Is femicide a leading global cause of premature deaths for women?


There is much in Neil Lyndon’s latest missive that is ill-informed, ignorant or downright ugly.

Under ill-informed, file his claim that since 2.5% of women experienced some form of sexual assault in the past year, according to Crime Survey of England and Wales, it cannot be true that one in three women worldwide is subject to sexual violence. Not only does this fail to allow for the fact that women’s experiences in this country may be far, far from typical of the global picture, it is simply bad maths. If you doubt me, imagine a hundred women evenly spread in ages between 16 – 66. Ask them how many of them had a 16th birthday in the last year? Then ask them how many have ever had a 16th birthday? Only 2% will answer yes to the first question, but 100% to the second.  Since sexual violence happens vastly disproportionately to younger victims, you should easily see how that analogy works.

Under ignorant, file the anecdata about how he has asked all the women in his life and none of them have been sexually assaulted. I very much hope that is true, but Neil, purrlease. We know that a huge proportion of sexual assault survivors tell virtually (or literally) nobody about the attack, and from what I know of him through his writing, I’d suggest that Neil Lyndon might not be top of any woman’s list of potential confidantes. As if to demonstrate the point:

I am nearly 70 years old. In the whole of my life, I have only known two women who claimed to have been raped. Both of them were disbelieved by their own women friends who reckoned the soi-disant victims were making up stories that couldn’t be verified to dramatise their lives.

As I say, ugly. Downright ugly.

That said, there is a question he raises which deserves an answer.

Last month a report in The Independent claimed that “Femicide has been identified globally as a leading a cause of premature death for women” and called for “increasing awareness and understanding of male violence”.

In neither instance does the writer stop to ask, “Can these claims possibly be true? Are these figures backed-up by my own experience and the evidence of my own eyes? Do they tally with the society in which I have grown up and now live? Are they verified by objective research?”

In fact there is an answer available to that question, and in broad terms no, it is not true.

There is a degree of wriggle room in the original claim – what do we mean by “leading cause”? What do we mean by “premature death” etc. However there is something approaching objective research on this question. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, an independent global health research centre at the University of Washington, collates the best available global data on causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. You can search the Global Burden of Disease data here. If we use an age cut off at 49 as a proxy for ‘premature death’ then the table for women’s cause of death looks like this: [click to enlarge]

IPMortality

Now a little bit of caution is needed here, because the categories are not discrete, some are compounds of others. Most notably there is one category for interpersonal violence, another for self-harm (ie suicide) and another for “self-harm and interpersonal violence” however the last of those is merely a tally of the other two. There are also a variety of overlapping causes (particularly several different HIV/Aids related categories). Even tidied up a bit though, it would be a stretch to claim that interpersonal violence was even in the top 25 causes of younger women’s deaths worldwide.

As we often hear phrases used like “ever-growing epidemic of violence against women” it is probably also worth pointing out that the data show a steady but consistent decline over the past twenty years, for both women and men.

IPMortalityGraph

If instead of asking for mortality figures one searches the data for ‘Disability-adjusted life years’ (the preferred measure of morbidity) interpersonal violence does not even figure in the top 50 for women aged 15- 49. I couldn’t even fit the table readably on a single screen to get an image grab.

There have been various bits of research conducted over the years which show much higher rates of death and morbidity caused by various forms of violence against women, even if when examined, they often show far less conclusive (and less arresting) findings than campaigners claim.  It is also important to understand that these are raw figures which could be riven with pollutants, inaccuracies and absent data. For example, there could be a huge number of suicides which arise as a direct consequence of gender-based violence but which do not present as such in the figures. In parts of the world where domestic violence and so-called honour crimes are commonplace there may be huge numbers of homicides being categorised as “accidental deaths” or whatever.

Nonetheless, the IHME data is considered the best available guide to causes of global mortality and morbidity, and even if we were to arbitrarily decide to double the known  figure for women’s deaths by interpersonal violence, it still wouldn’t be accurate to say that femicide is one of the leading causes of women’s premature deaths worldwide.

 

Comments

  1. says

    Under ignorant, file the anecdata about how he has asked all the women in his life and none of them have been sexually assaulted. I very much hope that is true, but Neil, purrlease.

    I wish that were true of the women in MY life, but it isn’t.

    I am nearly 70 years old. In the whole of my life, I have only known two women who claimed to have been raped. Both of them were disbelieved by their own women friends who reckoned the soi-disant victims were making up stories that couldn’t be verified to dramatise their lives.

    An old man who thinks women make shit up just to have more “drama” in their otherwise mundane and meaningless lives. Yeah, not the kind of guy one should trust to interpret statistics or understand any women’s issues.

  2. proudmra says

    So Lyndon has made an argument that is supported by facts, but he’s done it in a clueless and incompetent manner. That should be a good enough reason to decide that ‘femicide’ is a REAL and URGENT PROBLEM, all right….

  3. says

    It’s certainly good enough reason to ignore this particular moron’s arguments, and base an honest debate on more honest sources.

  4. Groan says

    Of course Ally simply reinforces the question of why do such implausible statistical claims not get the Ally treatment?

  5. aj says

    To summarise then the main point of Neil Lyndon’s article is absolutely correct but some of the supporting points are just hearsay/annecedote and his interpretation of annual rates of incidence is wrong. Surely the tone of the article should be to correct the mistakes but to ask why is it that everyone is so ready to believe ill of men and so reluctant of women, why there is so much support for women and so little for men.

    This seems a pattern. There is little doubt that men are treated far more harshly than women by the criminal justice system yet ally chose to focus on the exact number of an estimate which was calculated in an open and reasonable way as a means of deflecting from the real point of massive discrimination against men. Ally seems to want to obscure the fact that a grotesque misandric lie completely contrary to everyday experience is widely believed and promoted as fact.

    The fact is that stories that promote the idea of men as victimisers and women as innocent victims are ubiquitous and widely promoted even when misleading or simply wrong whereas stories of men or even boys as victims are rare even though me and boys are far more frequently victims than women and girls. Quite often the misandry even seems deliberate for example with the survey that conflated sexual assault and unwanted sexual advances and only reported the numbers for women. Innacuracies on all sides should be highlighted but the issue in general is not that attacks against women are hidden or minimised in the media as a whole but that they are exaggerated and promoted to the almost complete exclusion of any stories about male victims.

  6. Jacob Schmidt says

    Under ill-informed, file his claim that since 2.5% of women experienced some form of sexual assault in the past year, according to Crime Survey of England and Wales, it cannot be true that one in three women worldwide is subject to sexual violence.

    Bro, do you even math?

    If you have a 2.5% chance of being assaulted in any given year, you have a 33% chance of being assaulted at some point in the next 16 years. This actually squares quite nicely with the fact that the majority of sexual assaults on women occur when they are relatively young.

    Nonetheless, the IHME data is considered the best available guide to causes of global mortality and morbidity, and even if we were to arbitrarily decide to double the known figure for women’s deaths by interpersonal violence, it still wouldn’t be accurate to say that femicide is one of the leading causes of women’s premature deaths worldwide.

    Now that I think about it, I suspect that “leading” is going the way of “literally” i.e. a useful word with a fairly strict definition is being diluted as an intensifier.

  7. Archy says

    I may be wrong, partially drugged up due to back pain, yay! – I’m not sure it’s a good idea to get from 2.5% per year chance of assault to 33% in 16 years. Some victims get multiple assaults so they may be in that 2.5% category for multiple years. I would presume some domestic violence relationship/utterfuckinghell situations would be like this where they are being abused regularly over 3-10+ years so each of those cases would reduce the chance of another being abused if the rate is 2.5%. If it is each individual woman only being attacked once, and 2.5% of women in 1 year being attacked as the average then after 16 years I’d guess it would be 33% chance.

    My guess is there are some women who get a lot more attacks than others, women in domestic violence situations, those involved in heavy drug use maybe or illegal prostitution (Legal stuff should have safety measures in place I would hope…), possibly the mentally ill or mentally handicapped being at more risk?

  8. UntruthExposed says

    Is there a way to teach all men what follows? If not, then get back to me:

    Here’s all you need to learn as a man. You don’t need to understand feminists. You don’t need to understand MRAs. You don’t need to understand anything but what I’m about to tell you. Here’s the truth that no one wants you to know. Ready? You’re not supposed to know that (except for gay people):

    There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than the patriarchy and white knight/chivalrous men. These men are extremely naive, ignorant and self-serving. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo (see ‘1 in 5′ and ‘yes means yes’).

    When it was asked for, the patriarchy gave women the right to vote, the right to higher education and the right to work. Unless they sign up for selective service, men still don’t have many of the rights women are granted by default. Initially, men had to enlist and fight in war to have the rights women were freely given – by the patriarchy.

    I have never seen a movement so overflowing with hypocrisy, double standards and sexism than feminism. Take ‘yes means yes’ for example. To feminists, this is a good law. What’s more, the law is based entirely on bogus, debunked rape statistics. It’s no surprise that the patriarchy agrees with the ‘yes means yes’ law. The president of the United States, the patriarch of all patriarchs, personally endorsed and pushed ‘yes means yes’ into being.

    Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of the patriarchy and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. This is American patriarchy. Men made these rules, which have, through divorce, destroyed countless millions of men’s lives. Though feminists did milk it for all it was worth, the patriarchy made men the disposable gender, not feminists.

    It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. It was mandated that men go to war and sacrifice their lives for women and children. Those men that refused were branded cowards, imprisoned and ostracized socially and financially. Men and women that didn’t play ball were demonized by both patriarchs and matriarchs. In the past, for a man to get a decent job, he had to be married with kids. To some degree, this social rule still exists today – enforced by both the patriarchy and the matriarchy.

    The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top – and to make the majority of men disposable. This is how we arrived at male-only selective service and the male only draft. Feminists distort the real truth when they paint all men as evil oppressors. Why do they still do it? Because it’s served them well for many, many decades. Now, as things are backfiring, you can smell the desperation. The patriarchy and gynocracy are seeing the err in their ways. Naive white knights and misandric feminists are getting their just due.

    The single most misandric institution of our time is marriage. Men give all of their power over to their wives when they marry, which is why men should never marry. It is the patriarchy that gave women this power over men though marriage, not feminists. If you look deeply into the agendas of major women’s groups, you’ll find them fighting to hold onto this anti-male power.

    What men really need to understand is that both the patriarchy and feminism are working against the vast majority of men; hence the debunked rape, wage and domestic violence statistics. That feminists and many of the most powerful male world leaders continue to run with the deeply flawed statistics tells you everything you need to know about their agenda. Why do they keep using the debunked wage, rape and DV stats? Men are now and have always been the disposable gender. This fact has never been more clear than today. The powerful, cowardly, white knights of the patriarchy will continue to throw men under the bus to appease the gynocracy. You can see this playing out right now before your eyes.

    Our future is Sweden’s present. High out of wedlock births, low marriage rate, low indigenous birth rate, mass immigration, feminist movie censors, males made to pee sitting down, the redefinition of speech against feminism as hate speech, sky high taxes and misandric government leaders. Our future leaders will be split between feminists and their cowardly white knight lap dogs.

    Expect to see more and more policies and laws that shift men’s assets over to women in the relatively near future. Of course, these policies won’t be called “Bachelor Taxes” outright. Instead, men’s wealth will be shifted under the guise of equality and fairness, with a clear bias against men and in favor of women. If you look carefully, many such laws and policies are now/have been in place for decades.

    It seems to me that feminism is about forcing men, through misandric law, to give women whatever they want. Feminism is a narrative based on the idea that whatever was positively associated with men and traditional western society ought to be destroyed. Feminism is the idea that men are full-fledged villains who ought to be defeated, shamed and then either forgotten or hated. Feminism is the idea that whatever men accomplished they accomplished on the backs of women and that men should therefore be dispossessed and reviled.

    At one point in time, feminism may have matched the dictionary definition so often quoted. Today, feminism represents the epitome of sexism, hypocrisy, misandry and double standards. The phrase “Destroy the Patriarchy” means “dispossess from men power and property and hand it over to women.” This is “equality of outcome”. This is socialism, which is what feminism is really all about. Just ignore the fact that, when you drive down the road, everything you see about you was always and is now built by men.

    Women easily sacrifice their sons for America’s future. How do women do that? Is that action by women, sexist?

    We can, as a result of male only selective service, have female only selective rape, right? Which is less selective? Which is less rapey/murderousy?

    Rape women. Call it sexists after the fact. That’s what women do.

  9. Jacob Schmidt says

    I may be wrong, partially drugged up due to back pain, yay! – I’m not sure it’s a good idea to get from 2.5% per year chance of assault to 33% in 16 years. Some victims get multiple assaults so they may be in that 2.5% category for multiple years. I would presume some domestic violence relationship/utterfuckinghell situations would be like this where they are being abused regularly over 3-10+ years so each of those cases would reduce the chance of another being abused if the rate is 2.5%. If it is each individual woman only being attacked once, and 2.5% of women in 1 year being attacked as the average then after 16 years I’d guess it would be 33% chance.

    It isn’t really a good idea, but we can get away with it for proof of concept type stuff. My initial attempt assumes a perfectly random distribution of assaults. I doesn’t assume each woman is assaulted only once (doing that would mean 40% of women are assaulted after 16 years, and 100% of women are assaulted after 40 years). If there are significant risk factors, which there are, we expect a random distribution to significantly overshoot the risk for a period of time (this is because more assaults are concentrated on a smaller population, meaning more repeat assaults, so less individuals who had been assaulted at least once in their life).

    With that in mind, 33% in 16 years is the risk for a given individual. 1/3 of individuals would be assaulted at least once; a smaller group is assaulted more than once.

    To test it out, I assumed that people who have been assaulted are 3 times more likely to be assaulted again than people who have not been assaulted. Adding in a 3 fold risk factor, 33% of the population would be assaulted after 22 years. If we assume a risk factor of 10, it would take 41 years for 33% of the population to be assaulted.

    There are, of course, some problems with this model as well, namely that it doesn’t include risk factors other than whether a person has been assaulted before. This leads to overshooting in the short run (since it behaves similarly to the “random distribution” model in the short run), though it is somewhat balanced in the long run because the risk factor is applied absolutely, even to someone who was assaulted once 30 years ago.

    I suppose I could have an “at risk” segment of the population with a flat risk factor, and apply a risk factor that decreases over time (say, over 3 years) to the people who have been assaulted. That math doesn’t sound like much fun, though. If you’d really like, I could go over the math I did for the second model, since it isn’t nearly as straight forward.

    In any case, rudimentary analysis of the 2.5% per year figure shows that it is amply sufficient to lead to 1/3 women being assaulted at least once in their lifetime. There might be other factors that make 1/3 not the case (e.g. a massive risk factor on a small portion of the population), but those factors would need to be massive to invalidate a rate that superficially indicates a lifetime rate of twice the actual accepted lifetime rate.

  10. StillGjenganger says

    @UntruthExposed.
    Sorry, but I only read the first quarter. You would be more convincing if you toned that down. A lot.

    I have never seen a movement so overflowing with hypocrisy, double standards and sexism than feminism.

    Have you considered ISIS? Boko Haram? I think they might give feminism some serious competition in those stats.

  11. says

    Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy…

    Another incoherent screed about how wimmen have all the power, with absolutely zero evidence, other than the fact that women sometimes get what they want here and there. How can such a totally imagined conspiracy be so lacking in imagination? “The Gynocracy?” Sounds like a creature from “Alice in Wonderland,” a book whose hard-headed realism comments like this make me miss.

  12. says

    The president of the United States, the patriarch of all patriarchs, personally endorsed and pushed ‘yes means yes’ into being.

    Um, no, the idea kinda predates the Obama administration. By like a few decades, give or take. Maybe more…

  13. proudmra says

    UE @9 makes a number of good points. Yes, old-style patriarchy was bad and oppressive; but feminism’s efforts to flip that unfairness and replace it with a new version is no better. BOTH deserve condemnation and mockery as they fade into irrelevance and actual equality gains precedence.

  14. Jacob Schmidt says

    Our future is Sweden’s present… males made to pee sitting down…

    Oh, the calamity!

    I’m pretty sure in utilitarian terms that’s a net good. Peeing standing up isn’t hygienic (you should also put down the lid when you flush).

  15. sw says

    Female deaths internationally from interpersonal violence: 87,828
    Male deaths internationally from interpersonal violence: 368,440

    “Femicide”

  16. Saurs says

    “Female deaths internationally from interpersonal violence: 87,828
    Male deaths internationally from interpersonal violence: 368,440”

    When o when will society buck up the courage to address male-on-male physical and sexual violence?

  17. Carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    But of an open and perhaps leading question here, but what do you think motivates feminists volunteering/employed in service provision aimed at supporting victims of DV/sexual abuse, and do you think the motivations are significantly different from those lobbying/supporting in sectors such as, for example, unemployed veterans or environmental activists?

  18. 123454321 says

    “Yes, old-style patriarchy was bad and oppressive…”

    Almost, but not quite. You have to let go of the feminist indoctrination. Old-style patriarchy was competitive-aggresive, but protective of women and children, and fundamentally essential in terms of human evolutionary progress. Yes, plenty of bad, but on balance, in the whole scheme of things, far more good in terms of progression of civilisation. Feminists prefer not to think about the thousands of years women have been kept in the caves for reasons of protection. Yes, it seems they’d rather conveniently forget the past generations of millions of men who did the downright treacherous and life-threatening work while the female species reaped the rewards of safety. They prefer to attack modern men by claiming women were oppressed. Yeah, right! Most men buy into this narrative because they don’t know any better. That’s a stoke of luck for feminists, while it lasts!
    It’s the same argument when it comes to getting the vote. Millions of men died in the war coming up to the 1918 changes to the ‘Representation of the People Act’ and the vast majority of male survivors only got the vote a few years before women in any case (1928). Getting the vote was based more around a class fight than a gender one. Men carried more burden of accountability than women and could be imprisoned or put to death and luckily for women they were exempt of that type of accountability. But no feminist EVER mentions the MEN who fought during the war just before 1918, or the fact that the vote was based around class. Most working class men had exactly the same issues with regard to getting the vote, but with the added burden of being held to account for any wrongdoing within the family household. Geez, ding-dong, wake the fuck up everyone and stop listening to the feminist bullshit narratives!

  19. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “Geez, ding-dong, wake the fuck up everyone and stop listening to the feminist bullshit narratives!”

    You could be taken more seriously if you hadn’t have just recited one of the most hilariously stupid historical analysis I have read, and I speak as someone familiar with the imbecilic cesspit of humanity that is the manosphere.

    Buried within your train wreck are a couple of decent points, ruined by the MRA fantasies though.

    A manosphere classic, though, no doubt.

  20. 123454321 says

    Carnation, you said a couple of points were decent. Which specific part (s) of my analysis were wrong?

  21. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    You were correct about the class elements to the suffrage struggle, and patriarchy being “competitive-aggressive” (though this is an extremely simplistic summary). The rest is composed of typical childish MRA fantasy that offers comfort to the angry and stupid but is dismissed as puerile conspiracy theory by persons unburdened with adequacy, cognitive or educational issues.

    You’re better than this dude, it’s just pathetic. Grow up.

  22. Jacob Schmidt says

    Yes, plenty of bad, but on balance, in the whole scheme of things, far more good in terms of progression of civilisation.

    Aside from the fact that you literally never address this again,* I find it amusing when people look at history, see the good, and credit their personal preferences for it, never seeming to question whether humanity flourished because of or in spite of those norms.

    *Throwing around pretty sounding claims without justification is a mark of a snake oil salesmen and a political opportunist.

  23. 123454321 says

    It’s true though isn’t it, Carnation – and sad – that no matter what men do in terms of contributing towards the social evolutionary process, for the purpose of keeping the wheel of progression turning, they always face a wrath of anger and blame, association with evil and held completely accountable while the female sex gets all the protective measures and all the recognition associated with goodness. If you can’t see that then I really think you need to do the growing up. The rest of what you say is pure shaming and silencing tactics. And by the way, I’m all for protecting vulnerable people (men or women) but this outright anti-male, blind non-recognition, refusal to acknowledge the progressive nature of men and all the good they stand for is waring very thin on more than a handful of the population! The audacity, blinkered-vision and pure ignorance is astonishing but not surprising!

  24. Carnation says

    “It’s true though isn’t it, Carnation – and sad – that no matter what men do in terms of contributing towards the social evolutionary process, for the purpose of keeping the wheel of progression turning, they always face a wrath of anger and blame, association with evil and held completely accountable while the female sex gets all the protective measures and all the recognition associated with goodness.”

    No, it’s obviously and categorically *not* true. Men are celebrated for “contributing towards the social evolutionary process”, have a look at the statues and monuments, the faces on your bank notes, the portraits of leaders (in science, technology, politics, culture and the arts) that hang on gallery walls. Go into universities, read about the contributors to social evolution. In every sphere that I have mentioned, men are (justifiably) over-represented – because more men than women have contributed to notable social progress. Why is this? Simple, until historically very recently, women were simply not allowed into these spheres on anything like the same terms as men. Now, most men were similarly excluded, and again patriarchal attitudes are at play. Patriarchy, as feminists readily accept and indeed first proposed, damages and excludes many men. In terms of the vote, most men were excluded from the vote because they were not deemed to meet a standard due to their economic station in life. Women as a class were excluded because they were women, deemed unable to contribute to society politically. Both concepts are disgusting. They don’t cancel each other out.

    Here in the UK, arch colonialists (like Churchill and “Bomber” Harris) are feted as heroes, not associated with the evil and horror of their acts. Latterly, political leaders like Blair and his cabinet (which bears collective responsibility for the nightmare that is Iraq) escaped censure, by and large, and remain unaccountable in any meaningful sense. Meanwhile, they are *still* supported by high profile journalists such as Nick Cohen and Andrew Roberts.

    In the collective conscious, terms such as “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, “money grabbing whore”, “temptress”, “she brought it on herself” and widespread instances of “slut shaming” and victim blaming in the press rather contradict your claim that “the female sex gets all the protective measures and all the recognition associated with goodness.”

    Now, are men held to the same standards as women? No, they are held to another set of standards, equally unfair, and rigidly applied. They are patriarchal standards.

    “The rest of what you say is pure shaming and silencing tactics”

    No, it is simply the truth. You let yourself down by parroting the egregiously stupid work of MRA dullards.

    “And by the way, I’m all for protecting vulnerable people (men or women)”

    I know, I don’t doubt like. For whatever reason, I see some good in you. You’re not a lost cause like most MRA cranks. That’s why I take some time out to deconstruct what you say.

    “but this outright anti-male, blind non-recognition, refusal to acknowledge the progressive nature of men and all the good they stand for is waring very thin on more than a handful of the population!”

    I have dealt with the “refusal to acknowledge the progressive nature of men and all the good they do” – see early in this comment. The sexism within your statement is self-evident. As for “waring very thin on more than a handful of the population”, that is a joke. The MRM is a microscopic blip in the collective consciousness of society. A collection of bloggers with no real world presence that is turning on itself in an increasingly hilarious collective act of hara-kiri.

    But I think you know all of this, on whatever level. You champion a vehicle that has proven itself, over several years, capable of achieving nothing. You are angry but severely misguided.

    Like I said, grow up.

  25. JT says

    For whatever reason, I see some good in you. You’re not a lost cause like most MRA cranks. That’s why I take some time out to deconstruct what you say.(Carnation)

    Damn 12345…… You should be thankful, lol. at least someone takes the time to show the error of your ways. Talk about arrogant.

  26. sheaf28 says

    I’m pretty sure in utilitarian terms that’s a net good. Peeing standing up isn’t hygienic (you should also put down the lid when you flush).

    I cant . I cant even. From a scale from one to even I cant. Thats a lot. I suppose that from any additive measure of utility that is even remotely plausible forcing an entire population to change habits for a very marginal change in hygiene (likely not actually detectable in any kind of outcome metric and might after brief consideration be a large net negative since ti forces you to contact toilets in public places) is not a net positive.

  27. Jacob Schmidt says

    forcing

    Or we could not make shit up, be marginally reasonable, and note that is not happening.

  28. sheaf29 says

    Also note that in my experience with social norms, it is forcing in most cases. I had to pee sitting in my dorm (not that it bothered me particularly it was more comfortable but probably a little less hygenic), it was not by choice, even though there is no law requiring this. Changing social norms force people to do things wheter you acknowledge it or not.

  29. 123454321 says

    “Men are celebrated for “contributing towards the social evolutionary process”, have a look at the statues and monuments, the faces on your bank notes, the portraits of leaders (in science, technology, politics, culture and the arts) that hang on gallery walls. Go into universities, read about the contributors to social evolution. In every sphere that I have mentioned, men are (justifiably) over-represented – because more men than women have contributed to notable social progress.”

    Ok, agree with that, because men actually did something and justifiably got recognition for it. So why the need for this sort of sexist shit then?

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/glasgow-uni-building-diversity-with-new-names-1-3705717

    “Why is this? Simple, until historically very recently, women were simply not allowed into these spheres on anything like the same terms as men.”

    Carnation, what makes you think that most women actually WANTED to get involved in men’s work? Especially as “men’s work” was where the dirt and danger lay. I’m just trying to visualise that young 18 year old girl begging her Dad to let her weld the anchor plates onto the side of a ship 200 miles away whilst abseiling from the bow, suspended 20m above crashing waves and then stopping over for 3 months in a leaky, makeshift portacabin. It didn’t happen, Carnation. It wasn’t the “patriarchy” that was responsible for the choices that most women made!

    “Women as a class were excluded because they were women, deemed unable to contribute to society politically.”

    …nor punishable within the same set of governed standards that men were held accountable for, or punished. Men held ownership of land and property value but THEY were the ones who forfeited their freedom and were held to account where problems arose. Again, a mechanism designed to protect women, not the usual ridiculous, patriarchal conspiracy theory that supports the feminist male-bashing agenda! Talk about indoctrination! You really have taken too many gender studies classes, obviously!

    “In the collective conscious, terms such as “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, “money grabbing whore”, “temptress”, “she brought it on herself” and widespread instances of “slut shaming” and victim blaming in the press rather contradict your claim that “the female sex gets all the protective measures and all the recognition associated with goodness.”

    Poor show because not one of your examples has anywhere near the same level of hateful vulgarity as today’s typical feminist with their relentless promotion and sweeping generalisations that all men are potential rapists, leering perverts, dirty old men, peeping toms, smelly, dirty, sweaty, dead-beat dads, useless, lazy, good-for-nothing (except for the purpose of being mocked, ridiculed or, when convenient, objectified) beyond any level that has ever been aimed at women.

    “No, it is simply the truth”

    LOL Carnation, you wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you in the face like a wet kipper. Every single day, if you turn on the radio, watch tv or pick up a mag, you will be confronted by endless media coverage of stories relating to women and girls, much of it hyped up myths and lies. In contrast, there is a tiny, tiny proportion of media covering men’s issues or stories relating to the historic plight of men, it’s all about women, women, women. Not as I disagree with media coverage relating to women’s issues, it’s just that FFS let’s get some fucking balance!! I really think it’s time to move on, it’s getting boring and tedious. I do recognise that 100 years ago life wasn’t ideal for anyone, but we’re living right here and now and surely the most important concept is to straighten up equality for the generation who are living today as well as the next generation, not keeping ranting on about the generations which are now stone dead! So all I’m suggesting is that we stop discriminating against men just because women *think* and are *taught* that their gender had it bad decades and decades ago, despite the fact that they didn’t have to fight wars, risk their lives in the workplace etc…I could go on and on and on.. I will tell you something though, Carnation, the way we are living today, in this excessively female-only, supportive society….well, it is completely unsustainable and it absolutely won’t last – no chance. So enjoy the ride while you can because when you get past your current crawling, nappy, bottle feeding, dummy stage and you grow up to become a big boy, hopefully with a little more wisdom under your belt, it will be a very different world that you’ll have to get yourself accustomed to – a world where the bigoted feminist movement is dead and buried and EVERYONE then gets equally and respectfully treated because they are HUMANS and not just because they are FEMALE.

  30. Holms says

    Carnation, this sort of shit is why I for one consider 1234 to be intentionally dishonest and not worth the outreach effort:

    #31 1234
    Carnation, what makes you think that most women actually WANTED to get involved in men’s work? Especially as “men’s work” was where the dirt and danger lay.

    Did you see the switch he made? The text he quoted was about the celebreation of men in (and dominance of) positions of leadership and influence “in science, technology, politics, culture and the arts”, and he replies as if you were talking about manual labour. Blatant dishonesty.

    For more, there’s his very next paragraph:

    …nor punishable within the same set of governed standards that men were held accountable for, or punished. Men held ownership of land and property value but THEY were the ones who forfeited their freedom and were held to account where problems arose. Again, a mechanism designed to protect women

    Apparently, not being able to lose power or wealth by not having any in the first place is a ‘protective measure’. Oh those poor rich, powerful, famous people…!

    Firstly, this is quite obviously self contradictory thanks to the simple fact that losing or being stripped of money / power / fame is acknowledged to be an undesirable. Why is it undesirable? Because you end up with low money / power / fame. Which is where poor, powerless, anonymous people are to begin with. It relies on ‘losing something = undesirable’ which is true enough but ignores the fact that having something to lose in the first place is desirable, and that men have historically had a much greater chance at gaining the desirable stuff than women.

    Secondly, if being powerless and poor purely because of gender is a good thing, why the fuck do the MRA types complain so bitterly when they point to examples of male disadvantage? “Lots of men are poor too!” goes the usual bleat, but based on the logic employed above – that being poor is a protective measure against losing wealth – it then follows that those poor men are in a better off position than the rich. The fact that MRAs use “men can be poor too” contradicts this by admitting that being poor is undesirable.

    Finally, to cap off this tour de dunce, we have a complaint against feminist ‘sweeping generalisations’ of men:

    Poor show because not one of your examples has anywhere near the same level of hateful vulgarity as today’s typical feminist with their relentless promotion and sweeping generalisations that all men are potential rapists, leering perverts, dirty old men, peeping toms, smelly, dirty, sweaty, dead-beat dads, useless, lazy, good-for-nothing (except for the purpose of being mocked, ridiculed or, when convenient, objectified) beyond any level that has ever been aimed at women.

    Note that it involves a huge misrepresentation of actual feminist positions, by taking the extreme fringe crackpot feminists to be the mainstream. 1234, not a single feminist author on FTB (or similar network) has ever been half as hostile toward men as you pretend.

  31. JT says

    Pretty reasonable would be if they included 1 female as a perp. The fact that you dont get that is very telling.

  32. Holms says

    Yes that would have been better, but it falls short of 1234’s “…today’s typical feminist with their relentless promotion and sweeping generalisations that all men are potential rapists…” apoplexy.

  33. JT says

    Its easy to point out hyperbole. Not so easy to admit something is not quite favourable to the gender you think has it all.

  34. Holms says

    But I’ve never said men ‘have it all’ and neither do the largely feminist-leaning authors on FTB, many of whom have pointed to areas in which men are the ones getting shorted.

  35. Carnation says

    @ Holms

    I understand your frustrations with 123454321, but his reliance on hyperbole indicates that he’s just full of anger and thus easy fodder for the puerile fantasy that passes for MRA theory. He’s a little like Sid in that respect, though of course Sid’s apparent intellect was, even for an MRA, extremely stunted.

    123454321 will grow up sooner or later. He’s just typical of someone who tries to talk about feminism without knowing anything about it.

    See also: Mike Buchanan and Adiabat – those two clowns actually cite avfm articles (and in hilarious case, a video) as evidence for their theorising.

    You couldn’t make it up.

  36. Joan says

    Of course femicide is a leading cause of premature deaths in women. Especially if you take into consideration that anti-abortion laws and overall bad healthcare for women with regard to childbirth is also femicide. (One of the many reasons why anti-abortion is NOT pro-life.)

    To all those clowns who bemoan the number of men who die from male violence, I say: I will start caring about it when/if as many women die from FEMALE violence, as women die from MALE violence. In the meantime, go and do something against it yourselves. Feminists are not there to solve men’s self-made problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *