Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:
But, only if you count pretty much any physical contact as violence. Men are still way more likely to injure someone.

But, only if you count pretty much any verbal contact as harassment.


See what I did there?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
But, only if you count pretty much any physical contact as violence. Men are still way more likely to injure someone.

But, only if you count pretty much any verbal contact as harassment.


See what I did there?

Yes, by linking those two statements, you either agreed that women are less violent, or you conceded that any verbal contact is harassment. Smart.

Edit: (for what it's worth, saying hello being harassment wasn't one of my arguments. It might have been someone else.)

Or you could say women are less physical violent but more mental violent.

 Ashiraya wrote:

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
But, only if you count pretty much any physical contact as violence. Men are still way more likely to injure someone.

But, only if you count pretty much any verbal contact as harassment.


See what I did there?

Yes, by linking those two statements, you either agreed that women are less violent, or you conceded that any verbal contact is harassment. Smart.

Edit: (for what it's worth, saying hello being harassment wasn't one of my arguments. It might have been someone else.)

Swing and a miss.

"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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

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''''''''?

 Ashiraya wrote:

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''''''''?

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.

 jreilly89 wrote:


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.

Have we had this yet?

Nice video.

 Smacks wrote:
Kind of like misogynist jerks, only what surprises you is that it seems to be about 60% of men.

thats a completely untrue, and unfair statement to make.

Had someone claimed that 60% of women were misandrist jerks, it would be considered sexist.


again, DOUBLE STANDARD!

I need an alarm or something...

 easysauce wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Kind of like misogynist jerks, only what surprises you is that it seems to be about 60% of men.

thats a completely untrue, and unfair statement to make.

Had someone claimed that 60% of women were misandrist jerks, it would be considered sexist.


again, DOUBLE STANDARD!

I need an alarm or something...

60% of woman, no.

60% of Feminists?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


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"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Kind of like misogynist jerks, only what surprises you is that it seems to be about 60% of men.

thats a completely untrue, and unfair statement to make.

Had someone claimed that 60% of women were misandrist jerks, it would be considered sexist.


again, DOUBLE STANDARD!

I need an alarm or something...

60% of woman, no.

60% of Feminists?

??? not sure what you mean with this as smacks statement singled out men, not uhh,
maninists?
chauvenists?
male-ists?
whatever, you know what I mean

It is always amazing to me how persecuted and vicitimized people feel.

 easysauce wrote:

again, DOUBLE STANDARD!

I need an alarm or something...

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.

So this thread has basically (d)evolved down to "Who got the longer privilege member?". Awesome.

 Smacks wrote:
A whole bunch of people were just throwing around the word "feminazi" in this topic.

That is a terrible word indeed.

 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!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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!)

Also everyone becomes so damn defensive.

 Smacks wrote:

Have we had this yet?

I feel like that's been maybe 1-2 posters this entire thread. Maybe I skipped a page?

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Have we had this yet?

Hah!

 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:


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.

 Smacks wrote:

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.

 Easy E wrote:
It is always amazing to me how persecuted and vicitimized people feel.

Don't blame me, I'm just another victim

 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.

 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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

 Talizvar wrote:

 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...