Comment Re:Isn't that (Score 1) 203
Mice are all fuckers.
Mice are all fuckers.
The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?
You actually need to show that "the whole point of [low-intensity violence] is to show the victim's body is the perpetrator's possession" first. Once you manage to establish that as something other than bullshit, then I'll take the onus from there. Good luck.
It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else.
Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.
Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally
Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.
People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.
I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.
If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts.
I disagree. It *is* an example of women wanting special treatment, and it is them getting it. Feminism (as opposed to feminists, who can't seem to agree on a damn thing) doesn't want to solve this issue, and MRAs certainly aren't interested in being told condescendingly to "sit down, shut up, and do what feminism tells you," as you're doing. Whatever the solution to the incongruity may be, I have a hard time believing feminism has anything to contribute to it, since its own flawed premises created the problem in the first place.
I'm not even an MRA, just a guy who feels about "bullshit" the way you say feminists feel about "sexism."
You're probably right. I'm just disappointed that I gave him/her too much credit.
However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.
That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.
It makes sense, when you apply a moment of rational thought. Removing the genders from the equation will probably make that easier for most:
Starting a brawl with someone bigger and stronger than you means it's going to hurt you more when they hit you back. Doesn't mean you didn't start the fight, and should probably be considered when deciding whether or not it's a good idea in the first place (it usually isn't).
Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?
The fact that you didn't write the relevant bit, so that I had to ask for more information.
It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser.
Since you've moved the goalposts from "physical abuse" to "systemically treated as lesser" without providing any examples of the latter, I'm going to limit the context of my response to the former.
In what sense? In the sense that they are unable to make decisions on whether or not to strike someone physically stronger than they are ("primary aggressor" policies), less capable of defending themselves and thus need stronger protection of the law and society (gender-biased "domestic violence" legislation, most DV shelters and social programs being women-only)? In the sense that they're unable to care for their children alone, despite being the ones with decision-making power on the subject?
All of these things show a certain gender-bias, that's true, and they're all the result of false observations like the ones you originally made in your post, and supported or even demanded by those claiming that they counter said "oppression."
And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.
Widespread social response would disagree with you. A man who slaps around a woman is statistically much more likely to be punished in court, pilloried by the media, and basically served up to the metaphorical stake. A woman who permanently disfigures a man is fodder for a bunch of washed up old women on a TV talk show.
In a situation like that, it's really hard to take claims of women being valued "lesser" at face value.
It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide
When you aggregate the whole gamut of "most societies worldwide", you get a hell of a skewed picture. Propagating disinformation, myths, and outright lies in the Western world isn't going to do jack to help in those societies where women DO have legitimate complaints of oppression.
In the developed world, where all of these bogus statistics, pseudo-sociological screeds, and PC Thought Police are perpetually bounced around, though, is another matter. When measured on gender-lines, the "privileges" of males is a proper subset of that of females. Calling that "oppression" is a real stretch.
My knee is not jerking, and I honestly expect better from you than that (normally I don't bother engaging on the internet anymore). I'm not misreading what you're saying, I'm inquiring about your reasoning.
You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness? The incidents occur at similar rates, and one of them *is* socially acceptable, but it's the opposite of your original implication.
HOW is it fundamentally different? What's the magic element that makes one "not as bad" as the other?
It's still going on in both directions. Domestic violence is instigated by both sexes at Similar Rates (PDF warning again. SAVE handout that contains citations). Enforcement, however, is not, thanks to the broken-by-design Deluth Model, sexually biased "primary aggressor policies", and social pressure against men reporting being hit.
Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."
Billions? Apparently I'm Ming the fucking Merciless. Sweet.
It wasn't the men beating their wives, raping them and so on?
That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe. Going back to the 17th century (before there even was a "this country"), the colonies were making laws against wife-beating. I can't find the link now, but there are images of newspaper announcements of men being publicly whipped for doing so.
The people, usually men, abusing their children or stepchildren?
Actually, according to "Child Maltreatment 2012" (US Dept. of Health and Human Services - PDF Warning), the numbers pretty strongly indicate that the opposite is true: among biological parents, mothers are about 2x as likely as fathers to be perpetrators of child abuse, and among non-parents, categories that are separated by gender go to females as well. "Partner of Parent (Male)" does beat "Partner of Parent (Female)", though, at 2.3% vs 0.3%, so if you're limiting the population to just children abused by stepfathers, what you said is not exactly false.
Actually, it's just conoviator and timothy trolling now.
Personally in my spare time I transmute base metals into gold. And vice versa.
That's actually a thing, though.
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.
