Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Gender and violence issues (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=136123)

Zaevod 03-31-2014 03:30 PM

Gender and violence issues
 
I don't know if this is the kind of thing most people would be willing to discuss, here. In fact, I'm not sure what is the community's general position in regards to ideologies such as feminism (I was banned from TvTropes for daring to voice my disagreement with feminism).

Anyway, I found this video on the subject which I found very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw_U...&feature=share

In general, it explains how women are far more determinant and responsible than society believes they are in the cycle of violence, in several different ways.

It's long, but very complete and quite revolting in a few parts. The author cites a lot of sources. I can't check the validity of all the statistics in the video, but they seem to be coherent.

It would be interesting if a feminist took the time to watch and attempt refute each point, though I'm pretty sure some would just make generic accusations of "gish gallop" (has happened before), which is a very convenient way of not having to bother to make an argument. Something other than "the studies are biased" would also be good. Of course no study is completely free of bias, but when several figures agree like that, there's something definitely worth looking into.

devonin 03-31-2014 03:38 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Before this starts (and inevitably gets out of hand) I'd just like to make sure Zaevod and everyone else is aware that "Several figures agree" does not in any way suggest that something is worthy of significant consideration.

Statistical analysis can imply that cancer causes cellphones, and that the popularity of firefox is tied to the popularity of wiccanism. Also that pirates were the only thing keeping AIDS under control.

Be careful you don't assume something is true because "a bunch of people say it" or "A number of statistics agree"

choof 03-31-2014 03:41 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
are we talking feminism as in "womyn" or feminism as in "full gender equality"

Zaevod 03-31-2014 03:55 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Feminist equality is really "equality under the feminist worldview" which often includes blaming everything on "the Patriarchy". In other words, it's highly debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4108358)
Before this starts (and inevitably gets out of hand) I'd just like to make sure Zaevod and everyone else is aware that "Several figures agree" does not in any way suggest that something is worthy of significant consideration.

Statistical analysis can imply that cancer causes cellphones, and that the popularity of firefox is tied to the popularity of wiccanism. Also that pirates were the only thing keeping AIDS under control.

Be careful you don't assume something is true because "a bunch of people say it" or "A number of statistics agree"

Sorry, several figures agree and at least appear to be well funded. I can't say that they are absolutely true, obviously, but they seem to come from respectable sources.

Did you really mean "cancer causes cellphones"?

dAnceguy117 03-31-2014 04:13 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4108375)
Feminist equality is really "equality under the feminist worldview" which often includes blaming everything on "the Patriarchy"

is this part of a definition, or is this based on your own observation? could you post a source?

do you disagree with the idea and goal of gender equity?

Izzy 03-31-2014 04:18 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
I don't see anything inherently wrong with gender equality other than genders not being the same so they are already fundamentally different. However, most of the time when I hear about feminism it seems to be about wanting women to be superior and not equal.

Maybe it is possible to be equal but different. There would still be people complaining though.

Zaevod 03-31-2014 04:27 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117 (Post 4108393)
is this part of a definition, or is this based on your own observation? could you post a source?

It's based on the observation of many, actually. You can't merely take the dictionary definition of a movement or ideology and claim that that's all it is; you need to take into account the impact it has on reality.

Watching that video helps, as it refutes many claims commonly held by feminists. This also helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIjLJWHJUo

Quote:

do you disagree with the idea and goal of gender equity?
No, but you need to define equality in this context. Men and women are, by default, not equal. You need to define whether you want equality of opportunity (which I support) or outcome (which needs to be enforced through different means, and I don't agree with). If opportunity is equal (in some cases, women have more opportunity through things such as quotas) outcome will not necessarily be the same, because men and women don't have the exact same interests, on average.

Pseudo Enigma 03-31-2014 04:49 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
ehhh I mean, a woman pretty much gets knocked out of commission for ~9 months if they have a child. That in itself is a big reason I don't think men and women can ever be equal and must have roles.

All humans would probably be equal if we had no sexuality. Anyone wanna get their nuts chopped off?

dAnceguy117 03-31-2014 04:53 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Zaevod: that's why I used "equity" instead of "equality." different genders are most definitely not identical. equity means fairness, and I would say that giving an entire school class a 95% on an exam regardless of what answers they wrote down is not fair. equal opportunity is fair.

you may not be disagreeing with feminism but rather with what some people who identify as feminists are saying. if you're not using a specific definition for an ideology, then how can you disagree with the ideology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma (Post 4108426)
ehhh I mean, a woman pretty much gets knocked out of commission for ~9 months if they have a child. That in itself is a big reason I don't think men and women can ever be equal and must have roles.

any person can get knocked out of commission for some amount of time if they get sick or injured. based on the above statement what kind of role do you think is suitable?

Zaevod 03-31-2014 05:10 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117 (Post 4108428)
Zaevod: that's why I used "equity" instead of "equality." different genders are most definitely not identical. equity means fairness, and I would say that giving an entire school class a 95% on an exam regardless of what answers they wrote down is not fair. equal opportunity is fair.

you may not be disagreeing with feminism but rather with what some people who identify as feminists are saying. if you're not using a specific definition for an ideology, then how can you disagree with the ideology

An extreme example to illustrate my point: if nazis came to you and defined nazism as the ideology that fights for the true greater good of humanity, would you start to defend nazism?

A lot of self-declared feminists claim to fight for equality but have done and said distasteful things. Claiming that they are "not true feminists" is a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Pseudo Enigma 03-31-2014 05:21 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117 (Post 4108428)
any person can get knocked out of commission for some amount of time if they get sick or injured. based on the above statement what kind of role do you think is suitable?

I'm quite content with being the one who has to get a job and provide for my future family, as long as someone is there to stay home and keep things in order. That kind of woman seems really rare nowadays though lol.

I guess if it has to be one way or the other I wouldn't mind sitting around minding the children either.

devonin 03-31-2014 05:24 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma (Post 4108458)
I wouldn't mind sitting around minding the children either.

The fact that you'd describe that role as "sitting around" shows how little you understand it.

Pseudo Enigma 03-31-2014 05:27 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4108462)
The fact that you'd describe that role as "sitting around" shows how little you understand it.

Nice stab. If I don't understand it, then explain your knowledge of the subject. I am, after all, only 18 and haven't had any chance to see anything for myself.

I'm not so naive to think that taking care of children is a walk in the park. I have 3 nephews and they're true terror. I also had to act as the mature older brother of two hyperactive children, and my mother wasn't very good at what she did.

choof 03-31-2014 05:32 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
that wasn't a stab, your post really did show how little you know about raising a child. or at least, extended periods with children.

Pseudo Enigma 03-31-2014 05:35 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Okaayy, so I guess I need to watch my posts to make sure you guys don't grab the wrong meaning from it? Of course I didn't mean literally sitting around. Only a retard would think that. Taking care of children is far from it, and it's stressful as hell. Being a parent is pretty much the only profession that you will never get paid for. Thus why I think it is an important role that one partner must take.

Can we move on or are we going to nitpick my post more?

Zaevod 03-31-2014 05:36 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4108456)
Does that mean that we should treat first wave, second wave, third wave, and radical feminism all as the same thing? Feminism is a category of various beliefs, rationales, and scholarships. It's not a singular movement like you seem to be under the impression it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all those feminisms share some common tenets, as far as I'm concerned: the Patriarchy, male privilege and female oppression being among the most universal of them. Saying that feminism is for equality practically implies that equality can be obtained by focusing on female issues (unless that "fem" part is just a coincidence).

My point, and the point of the videos I posted, is that things are not so simple.

Zaevod 03-31-2014 06:03 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Just to be clear: I didn't create this thread to specifically bash feminism, but to challenge the notion that violence is primarily a male trait, and that women are the primary victims. You see a lot of discussion about violence against women on the mainstream, but a lot of people don't take male victims or female perpetrators seriously.

Zaevod 03-31-2014 06:26 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Actually, the video does cover some of these claims.

As for the excuse of the woman "being stressed out" as a mitigating factor... I can't imagine anyone claiming the same thing for a man under the same circumstances.

Your post also contains the conclusion that women were more oppressed in its premises. In short, everyone is oppressed in different ways. Society just gives a lot more sympathy for female issues.

Maybe you should check the videos of a woman named Karen Straughan. She elaborates on a lot of these points. I can't write too much at the moment because I'm on my phone, but I will, later.

Zaevod 03-31-2014 08:04 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4108524)
So you're saying it's double standards, that if a woman abuses her kid feminism lets her off the hook while if a man abuses his kid feminism paints him out to be the scourge of the earth? Well, that's not the case, but at times it can seem as such and that's part of what feminism is trying to change.

So it seems. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=9270200

I don't deny that there are many well-intentioned feminists, but feminism is not just composed by those people, in the same way christians are not just composed by mormons or catholics. Making a sweeping claim about what feminism is trying to do, when many self-proclaimed feminists actually contradict that, is a little problematic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4108524)
Yeah, men are oppressed too. They have different definitions of success to adhere to, are prescribed to behave in different ways, get harsher prison sentences on average, etcetc. But, because all groups experience distress does that mean we're not allowed to try to better them? A lot of races are oppressed in different ways, and so are people of different financial status. Working out women's issues is not to detract from working out men's issues, it's just a different line of work.

You can, in fact, work on women's issues. That's great. However, many feminists assert that feminism is THE ultimate authority on gender issues, and nothing else is necessary because they will take care of everything. Evidently, this is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4108524)
Also, our society doesn't give more sympathy to female issues over male issues, it's that there's more female issues to give sympathy to.

It looks like you didn't watch the entire video. Sorry, but men are about half of the victims of domestic violence and yet a lot of people still refer to domestic violence as "violence against women".

There are people who laugh on national television about an innocent man who had his penis cut off by his wife:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muuFygvXPAM

Genital mutilation on males is still accepted and even condoned by a large part of the western population, while female genital mutilation is nearly universally recognized as unacceptable in our culture.

We even have a trope that addresses this disparity: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...pendableGender

I could go on. Women gain a lot more sympathy than men for the same issues, in general. Women are also seen as less responsible when doing the same crimes, so they get lighter sentences. As a whole, society treats women as children and men as disposable, which is both misogynistic and misandric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4108524)
At the end of the day, there is an extraordinarily massive body of work by feminists and non-feminists alike that say women face more disadvantages than men on issues pertaining to gender alone. The research that has passed through hundreds of thousands of hands and has been going on for more than a century now is not in your side of the argument's favor.

My objective is not to make a competition of suffering between men and women. I don't think it's possible to determine which gender suffers the most, on absolute terms.

Still, people see more issues that women face because people care more about issues that women face, and are more willing to do research based on that. Men constitute 93% of worplace related deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality) as well as 80% of suicides(http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-...a-z/S/suicide/). Men have been historically forced to throw their lives away at wars. Men are the majority of rape victims when you take prison rape into consideration, as well as the majority of victims of assault in general. They get harsher sentences for the same crime, etc, etc...

Perhaps you'd be willing to listen to a woman on the subject? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

Cavernio 04-22-2014 09:26 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Before reading the thread, after watching the video.
~18:00 No, you hold men to too high a standard, not women to too low a standard.
It's perfectly valid and RIGHT to say something like 'But women spend three times as much time raising children'. The correct male/female ratio SHOULD be viewed as the way one automatically thinks, because that is the accurate way of viewing it. It's like when I worked at UPS and I because twice as many shipments of mine were being looked at, they found twice as many errors as for people who only had half as many shipments being looked at, but then thought I was doing twice a bad a job as them. The same principle applies here.

The prison rape discussion fails to point out the obvious that it clearly shows that it's men who were doing the raping of other men.

Spanking, as discussed in this video, has not separated spanking from the overall beliefs and actions of the parent who spanks holds. ie: spanking is obviously going to be related to other actions that are going to also be detrimental to a child. I am intrigued by this though, and I might look up more studies about this just in my own time, about women and spanking and also about negative effects of spanking.

The very end of the video walks a very tight line...how many women teachers who want to teach older kids get asked 'Oh wouldn't you rather teach this grade 2 class?'
And yup, if men don't help raise kids, of course women are going to be raising kids more...that's not new, and more male involvement with raising kids is one of those things that a lot of feminists would like.
I wonder if that McGill study at the end that showed that the most important factor for empathy is men in a child's life, ever had kids in that study that had no female nurturers? The take-away message from that study, to me, is if there is a 2nd nurturer to a child, possibly one that is not with them all the time so there's an opportunity to miss them such that their interactions will be different and more meaningful for the time they have them, than the relationship they'll have with the primary caregiver. The sex of the parent seems like it would be irrelevant.
EVERY child will have a primary caregiver or else the child probably won't be alive. The baseline, therefore, for learning to empathize from social interaction isn't going to be 0, they will already have some level of empathy learning/developing from the primary caregiver, and they will ALWAYS have that, yet we're given to believe from the video that having a father involved is the single most important thing for a child to develop empathy. Yes, given the baseline of 'some amount of empathy granted by having a primary caregiver', it's not that surprising that a secondary, loving caregiver is the biggest factor above and beyond this non-0 empathy baseline.

I have specifically seen the term "feminism" applied to inequalities between men and women only, without it necessarily meaning that women must arise only to power. I'm not sure that's a great definition of the word, but there it is.

In any case, yes, of course there are inequalities for men where society treats them unfairly. 'It wouldn't be creepy for you or us to hang around the park, but it would be for me (a man)'
The only thing in this video where women have apparently overstepped a boundary pushed by feminism, is when the paternity of a child doesn't matter for who has to support the child...although even that is a little sketchy because it's ultimately the child who we should be looking at, and if the child themselves thinks that their dad is their dad, it'd be a terrible thing to find out when you're 5 or something that your dad, upon finding out you're not their biological kid, suddenly wanted nothing to do with you. That is, I suppose, separate from making a man pay money to support a child though anyways. It's really a social cop-out though I suppose, because that kid needs financial support from somewhere, and there's a reason the actual dad isn't paying support, and the government doesn't want to have to foot the child support.

Cavernio 04-22-2014 09:59 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Female genital mutilation involves completely cutting off her clitoris (because god forbid she gets pleasure) or some crazy crap like sewing her shut except to have sex with her.
Male genital mutilation, AFAIK, involves getting rid of foreskin.

Keep in mind that the only reason there IS a push towards feminine issues is because feminism is being successful.
Also, yes, you should be able to EASILY say that women have a harder time in society if you just don't look at the past 10 years in your specific area. All throughout history, women have been the primary caregivers for children which, even if not outright treated as second-class citizens, (which is just not the case) end up not having the opportunities to do things besides raise kids and look after the home.
In most of the world women are still treated far worse than men.

Sympathy is a good thing that comes from a good place, and I usually don't perceive that I'm being coddled like a 5 year old because someone is nice to me because I'm a woman. (Of course I'm also lucky enough to live in a place where I am not treated like a second class citizen.) I perceive that men, when not given the same consideration as I might be, are getting treated poorly.

Zaevod 04-22-2014 11:24 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
I'm not going to make another lengthy post about the whole oppression thing (you can watch that last video I posted if you want and read the few posts above), it's not meant to be a competition of suffering. Still, it's good to remember that things are not as simple as the mainstream believes.

But, anyway, just a few details:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 4122025)
Female genital mutilation involves completely cutting off her clitoris (because god forbid she gets pleasure) or some crazy crap like sewing her shut except to have sex with her.
Male genital mutilation, AFAIK, involves getting rid of foreskin.

Then you should know better. Some babies actually die because of complications from the surgery. It's often done with no anesthetics and is an extremely painful procedure that rids the area of a big portion of its sensitivity.

I never said it's "worse", since that's irrelevant, but it sure as hell shouldn't be considered as acceptable as it is today. It's mutilation on someone's body without consent. Period. If there really is a medical requirement for it, then fine, but it's completely unnecessary in the majority of cases.

There's a lot of material on it, but here's a quick video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXbl83m0tQ0

Sure, it helps to prevent some diseases. Like taking out your lungs prevents lung cancer.

Edit: Better video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc70D2ApFg
And part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ

Quote:

The prison rape discussion fails to point out the obvious that it clearly shows that it's men who were doing the raping of other men.
And that somehow makes it... Acceptable?

You missed the point that rape is not a gendered issue that specifically targets women, as a lot of influential feminists seem to believe.

j-rodd123 04-22-2014 11:29 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
I for one am very happy my parents got my nasty ass foreskin cut off so I wouldn't have to look at a gross ass dick everyday so speak for yourself

Zaevod 04-22-2014 11:49 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by j-rodd123 (Post 4122063)
I for one am very happy my parents got my nasty ass foreskin cut off so I wouldn't have to look at a gross ass dick everyday so speak for yourself

It's not gross if you have basic notions of hygiene. Also, if you don't mind the reduced sensitivity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102), I guess that's up to you, as long as you don't condone genital mutilation on others.

Edit: Interesting link: http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/...-masturbation/

stargroup100 04-23-2014 07:21 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by j-rodd123 (Post 4122063)
I for one am very happy my parents got my nasty ass foreskin cut off so I wouldn't have to look at a gross ass dick everyday so speak for yourself

ok if you mean gross as in the hygiene kind of cleanliness then I would question your cleaning habits because you [somehow] don't understand what makes a dick unclean

if you mean gross as in aesthetically it looks unappealing, then I would call this a problem with society's influence. the same way we criticize models for being too skinny and making girls feel self-conscious by creating unrealistic standards of beauty, society should also try to avoid making guys feel self-conscious about their dick, whether it's being cut or not, a size issue, endurance, etc. there also isn't that much of a difference when the penis is erect, as the foreskin pulls back anyways

unfortunately, we cannot realistically control whether our dick is circumcised or not (cutting is a scary thought and "uncutting" isn't exactly straightforward either), and there is no significant positive reason for circumcision (people may disagree here), so it shouldn't be something that is encouraged

devonin 04-23-2014 09:07 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
It's still definitely the case that comparing circumcision to the kind of female genital mutilation which is still practised in some parts of the world is absolutely asinine in about the same way as comparing putting handcuffs on a thief when they are arrested versus chopping off the hand of a thief under Shari-ah law would be.

MracY 04-23-2014 10:59 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Do you think there can exist a case in which you would not consider it asinine to remove part of a human's genitalia for ideological reasons, if it were done in a surgically precise manner?
If yes/no, why?
As an exercise, try not to use axiomatic values without explaining why they may be used.

(This is just a teacher-esque question to provoke discussion)

Zaevod 04-23-2014 11:09 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4122216)
It's still definitely the case that comparing circumcision to the kind of female genital mutilation which is still practised in some parts of the world is absolutely asinine in about the same way as comparing putting handcuffs on a thief when they are arrested versus chopping off the hand of a thief under Shari-ah law would be.

You completely failed to get the point. Did you watch any of the videos I posted on the subject?

Try to think of it this way: What level of female genital cutting (as minimal as it can be) without the girl's consent would be considered acceptable in our society?

Also, your analogy is atrocious. You are completely ignoring the damage done by circumcision.

choof 04-23-2014 01:02 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Why should we have to watch videos in order to understand your point?

stargroup100 04-23-2014 02:42 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MracY (Post 4122244)
Do you think there can exist a case in which you would not consider it asinine to remove part of a human's genitalia for ideological reasons, if it were done in a surgically precise manner?
If yes/no, why?
As an exercise, try not to use axiomatic values without explaining why they may be used.

How are we supposed to answer this question? You say that we have to explain without axiomatic values, but what humans consider to be stupid is relative. I think it's stupid to believe a certain kind of god, but clearly there exist many people who disagree, and while I may even possibly claim that my opinion is more logical and practical, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I think the best answer you can really say is as long as you're not forcing something significantly harmful on someone. If someone who is qualified to make that kind of decision on their own and chooses to do themselves harm, so be it. While there aren't any real benefits to circumcision, it technically does not strongly impact the general health of an individual, so it's not totally unjustified under simply ideological reasons.

And that's exactly why it's not the same as the female genital cutting. Relatively speaking, there is far more damage done from the cutting of the female genitalia than the male.

Snowcrafta 04-23-2014 04:56 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Women are abusive in the emotional sense far more often than men ever are physically abusive. They get away with it because no actual physical harm is done, but they can easily lead to psychotic episodes due to how they manipulate their psyche.

2 cents

Cavernio 04-23-2014 05:22 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4122365)
I think the best answer you can really say is as long as you're not forcing something significantly harmful on someone. If someone who is qualified to make that kind of decision on their own and chooses to do themselves harm, so be it.

Of course, circumcising a kid IS forcing something on an infant that is painful, traumatic, totally unnecessary, slight chance of serious complications, etc.
It's also not unheard of for mothers to get their female infant's ears pierced, although I suspect that that's probably quite a bit less painful than getting circumcised. Yet you don't get many people finding that abhorrent. Given that comparison, circumcision becomes a cultural problem that, because of what it is, only affects men. So to then say something like the idea that we think circumcision is OK because it happens to men and it's not OK for a woman because she's a woman, and that's the reason we aren't up in arms about circumcision, is just wrong.

I mean, the feeling that I'm getting from what zaevod is saying about inequalities and poor treatment of men, is partially why I'm uncomfortable with calling myself a feminist too. Like, sexism does happen when people erroneously think of men or women as having quality x and they shouldn't have quality y, and I'm totally against that. But when someone then takes something that's ultimately not an issue with the sex of someone per se, but seems to affect more women than men, I guess that's when I have a hard time calling myself a feminist. Because I don't view it as a gendered issue necessarily? And I have that same sort of 'this isn't a gender issue ultimately' with some things that zaevod is saying.

I dunno, maybe that's wrong. Maybe it's just that I know I just disagree with some feminist views and don't like labels in general and I don't want people to think one way of me if I identify as a feminist because I feel there's often, sadly, a negative connotation to the word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4122365)
While there aren't any real benefits to circumcision, it technically does not strongly impact the general health of an individual, so it's not totally unjustified under simply ideological reasons.
And that's exactly why it's not the same as the female genital cutting. Relatively speaking, there is far more damage done from the cutting of the female genitalia than the male.

This is in part why female genital mutilation gets the attention as such a horrible thing. I'm sure there are lots of men reading this right now who are circumcised who don't feel violated or negatively affected in any way from being circumcised. Also, if it happens when the person is say, 5 or 10, and they are knowingly, forceably getting their genitals cut, it's going to be a traumatic memory that follows the person around. Even if the trauma of being hurt much as an infant affects the development of that baby permanently in a negative way, it's still unknown to the individual after the experience is over, so is it actually traumatic then?


I did not miss the point where women are often called victims re: the fact that men get raped in prison. I just don't see that women being called out as being the victims of rape and focussing on that, as taking away from this other, separate issue of 'rape in prisons'.
I mean, ultimately, the issue is 'rape of people in a position of subjugation' which, sadly, especially in non European and north American countries, means it's generally rape of women, since women are subjugated and are physically smaller, etc. (How many large, burly men get raped in prison compared to smaller men? And there are questions like, if rapists who rape men in prison had access to women as well, I sincerely doubt the stats would stay the same.)
And I've certainly seen in tv crime shows (regular Law and Order notably, the awesome show that it is), sadly portray a man who they arrested in error of a child molestation crime, only to find that they got killed in prison before learning of his innocence. It was a great show because it showed not only the horror that is our penitentiary system, but also created pathos for a man not treated justly. And pertinently for this discussion, it goes to show that such injustices I think are known to the population at large. Doesn't mean we can't try and do more about them though.

The video posted in the OP did a decent (most of the time) job with keeping the 'feminists are a/the problem' at bay, because they're not the problem. Sexism towards males is a societal problem and if anything, feminism and the push towards gender/sex equality has just paved the way for us to actually perceive that men too are treated poorly and unfairly, largely in different ways.

Cavernio 04-23-2014 05:44 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta (Post 4122499)
Women are abusive in the emotional sense far more often than men ever are physically abusive. They get away with it because no actual physical harm is done, but they can easily lead to psychotic episodes due to how they manipulate their psyche.

2 cents

I see no reason why women would get away with this particular tactic more often than men would?
In any case, such things are part of the reason why I'd like to read more about spanking as being this horrible, abusive thing to do. Is spanking really a separate bad thing from having a less loving, more controlling parent in general?

GuidoHunter 04-23-2014 08:18 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4122187)
if you mean gross as in aesthetically it looks unappealing, then I would call this a problem with society's influence. the same way we criticize models for being too skinny and making girls feel self-conscious by creating unrealistic standards of beauty, society should also try to avoid making guys feel self-conscious about their dick, whether it's being cut or not, a size issue, endurance, etc. there also isn't that much of a difference when the penis is erect, as the foreskin pulls back anyways

Do you truly believe that "society's influence" is what makes guys think that uncircumcised penises look better than circumcised ones? Because that sounds ridiculous to me. The comparison to what women go through is an absurdity.

Quote:

there is no significant positive reason for circumcision
Hey, if the Jews end up being right, I'm just glad I'll be in the right camp.

--Guido

ScylaX 04-23-2014 08:52 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod
A lot of self-declared feminists claim to fight for equality but have done and said distasteful things. Claiming that they are "not true feminists" is a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Not necessarily. If you clearly define what feminism is/must be, this is not a "true scotsman" fallacy because this fallacy involves an ad hoc argument, that's a sine qua non condition. What makes the "true scotman" argument a fallacy is not the mere fact of saying "But no true x does that" rather it's all about temporarily distorting reality to serve your opinion.
Moreover "A lot of self-declared feminists claim to fight for equality but have done and said distasteful things" bears the heavy scent of paralogism, you're not proving anything with that claim, rather you imply without any sort of proof that feminism as a whole is a seemingly suspicious entity without ever really explaining why and this is actually problematic. That's a division fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudo enigma
ehhh I mean, a woman pretty much gets knocked out of commission for ~9 months if they have a child. That in itself is a big reason I don't think men and women can ever be equal and must have roles.

Physiological differences do not hardly prejudge in any way from a necessity of a difference in social treatment. You're drawing a very very long line between two points when you establish that women get pregnant and that they therefore must have a specific role by virtue of their "natural functions", where does it come from? What are the "roles" you're talking about?
That's an open door to very non sequitur claims. "Since you bear children for nine months you must take care of them more (because that's your role)" has the strong scent of fallacy because of how quick the conclusion is drawn from the first premise. There is little things in-between these two postulates and this is usually what reveals a fallacious argument. At most I think this is a very arbitrary idea.

The fact men and women will never be absolutely equal do not in any way disqualify the intention of making them more equal on the social ground. It's like saying we do not have to ask for political freedom because an absolute freedom is irrational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod
Saying that feminism is for equality practically implies that equality can be obtained by focusing on female issues (unless that "fem" part is just a coincidence).

That's absolutely right. It's not a coincidence. It totally is what you think it is. And this deserves to be thoroughly understood before attacking this position. It considers that the more you'll solve social concerns about women, the more you'll make the society equal. And this most importantly implies that you'll also solve minor concerns that made men inferior to women in certain condition or just caused to men issues related to sexist circumstances in the process. Not magically, but because (that kind of?) feminism considers that social/axiologic prejudices against women eventually cause emergent prejudices against men on various circumstances.
At least, that's what I personally believe. Saying male people have priviledges doesn't mean they don't suffer from any sort of prejudice and enjoy an absolute superiority universally reproduced everywhere in society (it's easy to make straw men when you first get wind of that "priviledge" concept), this just means that society as a whole essentially oppresses females (because they get as a base the role of the "dominated") and that males get the role of dominants despite their will and interests. Having that dominant role obviously causes a lot of prejudice but also implies that women are in a much less enviable situation generally speaking.

I hope I helped making the position clearer and maybe more rational to your mind. Things are not as black and white you may believe feminists think but they have an understandable pattern.

Cavernio 04-23-2014 09:21 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScylaX (Post 4122657)
Saying male people have priviledges doesn't mean they don't suffer from any sort of prejudice and enjoy an absolute superiority universally reproduced everywhere in society (it's easy to make straw men when you first get wind of that "priviledge" concept), this just means that society as a whole essentially oppresses females (because they get as a base the role of the "dominated") and that males get the role of dominants despite their will and interests. Having that dominant role obviously causes a lot of prejudice but also implies that women are in a much less enviable situation generally speaking.

So you're saying that the prejudices against men are all essentially because of the dominant role they have, and nothing else?

ScylaX 04-24-2014 08:30 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 4122699)
So you're saying that the prejudices against men are all essentially because of the dominant role they have

Well yes, I think that makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio
and nothing else?

Sociology isn't a hard science, it doesn't deal with absolutes fact of course so you have to discern patterns that make the most sense. You can't just say "this problem is caused by this variable and nothing else", there will always be occurrences where more complex phenomena occur and you have to grasp the bigger picture. That's what I'm trying to do at least. I could consider that sexism as a whole doesn't have any particular direction and that any gender averagely suffer from it as much as the other, but I have the tendency to think female oppression is still a part of societal norms, and thus involves a very wide questioning of maintained values or cultural conventions, to be actually grasped.
So yes, I think sexist prejudices against men are caused by the same variable that give them an averagely superior position to women.

stargroup100 04-30-2014 04:34 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 4122629)
Do you truly believe that "society's influence" is what makes guys think that uncircumcised penises look better than circumcised ones?

Yes. Society actually heavily influences what we generally find to be sexually attractive.

Couple of examples:
- oral sex
- shaving of the pubes
- whether or not we think it's acceptable to have sex before marriage

All of these things, you'll find significant differences in preference between two groups of people. Generally speaking, groups of people that are more liberal about issues of sex, watch pornography, etc, tend to enjoy oral sex more, prefer shaved genitalia, and think it's okay to have sex before marriage.

Cavernio 05-1-2014 01:51 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
That'd be correlation if true stargroup, not causational.

devonin 05-1-2014 04:02 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4122073)
It's not gross if you have basic notions of hygiene. Also, if you don't mind the reduced sensitivity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102), I guess that's up to you, as long as you don't condone genital mutilation on others.

Edit: Interesting link: http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/...-masturbation/

Quote:

A review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure.

But the study, published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, also found that while the prevalence of circumcision among American men ages 14 to 59 increased to 81 percent from 79 percent over the past decade, the rate of newborn circumcision has declined by 6 percentage points, to 77 percent, since the 1960s.

The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.
So uh...yeah.

Snowcrafta 05-1-2014 04:05 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
I get slapped, yelled at and kicked by one of my ex's, nobody bats an eye.

I slap her after she does all three, everyone loses their mind.

Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean you can get away with hitting me. If you hit me, I WILL hit back. I won't beat someone, but if they want to slap me, I'll slap back.

Nyokou 05-1-2014 05:41 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Let's solve violence with more violence! :-|

stargroup100 05-2-2014 06:21 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
There are lots of ways of resolving issues without returning violence. I'm not necessarily saying that you were necessarily in the wrong in hitting that girl back, but that's certainly not an appropriate attitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 4127251)
That'd be correlation if true stargroup, not causational.

I don't see how that statement could be justified. Different societies have different preferences towards certain foods, certain fashion trends, certain customs, etc. It should be a pretty intuitive fact that our sexual preferences can be shaped by our lifestyle and our environment, just like the other kinds of preferences. We label particular societies by identifying general characteristics, which the general population will experience. In what way can you argue this is not "causation"?

How do you explain the fact that certain groups of people in particular environments tend to have particular preferences? Can it actually be a coincidence? If it's not a result of society's influence, then what?

Zaevod 05-17-2014 01:21 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Sorry for not answering before. I was busy with a lot of other stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4127345)
A review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...atement06.html

Go ahead and say that again. Let's see how much of reality you are willing to ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4127345)
But the study, published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, also found that while the prevalence of circumcision among American men ages 14 to 59 increased to 81 percent from 79 percent over the past decade, the rate of newborn circumcision has declined by 6 percentage points, to 77 percent, since the 1960s.

The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.

I'd like to know where you got this study from. The last sentence directly contradicts the first link of the quote you picked from me.

Absolutely nothing you posted justifies the fact that this medically unnecessary(in the vast majority of cases) act is performed on newborn babies with no consent whatsoever. If someone wants whatever health benefits they believe they can gain from being circumcised, they should do it when they choose to, not as an imposition from their parents. The main issue here is precisely the fact that a large part of society doesn't consider this to be a violation of human rights. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.

In an earlier post, I also posted these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc70D2ApFg
And part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ

You don't have to watch them, but they provide some nice extra information.

devonin 05-17-2014 03:03 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
I got it from the peer reivewed Mayo Clinic Proceedings? You know, the Mayo Clinic that is pretty much the premier medical facility on Earth? Yeah, those guys thought the study was well done enough to publish. Yours come from a place actually called circumstitions. Now, I love a good pun as much as the next guy, but we're talking orders of magnitude here.

Cavernio 05-19-2014 10:08 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta (Post 4127347)
I get slapped, yelled at and kicked by one of my ex's, nobody bats an eye.

I slap her after she does all three, everyone loses their mind.

Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean you can get away with hitting me. If you hit me, I WILL hit back. I won't beat someone, but if they want to slap me, I'll slap back.

The point that makes what you did objectionable in comparison to her is that if you are probably physically more capable of preventing her from hurting you physically in any serious sense, from running away from her, etc. than she is of you.

Cavernio 05-20-2014 09:15 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Yeah multipost but hours away.

Mastectomies reduce the rate of breast cancer hugely, obviously it's in my best interest to go get one.

devonin 05-20-2014 10:37 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Because circumcision is the same as, what would you even call it, a Prostatectomy?

robertsona 05-20-2014 12:36 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta (Post 4127347)
I get slapped, yelled at and kicked by one of my ex's, nobody bats an eye.

I slap her after she does all three, everyone loses their mind.

Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean you can get away with hitting me. If you hit me, I WILL hit back. I won't beat someone, but if they want to slap me, I'll slap back.

is this website literally five years old

dAnceguy117 05-20-2014 01:16 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
no this website was created in 2002.

Cavernio 05-21-2014 09:07 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4137657)
Because circumcision is the same as, what would you even call it, a Prostatectomy?

The point being that if we get rid of any body part, it stands to reason that there's less chance of hurting said body part or of that body part causing some other problems to you.
The only reason we've even bothered studying that circumcision as a notable thing to make sure that it's not harmful (still debatable...just because, as a whole, risks may not outweight benefits...even if that were a thing one can properly measure, you're still taking a risk) is because it's ridiculously common. It's still removal of a body part without consent for not really any GOOD reason.

hi19hi19 05-21-2014 09:24 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
I like the people who link a few articles from highly biased, non-peer-reviewed sources as if they have any meaning.
Said sites will show like a few dozen operations gone wrong and they're all like "BUT LOOK IT CAN BE BAAAAD"

You realize a death rate of two per million is literally lower than the death rate from stepping into a bathtub?

devonin 05-25-2014 11:34 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ealth-misogyny

Arch0wl 05-25-2014 01:45 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
not only is "misogyny" not precisely defined in that article but "misogyny kills" is a nebulous, imperfect and ideological (yes) gloss over what are undoubtedly numerous factors that contributed to the cause-->effect of that shooter's actions, including his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships, among others. to conclude causality on the basis of "misogyny" is intellectually irresponsible if not absurd, as if one can immediately ascertain the correlation of a set of social factors. on a more subjective note, that guardian article is a reactionary kneejerk that's better off as a reddit comment.

dore 05-25-2014 11:06 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
The headline is clickbait, but the article does address "his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships" and misogyny was an underlying factor for all of those things. That's just the nature of click-based success in journalism, you have to have a one-liner for idiots like us to argue about regardless of the rest of the article's content.

Arch0wl 05-26-2014 12:00 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
you say "regardless of the rest of the article's content" like the article's content was worth arguing about. it's some of the sloppiest causal reasoning I've seen in print in a while outside of mainstream political punditry, although I suppose this could count as 'mainstream'. it's shameful that the guardian is now the UK version of the huffington post, when it used to host greenwald as a regular contributor.

this line is especially ill-conceived given the rest of it:

"glosses over the role that misogyny and gun culture play (and just how foreseeable violence like this is) in a sexist society"

note that the author cites no evidence of contribution that these cultural factors play to this incident, rather you're just expected to draw a connection because one event happened to be close to the other in time.

in other words, what follows an event is not caused by an event.

using this same reasoning I could say 'presidential culture', whatever the hell that means (it's not defined, just like 'misogyny' isn't defined by the author) caused Obama to intervene in Libya; I wouldn't, because that's irresponsible and I have no way to prove that claim

but what does the author actually cite? links to men's rights forums. this lets me know that the author was likely on these forums reacting to the incident and felt linking to men's rights-related material a higher priority than demonstrating causal claims about gun culture or misogyny. given that I've engaged with people like this before, I fully expect the author to give some perception-based explanation like "look around you it's obvious" that breaks down when you don't see the same thing or think it's equally obvious.

then, the author cites the fact that men's rights groups have been flagged by the SPLC, which immediately lets me know this author's ideological position since the people who repeat this particular talking point tend to have a certain stake in shifting around the definition of words to suit their ends. I have a feeling that if I recommended The Blank Slate to this author she would dismiss it on the grounds that Pinker is a misogynist -- this has happened.

the author even uses this wording "an organization that tracks hate groups, has been watching their movements for years"; the significance of "has been watching their movements for years" is only significant if it implies an active vigil, which it isn't; more than likely it's been in their database and they don't give a shit. (or if they do, then the state of hate groups in the US has reached a pretty mild level.)

some of the author's claims are trivially true, like "there is no such thing as a lone misogynist", but it's a paraphrase of the claim that culture exerted causal force on this event.

not only does the author not define her terms in any meaningful way, the cause-->effect reasoning is atrocious. I was being generous in my first comment, but it's frankly ridiculous that anyone would think this article is worthwhile, much less meritorious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dore (Post 4140304)
the article does address "his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships" and misogyny was an underlying factor for all of those things

the article most certainly does not say that misogyny underlies his neurological makeup and genetic predispositions, did you read what you just put in quotemarks?

if I'm for some reason grossly wrong in misreading you then please quote where the article attributes the aforementioned two things to 'misogyny' as opposed to blithely attributing all actions to vague social forces

choof 05-26-2014 10:26 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta (Post 4127347)
I get slapped, yelled at and kicked by one of my ex's, nobody bats an eye.

I slap her after she does all three, everyone loses their mind.

Nice Joker, meme, friend.

kaiten123 05-27-2014 12:38 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
wait... is someone claiming that an incident where a guy killed a bunch of women after making videos about how much he hates women and how he will enjoy killing them and even writing huge "manifesto" about his hatred of women, is unrelated to misogyny?

like, seriously claiming that hating women and killing them for it is unrelated to a hatred of women? please tell me you're trolling lol.

Arch0wl 05-27-2014 01:43 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
so by "is someone" I think you mean "is Arch0wl" because I'm almost positive you're referring to me, and if you're going to address my arguments you should address me directly as opposed to referring to me in some limpwristed and ambiguous 3rd-person fashion.

anyway, like, seriously, your paraphrase of my response is not an accurate paraphrase. you should try quoting the things you're responding to because then you would understand why your rephrasing of things does not capture the original semantics of the words you're responding to.

the article's author does not define misogyny, first of all, so other than some vague meaning like "hatred of women" (which is also the most literal definition) we don't know what she means. however, she continually refers to a culture of misogyny, which I mentioned. it's inarguable that the shooter's individual hatred for what he perceives as slights from women (and men; if you recall, he stabbed his roommates) influenced his actions, however we don't know how much his belief was influenced by his genetic predispositions or neurological makeup. many personality traits are, after all, heritable; this is known throughout the discipline of psychology.

in other words, you're erroneously equivocating between his individual hatred of people on his part and a larger, vaguer cultural idea. perhaps this is the kind of thinking that leads to articles like the one we're unfortunately discussing. ("unfortunately" because anyone with a good sense of causal reasoning would immediately identify its errors and discard it.)

note that I did not dispute that his own hatred of other people was a factor; I disputed the cultural connections. which you would know if you read my reply closely, and you didn't. I will proceed to quote the part that you probably didn't read:

Quote:

this line is especially ill-conceived given the rest of [the article]:

"glosses over the role that misogyny and gun culture play (and just how foreseeable violence like this is) in a sexist society"

note that the author cites no evidence of contribution that these cultural factors play to this incident, rather you're just expected to draw a connection because one event happened to be close to the other in time.

in other words, what follows an event is not caused by an event.

using this same reasoning I could say 'presidential culture', whatever the hell that means (it's not defined, just like 'misogyny' isn't defined by the author) caused Obama to intervene in Libya; I wouldn't, because that's irresponsible and I have no way to prove that claim
if you reply to me further, you should not only be more precise with your terminology and distinguish the words you're using but you should also make clear to whom you're responding, even though I'm pretty sure you're addressing me.

macchabee 05-27-2014 02:53 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta (Post 4122499)
Women are abusive in the emotional sense far more often than men ever are physically abusive. They get away with it because no actual physical harm is done, but they can easily lead to psychotic episodes due to how they manipulate their psyche.

2 cents

I don't know if this comment was already addressed, but I wanted to tackle it.
"Women are abusive in the emotional sense far more often than men ever are physically abusive."
Fact check? Back up? We should both pull some cited stats.
Reports of female-on-male violence are certainly dwarfed by male-on-female violence (or even male-on-male violence). Men possess physical strength most women do not. Female abusers, as such, tend to rely more on psychological abuse as there's simply no other option.

The tone of your post reads that it's "not fair" that "women get away with abuse". From what research I've done on the topic, I can conclude that men simply do not report incidents of abuse. I'm not shifting the blame. Many, many, many people do not report abuse; particularly verbal, psychological abuse as it can be difficult to identify and prove. Reporting abuse is hard enough.
It's harder in a society where men are ridiculed throughout their lives if they're "beaten by a girl", no matter the scenario.

kaiten123 05-27-2014 08:52 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Sry arch, i responded that way because i'm not really taking you seriously.

Arch0wl 05-27-2014 09:08 AM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
yeah, your failures to articulate objections or accurately read what you're responding to are not my problem.

taking an argument seriously, however, which I intepret as "accurately reading a claim and articulating an objection to it", is the point of this board. saying you don't take someone seriously is below the rigor of what this board demands; it's a rhetorical dismissal -- a refusal to actually defend your stance.

in other words, if you're going to exist on "contradiction" level or below on Graham's hierarchy, you should not be involved in this discussion on this particular board.

kaiten123 05-27-2014 01:07 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
by that reasoning, this entire thread should probably be moved lol. but you have a point. its been quite a while since i stopped pretending not to be looking down on people when they start sounding like an average mra troll.
here's a shot though:

before we start, lets check merriam-webster since you clearly can't do this yourself.

misogyny: a hatred of women

culture: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
: a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.
: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)

puting these together to understand "culture of misogyny" should be a pretty simple task, try it out.

the link from "culture of misogyny" to his actions becomes obvious if we break it into 2 parts. one from culture of misogyny to personal misogyny and another from personal misogyny to his actions. i believe that even you already see the second part so i'll just worry about the first.

lets first acknowledge that such a culture exists and that he was involved in it.
there are numerous ways to see that this is true, but to take just one: he was a member of PUAhate.com, a site that primarily served as a place for people to come and express essentially the same views that he expressed in his videos about hating women. the site is currently down but here's a brief look at the reaction to him murdering innocents:


now we need only notice that being surrounded by a culture with certain beliefs influences your own beliefs. this is so widely known throughout psychology, sociology, etc. that i feel silly having to even say it. but that is really all thats needed to prove my point.

lastly, i will mention that nobody is claiming that misogyny is the only thing that influenced this tragedy and to suggest as much is an intentional straw man. rather, misogyny fits in nicely with all the other likely influencers. lets take a look at your own list and show how everything fits nicely with the role of misogyny.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4140066)
numerous factors that contributed to the cause-->effect of that shooter's actions, including his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships, among others.

neurological makeup: while it is not possible to know all the details of the configuration of his brain and how each connection influenced every action (unless maybe if you are the god of neuroscience, here to advance research by 1000s of years). i think it is safe to say his brain was abnormal. this likely played a strong role in both his involvement in the previously mentioned culture of misogyny as well as his eventually reaching the point where he felt murder was the best solution to his problem. I have many female sources that claim he was physically attractive and that until he opened his mouth they couldn't imagine him having trouble getting laid (which was what made him so mad in the first place) so its reasonable to think that his mind was the primary factor in his inability to get laid, which is part of what lead to joining misogynyst groups, woman hating, etc.

genetic predispositions: this is incredibly important. while nobody is born hating 1/2 the population or already being a murderer, there are certainly genetic factors that make such things more likely or easier to trigger in some people than in others. a normal person could deal with rejection without hating all women, and even if they did reach the point of women hating, they would not go out and murder a bunch of people. this is the age old relation between nature and nurture. comlicated thoughts/actions like hating an entire gender, or deciding to go on a killing spree can't be explained by either one by its self, but require both.

home environment: this is probably the hardest one to find reliable info about or decipher in any meaningful way. based on his videos, and further supported by his home, car, etc. it sounds like the typical story of moderately wealthy entitled youth who *almost* always gets what he wants, has one thing he wants but doesnt get and freaks out about it. the "thing" he wanted was women. that was awefully speculative, but by the end of the post it should be clear that it doesn't even matter.

interpersonal relationships: this really ties into everything else, his relationships with females went nowhere and his relationships with males are largely unknown at this time, but given the forums he frequented, at least a portion of them served largely to reinforce his women hating.

among others: we could go on, but it shouldn't be needed, the point is that other factors existing not only doesn't negate misogyny being a factor, but rather, the various factors can be closely related.

Arch0wl 05-27-2014 02:07 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiten123
lets check merriam-webster since you clearly can't do this yourself

immediately we're off to a bad start.

the merriam-webster definition of any word is going to give you the most layman definition of a word. "misogyny" does not mean the same thing in gender theory as its literal meaning.

further, the literal meaning is often not what is meant when 'misogyny' is used; it's more akin to 'homophobia', where someone simply means a bias against women or a dislike of some female tendency.

if you're still not convinced of why what you just did is far too simplistic for this discussion, merriam-webster defines "fallacy" as "a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea." this is not the specialist definition that someone who uses the word 'fallacy' will use. they will use it to specifically mean "an error in reasoning." you have to get to definition 3 to find anything approximating this, and even then they define it as "an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference" -- but 'often plausible' is not even a criterion of the academic definition of 'fallacy'.

in other words, simply beating the drum of "misogyny means 'hatred of women'" will take you nowhere. it's extremely hyperbolic to say that there is a culture of literally hating half of the adult planet. either you're exaggerating or reading something else as hate; people do not experience emotions that intensely on such a wide scale. this is especially blockheaded considering the 20th century has seen races of people killed on a mass scale out due to hate -- the kind of hate that allows someone to watch a family die and feel nothing. to call an online forum of people who post about bias against men "misogynist" and cite a literal definition of 'hatred' is stretching that word to the extreme.

so it's very likely that the author means something else -- most likely some general bias against women in a negative direction.

Quote:

the link from "culture of misogyny" to his actions becomes obvious if we break it into 2 parts.
explain how this is not simply post hoc ergo propter hoc style reasoning.

many people try to explain that their child became smart in adulthood because of their environment. yet, twin studies repeatedly show that adult IQ is highly heritable and that parental environment matters little once base needs are provided for. it is enormously tempting to attribute a person's actions to their immediate environment and you're doing that without a basis for gauging the environment's contribution.

Quote:

lets first acknowledge that such a culture exists and that he was involved in it.
let's not; that's accepting your conclusion as a means of establishing your premise.

your picture does not tell me anything that a screenshot from 4chan could not tell me.

"now we need only notice that being surrounded by a culture with certain beliefs influences your own beliefs" -- actually, posting on an internet forum is hardly "being surrounded by a culture." you can leave whenever you want. in fact, you're more likely to seek out an internet forum because you already have some pre-existing belief. if the internet forum works against you, then you'd likely leave. given that I know this shooter acted violent at of the parties he went to, I doubt this is a person who would stick around an internet forum once given personal abuse.

"[surrounded by a culture with certain beliefs influences your own beliefs] is so widely known throughout psychology, sociology, etc. that i feel silly having to even say it. but that is really all thats needed to prove my point."

actually, a book which was a finalist for the pulitzer prize in nonfiction was enormously dedicated to explaining how culture does not contribute to development nearly as much as we think it does.

the dominance of culture in development and in influence of behavior is an ideological position in psychology, not a "widely known" fact.

Quote:

misogyny fits in nicely with all the other likely influencers.
this is inane.

neurologically your reasoning that his brain "fits nicely with misogyny" is that "it is safe to say his brain was abnormal, [which] played a strong role in both his involvement in the previously mentioned culture of misogyny as well as his eventually reaching the point where he felt murder was the best solution to his problem."

you have no idea what his brain composition is.

you have no idea what neurological attributes contributed to his attitudes toward women.

you are making conclusions you have no grounding to make. you are, essentially, speculating and claiming certainty via speculation.

"its reasonable to think that his mind was the primary factor in his inability to get laid" does not say anything about his neurological makeup; his "mind" can refer to his cognition which is independent of his neurological makeup. just because something is "mental" does not mean it is "neurological."

your attempt to tie genetics to misogyny did not actually claim anything about his genetic predispositions other than that "it's really complicated" and that some of this must be related to misogyny, somehow.

your home environment paragraph concluded that you can't actually draw any conclusions about this, which is a rather unfortunate thing to say when you're "show how everything fits nicely with the role of misogyny."

the most important thing you said was this:

"his relationships with females went nowhere and his relationships with males are largely unknown at this time, but given the forums he frequented, at least a portion of them served largely to reinforce his women hating."

which is probably true.

and drawing a cultural explanation probably isn't -- or at least, you can't conclude so with the amount of information you have.

labeling this a product of a "culture of misogyny" glosses over lots of complicated factors that have to do with it. you don't know the degree of contribution that various cultural factors play. you cannot know this without better measurements. to wildly claim this is to not only simplify the issue but distort it; certainly his environment contributed to this, but you don't know how much, and to paint a "culture of misogyny" as a huge aspect of this so readily is intellectually irresponsible.

but I want to draw attention to something you did, because I think it underlies a much more troublesome issue with the way you think. you immediately suspected anyone critical of this particular line of semantic distortion as being "an mra", as if that's the prime opposition that could exist for this sort of thing. this position wasn't even suggested, but you pinned it on someone who contradicted what I suspect is your ideology anyway.

you are thinking in black-white terms and it's going to narrow your worldview to that of an ideologue.

don't do that.

kaiten123 05-27-2014 03:06 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4141273)
the merriam-webster definition of any word is going to give you the most layman definition of a word. "misogyny" does not mean the same thing in gender theory as its literal meaning.

further, the literal meaning is often not what is meant when 'misogyny' is used; it's more akin to 'homophobia', where someone simply means a bias against women or a dislike of some female tendency.

these definitions are pretty consistent actually. theres some nuanced difference but nothing big enough to effect my claims. (unless, of course, you have some absurd definition of hate that excludes everything short of wanting to murder people)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4141273)
this is especially blockheaded considering the 20th century has seen races of people killed on a mass scale out due to hate -- the kind of hate that allows someone to watch a family die and feel nothing. to call an online forum of people who post about bias against men "misogynist" and cite a literal definition of 'hatred' is stretching that word to the extreme.

so it only counts as "hate" when it reaches the point of genocide, mass murder, etc.
what an absurd way of thinking. such a narrow definition makes the word useless. obviously the idea that any culture could propogate hate against any gender would be nearly impossible with such an exaggerated definition of "hate"
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4141273)
explain how this is not simply post hoc ergo propter hoc style reasoning.

i hadnt even started explaining the reasoning yet lol, how could it be -any- style of reasoning yet. i outlined what i was going to show later, gj jumping to conclusions before you finished reading though.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4141273)
that's accepting your conclusion as a means of establishing your premise.

nope, i just put the conclusion first so you knew what to expect, the reasoning that immediately followed was not based on it.
i can see that my style of stating what i'm going to show and then showing it is immensly confusing to you.
i really prefer writing/reading that way though, but maybe thats because i mostly write/read math stuff where that style is common. :/
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4141273)
posting on an internet forum is hardly "being surrounded by a culture." you can leave whenever you want. in fact, you're more likely to seek out an internet forum because you already have some pre-existing belief. if the internet forum works against you, then you'd likely leave. given that I know this shooter acted violent at of the parties he went to, I doubt this is a person who would stick around an internet forum once given personal abuse.

i never said he was forced to stay lol where are you pulling this out from, i thought i made it quite clear later on that he surrounded himself with this culture, that doesn't make him any less surrounded. and i also thought it ws clear that he already identified with the culture but that it ~reinforced~ the related beliefs. for someone who got so upset over me misunderstanding your argument earlier, you sure are bad at reading. (also, going to note that my understanding of your argument was consistent with the wording of your first post)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 4141273)
actually, a book which was a finalist for the pulitzer prize in nonfiction was enormously dedicated to explaining how culture does not contribute to development nearly as much as we think it does.

the dominance of culture in development and in influence of behavior is an ideological position in psychology, not a "widely known" fact.

that book neither contradicts anything i've said, nor does it say that culture doesn't influence someone's beliefs. things don't have to be either 100% genetic or 100% cultural, there is a middle ground once you stop thinking in black and white. i believe you mistakenly interpreted my argument as supporting the "blank slate" idea despite me making claims just a bit later that would contradict it.


and for the rest of your response, i believe you've completely misunderstood nearly everything i said, though, this time it was patially my fault for not realising how much i would have to explain everything. for example, i never claimed to know much about his brain composition, i never claimed to know -anything- with certainty, etc. so very little of that is relavent to my main point.

just a few last bits though:
Quote:

his cognition which is independent of his neurological makeup. just because something is "mental" does not mean it is "neurological."
i would disagree with this but that is an even longer discussion on its own

Quote:

don't know the degree of contribution that various cultural factors play
never claimed i did, and i don't need to. i never said anything was the biggest, or even a big factor. i'm simply saying something is a factor, not that it contributed more or less than any other.

Quote:

you immediately suspected anyone critical of this particular line of semantic distortion as being "an mra"
nope, sounding like something =/= being that thing. if i made some noise, and someone said i sounded like a dog, i would not think they called me a dog.
edit: i'd also like to clarify my confusing naming. i imagine that the majority of people i would think of as "mra trolls" aren't even mras, but rather trolls that take on the persona of an exagerated caricature of an mra because its really good for trolling.

dore 05-27-2014 11:03 PM

Re: Gender and violence issues
 
My post was admittedly imprecise, I meant something closer to 'and misogyny was an underlying factor in enabling the manifestation of those things'. He may have been neurologically/genetically imbalanced, but the culture of misogyny in which he immersed himself reinforced the things which he deduced himself. Maybe he still would have killed those people if everyone he ever expressed those views to told him that he was a psychopath, but it might have helped if society didn't ignore his many warning signs (as have been discussed previously in this thread).

It was a general article, not intended to be studied with academic rigor, of course it's not going to have twelve pages building the definition of the words it's using. It assumes that the person reading the article will understand those words in the generally accepted way. Arguing over the semantics of words which have generally accepted meanings isn't the point.

And even if it was an academic article that defined its terms with rigor and cited the foundations on which it was building, you don't necessarily have the means (or the desire) to link individual societal causes to individual events; rather, you're trying to show that general trends that exist are exemplified by this thing that happened. I'm not going to argue that this is the most well-written thing, but arguing the semantics of the definition of the word misogyny is missing the point entirely.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution