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??

Damn, you’ve got extreme biophobia.

I can't tell what you are saying about an actual point when I ignore the insult. Are you saying that patriarchy is genetic, yes or no?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I am not "feigning outrage," I am telling you to knock off the drama. Accusations of goading are not only logically incorrect they are also an introduction of drama into a thread whose purpose is to discuss more important issues than drama.

Let's review.

Time after time, I post in the forum that we need to prioritize what we discuss politically because we get trapped into discussing what some uncommon extremist says as opposed to issues of greater significance to society. I've made entire threads about the topic. I've gone into Metaphor's and others' threads and said to the effect, "this issue isn't really that important and is a distraction." For example, the Nancy Pelosi thread discussing Nancy's removing a mask for a minute after a blow dry in a machine instead of discussing the coronavirus deaths or even the importance of a mask...or harping on a misinterpretation of Scientific American's words instead of the greater need to follow science and why they've broken their record of not endorsing a candidate...or harping on what trans person says what as opposed to the fact that they are discriminated against. I've been told to get out of threads when saying the issue is of little significance and so I've created my own threads of more significant topics. Everyone in the forum knows this. Now in this case, the issue appears to be that some feminist said something or whatever, I can't even be sure because I have Metaphor on ignore. So, I created a thread to discuss a FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue than what an uncommon feminist says which is instead about death and abuse of women due to misogyny--how much does the -ism behind misogyny, i.e. masculinism contribute to the statistically significant differences in violence, murder, abuse of females in intimate relationships, i.e. domestic abuse. As opposed to a discussion of drama.

Instead, you chose to attack me personally and add unnecessary drama to the thread. I am not "goading." I am challenging thinking. I am outright stating by making an apparent thread title for all to see that there are better priorities of discussion. Better than DRAMA. Now, each time you accuse me of stuff, I explain myself and then you shut up...only to appear once again and accuse me again. I will tell you this last time to stop and apologize. If you don't, welcome to ignore.

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?.

We've discussed this before.

This article presents a political history of the words “masculinisme” and “masculinism” from the late 19th century until today. Through a comparative analysis of usage in English and French, during different periods, and from feminist and anti-feminist positions, the discussion shows that the meaning of words remains plural and subject to political struggle. In English, the word usually refers to patriarchal ideology or an androcentric male perspective. In French, as of the 1990s, the word has been used more and more often to designate an anti-feminist trend. As for the anti-feminists, they cannot agree on how best to identify themselves, wavering among “masculinist,” “masculist,” “hominist,” “humanist,” or expressions such as “activist for the rights of men” or “of fathers.” This study of language usage highlights certain battle lines between feminists and anti-feminists.

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rf/2009-v22-n2-rf3635/039213ar/

Emphasis added.

 

[Angry Floof]

Excellent post, Don. We so easily become overrun with threads and posts from people who need to focus on irrelevancies because reality offends them.

 

[southernhybrid]

Time after time, I post in the forum that we need to prioritize what we discuss politically because we get trapped into discussing what some uncommon extremist says as opposed to issues of greater significance to society. I've made entire threads about the topic. I've gone into Metaphor's and others' threads and said to the effect, "this issue isn't really that important and is a distraction." For example, the Nancy Pelosi thread discussing Nancy's removing a mask for a minute after a blow dry in a machine instead of discussing the coronavirus deaths or even the importance of a mask...or harping on a misinterpretation of Scientific American's words instead of the greater need to follow science and why they've broken their record of not endorsing a candidate...or harping on what trans person says what as opposed to the fact that they are discriminated against. I've been told to get out of threads when saying the issue is of little significance and so I've created my own threads of more significant topics. Everyone in the forum knows this. Now in this case, the issue appears to be that some feminist said something or whatever, I can't even be sure because I have Metaphor on ignore. So, I created a thread to discuss a FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue than what an uncommon feminist says which is instead about death and abuse of women due to misogyny--how much does the -ism behind misogyny, i.e. masculinism contribute to the statistically significant differences in violence, murder, abuse of females in intimate relationships, i.e. domestic abuse. As opposed to a discussion of drama.

I agree with you, but perhaps the real question or issue is, why do so many of us bother to respond to some of these idiotic threads? Why can't we ignore them and let them fade away? Why do we feed what often appears to be trollish behavior?

If we want to discuss things that are more relevant or important, then we need to try to start more threads that are related to important things, and ignore the really stupid ones. It seems to me that too many of us enjoy joining in the minutia, getting each other annoyed or collecting drama rewards. Plus, I often wonder why so many of these threads, the good ones and the silly ones are in the political forum. Many of them seem more related to social science than to politics, although I suppose these two things are often interrelated.

Are we not capable of doing better? Are we not capable of discussing things without all the bullshit and insults? There are obviously a few members who have racist or sexist tendencies. Why give them so much attention? They obviously lack self awareness, and our responses to them aren't going to do a damn thing to change them. It just gets them a lot of undeserved attention.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I wanted to tackle this statement. It is reminiscent of "mental health" issues raised whenever there is a mass shooting. The right-wing pulls the "mental health" thing out of the trunk, and then puts it back in there until the next mass shooting, not giving a fuck about mental health treatment in between.

Spousal abuse of men by women exists. Some men are victims of something like this and in a male led society, the shame of being abused by a woman provides even greater anxiety and self-doubt. Yet... all of the incel threads that pop up in here are always against women. They never actually address legitimate male issues, other than "*insert court* forces man to pay child support for child *insert issue*". This again exposes how little incels actually care about men's issues... and how much more they care about putting women in their place.

 

[Toni]

Time after time, I post in the forum that we need to prioritize what we discuss politically because we get trapped into discussing what some uncommon extremist says as opposed to issues of greater significance to society. I've made entire threads about the topic. I've gone into Metaphor's and others' threads and said to the effect, "this issue isn't really that important and is a distraction." For example, the Nancy Pelosi thread discussing Nancy's removing a mask for a minute after a blow dry in a machine instead of discussing the coronavirus deaths or even the importance of a mask...or harping on a misinterpretation of Scientific American's words instead of the greater need to follow science and why they've broken their record of not endorsing a candidate...or harping on what trans person says what as opposed to the fact that they are discriminated against. I've been told to get out of threads when saying the issue is of little significance and so I've created my own threads of more significant topics. Everyone in the forum knows this. Now in this case, the issue appears to be that some feminist said something or whatever, I can't even be sure because I have Metaphor on ignore. So, I created a thread to discuss a FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue than what an uncommon feminist says which is instead about death and abuse of women due to misogyny--how much does the -ism behind misogyny, i.e. masculinism contribute to the statistically significant differences in violence, murder, abuse of females in intimate relationships, i.e. domestic abuse. As opposed to a discussion of drama.

I agree with you, but perhaps the real question or issue is, why do so many of us bother to respond to some of these idiotic threads? Why can't we ignore them and let them fade away? Why do we feed what often appears to be trollish behavior?

If we want to discuss things that are more relevant or important, then we need to try to start more threads that are related to important things, and ignore the really stupid ones. It seems to me that too many of us enjoy joining in the minutia, getting each other annoyed or collecting drama rewards. Plus, I often wonder why so many of these threads, the good ones and the silly ones are in the political forum. Many of them seem more related to social science than to politics, although I suppose these two things are often interrelated.

Are we not capable of doing better? Are we not capable of discussing things without all the bullshit and insults? There are obviously a few members who have racist or sexist tendencies. Why give them so much attention? They obviously lack self awareness, and our responses to them aren't going to do a damn thing to change them. It just gets them a lot of undeserved attention.

I think that a part of me believes that allowing misleading or false assertions just stand unchallenged will allow the misleading or false assertions slowly be taken as valid. See: Donald Trump. 5 years ago, it never occurred to me that anyone would eve pay any attention to what that blowhard had to say. And here we are.

Less realistically, sometimes it is easy to believe or to convince ourselves that by pointing out where the assertion is incorrect in point of fact or in terms of understanding or logic that the poster might learn something.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Men generally are more interested in impersonal pursuits while women more interested in personal pursuits. Hence, why most engineers are men and most nurses / social workers female. Nothing to do with how much time spent with children.

 

[Toni]

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.

Men generally are more interested in impersonal pursuits while women more interested in personal pursuits. Hence, why most engineers are men and most nurses / social workers female. Nothing to do with how much time spent with children.

What??????

I'm not sure how you think that is relevant.

Are you saying that being an engineer is more demanding and demands more, longer hours than does being a nurse?

Are you saying that people who are engineers don't wish they could spend more time with their infant children?

Are you saying that people who are nurses wish to spend more time with their infant children than people who are engineers?

Are you saying that only men want to or can or should be engineers?

Are you saying that only women want to or can or should be nurses?


Are you saying that only inborn characteristics of gender drives career choices or aptitudes? Drives desire to spend time with infant children?

Please clarify.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Men generally are more interested in impersonal pursuits while women more interested in personal pursuits. Hence, why most engineers are men and most nurses / social workers female. Nothing to do with how much time spent with children.

What??????

I'm not sure how you think that is relevant.

Are you saying that being an engineer is more demanding and demands more, longer hours than does being a nurse?

Are you saying that people who are engineers don't wish they could spend more time with their infant children?

Are you saying that people who are nurses wish to spend more time with their infant children than people who are engineers?

Are you saying that only men want to or can or should be engineers?

Are you saying that only women want to or can or should be nurses?


Are you saying that only inborn characteristics of gender drives career choices or aptitudes? Drives desire to spend time with infant children?

Please clarify.

First, look up the definition of “generally.” Second, I’m simply observing that millions of years of sexual selection has resulted in more than just differences in genitalia. The desire to be with one’s own children has nothing to do with this.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What??????

I'm not sure how you think that is relevant.

Are you saying that being an engineer is more demanding and demands more, longer hours than does being a nurse?

Are you saying that people who are engineers don't wish they could spend more time with their infant children?

Are you saying that people who are nurses wish to spend more time with their infant children than people who are engineers?

Are you saying that only men want to or can or should be engineers?

Are you saying that only women want to or can or should be nurses?


Are you saying that only inborn characteristics of gender drives career choices or aptitudes? Drives desire to spend time with infant children?

Please clarify.

First, look up the definition of “generally.” Second, I’m simply observing that millions of years of sexual selection has resulted in more than just differences in genitalia. The desire to be with one’s own children has nothing to do with this.

There's nature and nurture. A hundred and fifty years ago in the US, women gave much less a care about their children. The change since then has been cultural, even if there is also a genetic baseline we could derive. Given that masculinism is an ideology, how do you rectify attributing all of the op question to genetics? This would imply misogyny is genetic but different cultures are at different levels of masculinism. Are you saying men just can't help themselves?

Do you really expect a cultural idea of being entitled and male-centric to have no impact on abuse of women because it's all genetics? Don't American conservatives try to point the finger at Muslim conservatives in discussing honor killings, sexual abuse of girls, etc? Are you saying all this is genetic?

I think that people are naturally empathetic and can be convinced that equality is morally valuable but also rationally in self interest...except those few elites who are already unassailable "winners" in an imbalanced system. Those are the people who try to convince others that ranking others into a hierarchy in society is beneficial...they will even redistribute some power to that class of person to decrease risk of losing their special status...or convince one class of person that another is the enemy for the same reason.

I could go on a lot more, but I am on a mobile phone and only really want to identify the "nurture" side, not answer the op question. Hopefully, this is enough for you to explain yourself.

 

[Toni]

What??????

I'm not sure how you think that is relevant.

Are you saying that being an engineer is more demanding and demands more, longer hours than does being a nurse?

Are you saying that people who are engineers don't wish they could spend more time with their infant children?

Are you saying that people who are nurses wish to spend more time with their infant children than people who are engineers?

Are you saying that only men want to or can or should be engineers?

Are you saying that only women want to or can or should be nurses?


Are you saying that only inborn characteristics of gender drives career choices or aptitudes? Drives desire to spend time with infant children?

Please clarify.

First, look up the definition of “generally.” Second, I’m simply observing that millions of years of sexual selection has resulted in more than just differences in genitalia. The desire to be with one’s own children has nothing to do with this.

The bolded was exactly my point: Parents of both genders desire to spend time with their children and children benefit from both parents taking an active part in raising them. Society could and should do a much better job recognizing this.

In fact that follows from my post that you supposedly were responding to:

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.

 

[Angry Floof]

For fuck's sake. Differences between men and women do not support differences in what people are allowed to be interested in, what roles they assume, what activities they engage in, what gender they identify with, what pronouns they prefer, or what kind of sex or sex partners they like. <- These are the things right wing nut jobs who insist on conformity to their traditional social beliefs have a fucking cow about and start threads in outrage about, not about any differences in bodies or brains or reproductive systems.

 

[ruby sparks]

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?

Almost certainly most of it is caused by maleness.

As you say, it's most likely a mix of nature and nurture.

Typically, and for a variety of reasons, one 'side' will understate the nature element and overstate the nurture element, and the other 'side' will do the opposite.

Now, imo, the advances in genetics that have taken place in biology in recent decades, have, if anything, strengthened the nature case more than the nurture one.

Remember the 'Refrigerator Mom' theories, for example? A perceived lack of warmth from parents (especially mothers, who were not untypically singled out for criticism) was theorised to be the cause of autism.

And if anyone asks me if I am saying that men should be excused because they can't help themselves, I am just going to be somehow not surprised.

 

[Toni]

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?

Almost certainly most of it is caused by maleness.

As you say, it's most likely a mix of nature and nurture.

Typically, and for a variety of reasons, one 'side' will understate the nature element and overstate the nurture element, and the other 'side' will do the opposite.

Now, imo, if anything the advances in genetics that have taken place in biology in recent decades, have, if anything strengthened the nature case more than the nurture one.

Remember the 'Refrigerator Mom' theories? A perceived lack of warmth from parents (especially mothers) was theorised top be the cause of autism.

I would like to see some academic/scientific sources for the assertion bolded above.

 

[Trausti]

The bolded was exactly my point: Parents of both genders desire to spend time with their children and children benefit from both parents taking an active part in raising them. Society could and should do a much better job recognizing this.

In fact that follows from my post that you supposedly were responding to:

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.

I don’t at all disagree that parents, especially fathers to boys, are important. I’m not a Marxist. It would be good if our friends on the (far) left valued families more and not aim to destroy the nuclear family. But that interest in one’s own children is separate from the general male/female differences in vocational goals.

 

[Trausti]

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?

Almost certainly most of it is caused by maleness.

As you say, it's most likely a mix of nature and nurture.

Typically, and for a variety of reasons, one 'side' will understate the nature element and overstate the nurture element, and the other 'side' will do the opposite.

Now, imo, if anything the advances in genetics that have taken place in biology in recent decades, have, if anything strengthened the nature case more than the nurture one.

Remember the 'Refrigerator Mom' theories? A perceived lack of warmth from parents (especially mothers) was theorised top be the cause of autism.

I would like to see some academic/scientific sources for the assertion bolded above.

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp...nal-interests-and-in-occupational-preferences

 

[Elixir]

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.

Well, just a thought - maybe discouraging male violence would help make the women's share more proportionate?
Nah - much easier to snark about making women more violent.
Typical conservotard "solution".

 

[Trausti]

The more equality, the more nature influences occupational choices.

 

[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.

Well, just a thought - maybe discouraging male violence would help make the women's share more proportionate?
Nah - much easier to snark about making women more violent.
Typical conservotard "solution".

You really read that as advocating for more female homicide offenders and not that the sex difference in offenders is mostly nature? Wow. Just wow.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now, imo, if anything the advances in genetics that have taken place in biology in recent decades, have, if anything strengthened the nature case more than the nurture one.

I would like to see some academic/scientific sources for the assertion bolded above.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying. Perhaps it wasn't clear. I am not, for instance, making a call on whether, in general, genetics are more important than environment. I am only saying that genetics has given us more ways to understand how nature plays a role than we used to be able to understand prior to the advances in genetics. So there are more and better genetic explanations, relatively speaking, than there used to be. If you asked me to make a non-expert guess, I'd guess that it's about 50/50 nature and nurture, albeit there may be genetic influences playing a part on the nurture side, so it's not a simple dichotomy. But it's the genetic side we've come to understand better.