[Closed] feminists.

Hi Cougar

Re: Being a white heterosexual male is probably the most "privileged" demographic to be born into (in the Western world, anyway). We don't have to face additional challenges because of sexism, racism or homophobia, and are rarely prejudiced against because of what we are.[i]

Whilst I have enjoyed reading most of the stuff youve written on this thread and maybe even learnt a few things. You really need to admit this is pretty broadbrush stuff. There is a huge percentage of white males growing up in sink-estates, going (on occasion) to some pretty terrible schools for whom their only expection of a paypacket is to take the kings shilling or sell drugs. The idea that thay have inherent privledges over the young ladies leaving Bedales School this year is pretty laughable.
Speaking as someone who has eaten in resturant maybe 8 times in my life, never paid more than £400 for a car or owned "even one" house and woudn't dream of walking through Luton alone at night.
Though I do dream of playing golf, sking or surfing on some holiday one day, But I will probably just blow the money on trying to get my teeth fixed..
Dont get me there wrong, there are millions (98% of the worlds population)who have beed dealt a worst hand (I have never gone hungry) but I certainly aint feeling the priveledge Ta

Maybe humanist is the way to go.

You really need to admit this is pretty broadbrush stuff.

Yep. Of course it is, I never claimed otherwise. (In fact I tried to clarify that, probably quite badly, when replying to GT.) It's a generalisation.

That said, your white boy in his sink estate, how's he compare to a black boy on the same estate, or a white girl? If nothing else, I'd hazard that he's less likely than his sister to walk home every night scared to death of being raped.

It is, broadly, still a privilege even if all you're comparing is "shit" against "really shit".

Cougars reply was better and showed that it was still better to be a poor white male than a poor black female or gay etc

None of these are as good as being a very rich though

That said, your white boy in his sink estate, how's he compare to a black boy on the same estate, or a white girl? If nothing else, I'd hazard that he's less likely than his sister to walk home every night scared to death of being raped.

Still, it's young blokes who are most likely to end up dead in wars and are most likely to be victims of violence. So the being scared of rape thing kind of falls flat on it's face. I guess race is a better example. I'm also going to hazard a guess that black working class women do better educationally than black men, just as their white counterparts do.

Still, it's young blokes who are most likely to end up dead in wars and are most likely to be victims of violence. So the being scared of rape thing kind of falls flat on it's face

Perhaps. I think on balance I'd fancy my chances better as a bloke in that situation.

I guess race is a better example

I expect that in the sink estate example, "race" as an advantage is going to depend wholly on numbers. Doesn't matter whether you're black, white or green with purple spots so long as you're in the majority.

Which, really, isn't a bad analogy for the rest of life at all.

Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

The point is that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL white males are the default, and thus find themselves with a starting advantage.

The example above is a case in point. Women do better in school, but still find themselves marginalised and underpaid in the workplace relative to men.

PS. It's not young blokes who are most likely to die in wars. It's civilians, who are predominantly women and children. And that's without considering the horror of rape in war.

After having to deal with gaters occasionally and work with some of their victims in the past six months, I almost enjoyed these five pages of people asking them for proof.

miketually - Member
I haven't yet seen anyone argue the pro-GamerGate side without looking like a massive end...

Even the most laddish developers I know think gamergate are a bunch of bellends, and the best estimates anyone has managed puts them at a fraction of 1% of the market for commercial videogames. They still sit there on Twitter bigging themselves up and screaming "Don't ignore me! I'm the market!" though.

[url= ]Here's a screengrab from one of their chatrooms[/url], when they were just starting up last August, of some of them taking [url= http://gamingsfeministilluminati.com ]gamings feminist illuminati[/url] incredibly and hilariously literally.

How would you feel if I said you've just played the 'abuse card' to try and win an argument?

I would say you'd missed the point. I was genuinely upset but we've resolved that and moved on.

 

There is a huge percentage of white males growing up in sink-estates

No particular offence and apologies if the following comes across as patronising, but it remains amazing how many people get into arguments on the internet about ideas like "privilege" that they quite obviously haven't read very much about at all.

I don't know anything about you, but I do know that defensive arguing about this kind of thing without necessarily grasping it very well is one of the things that my younger female friends especially find enormously annoying when guys do. It fits into a paradigm of tending to shut down "stuff women say".

If you're happy to file it all under "the women are wrong again" and crack on, that's obviously absolutely fine. But the single biggest and easiest thing you can do for all the women you will ever know is to read, listen and make reasonably sure you thoroughly understand what anyone you might label a feminist is talking about before declaring that she's obviously wrong because of your own experience, which you urgently need to tell her about.

{lecture ends} 🙂

LOLOLOLOL at "gaming's feminist illuminati" being a real thing.

That has made me very happy. 😀

PS. It's not young blokes who are most likely to die in wars. It's civilians, who are predominantly women and children. And that's without considering the horror of rape in war.

I'm not sure that's true, men are far more likely to be mistaken for combatants.

The example above is a case in point. Women do better in school, but still find themselves marginalised and underpaid in the workplace relative to men.

This will likely change as the current generation of young women get older, women enter educational routes such as finance that lead to higher pay and maternity laws improve. I expect to see a reversal of the pay gap within my lifetime.

The thing with men is that there are more intelligent men and more really thick men in comparison to women, men's IQ's show a greater distribution around the mean. I think this is going to cause some quite considerable social issues over the next 20 years.

I've already noticed women having problems finding partners as successful or more successful than them, almost all the female friends I know are dating men further down the social ladder in terms of education and career success. Then again, maybe it's selection bias in terms of the types of women I choose to have as friends.

Personally, I love it that women are doing better and better with each passing year - I just think it's throwing up some issues that society is going to have to discuss. Why do women often feel the need to have a more successful partner, or why do men feel pressured to be more successful etc?

I'm not sure that's true, men are far more likely to be mistaken for combatants.

The report also found that 46 per cent of the victims of US air strikes whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children.

As for reversing the gender pay gap the first thing that needs to happen is for pay equality by role which is being dealt with but not that quickly.

The report also found that 46 per cent of the victims of US air strikes whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children.

46 percent doesn't seem drastically different to the normal population does it. Men and women are being killed in roughly equal amounts by US airstrikes, whilst men are also out being killed in fighting.

IMO the whole stop war rape campaign bothered me, how about stopping civilians (both men and women) being massacred to alter the balance of power, or stopping war itself.

46% women and 39% children, doesn't leave much room for men there does it.
Great ideas about stopping war, but one step at a time there. It's not an either or choice you can try and do both.

46% women and 39% children, doesn't leave much room for men there does it. Great ideas about stopping war, but one step at a time there. It's not an either or choice you can try and do both.

Ok 46 percent adult women?

IMO I'd be interested to see some papers, so that I could be less ignorant of the issue.

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

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

🙂

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

High five. My missus just got a job with hedge fund company thingy, I'm glad one of us will earn some money. 😆

very handsome chap

I like to think it's because I'm some kind of man trophy, but then I look in the mirror. 😐 I've told her plainly that if she ever want's me to be a stay at home dad - she's going to have to ply me with lots of Mountain Bikes. Ahem....I have my priorities in order.

The Suffragettes were the first feminists?

For this reason alone I'm in.

[img] [/img]

I'm really enjoying this!

46% women and 39% children, doesn't leave much room for men there does it.

Apparently ([url= http://www.metafilter.com/80924/Deaths-of-Children-and-Noncombatants-in-Iraq-20032008 ]results of a quick google[/url]) the 46% includes girls (ie part of the 39%), so 54% male deaths. Not that there's anything particularly positive about this data, of course, but it does show more men die than women in conflict. In [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties ]bigger wars[/url] the difference is even larger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick Google found this,

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

I've cherry-picked a few points:

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

That last one is particularly shocking.

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

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

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

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

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

That last one is particularly shocking.

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

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

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

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

Hah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No you misunderstood me or I explained it poorly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or talking out of my arse.

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

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

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

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

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

Good grief.

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

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

I wish I'd never said anything now.

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

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

#easylifeforthislazygit

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

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

[img] [/img]

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

Heh.

Hoist 🙂

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

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