21 women killed: this week in masculinism

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

At risk of derailing the thread, no. IMO, systemic this or that is real and the result of several factors--to include mostly historical inertia or even barriers that are hard to surpass. That's a different topic or is it? If you think that men are more take-charge than women and so patriarchy naturally results because of genetics, then I guess it's on topic after all. Is that what you are saying? If patriarchy is not genetic, then wouldn't it be systemic??

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

Yeah, we'll just refer to your lack of argument as "jokes." That's the ticket!

 

[Trausti]

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?.

Instead of getting Don’s humpty dumpy definition, it might be more amusing to get him to admit that there are natural differences and apply that elsewhere. Like the wage gap.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Yeah, we'll just refer to your lack of argument as "jokes." That's the ticket!

That’s it. Smile. Don’t you feel better?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Irony again?

 

[Toni]

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.

Thank you for proving that the notion that all people are equal is indeed a controversial statement on this forum of 'rational' persons. Certainly if a woman writes it.

People are all created equal, not identical. People are all created equally deserving of equal protection under the law, equal access to whatever opportunities and protections society offers.

 

[Trausti]

Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

At risk of derailing the thread, no. IMO, systemic this or that is real and the result of several factors--to include mostly historical inertia or even barriers that are hard to surpass. That's a different topic or is it? If you think that men are more take-charge than women and so patriarchy naturally results because of genetics, then I guess it's on topic after all. Is that what you are saying? If patriarchy is not genetic, then wouldn't it be systemic??

Damn, you’ve got extreme biophobia.

 

[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.

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.

Thank you for proving that the notion that all people are equal is indeed a controversial statement on this forum of 'rational' persons. Certainly if a woman writes it.

People are all created equal, not identical. People are all created equally deserving of equal protection under the law, equal access to whatever opportunities and protections society offers.

Is this motte and bailey?

 

[Toni]

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?.

Instead of getting Don’s humpty dumpy definition, it might be more amusing to get him to admit that there are natural differences and apply that elsewhere. Like the wage gap.

Ooh! Ooh! I'm especially excited to see YOUR explanation justifying the assumption that women are going to become pregnant, give birth and require parental leave--and that men are uninterested in being involved as parents to their infant children.

 

[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.

Irony again?

Yes, Trausti has s reputation for blaming natural phenomena on invisible systemic and institutional demons. touché.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

Yeah, we'll just refer to your lack of argument as "jokes." That's the ticket!

That’s it. Smile. Don’t you feel better?

And still no intelligent argument. Just kneejerk defensiveness.

 

[Toni]

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.

Why not figure out ways to help men overcome this tendency to be overly violent? It seems to me that men are much more in need of 'fixing' in this regard than are women.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

Why not figure out ways to help men overcome this tendency to be overly violent? It seems to me that men are much more in need of 'fixing' in this regard than are women.

This should be clear to anyone, even men, and it is clear to those men who are not insecure children with only chest puffing and posturing in their repertoire of responses to criticism.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

You'll have to define it (masculinism) first.

 

[Trausti]

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?.

Instead of getting Don’s humpty dumpy definition, it might be more amusing to get him to admit that there are natural differences and apply that elsewhere. Like the wage gap.

Ooh! Ooh! I'm especially excited to see YOUR explanation justifying the assumption that women are going to become pregnant, give birth and require parental leave--and that men are uninterested in being involved as parents to their infant children.

Or that women and men have different interests. It’s the gender equality paradox. It’s well documented.

 

[Trausti]

That’s it. Smile. Don’t you feel better?

And still no intelligent argument. Just kneejerk defensiveness.

You don’t understand my argument that humans are sexually dimorphic? Really? What part do you not understand?

 

[Trausti]

AF, here you go:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

 

[Toni]

Ooh! Ooh! I'm especially excited to see YOUR explanation justifying the assumption that women are going to become pregnant, give birth and require parental leave--and that men are uninterested in being involved as parents to their infant children.

Or that women and men have different interests. It’s the gender equality paradox. It’s well documented.

No. It's not actually. What you see as 'different interests' is more individuals responding to social conditioning. Lots of younger men these days are actually spending time with their children.

 

[Toni]

That’s it. Smile. Don’t you feel better???????

And still no intelligent argument. Just kneejerk defensiveness.

You don’t understand my argument that humans are sexually dimorphic? Really? What part do you not understand?

She understood your argument and found it wanting. I'm sure you've heard that before. You should be used to it by now.

 

[Angry Floof]

AF, here you go:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Sexual dimorphism doesn't support narrow, traditional ideas about what interests and gender roles anyone should hold or be allowed to hold. Why is this rocket science?

And I wasn't responding to anything about sexual dimorphism. You were responding to Toni with more of your nothing. Did you just pull that out of your ass so you can feel like you have an argument and save face? Is this one of your (wink wink) "jokes"?