
Thanks lord_blackfang and Ouze for pointing out the studies
Quick question though - why is the CDC (Center for Disease Control) making reports about sexual violence? Isn't that a bit outside of their jurisdiction? I thought they mainly dealt with, well, diseases. Unless sexual violence has been classified as a disease now, which wouldn't surprise me.
I'm not discounting their findings, I haven't even looked at them yet, I'm just vaguely confused why they'd make this report.
I think the real joke is men saying that women are overreacting, and going on about "crazy misandrist feminists". As much as I hate to generalize, men are much more prone to the violent type of overreaction than women are (bombs, genocide etc...), if men experienced half the gak that women put up with on a daily basis then they would be the most extreme, crazy, man-hating, bitches ever. I think I've lost count of all the times I've heard men blurt out phrases like "put them all on an island" or "bullet in the head" when discussing people they don't like. In comparison I think women take it on the chin quite well. Men really need to shut up about that.
first of all, to any woman ever, who experienced legitimate harassment, DO NOT TAKE IT ON THE CHIN... report, record, and prosecute actual instances of it.
That being said,
as we see here, women are allowed to generalize men as being more violent, despite for every alleged instance of men saying every woman should be on an island, there is a woman saying comparable things about men.
despite this claim being false, many will just accept it at face value, because we are culturally engineered to aggree that men are snakes snails and puppy dog tails, while women are sugar, spice and everything nice (even as children, the bad man good woman trope is reinforced)
In this very thread, men who brought up women who called for male genocide or castration, were laughed at and its "obviously only the outliers of women who say that" but when the opposite statement is made, its accepted as true and acceptable to the general public reading it.
The last part is especially true, "Men really need to shut up about that." men are told to shut up about everything, to suffer in silence, to man up....
got raped?
got abused by a woman domestically?
got half your lifes savings taken from you by someone who abused your trust in marriage?
SHUT UP, MAN UP, AND GET OVER IT!
unless its a teacher raping a boy, then its "awesome" or "nice"
Just look at the DV hotline statistics,
A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.
not only, are men NOT WELCOME to call in for help at all in 50-60% of the resources, 25% of those who called in to get help with domestic violence, were told to call a # that can help them stop being perpetrators of domestic violence.
You know what? You are right, gender roles and expectations sucks for everyone both men and women.
Now the solution to this is not to just state it is gakky for everyone and therefore we do not need to do anything about it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: As long as people keep talking about it unironically as if it were a real conspiracy/great power hovering above us all, mocking it will never get stale.
Come on. Pretending that you would stop mocking stuff if that required you to build a strawman is just taking us for fools.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Thanks lord_blackfang and Ouze for pointing out the studies
Quick question though - why is the CDC (Center for Disease Control) making reports about sexual violence? Isn't that a bit outside of their jurisdiction? I thought they mainly dealt with, well, diseases. Unless sexual violence has been classified as a disease now, which wouldn't surprise me.
I'm not discounting their findings, I haven't even looked at them yet, I'm just vaguely confused why they'd make this report.
You know what? You are right, gender roles and expectations sucks for everyone both men and women.
Now the solution to this is not to just state it is gakky for everyone and therefore we do not need to do anything about it.
well, the solutions a bit more complex then that, especially when we have videos like in the OP where the majority of "harassment" wasn't actual harassment,
I agree of course, the fact that men are systemically discriminated against for being men doesn't change/justify/ect the fact that woman still have to deal with it as well.
BUT, when talking about any "solution" to harassment,
if the idea is to stop all harassment, then bringing up any form of harassment would be ok,
if the idea is only to stop harassment of women, then I would expect bringing up harassment of other groups to be excluded.
easysauce wrote: well, the solutions a bit more complex then that, especially when we have videos like in the OP where the majority of "harassment" wasn't actual harassment,
I am pretty sure if men and women alike had to deal with them, we would be able to have a better discussion on the subject of whether or not it is harassment, really.
easysauce wrote: first of all, to any woman ever, who experienced legitimate harassment, DO NOT TAKE IT ON THE CHIN... report, record, and prosecute actual instances of it.
When you say "legitimate harassment" I can't help hearing "true Scotsman". A woman shouldn't have to wait for harassment to escalate to something illegal before she can respond to it, all the while letting wave after wave of minor stuff erode her self confidence. The best way to stop harassment is to educate people about it. That is what the video does, it shows men that women get hit on all the time, that it's the same tired lines over and over, and they might even be fed up with it.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't hit on women ever, but at least now you're better informed. If the women in walking fast, avoiding eye contact -- she probably doesn't want to talk.
as we see here, women are allowed to generalize men as being more violent, despite for every alleged instance of men saying every woman should be on an island, there is a woman saying comparable things about men.
despite this claim being false, many will just accept it at face value, because we are culturally engineered to aggree that men are snakes snails and puppy dog tails, while women are sugar, spice and everything nice (even as children, the bad man good woman trope is reinforced)
Spoiler:
In this very thread, men who brought up women who called for male genocide or castration, were laughed at and its "obviously only the outliers of women who say that" but when the opposite statement is made, its accepted as true and acceptable to the general public reading it.
Well that's BS. I can think of a number of occasions when a girl has laid into me with a volley of punches. I usually just wait for it to stop and pretend it didn't hurt. Once I even knew a girl who did it too much, every time someone would make a joke about her she would get angry and start lashing out. It actually got quite 'annoying' after a while. Eventually after much arguing about it, she did it once too often and I hit her back (just once). Then it never happened again, because ultimately being hit by a guy is a completely different experience. When a man thumps you, you can't just pretend it didn't hurt.
Having a wife that throws slappy tantrums, and having a husband that batters you are not equivalent. If you want to compare tendency towards violence, take a look at violent crime stats.
The last part is especially true, "Men really need to shut up about that." men are told to shut up about everything, to suffer in silence, to man up....
got raped? got abused by a woman domestically? got half your lifes savings taken from you by someone who abused your trust in marriage? SHUT UP, MAN UP, AND GET OVER IT!
Well now you've made the discussion about something else. In your examples, who is it that is telling these abused men to "shut up and man up" -- it's mostly other men -- probably the same men who are telling women to quit bitching. That just proves my point because those are the men I was saying need to shut up, not people who are abused. Those guys aren't 'suffering in silence' they aren't suffering at all, they're just swaggering around invalidating other people's problems. Men shouldn't have to suffer, and neither should women. Both should be taken seriously. But whenever there is a discussion about the treatment of women, it always gets sidetracked with "what about men's rights?", which is honestly off topic, along with animal rights and gun right and copyrights. Women getting more respect doesn't mean there is going to be less available for men, or animals. That's just stupidity.
Well that's BS. I can think of a number of occasions when a girl has laid into me with a volley of punches. I usually just wait for it to stop and pretend it didn't hurt. Once I even knew a girl who did it too much, every time someone would make a joke about her she would get angry and start lashing out. It actually got quite 'annoying' after a while. Eventually after much arguing about it, she did it once too often and I hit her back (just once). Then it never happened again, because ultimately being hit by a guy is a completely different experience. When a man thumps you, you can't just pretend it didn't hurt.
That's just really really really unstable behaviour. The girls I mean. I'd be rather horrified if someone felt this was appropriate behaviour and didn't have a screw loose
Smacks wrote: [Well that's BS. I can think of a number of occasions when a girl has laid into me with a volley of punches. I usually just wait for it to stop and pretend it didn't hurt. Once I even knew a girl who did it too much, every time someone would make a joke about her she would get angry and start lashing out. It actually got quite 'annoying' after a while. Eventually after much arguing about it, she did it once too often and I hit her back (just once). Then it never happened again, because ultimately being hit by a guy is a completely different experience. When a man thumps you, you can't just pretend it didn't hurt.
Having a wife that throws slappy tantrums, and having a husband that batters you are not equivalent. If you want to compare tendency towards violence, take a look at violent crime stats.
If this wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. You do realize there a LARGE number of domestic violence cases that go unreported, because the males are the victims? Also, guess what? It shouldn't matter if you're male, female, or trans. You don't hit someone else because you're emotional and don't know how to use words. Even if it "doesn't hurt", guess what? It's still abuse. Besides, what if one day it isn't just slaps, and she hits you with a frying pan?
Smacks wrote: [
When you say "legitimate harassment" I can't help hearing "true Scotsman". A woman shouldn't have to wait for harassment to escalate to something illegal before she can respond to it, all the while letting wave after wave of minor stuff erode her self confidence. The best way to stop harassment is to educate people about it. That is what the video does, it shows men that women get hit on all the time, that it's the same tired lines over and over, and they might even be fed up with it.
Saying "Good Day" is not harassment, nor is it "hitting on" the person you're greeting. A "legitimate harassment" would be if I were "greeting" women with "hey baby, how's it goin?" or "ohh mama, you fiiiiiine"
See the difference? If not, well then, I guess there's just no help for some people.
If this wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. You do realize there a LARGE number of domestic violence cases that go unreported, because the males are the victims? Also, guess what? It shouldn't matter if you're male, female, or trans. You don't hit someone else because you're emotional and don't know how to use words. Even if it "doesn't hurt", guess what? It's still abuse. Besides, what if one day it isn't just slaps, and she hits you with a frying pan?
Speaking of.... There was a coworker of mine while I was at Fort Carson who lived next door to the most notorious couple in on-base housing So, he and his wife move into their apartment, and everythings cool for the first 3-4 weeks. During one of the weekends after that month or so, they hear a fight raging through the walls next door (and those walls were for all intents and purposes, bomb proof and sound proof), once they heard a crashing noise, they decided to call the MPs. The MPs took down the address, and while they were on the line the desk Sgt basically say "ohh, you live next door to Mike? (or whatever the guys' first name was, I dont recall), ehh, they'll be fine"
Thing was, the guy was Puerto Rican (the fiery kind) and he was married to a Korean lady (the fiery kind) and when they fought, they really fought (not physically).... yelling, screaming, pots and pans, and plates flying about the house. Apparently this was often enough that the MPs got tired of answering the call because neither would press charges, and they never actually threw anything AT each other, the objects that were heaved about ended up being thrown at least 90 degrees away from the other party
So, long story short, my buddy lived there for about 2 years, and told me it was usually every 2-3 months this sort of fight would happen, but beyond those instances, the couple were the greatest friends anyone could ask for
Having a wife that throws slappy tantrums, and having a husband that batters you are not equivalent. If you want to compare tendency towards violence, take a look at violent crime stats.
The last part is especially true, "Men really need to shut up about that." men are told to shut up about everything, to suffer in silence, to man up....
who is it that is telling these abused men to "shut up and man up" -- it's mostly other men --
Convenient that its all mens fault I guess?
So when women are violent its just a "slappy tantrum" vs a battered woman when men do it?
Believe it or not, a womans fist still damages a man, It can hold a knife just as well, and 70 percent of non reciprocating violent domestic incidents are initiated by women according to the CDC.
Anything a man can do, a woman can do better, and in high heels. Unless its something bad, then shes not capable of doing it?
Im a victim of DV, and the only thing scarier then realizing that a tiny 100 pound girl can do serious damage to you if she wants to, especially if shoes/statues/vases happen to be close at hand, when you cant hit back or defend yourself, is knowing that no one will believe you if she tells them you hit her, even if you dont.
The assumption is always *always* that the man started it or deserved it, and is a wife beater, while woman are incapable of such things. Your statement that women just have slappy tantrums while men batter wives is a trope that reinforces this unfortunately.
This is despite the CDC finding that 70% of non reciprocal instances of domestic violence were initiated by women.
The fact is, in my examples, its not just "other men" who are treating men like this, it is *the very people hired, paid, and trained to help these men* who are systemically not only NOT helping the people they are supposed to, but actively blaming them:
If you are going to trivialize *actual* violence as "slappy tantrums" while sensationalizing non harassment like "saying hi to someone" as harassment, then something is off.
Calling "HI" and "SMILE" harassment trivializes actual harassment, and I stick by that.
and since you brought up statistics,
Ill leave you with this
"More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (hereinafter NISVS) released in December, 2011, within the last 12 months an estimated 5,365,000 men and 4,741,000 women were victims of intimate partner physical violence. (Black, M.C. et al., 2011, Tables 4.1 and 4.2)"
and specific to your "slappy tantrums" being harmless, well, thats not true either, its a very significant # of men who are hurt badly.
"The NISVS 2011 survey reports that in the last 12 months, 41.7% of the victims of severe physical violence were men. (Tables 4.7 and 4.8) Of the 4,741,000 female victims of violence, two-thirds (3,163,000 or 66.7%) were subjected to severe physical violence. (Table 4.7) For men, over 4 out of 10 (2,266,000 or 42.3%) were subjected to severe physical violence. The number of men is smaller, but that is still 2.26 million men."
also we see some disparity between who gets access to shelters, note that they can fit more pets in per square foot, so serve more clients.
easysauce wrote: Anything a man can do, a woman can do better, and in high heels. Unless its something bad, then shes not capable of doing it?
Like perhaps running the four minute mile? Which is now the standard of all male professional middle distance runners. Not female runners though because no woman has ever managed it (in or out of heels).
If you are going to trivialize *actual* violence as "slappy tantrums"
I'm not trivializing *actual* violence. I'm just pointing out that the "violence" in your studies is poorly defined. There aught to be some distinction between a slap and a blow that might put you in hospital, but it's impossible to tell which it is from your graphs. Fortunately for me there are other studies which show that men do in fact inflict more injuries, and the majority of those injured by a partner were women.
A Department of Justice study found that 90% of homicides are committed by men. I think that's my point made. Men are far more likely to overreact to the point of maiming or killing someone, so men accusing women of overreacting is laughable.
I believe you that women sometimes hurt men too, but it isn't something I ever doubted. Men being discriminated against by shelters it sad, but again, it's kind of off topic.
So when women are violent its just a "slappy tantrum" vs a battered woman when men do it?
easysauce wrote: Anything a man can do, a woman can do better, and in high heels. Unless its something bad, then shes not capable of doing it?
Like perhaps running the four minute mile? Which is now the standard of all male professional middle distance runners. Not female runners though because no woman has ever managed it (in or out of heels).
So on the topic of stopping harassing behavior and supporting equality, you're now claiming women CAN'T do everything a man can do? Please, pick a stance.
If you are going to trivialize *actual* violence as "slappy tantrums"
I'm not trivializing *actual* violence. I'm just pointing out that the "violence" in your studies is poorly defined. There aught to be some distinction between a slap and a blow that might put you in hospital, but it's impossible to tell which is which it is from your graphs. Fortunately for me there are other studies which show that men do in fact inflict more injuries, and the majority of those injured by a partner were women.
A Department of Justice study found that 90% of homicides are committed by men. I think that's my point made. Men are far more likely to overreact to the point of maiming or killing someone, so men accusing women of overreacting is laughable.
I believe you that women sometimes hurt men too, but it isn't something I ever doubted. Men being discriminated against by shelters it sad, but again, it's kind of off topic.
Okay, and how many of those homicides were male on male? Also, how is "violence" poorly defined? If its bad enough to be reported, its probably at least a black eye. But hey, I just slapped my wife, I didn't put her in the hospital, so I'm okay, right?
Finally, again, yes, there are reports that men inflict more injuries than women, but again, how many of those women on men attacks go unreported?
jreilly89 wrote: So on the topic of stopping harassing behavior and supporting equality, you're now claiming women CAN'T do everything a man can do? Please, pick a stance.
Why? Are you only able to understand issues in terms of two 'all or nothing' sides? I didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to try and run a mile in four minutes, just that one hasn't succeeded yet. It appears that women might have a physical disadvantage in some sports. But that goes without saying, I'm sure if women were bigger and stronger than everyone else, we wouldn't be arguing about their rights.
Okay, and how many of those homicides were male on male?
It doesn't matter. The question was who is more prone to a violent overreaction. The object of the violence is irrelevant.
Also, how is "violence" poorly defined? If its bad enough to be reported, its probably at least a black eye.
That is just you speculating. But the Archer 2000 study would contradict that idea. More men reported "violence" but only 32% of those that were injured were men. Which means that the majority of men were not injured. A black eye sounds like an injury.
But hey, I just slapped my wife, I didn't put her in the hospital, so I'm okay, right?
So when you can't defend one point, just jump over to another huh? No one said violence was okay.
Quick question though - why is the CDC (Center for Disease Control) making reports about sexual violence? Isn't that a bit outside of their jurisdiction? I thought they mainly dealt with, well, diseases. Unless sexual violence has been classified as a disease now, which wouldn't surprise me.
It deals with Public Health in general, which includes all forms of diseases as well as injuries and other health related statistics. The actual name of the agency is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (although they kept the CDC initials because that's what people know), and it's the prevention part that often deals with stuff like sexual violence and other forms of assault. The Sexual Assault itself might not be an "illness" but the results of the assault and the effects they have on the victim can result in permanent injuries and disabilities (both physical and psychological).
Ashiraya wrote: ...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now.
As long as people keep talking about it unironically as if it were a real conspiracy/great power hovering above us all, mocking it will never get stale.
Until I see someone actually do that on Dakka instead of someone linking a vague youtube video, blog or twitter account that has no relevance at all to the subject at hand, 'patriarchy lel' ''''''''''''''''''banter'''''''''''''''''' is something I'd consider pointless at best and trolling at worst.
Smacks wrote: [Well that's BS. I can think of a number of occasions when a girl has laid into me with a volley of punches. I usually just wait for it to stop and pretend it didn't hurt. Once I even knew a girl who did it too much, every time someone would make a joke about her she would get angry and start lashing out. It actually got quite 'annoying' after a while. Eventually after much arguing about it, she did it once too often and I hit her back (just once). Then it never happened again, because ultimately being hit by a guy is a completely different experience. When a man thumps you, you can't just pretend it didn't hurt.
Having a wife that throws slappy tantrums, and having a husband that batters you are not equivalent. If you want to compare tendency towards violence, take a look at violent crime stats.
If this wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. You do realize there a LARGE number of domestic violence cases that go unreported, because the males are the victims? Also, guess what? It shouldn't matter if you're male, female, or trans. You don't hit someone else because you're emotional and don't know how to use words. Even if it "doesn't hurt", guess what? It's still abuse. Besides, what if one day it isn't just slaps, and she hits you with a frying pan?
Case in point, one of the soldiers in my unit (the same one from another thread who wouldn't pay bills and instead bought vidya games and smokes) was apparently being beaten by his wife. No one believed him until, one evening, when they got into their usual fight, he did the right thing and got out of his apartment onto the common grass area of the on-post housing, which is wife followed him, and proceeded to beat him in front of everyone. The irony is that the MPs who showed up STILL tried to arrest him, until about 3 or 4 of his neighbors came directly up to the officers and told them that he had basically stood at attention and took the entire beating and did nothing, not even to defend himself. It was only then that the MPs took her away.
Women are human beings, subject to poor judgment and emotional control issues that entails.
Looking at women being equal to males would entail allowing for them to be equally capable to men in behavior and performance.
I have a narcissistic mother, abuse was exquisitely performed in so many ways that I cannot underestimate female capability.
I have witnessed a friend of mine "accidentally" stabbed in the guts with a steak knife by his wife.
I saw after two guys fighting, the winner's girlfriend start stomping on the loser's head with high-heel shoes.
I have witnessed equally horrific things done by men.
The fallacy is thinking that "harassment" or violence in general is more a gender problem than part of the human condition.
Prejudices exercised by those who administer help programs or the police can bias the statistics we like to use to determine the bias of the problem; rather self fulfilling.
Look at the facts, help the victimized, punish the ill behaved.
I REFUSE to look at women as victims and feel men looking at them as victims is root-cause for many of their problems (as well as problems for men required to "man-up" or falsely accused).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: he had basically stood at attention and took the entire beating and did nothing, not even to defend himself.
That kind of thing is probably not unusual. A lot of men (including me) were brought up believing that hitting a woman is about the worst thing you can do, and so 'choose' not to fight back when attacked by women, even though they would be capable. This is implies that they do still have some degree of control over the situation. Someone who was genuinely afraid for their life would struggle and fight back. I'm not going to say that is always the case 100% of the time, but I imagine it is far more common than when the roles are reversed.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: he had basically stood at attention and took the entire beating and did nothing, not even to defend himself.
That kind of thing is probably not unusual. A lot of men (including me) were brought up believing that hitting a woman is about the worst thing you can do, and so 'choose' not to fight back when attacked by women, even though they would be capable. This is implies that they do still have some degree of control over the situation. Someone who was genuinely afraid for their life would struggle and fight back. I'm not going to say that is always the case 100% of the time, but I imagine it is far more common than when the roles are reversed.
IMO, he was doing that outside, where everyone could see probably for the exact reason that NO ONE previously believed the guy when he said that his wife regularly "beat" him... And with the way cops are (MPs included) if he had done ANYTHING to defend himself, probably would have been taking a ride in the backseat of a government owned vehicle with some silver jewelry on, because the way the system currently operates, it's obviously the "man's fault".
Ensis Ferrae wrote: he had basically stood at attention and took the entire beating and did nothing, not even to defend himself.
That kind of thing is probably not unusual. A lot of men (including me) were brought up believing that hitting a woman is about the worst thing you can do, and so 'choose' not to fight back when attacked by women, even though they would be capable. This is implies that they do still have some degree of control over the situation. Someone who was genuinely afraid for their life would struggle and fight back. I'm not going to say that is always the case 100% of the time, but I imagine it is far more common than when the roles are reversed.
Probably also has a lot to do with the fact that the police will automatically assume the man is the perpetrator, and one stray hair on her head could be the difference between him going to prison or not.
I saw a woman who had a striking and interesting hair style at the gas station. We passed, and I thought about giving her a brief compliment about her hair as we passed.
I thought about this thread and I did not compliment her.
Easy E wrote: This thread had an impact on me.
I saw a woman who had a striking and interesting hair style at the gas station. We passed, and I thought about giving her a brief compliment about her hair as we passed.
I thought about this thread and I did not compliment her.
Funny, I have made compliments to strangers in the past with no intent on hitting-on/flirting.
I admit I am less likely to say anything as well.
Funny how good-will toward another becomes bothersome to the recipient (potentially).
I saw a woman who had a striking and interesting hair style at the gas station. We passed, and I thought about giving her a brief compliment about her hair as we passed.
I thought about this thread and I did not compliment her.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: he had basically stood at attention and took the entire beating and did nothing, not even to defend himself.
That kind of thing is probably not unusual. A lot of men (including me) were brought up believing that hitting a woman is about the worst thing you can do, and so 'choose' not to fight back when attacked by women, even though they would be capable. This is implies that they do still have some degree of control over the situation. Someone who was genuinely afraid for their life would struggle and fight back. I'm not going to say that is always the case 100% of the time, but I imagine it is far more common than when the roles are reversed.[/quote
that's total BS... not hitting back doesn't mean you have control, you are just justifying blaming the victim.
You may as well suggest that rape victim have control and its not that seroius because they dont fight back against the rapist...
Not hitting back is because hitting back just means the man will suffer legal/social consequences on top of physical ones, not to mention hitting the woman could cause her to just escalate further and grab a knife.
again the whole "men are too big and strong" to get beaten trope. the facts prove other wise, 45% of men when hit by women in DV cases have serious injuries from it, 65% of women do, if we decrease the amount of women to 46%, does that somehow turn it into "slap tantrums" against women?
I saw a woman who had a striking and interesting hair style at the gas station. We passed, and I thought about giving her a brief compliment about her hair as we passed.
I thought about this thread and I did not compliment her.
Thats good. Maybe you were spared a bitch slap when she didn't feel like you had any right to judge her looks in the first place.
I'm not trivializing *actual* violence. I'm just pointing out that the "violence" in your studies is poorly defined. There aught to be some distinction between a slap and a blow that might put you in hospital, but it's impossible to tell which it is from your graphs.
The CDC facts I provided specifically did out line the things to differentiate between a slap, and *serious* injury, you must not have read it very well.
according to the CDC:
men are *seriously* injured 45% of the time in DV, woman 65%.
if we somehow reduce womans % to 45%, that doesnt make assaults against them "slap tantrums" at all. having a 20% difference in serious injury rates in DV doesnt give you any right, reason, or basis to generalize that men just recieve "slap tantrums"
from women. Its just furthering s sexist trope that "big bad men" cant be hurt by women.
remember, this is in addition to women instigating 70% of all DV where the violence was completely one sided.
A Department of Justice study found that 90% of homicides are committed by men. I think that's my point made. Men are far more likely to overreact to the point of maiming or killing someone, so men accusing women of overreacting is laughable.
most *criminal* not domestic or spousal violent crime, is man on man crime, with males being both the most common victim and perpetrator.
Men are far more likely to be the victim of criminal violence as well, but who cares right?
I mean with an argument like "criminal men commit more violence against men, therefore, its not possible that women overeact to anything." how can you lose?
I could say "woman do more hooking then men, therefor its not possible for men to inappropriately ask for sex, as statistically its more likely that woman on the streets a hooker." and while it follows your own brand of bullet proof logic, i doubt many would agree with me.
I saw a woman who had a striking and interesting hair style at the gas station. We passed, and I thought about giving her a brief compliment about her hair as we passed.
I thought about this thread and I did not compliment her.
Thats good. Maybe you were spared a bitch slap when she didn't feel like you had any right to judge her looks in the first place.
so I should slap the next woman/man who complements me in the street too as thats the acceptable response now?
Dude, make up your mind. First you say "Violence should not be tolerated", and now you're saying complimenting someone's appearance deserves a bitch slap?
Besides, you used the word "Bitch". Doesn't that violate some law of Feminism?
"Feminism The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.
The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.
Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.
Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.
Feminism is the belief that all people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties and can be intellectual equals regardless of gender. However, you should still hold the door for a feminist; this is known as respect or politeness and need have nothing whatever to do with gender discrimination."
I am thinking that women should shoot for the same "civil rights" as men and avoid the same "treatment" as men.
I find there is a fundamental difference between the two and would not be to their favor...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Dude, make up your mind. First you say "Violence should not be tolerated", and now you're saying complimenting someone's appearance deserves a bitch slap?
Besides, you used the word "Bitch". Doesn't that violate some law of Feminism?
There is no conflict. You can't hit a girl. Girls-and their shotgun toting fathers- are however free to hit boors.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Dude, make up your mind. First you say "Violence should not be tolerated", and now you're saying complimenting someone's appearance deserves a bitch slap?
Besides, you used the word "Bitch". Doesn't that violate some law of Feminism?
It doesn't violate a law of feminism. However, he did culturally appropriate an African-American hip hop term and fail to check his imperialist white cismale gender normative privilege.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Dude, make up your mind. First you say "Violence should not be tolerated", and now you're saying complimenting someone's appearance deserves a bitch slap?
Besides, you used the word "Bitch". Doesn't that violate some law of Feminism?
There is no conflict. You can't hit a girl. Girls-and their shotgun toting fathers- are however free to hit boors.
Boers are ok if they have provide the dad with a nice authentic assegai, and will be downright treated as good people if they can produce a working Martini Henry for dad.
easysauce wrote: I mean with an argument like "criminal men commit more violence against men, therefore, its not possible that women overeact to anything." how can you lose?
Well actually my argument is much stronger than that. Though it was less of an "argument" and more of a remark, which really isn't that important to the topic, but you seem to take issue with it. So lets go over it from the start.
I said that men have a greater tendency towards violent behavior. While this might be a bit of a stereotype, it is also backed up by the fact that 90% of homicides are committed by men and the vast majority of violent crimes.
You then took issue with that statement and for some reason tried to argue that actually women are more violent. And to back that up you cite statistics about domestic violence, which only represents a small potion of total violence anyway. And even within that small portion, women inflict fewer injuries.
After that you seem to just be flailing around fighting your own straw men. I never said it was "impossible" for women to be violent, I never said violence was acceptable, I never said men shouldn't be entitled to shelter.
It is not my intention to "lose" by arguing stupid points that you want me to argue. I made a fair assertion that men are responsible for more violence around the world. If you can show that is incorrect, then I will happily concede the point.
If you just want to grind your axe about domestic violence, then please leave me out of it, I don't disagree with anything you have said on the subject, except when you tried to use the figures to paint women as more violent than men.
So you think its acceptable for a woman to "bitch slap" a man who "judges her looks" by complimenting her hairstyle, but not vice versa?
Thats how I'm interpreting your flippant responses, so if thats not your intent then please clarify. (I'm not intentionally Straw Manning)
I on the other hand think its wrong no matter what the gender. Its wrong for a man OR woman to slap someone who simply compliments them. Word's should not beget violence. If a person is offended by something someone says whatever their respective genders, the right response is to just tell them to piss off.
if a man grabs a woman's ass, thats a different matter entirely.
As said earlier, this illustrates a worrying discrepancy in attitudes towards male on female violence and female on male violence.
So you think its acceptable for a woman to "bitch slap" a man who "judges her looks" by complimenting her hairstyle, but not vice versa?
Thats how I'm interpreting your flippant responses, so if thats not your intent then please clarify. (I'm not intentionally Straw Manning)
I on the other hand think its wrong no matter what the gender. Its wrong for a man OR woman to slap someone who simply compliments them. Word's should not beget violence. If a person is offended by something someone says whatever their respective genders, the right response is to just tell them to piss off.
if a man grabs a woman's ass, thats a different matter entirely.
As said earlier, this illustrates a worrying discrepancy in attitudes towards male on female violence and female on male violence.
I point you to line #3 of FRazzleds signature.
I still don't know if frazz's posts are 100% serious or not , sometimes I feel like me must act like an agent provocateur , then other times I'm not so sure. Hell ,who cares he keeps OT interesting
But yes. If its ok for a woman to slap a man then the reverse should be true too.
Otherwise, you don't have equality, you have special treatment for one gender thats allowed to respond to sexual harassment with violence but the other gender is not.
easysauce wrote: I mean with an argument like "criminal men commit more violence against men, therefore, its not possible that women overeact to anything." how can you lose?
Well actually my argument is much stronger than that. Though it was less of an "argument" and more of a remark, which really isn't that important to the topic, but you seem to take issue with it. So lets go over it from the start.
I said that men have a greater tendency towards violent behavior.
While this might be a bit of a stereotype, it is also backed up by the fact that 90% of homicides are committed by men and the vast majority of violent crimes.
.
yes its a stereotype,
men are the vast majority of perpetrators, and victims... with an almost perfect correlated ratio of 1-1 victim to perpetrators (IE every man who kills, kills a man, statistically at least)
what on earth do women have to worry about, when its man on man criminal actions, if your not a man or criminal, you are in the clear with those statistics.
Not to mention motives in crime other then "he just snapped/ovvereacted" do exist, people kill people over something generally, not randomly as you suggest.
if you are going to claim that because more men murder then women, that men are more prone to randomly kill you on the street, and that justifies all women being afraid of men killing them on the street.
Then that same logic supports the idea that because more women are hooking on the street, that women are more likely to be open to sex propositions on the street.
its a silly and sexist statement, you can see its a stereotype yet you are more then willing to further it.
so I should slap the next woman/man who complements me in the street too as thats the acceptable response now?
I doubt it will be an issue.
I had a woman complement my coat the other day, its very pertinent... woman approach me all the flipping time... more so now that I have a long time GF who makes me look all sexy in my clothes... wait, are women also allowed to judge me based on clothes? cause its weird, now that my GF picks out really nice clothes that make me look rich/handsome i get wayyyy more attention then I used to with the hoodies and runners. Many women also tell me they tend to make judgments on men based on their clothes in general, cars and shoes in particular.
at least you ll admit its a double standard though.
So you think its acceptable for a woman to "bitch slap" a man who "judges her looks" by complimenting her hairstyle, but not vice versa?
Of course. I don't know what uncilvized land you inhabit, but here "he needed killin your honor" remains a valid defense. This is just polite admoinishment, like your mamma would do if she had raised you properly.
I on the other hand think its wrong no matter what the gender. Its wrong for a man OR woman to slap someone who simply compliments them.
Its not the complement. Its that you don't have the right to intrude and judge them. So smack for you!
Word's should not beget violence.
Words beget violence all the time, just like "hold my beer and watch this" begets hospital visits.
If a person is offended by something someone says whatever their respective genders, the right response is to just tell them to piss off.
Public urination is usually illegal. Its also subject to another slapping if done in front of a lady. How do your mammas raise you there?
if a man grabs a woman's ass, thats a different matter entirely.
Remember, guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early, kill people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had a woman complement my coat the other day, its very pertinent... woman approach me all the flipping time... more so now that I have a long time GF who makes me look all sexy in my clothes... wait, are women also allowed to judge me based on clothes? cause its weird, now that my GF picks out really nice clothes that make me look rich/handsome i get wayyyy more attention then I used to with the hoodies and runners. Many women also tell me they tend to make judgments on men based on their clothes in general, cars and shoes in particular.
She's training you quite well isn't she. Us Menz never realize until its too late. ..
easysauce wrote: if you are going to claim that because more men murder then women, that men are more prone to randomly kill you on the street, and that justifies all women being afraid of men killing them on the street.
But that wasn't my argument at all. I wasn't even talking about women being afraid of men.
My point was that men are more likely to choose violence as a solution to their problems. It doesn't have to be criminal violence, I also hear men spout a lot of very violent ideas when they discuss the treatment of criminals, and whoever else they deem undesirable. Try searching dakka for the term "bullet in the head".
And the point of that was never to justify women being afraid of men. I was just pointing out the irony of men calling women crazy fascists, when actually the majority of crazy fascist ideas regarding, crime, politics, and general living seem to come from men.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't think anyone in here actually made the claim that it's okay, in any situation, to hit another person despite self-defense.
Thats how I was interpreting Frazzled's remarks. Hard to tell with that guy. Not sure if serious.
Of course I'm serious! If I were being comical I'd say she should have the right to run you over with her pickup truck, which is the more correct time honored tradition.
"I really like you hair."
SQUISH "That'll teach that Yankee to talk to a proper lady." (Backs up) SQUISH.
because if Zombieland has taught us anything, its double tap.
But yes. If its ok for a woman to slap a man then the reverse should be true too.
Otherwise, you don't have equality, you have special treatment for one gender thats allowed to respond to sexual harassment with violence but the other gender is not.
The problem here is that I remembered I have a daughter. She indeed has the right to beat hell out of anyone that even looks at her funny, and they will be great ful she doesn't break out the Beretta and the pliers. Its in the Texas Constitution. For you normal people yes, nonviolence is key and should be applied equitably. You don't get to hit just because you're a girl. This, as noted does not apply to my loving, kind, gentle, never ever ever sarcastic or moody daughter.
easysauce wrote: if you are going to claim that because more men murder then women, that men are more prone to randomly kill you on the street, and that justifies all women being afraid of men killing them on the street.
But that wasn't my argument at all. I wasn't even talking about women being afraid of men.
My point was that men are more likely to choose violence as a solution to their problems. It doesn't have to be criminal violence, I also hear men spout a lot of very violent ideas when they discuss the treatment of criminals, and whoever else they deem undesirable. Try searching dakka for the term "bullet in the head".
And the point of that was never to justify women being afraid of men. I was just pointing out the irony of men calling women crazy fascists, when actually the majority of crazy fascist ideas regarding, crime, politics, and general living seem to come from men.
no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.
in terms of violence, between men and woman specifically, men are more likely to be hit by a woman, then vise versa. WHile women get severely beaten 20% more then men, this does not make "slappy tantrums" ok. At least OWN that you did trivialize woman on man violence as "slappy tantrums", you said the words, own them.
You keep using man on man criminal violence as a stat, and an admitted stereotype, in an argument about domestic violence between men and women.
If you want to stereotype that mens go to solution is violence, then you should also stereotype that womens go to solution is sex.
You wouldnt give *men in general* the claim to being the smartest, best inventors, best leaders, ect just because historically, they were numerically superior in these roles?
SO if a positive stereotype isnt ok, why is your negative one ok to use?
personally, I choose to use neither stereotype.
To frazz...
oh yes she is training me well indeed my good sir!
but every parent coddles their daughters like you do (generally speaking), then one day they wake up to see their son had his trust abused by a woman who took half his life savings and kids away...
I mean, when we are at the point where women do in fact hit men just as much in domestic cases, but men literally get turned away and blamed by institutions meant to help them, something is wrong.
I just cannot bring myself to care about my daughters more then my sons, I dont want daughters to have POS boyfriends, and I dont want sons to have POS girlfriends.
\
Both will get the shot gun interview from me!
With al lthat though, on top of men having to deal with everything a woman has to deal with, they also have to deal with culturally upheld, encouraged, supported, and perpetuated double standards that negatively affect them.
no wonder mens suicide rates are so disproportionately high, not only does no one care, everyone actively encourages stereotypes that work against men.
@Frazzled
So what you're saying is...you're the ultimate psychotic over protective dad from hell? Pros and Cons I guess. Personal attack dog vs scaring off all guys.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: @Frazzled
So what you're saying is...you're the ultimate psychotic over protective dad from hell? Pros and Cons I guess. Personal attack dog vs scaring off all guys.
I think you're finally beginning to see the light.
Frazzled, just nature's way of saying "yep he's gak crazy."
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: @Frazzled
So what you're saying is...you're the ultimate psychotic over protective dad from hell? Pros and Cons I guess. Personal attack dog vs scaring off all guys.
I think you're finally beginning to see the light.
Frazzled, just nature's way of saying "yep he's gak crazy."
Prestor Jon wrote: It doesn't violate a law of feminism. However, he did culturally appropriate an African-American hip hop term and fail to check his imperialist white cismale gender normative privilege.
easysauce wrote: no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.
I was referring to the feminazi comments that come up all the time on youtube and tumbler. I certainly wasn't talking to you, and I'd like to not be again.
in terms of violence, between men and woman specifically
I honestly couldn't care less what you have to say about that. It was never a thing I was talking about. Tell it to someone else.
You keep using man on man criminal violence as a stat, and an admitted stereotype, in an argument about domestic violence between men and women.
No you started an argument saying women are more violent, and then YOU started arguing about domestic violence. As I have said, I don't care what your opinion is on domestic violence against men, and I think it is off topic. Stop trying to derail a topic about women by making it about men. Make a new topic if you want to discuss injustice towards men.
easysauce wrote: no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.
I was referring to the feminazi comments that come up all the time on youtube and tumbler. I certainly wasn't talking to you, and I like to not be again.
in terms of violence, between men and woman specifically
I honestly couldn't care less what you have to say about that. It was never a thing I was talking about. Tell it to someone else.
You keep using man on man criminal violence as a stat, and an admitted stereotype, in an argument about domestic violence between men and women.
No you started an argument saying women are more violent, and then YOU started arguing about domestic violence. As I have said, I don't care what your opinion is on domestic violence against men, and I think it is off topic. Stop trying to derail a topic about women by making it about men. Make a new topic if you want to discuss injustice towards men.
I claimed women were just as violent as men, a claim that is true, women are people and subject to the same character flaws.
You keep trivializing it when men are complemented on the street, vs sensationalizing it as harassment when women are, which is very much ON TOPIC in a thread that trivializes actual harassment by lumping in "talking to women" as harassment when it is not.
You keep trivializing it when men are assaulted by women, vs treating man on woman violence as serious.
Pointing out that the double standards apply to more then just talking to people on the street, is important to the topic of "is it ok to talk to women in the street, or is it harassment?"
because the answer to
"is it ok to talk to women in the street, or is it harassment?"
should be the same answer as
"is it ok to talk to men in the street, or is it harassment?"
and should be the same as the answer to
"is it ok to talk to people in the street, or is it harassment?"
We see a double standard in that you and others claim talking to women is harassment, but not talking to men. Not only is it a double standard, its an extremely sexist one, as its only men talking to women that is "harassment" a woman can talk to a woman, or a man, and you wont call that harassment.
While it is true that women are not perfect nonviolent angels, saying that the violence is equal is simply false.
and i never disputed that....
You are correct if you are taking about, criminal man on man violence, in a thread specifically about how men treat woman, the fact that men treat men violently, does not mean they also treat women the same.
so men assault men more often, women assault men more often, yet women are the ones who should be most afraid of being assaulted? despite men being the majority of victims?
"There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women. According to FBI data on crime in the U.S., they account for some 90% of known murderers. And a study published in American Society of Criminology finds that men account for nearly 80% of all violent offenders reported in crime surveys, despite a substantial narrowing of the gap since the 1970s. But, whatever explains the higher levels of male violence—biology, culture or both—the indisputable fact is that it’s directed primarily at other males: in 2010, men were the victims in almost four out of five homicides and almost two-thirds of robberies and non-domestic aggravated assaults.
Family and intimate relationships—the one area feminists often identify as a key battleground in the war on women—are also an area in which women are most likely to be violent, and not just in response to male aggression but toward children, elders, female relatives or partners, and non-violent men, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Violence."
so yes, men are more likely to be violent against other men, claiming this makes them more violent in general is not true, especially since the subset of men who murder ect is a very small % of the over all male population, compared to the over all % of the male/female population in domestic relationships.
men are more likely to be the victims of male AND female instigated violence,
if you are going to contend that because men, in general, are convicted of violent crime more often, meaning that fears of random strange men being violent are reasonable,
then you should have no problem with the fact that women, in general, are hookers more often, meaning that random strange women are open to propositioning sex on the street more often.
see how inapplicable crime stats are to the general population now?
if violent criminals get to represent men at large, and how we deal with men at large, then hookers get to define women at large too.
again, double standard, one shouldnt judge men on the acts of a few criminals any more then one should judge women based on hookers.
easysauce wrote: ...which is very much ON TOPIC in a thread that trivializes actual harassment by lumping in "talking to women" as harassment when it is not.
I'm quoting this 'cause it can't be restated enough.
You are correct if you are taking about, criminal man on man violence, in a thread specifically about how men treat woman, the fact that men treat men violently, does not mean they also treat women the same.
so men assault men more often, women assault men more often, yet women are the ones who should be most afraid of being assaulted? despite men being the majority of victims?
"There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women. According to FBI data on crime in the U.S., they account for some 90% of known murderers. And a study published in American Society of Criminology finds that men account for nearly 80% of all violent offenders reported in crime surveys, despite a substantial narrowing of the gap since the 1970s. But, whatever explains the higher levels of male violence—biology, culture or both—the indisputable fact is that it’s directed primarily at other males: in 2010, men were the victims in almost four out of five homicides and almost two-thirds of robberies and non-domestic aggravated assaults.
Family and intimate relationships—the one area feminists often identify as a key battleground in the war on women—are also an area in which women are most likely to be violent, and not just in response to male aggression but toward children, elders, female relatives or partners, and non-violent men, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Violence."
so yes, men are more likely to be violent against other men, claiming this makes them more violent in general is not true, especially since the subset of men who murder ect is a very small % of the over all male population, compared to the over all % of the male/female population in domestic relationships.
men are more likely to be the victims of male AND female instigated violence,
if you are going to contend that because men, in general, are convicted of violent crime more often, meaning that fears of random strange men being violent are reasonable,
then you should have no problem with the fact that women, in general, are hookers more often, meaning that random strange women are open to propositioning sex on the street.
if violent criminals get to represent men at large, and how we deal with men at large, then hookers get to define women at large too.
again, double standard, one shouldnt judge men on the acts of a few criminals any more then one should judge women based on hookers.
easysauce wrote: no one called women crazy fascists... so if your intent is to point out that irony, then your intent is unrelated to anything actually said.
I was referring to the feminazi comments that come up all the time on youtube and tumbler. I certainly wasn't talking to you, and I'd like to not be again.
This is one of the sickest burns I've read on Dakka.
easysauce wrote: claiming this makes [men] more violent in general is not true
The very article easysauce linked wrote:There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women.
????
if you can only tell the difference when someone defines feminists by the extremists but not when you define all men by extremists (violent criminals) I cant really help you.... here is the exact same two sentences, but with feminine stereotypes,
there is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
this does not mean women in general are selling sex on the street.
easysauce wrote: claiming this makes [men] more violent in general is not true
The very article easysauce linked wrote:There is little dispute that men commit far more violent acts than women.
????
if you can only tell the difference when someone defines feminists by the extremists but not when you define all men by extremists (violent criminals) I cant really help you.... here is the exact same two sentences, but with feminine stereotypes,
there is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men, this does not mean women in general are selling sex on the street.
again, double standard.
No, there is no double standard here. Here is the correct conclusion from your example:
There is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men, So this does mean that women in general are more likely to sell sex on the street than men are.
Conversely, men are more violent in general, but that does not mean that all men are dangerous barbarians. It only means it is statistically more likely for a given person to be the victim of violence from men than from women.
Or, in your format:
There is little dispute that men commit violent crimes more often than women, which means there is a higher % risk to be beaten by a man than a woman.
"Men commit more violent acts" =/= "men are more violent"
At this point it is mostly a difference of semantics rather than intent, I suspect. If I write it like this 'A higher percentage of men than women commit violent crimes, ergo, any given violent crime is significantly more likely to be committed by a man', would that make more sense to you?
I am not of the belief that men in general are very violent people. That certain men commit violent crimes is not the responsibility of men in general, but the sheer disparity in violent crime gender categories should not be underestimated.
easysauce wrote:
if you can only tell the difference when someone defines feminists by the extremists but not when you define all men by extremists (violent criminals) I cant really help you.... here is the exact same two sentences, but with feminine stereotypes
there is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
this does not mean women in general are selling sex on the street.
No, there is no double standard here. Here is the correct conclusion from your example:
There is little dispute that women sell sex on the street more then men,
So this does mean that women in general are more likely to sell sex on the street than men are. (so in general a woman on the street is ok for having sex with you
Or, in your format:
There is little dispute that men commit violent crimes more often than women,
which means there is a higher % risk to be beaten by a man than a woman. (there is a better chance a man on the street is ok with beating you then a woman would be)
Replacing words like "this does not" with "this does" changes a whole lot.
claiming its my words or argument when you make such changes, says a lot.
What is truly mind boggling though, is what you are saying is that if people should be worried about men in general being more likely to beat them, then people should also feel free to ask women in general as they are more likely to be a prostitute (by your logic not mine)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: I also continue to dispute the claim that women in general are as violent as men.
again, it should already be clear IM talking about male vs female violence, domestic violence, where women are actually ending up the victim, its ok to be talking about female victimization here right?
in situations where the potential exists for both a man and woman to be violent, men and women are violent in roughly equal proportions.
if you want to generalize all of men based on violent criminals actions, be prepared to generalize all women based on hookers actions.
easysauce wrote: What is truly mind boggling though, is what you are saying is that if people should be worried about men in general being more likely to beat them, then people should also feel free to ask women in general as they are more likely to be a prostitute (by your logic not mine)
That's like saying:
People should be more worried about lung cancer if they smoke.
So people should also feel free to ask women if they're prostitutes.
How does acknowledging a legitimate risk give you carte blanche to ask tactless questions? Being concerned about someone being a prostitute is not the same as "feeling free" to ask.
How you manage to get 'A woman is more likely to be a prostitute than a man' to become 'Women in general are likely to be prostitutes' is beyond me.
Also, you're saying men and women only have potential to be violent in different situations? Lolwut?
The 'correct' conclusion was one I had changed to become correct - it was not a strawman as it was a correction, not a quote.
What is truly mind boggling though, is what you are saying is that if people should be worried about men in general being more likely to beat them, then people should also feel free to ask women in general as they are more likely to be a prostitute (by your logic not mine)
How you managed to conclude this is beyond my ability to comprehend.
All I have said is that the average man is more likely to hit you than the average woman is.
If he is 50% more likely or 0,000005% more likely, that I never said, only that he is at all.
So... Please explain how that means you can generally assume that women are prostitutes?
The 'correct' conclusion was one I had changed to become correct - it was not a strawman as it was a correction, not a quote.
"Correcting" someone's opinion so you can argue against it is the freakin' definition of a strawman.
Fortunately it's not what I did.
Presenting my counter-arguments in the same form is not a strawman. I corrected it and then presented it as my own argument, I did not argue against it. Was that not obvious?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyeatt wrote: "Good evening" "Have a great afternoon" "God bless"
The worst things you can say to a feminazi. Don't ruin your lives and careers with harassment lawsuits. Leave the feminazis alone.
See, I don't get this. Who here is arguing for hanging out with '''''''feminazis''''''''?
Pyeatt wrote: "Good evening" "Have a great afternoon" "God bless"
The worst things you can say to a feminazi. Don't ruin your lives and careers with harassment lawsuits. Leave the feminazis alone.
See, I don't get this. Who here is arguing for hanging out with '''''''feminazis''''''''?
I don't think they're that easy to avoid. I've seen some people take complete 180s on some things. Yeah, some feminazis are easier to spot than others, but some hide walk around like people and then jump out to surprise you!
P.S. this is more or a less joke. Yes, feminazis are still people too
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: Or you could say women are less physical violent but more mental violent.
Mental as in verbally/emotionally abusive? And again, I don't think this is true. I think women can be just as physically violent as men.
Mental as in verbally/emotionally abusive? And again, I don't think this is true. I think women can be just as physically violent as men.
As it has been shown in the stats provided by easysauce(?) from the CDC.
It really does make sense when you look at the fairly narrow instance of "domestic" situations that women would be more violent than men. In cases where the couple is actually married, and did the full vows at the ceremony, I can't recall how many women I've run into who talk like their husband is their property, and a bit less often, how they treat the husband like he is. This is just a "wild" theory, but women are only more violent in domestic situations because they are more comfortable with the other person involved, and perhaps that comfort breeds a feeling that no matter what she does, the guy will stick around?
I would also wonder, of those stats presented, how many instances of women beating men were done by pregnant women?
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, some feminazis are easier to spot than others, but some hide walk around like people and then jump out to surprise you!
Kind of like misogynist jerks, only what surprises you is that it seems to be about 60% of men. The woman who made the video in question received death threats and rape threats (something that we seem to hear too often) and whipped guys all over the world into a frenzy of posting overly defensive comments (why?). If it wasn't so sinister it would be funny how threatened men seem to get over the slightest little thing. This seems to happen every time.
Mental as in verbally/emotionally abusive? And again, I don't think this is true. I think women can be just as physically violent as men.
As it has been shown in the stats provided by easysauce(?) from the CDC.
yes, when talking about male vs female domestic violence, in specific (as i have been the whole time)
women are far more likely to initiate physical violence of any kind, in addition to verbal/behavioral abuse.
in terms of domestic and criminal violence added together,
men are more likey to hit another man, then a woman,
women are more likely to hit a man, then another woman,
outside the home, men are the outstanding perpetrator, and victim, of almost all violence.
Inside the home is a totally different story, with men/woman being roughly equal in that women hit men more often, but women get hit by men harder.
Men make up the most raw #'s for victims of violence, the only discrepancy is that women are *severly* beaten 20% more then men, which is horrible, and no one argues in that particular stat women get it worse, but we wouldnt call men hitting women "slappy tantrums" if we saw a 20% reduction in severe beatings for women, so being 20% behind women in that *severe* beating category doesnt justify the trivialization of women on man violence being "slappy tantrums"
Had someone claimed that 60% of women were misandrist jerks, it would be considered sexist.
A whole bunch of people were just throwing around the word "feminazi" in this topic. I said it seems like about 60% because whenever there is a discussion about feminism at least half of the guys involved are either unashamed chauvinists, or people like you who really genuinely believe that a handful of double standards that don't work in favour of white males are comparable or outweigh the ocean of double standards facing women and minorities.
Smacks wrote: A whole bunch of people were just throwing around the word "feminazi" in this topic. I said it seems like about 60% because whenever there is a discussion about feminism at least half of the guys involved are either unashamed chauvinists, or people like you who really genuinely believe that a handful of double standards that don't work in favour of white males are comparable or outweigh the ocean of double standards facing women and minorities.
one person in this thread is not "most of" or 60%... I found one person who used that term feminazi besides you, but please, quote more and compare it to the total # of posters to prove that 60% of people here are using it.
I love how even bringing up double standards as they apply to everyone, not just men, is enough to get someone labeled not only as chauvenistic, but as racist as well!
lets just personally attack anyone who brings up the other side of the story, thats a great way to debate things! why both addressing the realities when you can just handwaive away everything that doesnt fit into the predefined narritive that the poor helpless women (and apparently miniorities now) are all constantly persecuted by the big bad men.
well done smacks!
Im sure you would also tell female victims of domestic violence to feth off and not talk about their experiences and how it relates to domestic violence in general, because thats what you have done to me.
jeebus, imagine the storm that would occur if I told a female domestic violence victim that not only was her side of the story not welcome to be discussed, but called her a "feminazi" for daring to express that opinion. Then trivialized her experience by calling it just a "slappy tantrum" when her boyfirend brusied her up for good measure!
Smacks wrote: A whole bunch of people were just throwing around the word "feminazi" in this topic.
That is a terrible word indeed.
Honestly Feminazi, misogynist, and SJW are all bad terms. Probably partially because they are labels which tends to group folks together and often you versus them which never helps. It also seems yo have the lovely side effect of looking at the lowest common denominator (including canvases and other groups) and then being painted with a large brush stroke. Honestly I have been called a feninazi, misogynist, MRA, and enough of a few words I'm not allowed to use here because... Well they aren't words that have the greatest association even if they have been used to the point of meaning nothing more often than not. Behold the internet where nothing makes sense and wars wage inside of factions every day!)
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, some feminazis are easier to spot than others, but some hide walk around like people and then jump out to surprise you!
Kind of like misogynist jerks, only what surprises you is that it seems to be about 60% of men. The woman who made the video in question received death threats and rape threats (something that we seem to hear too often) and whipped guys all over the world into a frenzy of posting overly defensive comments (why?). If it wasn't so sinister it would be funny how threatened men seem to get over the slightest little thing. This seems to happen every time.
easysauce wrote: I found one person who used that term feminazi besides you, but please, quote more and compare it to the total # of posters to prove that 60% of people here are using it.
Firstly, you can't count. There are two on just this page. Secondly, you can't read. No one said 60% of people here used the word. And thirdly you don't seem able to debate anything without exaggerating, twisting and misrepresenting everything the other person says.
Slappy tantrums is a good example. Your study does unequivocally count women who throw tantrums and slap their husband as violence. In fact more than half of the incidents seem to be of that nature, when you look at how often people weren't injured at all. You then compared this with violence committed by men, which has a much higher incidence of injury, and tried to make out they are the same thing. But ever since I have pointed this out (which is 100% fact), you have continually twisted and exaggerated it to make out that I said women NEVER do anything else. It seems to be a real problem for you. Like you aren't able to understand the word 'sometimes' or 'rarely' and it gets warped in your head to become "always" and "never". Or maybe you're just not good at debating stuff in a logical honest way.
lets just personally attack anyone who brings up the other side of the story, thats a great way to debate things!
That is what you do every single time. You take something someone said. You twist it into something that they didn't say at all. Then you try to mock them for saying the thing that they didn't say. Usually with something like:
well done smacks!, Im sure you would also tell female victims of domestic violence to feth off.
If it was a discussion about animal rights, and some self important women kept derailing the topic to make it about her and her abuse, then yes, I probably would tell her to feth off and make her own topic.
The problem is, you're not the first guy to do it. It is actually impossible to have a real discussion about this because they always get bogged down by people like you going "what about me? I have problems too wahhhh". People don't make images like this because you're unique:
Spoiler:
This is a topic about the treatment of women. Why do you feel the need to keep invalidating how women are treated and painting yourself as the victim. What ever happened to you was sad, I acknowledge it shouldn't have happened. Maybe you can acknowledge that other people have problems too, and maybe try to understand them instead of just invalidating them.
This is a topic about the treatment of women. Why do you feel the need to keep invalidating how women are treated and painting yourself as the victim. What ever happened to you was sad, I acknowledge it shouldn't have happened. Maybe you can acknowledge that other people have problems too, and maybe try to understand them instead of just invalidating them.
The most curious notion to me is the concept that while everyone should be treated fairly, that somehow pointing out how one set of people is treated unfairly somehow excuses the fact that another set of people is treated unfairly.
Ultimately, it seems like a lot of people treat a lot of people unfairly. Some of it is manufactured, hyperbolic, or imagined. All of is bad, and we should not be bickering about who is treated more unfairly (or as I prefer, unfairlier) because that really doesn't matter. It's not like there's a finite amount of not being a piece of gak to other people. We should just all be excellent to each other.
That being said, my own personal observations show that people are kind of sad, petty little creatures generally less capable of empathy than animals, and prone to be completely not excellent to each other. I'm uncertain of how to fix that.
smacks wrote:Slappy tantrums is a good example. Your study does unequivocally count women who throw tantrums and slap their husband as violence. In fact more than half of the incidents seem to be of that nature, when you look at how often people weren't injured at all.
sigh again, you didnt read it or are ignoring it on purpose,
the study *specifically* did differentiate between times when a man was just "slapped" and times when they were *serisouly* injured, and did the same for women,
women were *seriously* injured 65% of the time in violent DV situations, where men were *seriously* injured 45% of the time.
I have never stated that violence that happens to women should be trivialized, nor have I ever stated its ok because violence also happens to men.
All I am doing is trying to address the problem of violence, as opposed to only addressing female or male violence. You obviously have a problem with talking about it from the other side.
not only that, telling me I cannot even bring it into the conversation is the height of hypocracy, its like telling anita sarkeezean to not bring her topics of female tropes into dicussions that are supposed to be about video games.
yet you have done that with labelling violence against men as "slappy tantrums" you keep trying to justify it by incorrectly asserting the CDC didnt differentiate between *serious* injury and *slappy tantrums* when in fact, it did.
even if we use your logic, and call a woman hitting a man that doesnt result in serious injury a "slappy tantrum", you would never, ever dimish a man slapping a woman as a "slappy tantrum".
Your assertations that only a handfull of double standards apply to men, and that society in general cares far more about double standards applied to men, is totally false, backwards, and again, is minimizing the issue as it relates to men, while sensationalizing the issue as it pertains to women, when both have to deal with it in roughly equal proportions.
saying "but people drew pictures, there for I am right" is just silly too, im sure I could find pictures that totally neglect to take your arguement on good faith as well, but Im not going to sink to that level.
easysauce wrote: women were *seriously* injured 65% of the time in violent DV situations, where men were *seriously* injured 45% of the time.
Exactly. So it's a fact that the level of violence committed by men is greater (20% more likely to cause injury). Which is why I said it is dishonest for you to compare them like they are the same (both equally likely to cause injury).
yet you have done that with labelling violence against men as "slappy tantrums"
See, there you go again putting words in my mouth. All I said is that you shouldn't equate slappy tantrums (5% chance of causing injury) with being beaten with a hammer (90% chance of causing injury). Unless you want to distort the facts. Which apparently you do.
even if we use your logic
My logic is just called 'logic'.
you would never, ever dimish a man slapping a woman as a "slappy tantrum".
Actually you would be surprised, I've seen some pretty rubbish fights involving men that would qualify as Slappy tantrums. However common sense dictates that beatings by men are going to be more brutal in general, and this is backed up by your study. Beatings by men are on average 20% more likely to cause *serious* injury (and we can probably extrapolate *not serious* injury too)
Can we stop talking about this now?
minimizing the issue as it relates to men, while sensationalizing the issue as it pertains to women, when both have to deal with it in roughly equal proportions.
Well a lot of people disagree and feel it is more one sided than that.
Smacks wrote: they always get bogged down by people like you going "what about me? I have problems too wahhhh".
Maybe you can acknowledge that other people have problems too, and maybe try to understand them instead of just invalidating them.
What am I even reading at this point.
The important difference is: One is on topic and one is not. I'd be more open to hearing about DV against men, if this was a topic about that, but it isn't. It's a topic about women that is getting derailed.
Also nice taking out of context:
Smacks wrote: I acknowledge it shouldn't have happened (his problems). Maybe you can acknowledge that other people have problems too (instead of talking about his problems in the wrong place)
Jehan-reznor wrote: Or you could say women are less physical violent but more mental violent.
I could not let that statement just slip by...
From personal experience, in general few men could match a woman in mental abuse.
It is very unlikely a person could be arrested for mental abuse.
Men on the receiving end of mental abuse and being badly outmatched may/could resort to violence.
It is very likely the men resorting to violence would be arrested.
Could the hidden statistic be: how many men were subject to mental abuse by women who in turn became violent?
My narcissistic mother would have LOVED it if I hit her (I think she tried to get me to do that a few times).
She would get to play the victim (attention!) and ruin my life (power!) and laugh up her sleeve the whole time, the only cost would be a little pain for a moment.
Coming back to harassing behavior, the random comment from men in the street is a bit more threatening since the person does not mean anything to the guy, they would be more willing to perform violence than with someone they know.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Or you could say women are less physical violent but more mental violent.
I could not let that statement just slip by...
From personal experience, in general few men could match a woman in mental abuse.
It is very unlikely a person could be arrested for mental abuse.
Men on the receiving end of mental abuse and being badly outmatched may/could resort to violence.
It is very likely the men resorting to violence would be arrested.
Could the hidden statistic be: how many men were subject to mental abuse by women who in turn became violent?
My narcissistic mother would have LOVED it if I hit her (I think she tried to get me to do that a few times).
She would get to play the victim (attention!) and ruin my life (power!) and laugh up her sleeve the whole time, the only cost would be a little pain for a moment.
Coming back to harassing behavior, the random comment from men in the street is a bit more threatening since the person does not mean anything to the guy, they would be more willing to perform violence than with someone they know.
And here we have the "blame the victim" post in its natural environment...
On the subject of harassment. It really depends on your perspective. A lot of celebrities feel that they are harassed by fans and photographers, even though each individual fan or paparazzi probably does very little. All the attention combined can feel overwhelming.
Being harassed by 'men' is not the same as being harassed by 'one man'. Saying hello is not harassment on its own, but a large group of people all saying hello relentlessly is harassment "by that group". The video lets men see that what they are doing actually might be more bothersome and harassing than they think. It might be 'just saying hello' but it can also be 'just the straw that broke the camel's back'.
This is exactly why I don't say 'hi' to women. One time a ciswoman tried to provoke me into harrassing her. She walks up to me and is all over me saying things like, "can i help you find anything, sir?" I wasn't going to fall into her trap just like Adam did when he followed Eve's advice and was thrown out of paradise. So I threw the garden rake I had been planning on purchasing at her and made well my escape. A few days later the oppressive police arrested me. #blamethevictim
dethork wrote: This is exactly why I don't say 'hi' to women. One time a ciswoman tried to provoke me into harrassing her. She walks up to me and is all over me saying things like, "can i help you find anything, sir?" I wasn't going to fall into her trap just like Adam did when he followed Eve's advice and was thrown out of paradise. So I threw the garden rake I had been planning on purchasing at her and made well my escape. A few days later the oppressive police arrested me. #blamethevictim
I was going to be sarcastic too, but then I realized that neither of us would be improving this thread.
1.) When a woman is walking down the street, just leave her alone if she doesn't obviously want to talk to you. Eyes down, walking with purpose? Just leave her alone.
2.) If you are with a friend who catcalls, maybe tell him not to be a jerk?
That's all I got.
That, and this being the Dakka OT, I feel pretty good about being able to predict pretty much who is going to post in this thread and what they are going to say.
I totally agree with above. Watched the video and all I have to say is wow... very disgusting.
lol "nothing is more badass then treating women with respect"-Torgue
Frazzled wrote: And here we have the "blame the victim" post in its natural environment...
Yes, feels good to get on that high horse.
But in this case from personal experience, you in turn are blaming the victim: me.
Born into a family with no say on how I was to be treated.
A mother with a strong sense of entitlement and children being rather inconvenient.
Saying loving things like "I wish you were never born!" and "When you get that look on your face I just want to slap it!".
"Blame the victim" in all cases is absurd but do not lecture to me if my mother did not deserve something or anyone that act in that fashion.
There is two sides to everything and I find these fine discussions we have are so black and white, must be nice to live in that white picket fence life of yours.
The problem is our "civilized" society has no adequate punishment for those who like to mentally torture people for kicks.
So people who may have been victimized in turn get to be judged the abusers.
My mother has managed to date ruin at least 3 people's lives and I have not laid a hand on her.
I am sure society has benefitted from putting women on a pedestal based on their gender rather than merit like my wife has demonstrated.
The important difference is: One is on topic and one is not. I'd be more open to hearing about DV against men, if this was a topic about that, but it isn't. It's a topic about women that is getting derailed.
There are no topics on men's problems. It's taboo. Not allowed.
Heck, when gays boycotted some Brunei hotel chain because of a law that made homosexuality punishable by death, feminists said that the gays have no business fighting for their own rights and should help feminists instead.
The important difference is: One is on topic and one is not. I'd be more open to hearing about DV against men, if this was a topic about that, but it isn't. It's a topic about women that is getting derailed.
There are no topics on men's problems. It's taboo. Not allowed.
Heck, when gays boycotted some Brunei hotel chain because of a law that made homosexuality punishable by death, feminists said that the gays have no business fighting for their own rights and should help feminists instead.
The important difference is: One is on topic and one is not. I'd be more open to hearing about DV against men, if this was a topic about that, but it isn't. It's a topic about women that is getting derailed.
There are no topics on men's problems. It's taboo. Not allowed.
Heck, when gays boycotted some Brunei hotel chain because of a law that made homosexuality punishable by death, feminists said that the gays have no business fighting for their own rights and should help feminists instead.
What bearing does that have upon women being catcalled on the street?
Pointing out the double standard. Women can come into a male rights debate and tell them to shut the don't bypass the language filter like this. Last warning. Reds8n up and do something for women instead, but men aren't allowed to even say "we have problems too" in a female rights debate. Which you very nicely demonstrated just now.
Pointing out the double standard. Women can come into a male rights debate and tell them to shut the f*** up and do something for women instead, but men aren't allowed to even say "we have problems too" in a female rights debate. Which you very nicely demonstrated just now.
Men have problems too. It was never my intention to deny or try to refute that. There are quite a few double standards involved in being a man. I just see divisiveness where I wish I saw more "people are seriously offended, we need to seriously consider their concerns, rather than handwaving them away."
I mean, I have issues that another man, no... person would dismiss simply because they aren't their issues. That doesn't make them less real to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess I'm just saying that if there's enough room on the internet for a "yugioh is on netflix" thread and the pony people to exist, there's room enough to make a separate thread for that rather than turning a thread into some kind of "Gender Wars".
Smacks wrote: On the subject of harassment. It really depends on your perspective. A lot of celebrities feel that they are harassed by fans and photographers, even though each individual fan or paparazzi probably does very little. All the attention combined can feel overwhelming.
Being harassed by 'men' is not the same as being harassed by 'one man'. Saying hello is not harassment on its own, but a large group of people all saying hello relentlessly is harassment "by that group". The video lets men see that what they are doing actually might be more bothersome and harassing than they think. It might be 'just saying hello' but it can also be 'just the straw that broke the camel's back'.
Actually it honestly doesn't make me feel like she was harassed bar a small group. Like that one dude that stalked her and the one that was wining about her not responding. And the guy that was like hey he complemented you. Past that? It says walking 10 hours and then only a small few minutes total of "harassment" when quite a bit doesn't really feel like anything in the grand scheme of things. Still doesn't excuse the creepy ones that were really harassing though. Getting to that small few I honestly don't know. Words are nuanced, people do stupid things, and really I don't know what any solution could be. Life's complicated.
lord_blackfang wrote: There are no topics on men's problems. It's taboo. Not allowed.
There is a topic right now on Dakka about the injustice of the word "mansplaining". You can make a topic about any issue you want.
Heck, when gays boycotted some Brunei hotel chain because of a law that made homosexuality punishable by death, feminists said that the gays have no business fighting for their own rights and should help feminists instead.
Actually it wasn't "feminists" who criticized them, it was just Rose McGowan (and possibly Bret Easton Ellis -- an openly gay man -- sometimes).
They weren't criticizing just men, it was directed at the LGBT community which most definitely includes women.
And she never said they "they had no right" or that they "should help feminists instead". She said their protest was misinformed. And she criticized them for not helping women oppressed by sharia law as well as gay men, definitely not instead of.
In any case, I can't be held accountable for what Rose McGowan does. And just because she does something questionable doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to derail every discussion on feminism. That is yet another example of tu quoque. Two wrongs do not make a right.
People who throw around the word "feminazi" should be marched to Auschwitz to learn what kind of people they are trivializing when they compare their first world problems to genocide.
d-usa wrote: People who throw around the word "feminazi" should be marched to Auschwitz to learn what kind of people they are trivializing when they compare their first world problems to genocide.
Should we do the same to those who throw around the term "grammar nazi" ??
IMO, using the term "nazi" doesn't diminish the terrible things that they did, but rather it CAN (in the case of extreme feminists) point out how "insane" that person, or group of people is being.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, using the term "nazi" doesn't diminish the terrible things that they did, but rather it CAN (in the case of extreme feminists) point out how "insane" that person, or group of people is being.
If you genuinely do believe that “feminazi” are on par with nazi, you definitely should get that tour to Auschwitz. At least those that use the grammar nazi expression do not take it seriously.
Men have problems too. It was never my intention to deny or try to refute that. There are quite a few double standards involved in being a man. I just see divisiveness where I wish I saw more "people are seriously offended, we need to seriously consider their concerns, rather than handwaving them away."
I mean, I have issues that another man, no... person would dismiss simply because they aren't their issues. That doesn't make them less real to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess I'm just saying that if there's enough room on the internet for a "yugioh is on netflix" thread and the pony people to exist, there's room enough to make a separate thread for that rather than turning a thread into some kind of "Gender Wars".
OHMYGOD I'M POPULAR!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: On the subject of harassment. It really depends on your perspective. A lot of celebrities feel that they are harassed by fans and photographers, even though each individual fan or paparazzi probably does very little. All the attention combined can feel overwhelming.
Being harassed by 'men' is not the same as being harassed by 'one man'. Saying hello is not harassment on its own, but a large group of people all saying hello relentlessly is harassment "by that group". The video lets men see that what they are doing actually might be more bothersome and harassing than they think. It might be 'just saying hello' but it can also be 'just the straw that broke the camel's back'.
Good thing to know. I almost said hi to another human being today. i'm such a terrible person.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, using the term "nazi" doesn't diminish the terrible things that they did, but rather it CAN (in the case of extreme feminists) point out how "insane" that person, or group of people is being.
If you genuinely do believe that “feminazi” are on par with nazi, you definitely should get that tour to Auschwitz. At least those that use the grammar nazi expression do not take it seriously.
It's an expression. No one is diminishing the fact that the Holocaust is a terrible thing, it's just the term "blank nazi" has become commonplace American slang. It's not even meant to call people insane, it's meant to call people radical who do that behavior radical or overzealous.
Sining wrote: It's called sarcasm. Next thing you know you'll be saying he can't make posts like these. It's too triggering.
Maybe he was trying to be ironic. Some kind of reduction to absurdity, where we are supposed to imagine some 'absurd place' where just saying "hi" is weird and scary -- otherwise known as a city.
Saying hi to another human being sounds so beautiful and innocent. But that doesn't do justice to the reality of accosting someone in the street because you want to have sex with them, which does 'kind of' make you a terrible person.
I live in the city, and I'm pretty guarded when strangers talk to me in the street. Usually they just want money -- but even if the person of my dreams stopped me in the street for a chat, I'd still be thinking: "Why the hell is this dreamy hot weirdo talking to me? ... I wish I had some pepper spray".
EDIT: I found another video, where they contrast a girl in quite tight clothing against the same girl wearing a hijab. One of the guys doesn't give up.
It's interesting that no one seems to "just say hi" to her when she is in the hijab. Why is it all these guys suddenly aren't feeling so 'polite'? This makes me question their motivations. It might be difficult to prove that these guys are mainly after sex, but it seems fairly obvious none the less.
d-usa wrote: People who throw around the word "feminazi" should be marched to Auschwitz to learn what kind of people they are trivializing when they compare their first world problems to genocide.
Thanks officer Tone Police. Got any more concern trolling for us?
It's interesting that no one seems to "just say hi" to her when she is in the hijab. Why is it all these guys suddenly aren't feeling so 'polite'? This makes me question their motivations. It might be difficult to prove that these guys are mainly after sex, but it seems fairly obvious none the less.
What? It's all the same guys? And there's nothing wrong with trying to get to know a woman you find attractive if you keep it polite.
It's interesting that no one seems to "just say hi" to her when she is in the hijab. Why is it all these guys suddenly aren't feeling so 'polite'? This makes me question their motivations. It might be difficult to prove that these guys are mainly after sex, but it seems fairly obvious none the less.
Um... o.O
Men, by and large, are visually stimulated. Of course men want sex.
d-usa wrote: People who throw around the word "feminazi" should be marched to Auschwitz to learn what kind of people they are trivializing when they compare their first world problems to genocide.
Thanks officer Tone Police. Got any more concern trolling for us?
Smacks wrote: I found another video, where they contrast a girl in quite tight clothing against the same girl wearing a hijab. One of the guys doesn't give up.
The guys who made that video of the male model walking around have made a new one. A woman with painted on jeans.
d-usa wrote: People who throw around the word "feminazi" should be marched to Auschwitz to learn what kind of people they are trivializing when they compare their first world problems to genocide.
Thanks officer Tone Police. Got any more concern trolling for us?
Well people who refer to not doing well in a video game as being raped is pretty stupid as well, if that counts.
It's hyperbole, and it extends to lots of different types of language. Trying to claim it has one meaning and one meaning only is why things like "Tumblr Ableism" exists.
lord_blackfang wrote: There are no topics on men's problems. It's taboo. Not allowed.
There is a topic right now on Dakka about the injustice of the word "mansplaining". You can make a topic about any issue you want.
Heck, when gays boycotted some Brunei hotel chain because of a law that made homosexuality punishable by death, feminists said that the gays have no business fighting for their own rights and should help feminists instead.
Actually it wasn't "feminists" who criticized them, it was just Rose McGowan (and possibly Bret Easton Ellis -- an openly gay man -- sometimes).
They weren't criticizing just men, it was directed at the LGBT community which most definitely includes women.
And she never said they "they had no right" or that they "should help feminists instead". She said their protest was misinformed. And she criticized them for not helping women oppressed by sharia law as well as gay men, definitely not instead of.
In any case, I can't be held accountable for what Rose McGowan does. And just because she does something questionable doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to derail every discussion on feminism. That is yet another example of tu quoque. Two wrongs do not make a right.
At least avoid supporting her argument. She also went on to go gay males are all even more misogynistic than straight people ablublublu look at all the good feminism has done for you and all your equal rights that you have received but I don't see you charging around championing anybody else's rights. It was a gakky claim and should just be tossed aside. And yes, she did focus on gay males in particular before hissing at lesbians and going on a general rant of feminism and should be working for them blah blah blah. She isn't to be ALL FEMINISTS, just one really. But yeah, you are kinda sweeping things under. I still stick to the statement that the internet's ability to let any opinion forment and then gain group support in conjunction with the ease by which individuals can find things plus the overall petty attitude of humanity at large leads to this fest of misery.
And whoa seriously this argument is starting to go in some ridiculous directions. Not going to lie, I like the idea of splitting the comments up to focus on one and the other but I've just gotten too used to seeing these wars break out (and I can't help but feel like if another thread brought any of the blahblahmenwah stuff it'd get smacked by a bunch of people anyways. That and this conversation has long stepped away from harassing into... well whatever mass entity of everything that is whatever it is.
Sining wrote: It's called sarcasm. Next thing you know you'll be saying he can't make posts like these. It's too triggering.
Maybe he was trying to be ironic. Some kind of reduction to absurdity, where we are supposed to imagine some 'absurd place' where just saying "hi" is weird and scary -- otherwise known as a city.
Saying hi to another human being sounds so beautiful and innocent. But that doesn't do justice to the reality of accosting someone in the street because you want to have sex with them, which does 'kind of' make you a terrible person.
I live in the city, and I'm pretty guarded when strangers talk to me in the street. Usually they just want money -- but even if the person of my dreams stopped me in the street for a chat, I'd still be thinking: "Why the hell is this dreamy hot weirdo talking to me? ... I wish I had some pepper spray".
EDIT:
I found another video, where they contrast a girl in quite tight clothing against the same girl wearing a hijab. One of the guys doesn't give up.
It's interesting that no one seems to "just say hi" to her when she is in the hijab. Why is it all these guys suddenly aren't feeling so 'polite'? This makes me question their motivations. It might be difficult to prove that these guys are mainly after sex, but it seems fairly obvious none the less.
My point was that avoiding any communication on the chance that said stranger is going to feel harassed is pretty damn silly. There is already a lack of community in America due to individualism and people feeling disenfranchised from society, but if people stop talking others on the basis that they might be harassing the other person, then we might as well just be hobbits and never leave the cave or talk to anyone. Also, guess what? I can separate my libido from my brain and make decisions without thinking with my penis. I can say "Hi" to someone without wanting to actively feth them. Even if I did, I'm not going to transform into a monster who will just rape the first woman I see.
Also, I consider myself pretty mindful. If I say "Hi" and you obviously don't want to talk, I'll leave you alone. It's pretty simple.
Also, I consider myself pretty mindful. If I say "Hi" and you obviously don't want to talk, I'll leave you alone. It's pretty simple.
I would say that a VERY good percentage of people are the same in that regard. Hell, there are times where, even if I'm the one who says "hi" it's not really an invitation to speak further to me, you just happened to be closer into my personal bubble and manners sort of dictate that I greet you
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
Also, generally it's rare for someone to chat up strangers completely at random, so most who do have some kind of ulterior motive. They may be salesmen or they may want a one night stand or whatever, or they might just want a conversation. I can only speak from personal experience, but when a completely random guy (or girl, though that would significantly reduce the odds that it's the second option) I will suspect ulterior motives unless another option is given.
It may seem a bit harsh. I might still talk with you (maybe - it depends entirely on what you say and do) but I am always careful with people I don't know.
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
I haven't watched the video so I'm not certain about the context, but people often say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, although it's more often only "bless you", and I've only heard the 'Gby' version said by Americans. Here in the UK, at least, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes in public is more or less accepted as simply being polite. It's more likely to be said in a store queue or on a bus/train than whilst walking down the street, though. I can't think of anyone who'd go out of their way to run up to someone and say it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's hyperbole, and it extends to lots of different types of language. Trying to claim it has one meaning and one meaning only is why things like "Tumblr Ableism" exists.
So how exactly are you getting from "losing in a video game isn't really rape" to "words can't have multiple meanings"? I never said words can't have multiple meanings so somewhere you had to concoct that argument seperately. I just said I thought this specific bit of hyperbole was fairly stupid, and immature to boot.
jreilly89 wrote: My point was that avoiding any communication on the chance that said stranger is going to feel harassed is pretty damn silly. There is already a lack of community in America due to individualism and people feeling disenfranchised from society, but if people stop talking others on the basis that they might be harassing the other person, then we might as well just be hobbits and never leave the cave or talk to anyone.
Okay, and I think you have a perfectly valid point. I agree it's a bit sad that people don't speak to each other more. I think the reason for that in cities is primarily because there are too many people, so you have to ignore some of them, and eventually people just learn to ignore everyone. If you do start talking to someone it usually serves a purpose beyond just talking for fun (EDIT: what Ashiraya said). Obviously a lot of people are open and friendly, which I think is demonstrated by the train party video.
Spoiler:
But I hope we can agree there is a difference between being polite and catcalling (even if it is difficult to prove). If you say hi to everyone then fair enough. If you're just singling out young women for attention then you might be acting like a jerk. Especially if you're doing it to every woman who walks past. It's one thing if you single someone out because there is something genuinely interesting about them (clothing, band t-shirt, or something they're doing). But if it's just "Oh hey, I noticed you had tits, and I find that fascinating about you. The last 200 women with tits I said hi to ignored me, but I though you might be different on account of me really liking tits".
As I said before, it is possible for 1 person to feel harassed by a group, even though each member of the group isn't doing enough to be considered harassing individually. I think that works both ways. It is also possible for 1 person to harass a group, even though what he says to each person might be quite minor. If you follow one of those guys around for 10 hours you might see him shouting boorish stuff at dozens of women all day long. There are plenty of guys who are like that, and they probably know who they are. So you end up with a situation where there is one group harassing another group, and that is the problem, not people politely saying hello.
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
I haven't watched the video so I'm not certain about the context, but people often say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, although it's more often only "bless you", and I've only heard the 'Gby' version said by Americans. Here in the UK, at least, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes in public is more or less accepted as simply being polite. It's more likely to be said in a store queue or on a bus/train than whilst walking down the street, though. I can't think of anyone who'd go out of their way to run up to someone and say it.
Especially since the woman in the video did not actually sneeze. Randomly saying it to someone who walks past is just... strange.
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
I haven't watched the video so I'm not certain about the context, but people often say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, although it's more often only "bless you", and I've only heard the 'Gby' version said by Americans. Here in the UK, at least, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes in public is more or less accepted as simply being polite. It's more likely to be said in a store queue or on a bus/train than whilst walking down the street, though. I can't think of anyone who'd go out of their way to run up to someone and say it.
Especially since the woman in the video did not actually sneeze. Randomly saying it to someone who walks past is just... strange.
Without the sneezing then yeah, it's an odd thing to just randomly say unless you've got some sort of religious tourette's.
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
I haven't watched the video so I'm not certain about the context, but people often say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, although it's more often only "bless you", and I've only heard the 'Gby' version said by Americans. Here in the UK, at least, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes in public is more or less accepted as simply being polite. It's more likely to be said in a store queue or on a bus/train than whilst walking down the street, though. I can't think of anyone who'd go out of their way to run up to someone and say it.
Especially since the woman in the video did not actually sneeze. Randomly saying it to someone who walks past is just... strange.
Because its an American thing apparently and ive seen and heard god bless you from women greeting strangers aswell...
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
It's kind of an odd American religious thing. If you see enough of certain news outlets, you'll see that there's a "war" on Christianity, and some folks feel the need to show you how religious they are, or possibly guilt you into showing your own religion, etc.
This is of course, assuming you're not talking about a sneeze.
Why would you just randomly say 'God bless you' to a stranger?
It's kind of an odd American religious thing. If you see enough of certain news outlets, you'll see that there's a "war" on Christianity, and some folks feel the need to show you how religious they are, or possibly guilt you into showing your own religion, etc.
This is of course, assuming you're not talking about a sneeze.
That and some people just genuinely want to wish you a nice day and use a religious saying for it.
I hate when people say "god bless" to me. My auntie in Ireland always says it when she hangs up the phone. As a non-religious and somewhat anti-religions person, it makes me feel quite uncomfortable. Kind of like someone greeting you with "Heil Hitler" when you're not a nazi. Or at least wishing you a merry Christmas when it isn't Christmas.
Though in the video I think I find the "Have a nice evening" guy the most confusing (about 40 seconds in). It's almost like walking up to someone and saying "Good bye!". I'm not really sure where he was going with that one.
Smacks wrote: I hate when people say "god bless" to me. My auntie in Ireland always says it when she hangs up the phone. As a non-religious and somewhat anti-religions person, it makes me feel quite uncomfortable. Kind of like someone greeting you with "Heil Hitler" when you're not a nazi. Or at least wishing you a merry Christmas when it isn't Christmas.
Though in the video I think I find the "Have a nice evening" guy the most confusing (about 40 seconds in). It's almost like walking up to someone and saying "Good bye!". I'm not really sure where he was going with that one.
Yeah I got nothing to add here, you really just compared god bless you to heil hitler?
Sining wrote: And someone has just equated god bless you to Heil hitler. I think we can end this thread now
You're welcome to leave any time. Or you could just stop trying to sensationalize every little comment into something it isn't. I don't like other people shoving their ideologies in my face, political or religious.
EDIT:
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Yeah I got nothing to add here, you really just compared god bless you to heil hitler?
Ergh, whatever.
I find "God bless you" quite offensive and annoying. Some people who believe in god might find that difficult to understand, so I used an analogy. How would you feel if someone greeted you with "heil Hitler"? You would probably feel like interrupting them, and telling them that what they believe is ignorant, and that they need to shut the hell up! Well that is pretty much exactly how I feel when people say "god bless you" to me.
Please don't underestimate how much someone doesn't want to hear it.
While I would not compare it to Heil Hitler (Christianity may be responsible for far more deaths than Nazism but at least they don't have the same moral values, and there's significantly more difference between Christian and Christian than between Nazi and Nazi) I still would get really suspicious if someone decided to wish me a blessing.
If I walk past you and you say 'God bless you, ma'am' then I wonder: Do you say that to everyone? If no, why did you say that to me specifically?
You've raised the bar by equating "God bless" with "Heil Hitler" in a thread where people are arguing that saying hello to someone is sexual harassment.
You've raised the bar by equating "God bless" with "Heil Hitler" in a thread where people are arguing that saying hello to someone is sexual harassment.
Good job Smacks, and God bless!
Yeah, in a thread that already had nazi comparisons pages ago. I'm not really sure why you're so smug about it though. Are you saying that I don't find "god bless you" offensive?
EDIT: Also I didn't draw comparisons with anyone in this thread or anything that was part of the debate. You're actually misusing Godwin's law. It isn't Godwined just because someone says the word "Nazi"
I'm a "militant atheist" myself and I never got some people's revulsion to innocent greetings just because they have a religious root. You can't just pretend that western culture isn't largely based on Christianity.
If anything, you should be amused that they're using His name in vain.
I find "God bless you" quite offensive and annoying. Some people who believe in god might find that difficult to understand, so I used an analogy. How would you feel if someone greeted you with "heil Hitler"?
Wow. Just wow. I...don't know what to say.
Not only are you unaware of "God bless you" being a common saying instead of a strictly religious one, you are a runner-up for the most offensive post at Dakka in Nov '14.
I am not Christian myself, neither is my wife, and still, we use terms that include "God" as they are a firm part of the language.
You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a post and your severe lack of any empathy is a sad sight in general.
Sigvatr wrote: You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a post, I am ashamed of Dakka having such users and your severe lack of any empathy is a sad sight in general.
Well that's rich coming from the man who makes hamfisted comments in every gender topic, saying transgender isn't a real thing. And isn't able to understand why a girl being hit on every 5 mins of the day might feel harassed. That's real lack of empathy.
Then you swoop in here on your high horse, trying to milk being offended, because ultimately I disagreed with you about the treatment of women. This is so typical of these discussions, male apologists will just latch on to anything to change the subject. Everything about you is shameful.
Equating "God bless you" with "Heil Hitler" is over the top.
That said, the "your severe lack of empathy" comment coming from -Sigvatr- of all people, is hands down one of the most hilarious things I've seen on Dakkadakka.
MrDwhitey wrote: Equating "God bless you" with "Heil Hitler" is over the top.
That said, the "your severe lack of empathy" comment coming from -Sigvatr- of all people, is hands down one of the most hilarious things I've seen on Dakkadakka.
Not only that but, Smack's signature is a Charlie Chaplin quote which adds all sorts of irony when read. Exalted.
"We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost..."
--Charlie Chaplin
To be perfectly honest, shoving god down people's throats is rude so I can understand the angle Smack was going for though it is honestly way too over the top, considering it was about Nazis. I'm surprised though, considering the vast amount of subjects this forum covers that people actually let this get under their skin.
Still, I never understood the point of the feminism, (from first wave to third wave femnazis,) LGBT debates and religious debates being discussed on a website for toy soldiers. Especially considering how heated YMDC gets, and that is just discussing rules. Now we move to the OT forum where people actually have personal life stories and feelings mixed in, it becomes so heated that many lurkers just watch these threads with popcorn. They either end up with two sides yelling at each other till one gives up (forgeworld legality threads, armchair lawyers,) or until a mod locks it. Furthermore, a forum that is full of people who instead of countering points, they will actually google wikipedia articles for clauses and loopholes to beat their point over your head until they win, ie: people shouting "nice straw man," "some-thing fancy sounding syndrome," etc. They don't care if you are actually arguing with them even, any post above theirs aside from the OP and their own is a threat that must be purged by shouting and spewing verbal exterminatus at the top of their lungs until they win.
Anyways, I guess I should get back to being on topic. I suppose the quickest way to change the unwanted behavior is to change the overall culture. I don't see it changing anytime soon but, I'm all for it doing so. We should probably all get on topic again before RhodeIslandtides or someone else locks this for Rule #1 or whatever it is.
MrDwhitey wrote: Equating "God bless you" with "Heil Hitler" is over the top.
Well, maybe I just feel more strongly about it than most people. I tried to explain how uncomfortable it makes me feel, but it seems even my explanation was apparently offensive. But It wasn't a hyperbolic parallel, they literally do make me feel about as uncomfortable as each other. I feel like I'm expected to say it back, but I don't want to because I don't believe it. If people are offended by me not like their religion, there isn't really much I can do about that.
However, it wasn't my intention to offend people. Clearly it was wrong of me to say what I said, so I'm sorry everyone.
EDIT:
Sining wrote: But seriously, you couldn't have just found a less over-the-top comparison than heil hitler? Like "wassup bro" and "don't call me your bro"
I'm sorry, I should have gone for maybe "Hail Satan" from the beginning, but Nazis were the only ideology I could think of that pretty much everyone universally dislikes (and which has their own greeting). I don't really mind people calling me "bro" that wouldn't have been a good analogy.
MrDwhitey wrote: Equating "God bless you" with "Heil Hitler" is over the top.
That said, the "your severe lack of empathy" comment coming from -Sigvatr- of all people, is hands down one of the most hilarious things I've seen on Dakkadakka.
Yeah, I was browsing on mobile Dakka and had to refresh the page, because the name next to the post couldn't be right, and I thought it must have glitched or something.
Either way, y'all are using Godwin wrong. For one because Godwin was mentioned way, way back in the thread (you can't Godwin a thread that's already been Godwinned), and for another, why are you getting all offended at the slightest mention of the word Hitler? This isn't Tumblr, and considering how much derision you seem to have for people who are needlessly offended, you guys seem to be showing some pretty thin skin.
Goliath wrote: Someone states that they absolutely hate being told 'God bless you'. You then immediately make a point of saying 'God bless' to them. Classy.
After they equated saying "God bless" to saying "Heil Hitler".
Come. On.
Really, Smacks essentially did this with the comparison. Like full on, totally owning the whole idiotic comment.
Goliath wrote: Someone states that they absolutely hate being told 'God bless you'. You then immediately make a point of saying 'God bless' to them. Classy.
After they equated saying "God bless" to saying "Heil Hitler".
)
(I'm not intentionally Straw Manning)
