21 women killed: this week in masculinism

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the United States, an average of 3 women are killed a day in domestic violence incidents. Death is of course the most severe outcome and so you'd expect abuse to be far more prevalent.

Before MRA's start screaming, let's admit that men can victimize other men, too. So can women, even though we know that statistically speaking female victimization is significantly more. Here are some other statistics where both men and women are victims:
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

 

[Trausti]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

 

[Trausti]

Men even commit far more homicide than women. But as acknowledging natural difference is forbidden in our Woke age, I guess this is due to systemic sexism. What can we do to encourage women to commit their proportionate share of homicide? For equity, of course.

 

[Toni]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

 

[Trausti]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

All people should be equal under the law. If you believe all people are equal as to ability, you’d probably believe anything.

 

[J842P]

In the United States, an average of 3 women are killed a day in domestic violence incidents. Death is of course the most severe outcome and so you'd expect abuse to be far more prevalent.

Before MRA's start screaming, let's admit that men can victimize other men, too. So can women, even though we know that statistically speaking female victimization is significantly more. Here are some other statistics where both men and women are victims:
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

What is "masculinism"? Is this another one of your bad attempts at satirizing your perceived opponents?

In any case, if you are asking if this is a consequence of *being male* I would say, almost certainly, that explains a large proportion of it.

 

[J842P]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

People are obviously not created equal. If you believe that, you are delusional.

People should be treated equally under the law, and in society, when it comes to what opportunities are made available to them.. I don't think that is controversial on this forum at all, indeed, in society at large, except for fringe reactionary groups.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

All people should be equal under the law. If you believe all people are equal as to ability, you’d probably believe anything.

Why the gratuitous insult? Do you think it's the testosterone?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the United States, an average of 3 women are killed a day in domestic violence incidents. Death is of course the most severe outcome and so you'd expect abuse to be far more prevalent.

Before MRA's start screaming, let's admit that men can victimize other men, too. So can women, even though we know that statistically speaking female victimization is significantly more. Here are some other statistics where both men and women are victims:
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

What is "masculinism"? Is this another one of your bad attempts at satirizing your perceived opponents?

Bullshit drama enticing. Knock it off. We are talking about DEATHS and ABUSE--the opposite of the drama thread. Please get your priorities straight or go away!

In any case, if you are asking if this is a consequence of *being male* I would say, almost certainly, that explains a large proportion of it.

There are a lot of consequences of being male. That is vague. One could say that patriarchy itself is a consequence of being male, for example. Or at least try to argue for that.

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

 

[Trausti]

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

All people should be equal under the law. If you believe all people are equal as to ability, you’d probably believe anything.

Why the gratuitous insult? Do you think it's the testosterone?

Are you deficient? There are doctors who can help.

 

[laughing dog]

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

All people should be equal under the law. If you believe all people are equal as to ability, you’d probably believe anything.

Your responses are elegant proof of the inequality of ability.

 

[Trausti]

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

Absolutely. That’s the Occam’s razor explanation. Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

 

[Trausti]

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

All people should be equal under the law. If you believe all people are equal as to ability, you’d probably believe anything.

Your responses are elegant proof of the inequality of ability.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. Keep trying and maybe you can be on the level. We believe in you, LD.

 

[laughing dog]

Your responses are elegant proof of the inequality of ability.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. Keep trying and maybe you can be on the level. We believe in you, LD.

Your "no u r" proved my point again.

 

[Angry Floof]

What seems to me to be controversial on this forum is to espouse the idea the all people are created equal —and that human institutions are built upon keeping some of the people less than equal in society and under the law.

People are obviously not created equal. If you believe that, you are delusional.

People should be treated equally under the law, and in society, when it comes to what opportunities are made available to them.. I don't think that is controversial on this forum at all, indeed, in society at large, except for fringe reactionary groups.

Well, duh. That's what that means. Nature doesn't give anyone more or less opportunity or value or worth than anyone else. Those are human constructs and they have real consequences in how we treat each other.

Nature (or God if you like) did not give men authority. Authority is also a human construct, perhaps a useful one in some ways, but a construct nonetheless. Nature doesn't give anyone or anything authority over another.

But just try to tell that to men who hold positions of power and authority, to pastors who are being scrutinized for abuses, to fathers and husbands who think they can abuse women and children as they please because it occurs within their family and inside their "castle."

Everyfuckingbody is created equal in terms of any human construct. We apply those constructs unequally and unjustly.

Is this really rocket science? I can see, though, how such a discussion would trigger the insecurities of right wing authoritarian followers.

 

[Angry Floof]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

And therefore we should accept that we are also dimorphic in terms of conscience? Dimorphic in our ability to control our own behavior? Dimorphic in our ability to take responsibility for ourselves? Dimorphic in the ability to not be chest puffing posturing baboons desperate to avoid any expectation of grown up, human behavior?

Men can control themselves. They just don't bother because they don't have to. It's amazing how much even the dumbest, most animal brained moronic man can change his behavior when there are actual consequences.

 

[J842P]

Bullshit drama enticing. Knock it off. We are talking about DEATHS and ABUSE--the opposite of the drama thread. Please get your priorities straight or go away!

In any case, if you are asking if this is a consequence of *being male* I would say, almost certainly, that explains a large proportion of it.

There are a lot of consequences of being male. That is vague. One could say that patriarchy itself is a consequence of being male, for example. Or at least try to argue for that.

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

Bullshit feigned outrage at a straightforward response to a goading OP. You know very well what you were doing, drop the act.

But back to the topic at hand, so you didn't describe what you meant by masculinism[/I This isn't a term I'm familiar with. Looking it up, I see various definitions. It sounds like you are using it to mean "be male", which doesn't seem to conform to the definitions I'm finding online. Which seem to be some sort of feminist-like men's rights movement. Care to clarify?

In any case, my point is that it is a pretty well established fact that males, on average, are more aggressive (although not by much), and more importantly, when they are aggressive, tend to do more physical damage for any given act of aggression (more important and relevant to the topic of domestic violence).

And when I say "males on average", you to be precise, we can imagine that the distribution physically aggressive tendencies in men and women form two bell curves. The mean is higher for men, although the absolute difference is probably not that large (most sex-based differences are small on the scale of average differences). So, there is a ton of overlap in the middle of the curves. However, at the tail end of the most aggressive people, the sort of people that would end up in a maximum security prison, you are looking at almost exclusively males. And in general, this one reason why you find many, many more men in prison for violent crimes. And this disparity is driven by the tail end of very aggressive males.

This is pretty much common knowledge. Again, I'm not even sure what you are talking about in your OP. What is masculinism?.

 

[Angry Floof]

Your responses are elegant proof of the inequality of ability.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. Keep trying and maybe you can be on the level. We believe in you, LD.

Your "no u r" proved my point again.

This is the gist of right wing mentality: "No, YOU. pllfffthh!" Self reflection might help them avoid being called out for their stunted way of thinking, but that's not a strong tendency among right wing authoritarians. If it were, they probably wouldn't be right wing authoritarians.

 

[Trausti]

Your "no u r" proved my point again.

This is the gist of right wing mentality: "No, YOU. pllfffthh!" Self reflection might help them avoid being called out for their stunted way of thinking, but that's not a strong tendency among right wing authoritarians. If it were, they probably wouldn't be right wing authoritarians.

No, this just shows your lack of humor. If you can’t take a joke, no matter how well or poorly done, you must live a miserable existence. Smile. Give it a shot. You might like it.

 

[Trausti]

Your responses are elegant proof of the inequality of ability.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. Keep trying and maybe you can be on the level. We believe in you, LD.

Your "no u r" proved my point again.

It’s hard to be humble about it.