[Closed] feminists.

Is that really useful information? More men sign up to go and fight in wars, so inevitably more of them are killed. It doesn't mean that as an individual male you're significantly more likely to be killed in a war.

Throughout history, far more men than women have also been killed [url= http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2010/12/19/air-conditioning-for-women-a-terrible-injustice/ ]hunting the mammoth[/url].

The original point made which I was trying to refute was that [b]young[/b] men were most likely to be killed, which isn't true.

In any case if there was a dirty, messy, modern war on, who would rather be a woman than a man? I'll guess nobody.

Tom, if you really want to know more about it there are plenty of studies you can easily find online.

The original point made which I was trying to refute was that young men were most likely to be killed, which isn't true.

I'd say it's almost certainly true. Although completely irrelevant (I hope!) to life in today's western Europe, of course.

Well it's certainly true that as a young male in the UK, you are far more likely to be a victim of violence than if you are female.

I don't know why women being victims of violence is seen as more of a problem, requiring a more concerted effort to both address it and politicise it, but that is what is happening. Yes there are important nuances that mean the approach to dealing with it needsto be different, but you could be forgiven for thinking, from the way the subject is reported, that it's more of a problem than other kinds of violence.

The unspoken answer seems to be that men should in some way be better able to stand up for themselves and that conversely women are less able to prevent this violence from happening to them. This seems a strange kind of logic in that it reinforces gender stereotypes.

Well it's certainly true that as a young male in the UK, you are far more likely to be a victim of violence than if you are female.

Are you including domestic violence and sexually motivated attacks in that certainly true fact you've just pulled out of thin air with no supporting evidence?

A quick Google found this,

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013

I've cherry-picked a few points:

3.2% of males experienced violent crime in comparison to 1.9% of females. Those aged 16-24 are more than twice as likely to be the victim of violent crime as any other age band
...
2% of women and 0.5% of men experienced some form of sexual assault, including attempts, in the last year
...
7.1% of women and 4.4% of men reported an experience of domestic abuse in the last year
...
30% of the female population have experienced some form of domestic abuse since the age of 16

That last one is particularly shocking.

But yeah, if by being a "victim of violence" you're talking about things like being randomly lamped by a drunken halfwit then you're probably right. As a whole though, it'd appear that you're way off the mark.

As anecdote rather than data, I am delighted to report that the most successful woman I know is dating a vaguely educated, largely unpaid and very handsome chap 10 years her junior.

[url= http://www.chilloutzone.net/video/about-me.html ]are you this guy?[/url]

"In this study, we found that men were especially vulnerable to frequent worries/demands from their partner, contradicting earlier findings suggesting that women were more vulnerable to stressful social relations,” write the authors, Rikke Lund, Ulla Christensen, Charlotte Juul Nilsson, Margit Kriegbaum, and Naja Hulvej Rod, all of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark."

http://time.com/89987/husbands-wives-nagging-study/

That last one is particularly shocking.

Why, the number will be pretty high from men age 16 as well as the yearly domestic abuse rate is pretty high.

2% of women and 0.5% of men experienced some form of sexual assault, including attempts, in the last year

Aren't men more likely to under report sexual assault and for that matter, domestic abuse?

The unspoken answer seems to be that men should in some way be better able to stand up for themselves and that conversely women are less able to prevent this violence from happening to them. [b] This seems a strange kind of logic in that it reinforces gender stereotypes.[/b]

Hah.

Keeping that one for trolling a few of my friends in the pub, cheers.

Aren't men more likely to under report sexual assault and for that matter, domestic abuse?

Well it's certainly true that as a young male in the UK, you are far more likely to be a victim of violence than if you are female.

Yes but you're also far more likely to have started it, or otherwise be involved in a fight. Probably drunk.

Incidentally whilst it's true we men are far less likely to report domestic and/or sexual assault, that in itself is born out of misogyny. A desire to not be seen exhibiting 'female' characteristics like vulnerability, need, fear etc. because y'know, that would be terrible. To use your words geetee it's not women who think "men should in some way be better able to stand up for themselves and that conversely women are less able to prevent this violence from happening to them", it's men.

I agree - that was actually my point, apologies if I made it clumsily.

And on the point of 'who started it' yes, it's possible. I don't know. The data doesn't talk about that. I guess more accurately the data shows that men are more likely to be involved in violence than women; that might be different to being a 'victim' of violence.

Cougar the data you're showing looks like the data I was also looking at. Even if you include domestic violence, the point still stands. Men are more likely to be involved/victims of violence than women. Which again is not to say that violence towards women isn't a problem; clearly it is and it has a different MO and pattern that needs a different approach.

My point is, that it's misleading to try and make people believe that it's any more of a problem than any other kind of violence or that the gender of the victim in some way makes the act more pernicious, which is, in my view, how it presented frequently by feminist groups or those with feminist agendas.

I don't agree that feminism paints that picture. The issue women and men face are two sides of the same coin. Feminism is as much about fixing 'the man box' (with which I'm sure all men can identify) as improving the situation of women.

[url= http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men?language=en ]http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men?language=en[/url]

Men are more likely to be involved/victims of violence than women.

Hang about, that's moving the goalposts. You're suggesting that the feminists are wrong as men are more likely to be "involved" in violence, because of stats showing that they're the ones beating the shite out of their wives?

Hang about, that's moving the goalposts. You're suggesting that the feminists are wrong as men are more likely to be "involved" in violence, because of stats showing that they're the ones beating the shite out of their wives?

No you misunderstood me or I explained it poorly.

I was saying that while the stats show that men are more likely to be 'victims' of crime, it is also likely that some unknown portion of those victims ended up being victims while being as culpable in the violence taking place, hence the use of the word 'involved'. Two drunken and aggressive men can start a fight in the street but only one ends up being counted as a 'victim' or maybe even both do. So I was conceding a point if you like.

Domestic violence is abhorent but if you think it's undereported when enacted by a man to a woman, it's vastly more under-reported in the reverse. At least domestic violence towards women is on the agenda for debate.

Oh and the new laws about 'overtly controlling behaviour', wait and see how many husbands start thinking more seriously about that in years to come.

or that the gender of the victim in some way makes the act more pernicious

Violence is bad mmmkay...or it's not, make you're mind up, I don't see why the sex of the victim should be one of the considerations.

<apropos of nothing with the feminism thing, just an observation>

it is also likely that some unknown portion of those victims ended up being victims while being as culpable in the violence taking place,

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm still not convinced though; by that logic, we're both just guessing.

Domestic violence is abhorent but if you think it's undereported when enacted by a man to a woman, it's vastly more under-reported in the reverse.

I don't doubt that for a second. But even taking that into account, it would seem highly unlikely to me that the figures for domestic violence towards men is even close to that for women.

I don't doubt that for a second. But even taking that into account, it would seem highly unlikely to me that the figures for domestic violence towards men is even close to that for women.

As you said, we don't know, we are both just guessing, but I would make the same guess as you. Men have testosterone and it by it's nature makes us more prone to violence so it's logical to draw that conclusion (not that I am making excuses you understand, but there has to be an explanation for why men are more likely to be involved in or the perpetrators of violent crime).

Here's a thought. How long before our justice system starts to take a sympathetic, though no less pejoritive view of men who are particularly disposed to violence once it has concluded that it's not entirely their own fault, that their hormones are partly to blame and therefore they aren't quite as culpable as they might be?

Violence is bad mmmkay...or it's not, make you're mind up, I don't see why the sex of the victim should be one of the considerations.

Part of it is a throwback to more chivalrous times perhaps, but really what it's about is the typical physical imbalance rather than gender per sé. If your average bloke and your average woman were to hit each other, the woman would usually come off far worse.

Course, it's a generalisation, that's not always the case. There's plenty of little blokes (hiya) and strong women. I once had a woman square up to me(*) who was several inches taller than me and built like a Russian powerlifter, that was a pretty scary moment and I'm not sure as "never hit a woman" would have been sage advice if she'd actually gone for me.

(* - I was trying to stop a bar fight between two women by positioning myself between them, which was exactly as retarded an idea as it sounds; they both developed sudden sisterhood and rounded on me instead. Somewhat appropriately, the powerlifter was in my grill all purple and screaming because she was outraged that as a man I'd 'threatened' a woman or 'stepped up' to them or some such, despite a) I hadn't done anything of the sort, all I'd done was put myself in their way in a Harry Enfield's Scousers sort of way and b) she could quite readily have used my intestines as dental floss if she'd put her mind to it.)

If your average bloke and your average woman were to hit each other, the woman would usually come off far worse

You see now when you get down to it, that argument doesn't really seem all that strong. The damage done is the damage done. The crime is the same (OK ABH, GBH, Murder notwithstanding) the only thing that might change is the sentencing. Either way, the idea that it isn't a 'fair fight' really has nothing to do with it.

A much better argument to counter 'what does the sex of the victim have to do with it' is to say, well very little in terms of sentencing or prosecution but a whole lot more when it comes to how you police the situation overall, your approach to situation when dealing with it, when making policy that helps to address that problem.

It wasn't too long ago that domestic violence was seen as just 'husband and wife' stuff. Thankfully those days are now behind us (well you hope they are).

If your average bloke and your average woman were to hit each other, the woman would usually come off far worse

(spoken as a big-ish bloke who's missus would make mince meat out of me if the mood took her and I've also been on the receiving end of a kicking several times from smaller blokes)

There's physical differences sure but I don't think ability to mete out physical pain has got much to do with muscles.

As someone who has trained extensively in martial arts that partly true but mostly not. It's a bit of a myth that muscle mass and muscle development doesn't play a part in the power of delivering a blow. It really does, as does the part played by the muscle mass you carry in proecting you. Yes technique plays a very big role and will compensate for a lack of muscle mass, but all other things equal, i.e. equal technique but more muscle mass for one party, the party with the added mass will land a more destructive blow. It is why we have weight classes for boxing.

actually I was thinking more about mental ability. Unless you really want to hurt someone I don't think you're going to get very far.
But as a pacifist I may be biased.

or talking out of my arse.

As someone who has trained extensively in martial arts that partly true but mostly not. It's a bit of a myth that muscle mass and muscle development doesn't play a part in the power of delivering a blow. It really does, as does the part played by the muscle mass you carry in proecting you. Yes technique plays a very big role and will compensate for a lack of muscle mass, but all other things equal, i.e. equal technique but more muscle mass for one party, the party with the added mass will land a more destructive blow. It is why we have weight classes for boxing.

The real decider in a fight is usually who throws the first punch and with what level of aggression. Strength counts when there are rules, not so much in the real world.

Thankfully I only ever had three 'fights' in the street, two were in defence of someone else, one was an altercation with a courier riding on the pavement.

There are two other instances where the thankfully the fight never happened because I managed to talk them down.

In all three the other guy threw the first punch but I threw the last. So yes, I guess you're right.

Good grief.

I was talking about your average bloke and your average woman, generally, not martial artists and who's got the best battle tactics. Men are, typically, bigger and physically stronger (and sadly, more aggressive than women. If they weren't we wouldn't need separate categories for competitive sports.

There are of course many exceptions, my partner is heavier than me for a start, but that's not difficult because I'm a drink of water.

I wish I'd never said anything now.

Why do women often feel the need to have a more successful partner

I'm rather hoping this isn't true. She's far better educated (PHD) and earns over twice my wage.

#easylifeforthislazygit

I've a PhD and my wife earns twice as much as me ha ha ha ha

It's an interesting discussion. But I do like boobs, and if I posted a picture of some, it would get removed and I banned. I think this has much to do with it. Or a picture of a nice big cock for that matter.

[img] [/img]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/gamergate-troll-turns-tail-after-receiving-harassment-of-his-own/

Heh.

Hoist 🙂

If the death threats and creepiness of Gamergate wasn't so deeply deeply nasty, the whole thing would be quite funny.

'We need to halt the evil social justice warriors in their tracks'