Gender and violence issues

[Snowcrafta]

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]

Let's solve violence with more violence!

[stargroup100]

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.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

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]

Sorry for not answering before. I was busy with a lot of other stuff.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta

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]

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]

Because circumcision is the same as, what would you even call it, a Prostatectomy?

[robertsona]

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta

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]

no this website was created in 2002.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ealth-misogyny

[Arch0wl]

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by dore

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]

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta

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]

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]

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta

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.