It has been pointed out many times that there is one almost perfect correlation in the US’s mass shootings: it’s not that they’re done by Muslims (that would be laughably false, if it weren’t a conclusion that is harming innocents). It’s that almost all of the mass shootings are done by men. Soraya Chemaly points out something that is almost as terrible: most of their murder sprees begin with killing women and children.
As Huffington Post reporter Melissa Jeltsen wrote last year, “The untold story of mass shootings in America is one of domestic violence.” According to a conservative estimate by the FBI, 57 percent of the mass shootings (involving more than four victims) between January 2009 and June 2014 involved a perpetrator killing an intimate partner or other family member. In other words, men killing women intimates and their children and relatives are the country’s prototypical mass shooters; these killings are horrifyingly common. In fact, on Sunday, while the world watched in horror as news poured out of Orlando, a man in New Mexico was arrested in the fatal shooting deaths of his wife and four daughters.
Even when intimate partners are not involved, gender and the dynamics of gender are salient. According to one detailed analysis, 64 percent of the victims of mass murders are women and children, and yet the role that masculinity and aggrieved male entitlement plays is largely sidelined. Schools, for example, make up 10 percent of the sites of mass shootings in the U.S., and women and girls are twice as likely to die in school shootings. Gyms, shopping malls and places of worship are also frequent targets, and are similarly places where women and girls are predictably present in greater numbers.
Also chilling is how we look the other way.
The Washington Post reported Monday that “although family members said Mateen had expressed anger about homosexuality, the shooter had no record of previous hate crimes.” But that depends on how you categorize domestic violence.
There are people who think domestic violence doesn’t even count as violence. The Bible condones beating your wife, so do some factions in Islam, and there are always idiots who argue that rape in marriage is impossible.
It makes me wonder how much courage it takes for a woman to enter into any kind of relationship with a man.
PZ, were you planning on addressing the allegations against Richard Carrier? I know you’re usually quite vocal about this topic.
Specifically, the incident happened a year ago and Amy Frank went to the SSA, with witnesses, at that time. When did you find out about it?
I know you’ve made some pretty strong accusations against Mick Nugent, and I’m pretty sure you don’t want to be accused of hypocrisy.
[We are discussing it internally. But bringing it up off-topic here, and coupling it with claims of “hypocrisy” regarding that hypocritical asshole Nugent, is not a good-faith way to get me to respond to it here. I’m pretty sure you don’t want to be accused of trolling, so don’t do it again. –pzm]
I like this idea…2nd amendment still stands, since women can still buy them so gun nuts can’t complain. Men would just just lose their gun privileges due to the actions of those around them. Like literally every other privilege abused by a group..the group gets reassessed.
Women can still carry them and be responsible for the safety of their men, so if you want to own a gun, you just have to be in the presence of a responsible woman. Like a child with a parental guardian.
You know…until as a man you prove you can be trusted on your own with your toy. Just like any other petulant child whining because they don’t get to play with their boomsticks.
I would rather the nuance that it is toxic masculinity that is the root of the frustrated entitlement that is almost always behind these murderers. It should be noted that a disproportionate part of those are white cis hetero men – the ones who feel they belong at a high point on the privilege tree. It isn’t generally the greatly disempowered who do this: it’s the ones who don’t get as much as they think their white cis hetero male asses deserve. Fighting against toxic masculinity, violence-based views of manhood, is where we need to focus, as when we say “teach boys not to rape, not girls how to avoid it.”
A horrifying series of facts indeed, but nothing will come of it because the primary purpose of gun fetishism has never been self defence or some imagined maintenance of a balance of power between government and the governed – it is and has always been about toxic expressions of masculine identity.
In essence, guns are penis substitutes that allow men with a sense of personal inadequacy to experience a sensation of dominance and superiority. Taking this into account, it is no surprise that women are disproportionately the target of this kind of violence. It is true that men fear women will reject them, and women fear men will kill them.
But since guns function primarily as penis substitutes, there is no possibility of the gun fondlers and their wealthy and powerful lobby allowing any ban, still less one that directly addresses the gendered aspects of gun violence.
Wonder what percentage of the people baying for the collective punishment of muslims would think expressing this modest proposal is hate speech?
CaitieCat, Harridan of Social Justice @ 3;
Quoted for truth. Gun violence is one expression of a broader problem with how all too many men, and especially cis/het White men like myself, go about constructing their masculinity in a fashion that is predicated upon actual or implied violence and a craving for dominance over others. Getting rid of the guns would mitigate the capacity for mass murder and injury caused by this toxic masculinity (which is reason enough to do it), but it wouldn’t address the core motivations and attitudes that underpin the violence on its own.
Guns aren’t the only way to express that violence and obsession with self validation through the dominance of others, and the bloodshed and violence, including sexual violence, won’t stop until our society addresses the issues surrounding the construction of masculinity and the way it intersects with issues of class, race, sexual orientation and gender identity.
qwints @ 5;
That would have to be approaching 100% I would have thought. I imagine we will soon be encountering just such people on this very thread if prior experience is anything to go by, and then we can ask them.
YES but…
if such a ~compromise~ were ever to happen, how many seconds before the oppressed males cry out that the Const is to protect everyone regardless of _gender_. Like, for example, uhhh [pause … … … ahhh] Right to Vote, …
*sigh*
If such whingers would apply even a little reflection of how they opposed the ERA and advocate rescinding womens right to vote, etc, etc, etc, and so on …
……………………………………………………………..
ugh
………………………………………………………………..
warning, I am about to reiterate. I am so repetative in redundant redundancy sort of method style…
Only reasonable solution to the pathological vector [ie guns] infecting the general population, is to tax them out of existence. Freely allow everyone to buy a gun and heavily charge a sales tax, and also heavily tax the ammunition (maybe $1 per gram), and maybe an excise tax annually for possession.
Back in the 90’s in Maryland there was a law restricting gun ownership and legal carry for people who had been convicted of domestic violence. Seems like a good idea, right? But the law got repealed because something like 1/2 of the cops in the state wouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.
My mind still boggles whenever I think of that one.
This is an excellent point. It seems that privilege is really not good for anyone, including the privileged. Probably because they’re taught that nothing they do has consequences and that they are more important than other people? And, of course, if they are challenged on that privilege it gets ugly.
There has been some success in reducing smoking by this mechanism, though the reduction is from (numbers estimates: do not trust) about 25% to about 15%. It would really be better to get the number of guns lower quicker. What about treating gun purchases like we treat getting an abortion: 48 hour waiting period, only one place per state where they can be purchased, invasive psychological and physical exam prior to purchase, require purchasers to study grizzly photos of gun shot victims, etc. Might discourage at least a few people.
Or just ban them outright like in Canada and Australia. That seems to have worked quite well.
Back in 2015, in response to the Charleston shootings, The Society Pages released a summary of sociological analysis on gender and mass shootings that is still relevant to the discussion:
This conclusion is also supported by criminologists like James Alan Fox, quoted in this article from CNN:
The data on race, however, is more muddled. This seems to depend largely on the criteria researchers use to identify ‘mass shootings’: I’ve seen articles claiming that 90% of perpetrators where white, but the aforementioned article from CNN says differently:
qwints, #5
Close to 100% I’d bet. If you can broadly label something a “Muslim problem” without feeling the need to further analyze the situation, then you should also label mass shootings a “straight white men problem” without feeling the need to further analyze the situation.
Outlaw ownership by men and men will have women buy the guns for them. Assault styled weapons and their derivatives should be banned across the board flat out. Same with clip loaded handguns. If you need more than a six-shooter for defense then something is really wrong. (Needing a gun for defense at all is a separate issue.)
On a more facetious note I’d say ban them all and require everyone to carry and learn to use rapiers. Think how that would change things, having to look someone in the eye while looking down the other persons blade as well, not knowing their level of skill.
Is there a prize for obvious prophecy? Saad wins one. I’m already getting flooded with outrage from men who have only read the title of this post on Twitter.
Regarding the last line in the OP…. if anything ever happened to cause me and my boyfriend to split up I would never again have a relationship with a man. I am just far too distrustful of men to ever be willing to take those risks in an effort to find one that is trustworthy.
Some factions?? PZ, I don’t think you understand what the Qur’an and the hadith say about domestic abuse:
This is Mohammad’s wife Aisha speaking about what her husband did to her, as quoted in Sahih Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 2127:
mmark, do you imagine that all Muslims are somehow more monolithic in reading the Koran than Xians are with the Bible? Yes, of course there are factions. Only an idiot could think otherwise.
The Bible also says you can stone your children to death for not honoring you sufficiently. Do you think that’s representative of the whole of modern Christianity?
What do essentially all mass shooters have in common? They are men. The vast majority, in the US, are also white. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of Islam versus Christianity versus other religions or no religion, it is extremely clear that the vast majority of mass shootings in the US are not perpetrated by Muslims. They are, however, perpetrated by men. Why do you even bring up the complete red herring of religion?
Oh, not again…
mmark, we’ve tried multiple times to explain that scripture is not the be-all, end-all of a religion. If it was, every Christian would still be stoning children for breaking the Sabbath and destroying fig trees for not bearing fruit.
The only gun I really want is a flare gun, anyway.
All Christians accuse women of witchcraft and then kill them.
All Christians. It’s in the book.
Wait, I think I garbled the stoning-on-the-Sabbath portion of the Bible. Regardless, the point still stands. Just cut it out.
Flare gun. ;)
But why bring up religion at all? This thread is about the unfortunate tendency of men to engage in mass shootings and how to deal with that. True, PZ did reference religion in the original post, but only to point out that it is not the common characteristic. Bringing it up again only makes sense if your (generic you) desire is to distract from the main point which is that men are dangerous and prone to shooting people when they don’t get their way.
I don’t think it’s honest to call religion a ‘complete red herring.’ The Abrahamic religions are inextricable from patriarchy, from their origins to their texts to their style of leadership. It would be truly exceptional if a Muslim upbringing had no influence on Mateen’s construction of masculinity and identity. Also, despite various assurances that Mateen ‘showed no signs of radicalism,’ his upbringing was unlikely to have been moderate: his father expressed support for the Taliban, after all (though his political views are weirdly incoherent – perhaps he shares that quality with his son?).
@ 25 dianne
Perhaps just in looking for reasons why these men do it? No doubt what you’re saying is factual. No doubt access to weaponry no individual civilian should have access to contributes very significantly and is something that should be addressed and fixed. The fact does remain that religion is one very significant driver behind these actions. Not the only one, clearly, but it can’t be ignored. However it does remain that addressing religious tendencies won’t actually do anything to fix the issue. Fully and semi-automatic assault weapons should not be available for anyone to get their hands on. It’s insane that we let things get this far.
“If such whingers would apply even a little reflection of how they opposed the ERA”
You can be opposed to the ERA without being a sexist. You can even be a feminist. I oppose it because it is wholly redundant on, conceptual identical to the 14th amendment and thus making it completely unnecessary at best, given into stupid conservative judicial slight of hand at worse.
PZ, I was simply clarifying information which was misleading in the original post. You said the Bible condoned beating one’s wife, but only some factions of Islam do, implying that the Qur’an does not condone spousal abuse. That’s obviously incorrect.
Oh man, the islamiphobe and the anti-anti-discrimination law activist in one thread? It’s like the douchebag Avengers in here. Throw in MME and Penny and we’d have the full team.
On a lighter yet related note: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ama-decides-gun-violence-is-a-public-health-issue/
“On June 14th the American Medical Association’s (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago, IL voted almost unanimously to adopt a resolution supporting the idea that gun violence is a public health issue. The resolution also called for lobbying Congress to eliminate the ban on research into the causes of gun violence. The AMA reports:”
“With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, movie theaters, workplaces, houses of worship and on live television, the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence,” said AMA President Steven J. Stack, M.D. “Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries. An epidemiological analysis of gun violence is vital so physicians and other health providers, law enforcement, and society at large may be able to prevent injury, death and other harms to society resulting from firearms.”
There is actually currently a ban on research into the causes of gun violence if any government money is involved. Think about that.
Blockquote fail. Apologies.
@#24 Dunc
Okay, now there are TWO types of guns I want.
@Saganite #33
What about t-shirt guns?
(But holy shit, those are expensive, though the “Gatling Gun 2.0” at least shows a woman operator, so it’s probably safer.)
It’s weird how this idea of “We don’t kneed the ERA because it would just be pointless legislation” caught on. If that’s the case, and you find it pointless legislation, then it would be law. Republicans would have traded it for some kind of bill that they wanted. But Republicans campaigned hard against it.
You know, when Georgia banned mandatory microchip implants, most liberals thought it was pointless (and hilarious). But nobody opposed it. So what if laws on the books already covered this one? People shouldn’t be microchipped against their will, so screw it, let them have their redundant law if they really think that the Mark of the Beast is something to worry about (it isn’t). But if it’s a law that has to do with women, somehow “strict scrutiny” is equal to “intermediate scrutiny” so we don’t need to pass pesky ERA and I’m going to prove how pointless it is by opposing it every chance I get.
@ slithytove #8
As someone who actually kind of likes guns (different conversation entirely) I’d prefer an outright ban. If you grant any credence at all to the concept of “guns for defense” limiting their ownership to the absurdly wealthy creeps me out. That, and the community I live in is big into hunting as a way for lower incomes to augment their diet, which again makes limiting it to the wealthy a waste of time.
that’s before getting into the angle of “freely allow but make expensive” is outright dangerous, since you know who has a lot of money and/or credit to burn on tons of guns and ammo? those guys who have decided they’re going to kill their family and/or place of work, and then commit suicide by cop. Maxing out their card really wouldn’t have a negative consequence to them.
The biggest problem I have with the Miami Pulse case is the shooter actually had a license as a private security guard, not simply a purchase as a private citizen. We won’t be safe from this sort of thing as long as cops can be armed. If we want to disarm everyone, including cops, I’m onboard, but so many of the “common sense solutions” this would still slip through, and that really scares me. Is that how far we have to go? No one, not citizens, not cops, nobody, can be armed? With so many guns already in circulation, would that even be enough?
Maybe I’m just an ignorant canadian but wasn’t the second amendment written in an eighteenth century context? Repeating rifles weren’t even a thing yet to the best of my knowledge and the law refers to a well regulated militia, not a personal armoury.
WRT the 2nd amendment: Americans have been quite comfortable watching the constitution get shredded by presidents putting the country into wars without congressional approval, illegal searches and asset siezures by police, surviellance, the right to vote being manipulated by gerrymandering and other tricks. The constitution isn’t worth the paper it was written on – stop venerating the 2nd amendment.
pipefighter:
It was the eighteenth century, but yes, the standard firearms at the time were single-shot smooth-bore muzzle-loaders. Rifled muzzle-loaders were also available. Some breach-loading and multi-shot weapons existed, but they were rare and expensive. The law in question (a single sentence) is strangely worded and refers to both “a well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; the prevalent legal opinions are that either the first part has no bearing on the second or that under the eighteenth-century definition, every adult citizen is part of the militia.
The problem is the law itself. To a lot of people, the US constitution is Holy Writ, on the same level (or higher) than the Bible that many of these people care so much about. They view its authors as infallible and any attempt to modify it as blasphemous. This has resulted in the constitution, which should be a living document that is adapted and modified to fit changing circumstances, being in effect a dead document. Other symptoms of this include the increasingly tortured re-interpretations of the inter-state commerce clause used to justify absolutely everything and the continued existence of the electoral college.
One thought:
A lot of this I agree with, but I do think there is another element.
Tribalism: our tribe is in danger of losing its status, its capital, its influence within the larger world AND our tribe’s children are in danger of being co-opted by the enemy/agents of evil. OR – we never had status and are leveraging our downtroddenness to inspire our community to take up arms to gain it.
The reason I add this is that there are women who would egg their men on in gun violence (and take up arms themselves) for this reason. Tribe = community/nation/religious faith/ethnicity
So-called Toxic Masculinity could be viewed as taking Tribalism to an n of one. And we’re back to Toxic Masculinity as the problem.
Chicken or egg?
I agree with mmark. To be fair “The Bible and the Quran condone wife beating” or “Some fundamentalist christian and muslim factions condone wife beating”, no?
One thing that always leaps to my mind when this comes up: weapons, today, are regulated more or less the same as they were when the constitution was framed — if you’re talking about weapons of the type that existed when the constitution was framed.* I can buy a rapier** and hang it up with my 18th century frock coat, just like a gentleman could in 1776. And, if I wandered around with it, people would probably look at me a bit funny just as they would in 1776. I can buy a pair of flintlock duelling pistols*** just like in 1776. I can buy a flintlock hunting rifle and hunt with it****. I can buy a bow that would make anyone from 1776 shake their head in amazement. They’re all regulated pretty much not at all.
Why not regulate the new stuff? Just ban everything more sophisticated than a flintlock. You don’t do mass shootings with a flintlock unless you’re a line of people with flintlocks. If people start going amok with swords then we can look at that issue but the nice thing about swords is you can outrun a guy with a sword.
That way we claim we are honoring the constitution in its original form. You can’t argue with that!
(* with the weird exception of some swords, certain types of knives, nunchuks, and a few other outliers)
(** In fact, I have!)
(*** In fact, etc.)
(**** Nope. I despise hunting and hunters)
Oh, and PS to my #42: I want to see cops carrying swords and flintlocks, too.
We must not forget that cops are one of the sources of lots of shootings involving military-style weaponry. They spray bullets all over the place and have an unsettling tendency to spray them at the backs of black people. I’d feel safer if they were disarmed. Swords and flintlocks require skill that most cops don’t appear to have with modern weapons.
Except that when a Christian group declares that Bible is literally true atheists don’t call them “moderate Christians”. So, please welcome CAIR: http://www.cair.com/publications/about-islam.html
@antigone
“It’s weird how this idea of “We don’t kneed the ERA because it would just be pointless legislation” caught on. If that’s the case, and you find it pointless legislation, then it would be law.”
ERA was opposed by Republicans because it was thought to raise due process and equal protections claims based on gender to the same level as race because Republicans and conservatives misread the 14th amendment. The ERA, if you read the 14th amendment correctly and realize it says person, would conceptually have done nothing to change the underlying due process and equal protections claims. This is what I mean by giving into wrong conservative readings at worst. The ERA is unneeded because the correct jurisprudence of the 14th would already treat claims based on gender under strict scrutiny (or do away with the classification schema as it is BS).
And it should be noted we are moving in that direction, ala Kennedy’s gay rights cases.
The ERA would have set a terrible benchmark by more or less granting that the 14th amendment’s text refers predominately to cases of unequal treatment on race only. It makes far more sense to insist that the 14th amendment requires what the ERA was meant to do anyway and not grant Scalia’s view.
“You know, when Georgia banned mandatory microchip implants, most liberals thought it was pointless (and hilarious). But nobody opposed it.”
I opposed it in the sense I oppose all unnecessary laws.
“But if it’s a law that has to do with women, somehow “strict scrutiny” is equal to “intermediate scrutiny” so we don’t need to pass pesky ERA and I’m going to prove how pointless it is by opposing it every chance I get.”
The text of the ERA says this, in the sections one: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
That’s the language. The language actually fucking matters and this language is wholly contained in the 14th amendment that says this “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If your concern is to ensure that issues of equal protection/due process are adjudicated with the correct level of scrutiny you would do better to pass an amendment (and I would support this) that said: the 14th amendment’s equal protections and due process clause must be tested under strict scrutiny in any and all cases.
Pass the ERA and you are admitting that the 14th is mostly about race as conservatives want to do( Scalia said this a few times), and you throw all other minorities under the bus.
But sure assume I’m a reactionary…
One thing that has to change is the language surrounding those murders. Because when a white guy brutally murders the women and children in his life it is usually called “a family tragedy” with the second step being asking how that evil woman made him kill her and asking the neighbours what a nice guy he was.
Given that the problem behind these mass shootings is toxic masculinity, I don’t really see how reinforcing gender essentialism helps matters.
Men and women can both be pieces of shit, the only difference is the power, socially and physically, they have access to. That’s why men murder their wives and women are significantly more likely to murder their children. Women can also be homophobic shitheads even if they’re not the ones bringing assault rifles to the gay bar. The Pulse shooter’s wife knew about his plan well in advance and did nothing.
I just think maybe the issue here should be the supremacist ideologies and the Othering of vulnerable groups that leads people to feel a right to murder social “inferiors” like the gays at Pulse or the blacks at the Charleston church, and it feels a little gross to distract from that with a jokey jab at anyone with a penis (which I suspect might describe some portion of the people murdered last weekend).
I don’t think any of these articles are reinforcing gender essentialism. They examine the known facts: murders are committed overwhelmingly by men, and mass shootings even more so. The authors do not claim that this is caused by some inherent male defect. In fact, they almost always caution the reader that the explanation is as likely to be cultural as biological.
This is a claim that requires support.
Except you don’t have any evidence that this is the real reason that people commit mass shootings. The factors influencing mass shootings are myriad and complex: it doesn’t bring us closer to the truth to simply discard all the possibilities that you, personally, find uncomfortable.
Talk about gender essentialism…
@Mike Smith,
I shall assume you are a reactionary, actually. Thank you for your permission. Or at the very least, someone who values judicial minutia and interpretation over actual gender equality. You know, the kind people have to live with.
Your first statement was “You can be opposed to the ERA without being a sexist. You can even be a feminist. I oppose it because it is wholly redundant on, conceptual identical to the 14th amendment and thus making it completely unnecessary at best, given into stupid conservative judicial slight of hand at worse.” Not a thing about a better Amendment would be to reinforce that the 14th Amendment applied to women.
Or, the ERA was opposed by Republicans because they don’t want gender protected. And that’s already how the 14th Amendment is interpreted.
If you read the 2nd Amendment correctly, “A well-regulated militia” wouldn’t be ignored. If you read the 1st Amendment correctly, money wouldn’t equal speech, but wearing a t-shirt in an airport would. We can argue about the “correct” reading until the cows come home, but in the world where I live in, the Supreme Court decides what the “correct” reading of the Constitution, and in that universe, what we can do as non-members of the Supreme Court is amend the Constitution to correct and clarify what it says.
The ERA is needed because the 14th is interpreted gender at an intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny (And the classification schema is useful. I thought about defending that statement, but you didn’t so fuck it).
The ERA would clarify that gender is a protected status, since it clearly hasn’t been up this point. It would not, in fact, say that 14th is only about race (it has already interpreted it for religion for instance). And how, precisely, would you insist that they 14th Amendment requires the ERA?
Which, in the real world, was manifested as sweet fuck and all.
The Supreme Court has already interpreted the 14th Amendment as applying primarily to race, national origin, religion, and poverty. Nothing it has interpreted blocks other groups from being added EXCEPT gender, which has the precedent for intermediate scrutiny. You can say it’s wrong, but that’s the situation that IS and you can’t work in this more ideal universe that we don’t live in.
Okay, so your representatives and senators have that letter, right? When you say “I oppose the ERA because it would be better to saying that the 14th Amendment’s equal protections are test under strict scrutiny in any and all cases including gender” right? Oh wait, no you didn’t.
Except for all those other people, right?
Again, I will. Or rather, I will assume that you either feel like some sort of immoral judicial purity is more important than how these laws have and are being applied to women.
If we had the ERA, one more group (a fairly large one at that) would be protected by law in a way that is not currently protected. There is nothing in the language of the ERA that implies that they are the only protected group, any more than the 1st Amendment prohibits voting rights . It is addressing an inequality that exists as law and a matter of judicial interpretation. Opposing it on the basis that it would “At best, be meaningless” ignores that no, at best, would change a current unjust interpretation. Dismissing it as “meaningless” is a straight-up falsehood.
But so you know, I feel like I’m getting far a field of this conversation. I shall neglect to respond to you in this thread because I don’t want to pull this thread away further. Perhaps in one of the unmoderated threads instead.
@48 iggles
“Some women are assholes” is a claim that requires support? Really?
Since the first line of my post mentioned toxic masculinity, I’m not sure what possibilities you think those are. Societal gender norms are something I explicitly acknowledged, I just object to this usually well-meaning tendency to go down the 90’s pseudo-feminist “all men are jerks” road, because it isn’t productive and it’s entirely dismissive of the men trying to do the right thing, some of whom just got shot to death this weekend.
Boy do I love when try-hards try to lecture me about LGBT issues.
I genuinely had a wonder before I posted last if anyone would take the acknowledgment that we’re clearly talking about cismen and not transmen as an opportunity for a cheap transphobia accusation, but then I thought, “that’s ridiculous”.
@ Marcus Ranum
I feel as if that statement SHOULD be “can buy a rapier… And, if I wandered around with it, people would probably look at me a bit funny….” If I wandered around with it, people would probably just look at me a bit funny, unless I was black, because then cops would shoot me: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/us/utah-samurai-sword-police-shooting/
re #28:
disagree
yeah, some feminists opposed the technicality of mandatory draft for everyone regardless of sex. yet, I seem to remember accepting that technicality to ensure equal opportunity in everything else.
yeah, that point was made but apparently there was enough wiggle room to deny equal rights to anyone female. Better to have it written out explicitly to eliminate the wiggle words.
re my proposed taxation of guns:
to the rebuttals, I agree. The proposal was not meant to eliminate guns entirely but reduce their number drastically.
And it is my blinders for thinking that the rich are so greedy that they studiously avoid buying anything taxed heavily. Thinking that taxes are just money that gets incinerated to solely remove it from the economy.
Even so. I still think it would be better than the current stuation to reduce the gun owner population to The~One~Percenters.
and sorry, I admit it was mostly a facetious proposal. ;-( [still looking for a ‘tongue-in-cheek emoji]
The comment system ate my previous comment, so I’ll see if I can re-post.
@ zibble
The part of this sentence that requires support is thus:
Not even veteran gender sociologists would make a claim this bold, especially without proof.
Nobody said that all men are jerks. And nobody particularly cares about men who are ‘trying to do the right thing’ one way or another – hardly a great injustice. We care about the victims, obviously, but that’s pretty much the extent of it. I don’t include ‘affronted men on the internet’ in the final body count.
Then why even say it? ‘People with penises’ is a pretty stilted choice of words when your message would be much clearer and better expressed with the simple word ‘men.’ I hardly think you’re a raging transphobe, but you have to admit you left yourself wide open for that one. If you’re going to accuse people of being gender essentialists, don’t be surprised if they point out the essentialist statements in your own argument.
antigone10@#51:
Well, sword-wearing has pretty much always been the prerogative of oligarchs, thugs who work for oligarchs, aristocrats, and so forth. Through history, the monopoly of violence and a display of willingness to do violence, has been a prerogrative of the ruling classes.
When I was a kid and first got interested in these matters, it was with horror that I read about the samurai. There is no more literal example of how sword-carrying enforced and demarcated class lines. But it was the same in Europe from the dark ages till the enlightenment, and even past it.
Your comment does remind me that I failed my privilege check when I wrote mine. Thank you for that, and I apologize for not being thoughtful. Again, through history, seeing swords in the hands of the poor (or slaves!) has always been what brings out the absolutely most vicious crushing response from the ruling class. Ask Spartacus. When the 2nd amendment was written, it was written by oligarchs trying to preserve their privilege. Oligarchs who murderously put down tax rebellions with their new army – because the tax rebels had made the unwise decision to take up arms. The 2nd amendment is something we should be spitting toward, because it’s just another ratification of the social class divide and slavery that was baked into the founding of the US. Remember whenever someone talks about the 2nd amendment, you should probably add ” …. slaves, of course, had damn well better not keep or bear arms or even think about it.”
About domestic abuse, it always baffles me how some people think that marital rape is an oxymoron. It’s entirely possible that a woman could not want to have set with her husband at some point, and it would still be forcing her to have sex against her will if her husband used violence, restraints, or drugs to force himself on her. The traumatic, humiliating part of rape is about losing agency over one’s own body, so rape doesn’t suddenly stop being rape just because someone signed a contract. It’s about whether or not a person wants to have sex in a particular instance, not whether the rapist is somehow entitled to sex. This attitude is probably rooted in the idea that a husband somehow owns his wife and gets to dictate what is done to her body. Domestic rape, domestic violence, and even these mass shootings probably all have at least some link to the idea that men are supposed to dominate and control people.
@Marcus
It seems like as soon as we develop some sort of tool, we try to figure out a way to make sure that only “we” (for whatever definition of “we”) can have it. Doubly so when it’s a weapon.
To be clear, I’m not saying that I think you’re necessarily wrong about being able to carry around swords. That case in Utah stuck with me because a) I can’t remember the number of times I, my spouse, and my friends have carried around rapiers, broad swords, and fake weapons for cosplay, SCA, cons, and class and never had anyone say anything besides “NERD!”. But there’s a black guy, and suddenly, he’s enough of a threat that multiple people call it in, and two fully trained cops had no response when but fire multiple times at someone who was “slashing” with a display-quality sword. When he was cosplaying as Mugen. http://gawker.com/autopsy-cops-shot-black-anime-cosplayer-four-times-in-1652268367
And I think of last March, when my hubby was cosplaying as the Dred Pirate Robert, at Con. Or at our wedding when the entire groom’s side wore swords. And I feel like finding every person of color who I know and love and hugging them and telling them I’m sorry (even though I wouldn’t and they wouldn’t appreciate it and it isn’t really about me).
But god forbid if someone says that white guys shouldn’t be able to bring their AR-15s to Chipotle.
“It makes me wonder how much courage it takes…”
Probably not a lot at all since most people (including most men) in the United States aren’t abusers, murderers and rapists. Maybe you should ask your wife how courageous she felt when she started dating you. Probably not at all, she was probably just interested in dating you instead of fretting about the possibility of you raping and murdering her. Because you know, that’s how most people think. Only someone as obsessed with “social issues” as you are, or an actual rapist or murderer would think about that kind of garbage every single time they interact with a human being.
Did we get linked by MRAs?
Not as far as I know. Does the fact that I think most men aren’t violent criminals make me an MRA?
Considering that no one things most men are violent criminals, no?
No one said “most men are violent criminals”. They said “Most of this kind of violent criminal are men”.
If you don’t understand how that is different, then you won’t have a good time here.
The quote I quoted from Myers seems to imply that most men are violent criminals because it claims that a woman would have to be courageous to enter any sort of relationship with any man. It didn’t specify that a woman would have to be courageous to date a violent criminal, just that she would have to be courageous to date a man.
The point isn’t “ALL MEN ARE EVIL”, it’s “you can never tell who is a violent asshole until it is too late”
Given my usual dealings with men in day to day life, I’m glad I stopped dating them.
Diane@10 guns haven’t been banned in Canada. Estimates vary, but there are as many as 10 million privately owned firearms in Canada.
@npb7,
Considering that outside of random accidents, I am most in danger from men, and that I’m not psychic, and that I’ve been stalked twice… by men…. and narrowly escaped being raped twice… by men….
Tell me why I shouldn’t be wary of men? I’m not psychic. I don’t know which “nice guy” is going to hurt me. Why are we more tolerant of people who are afraid of dogs than we are people who are afraid of men? Dogs are MUCH more likely to give you warnings that they are dangerous than a man ever would.
npb7:
That’s true. It’s also true that a hell of a lot of men in the U.S. are abusers of some sort. Domestic violence is a huge problem, a whole troop of gorillas sitting in the middle of the room. Domestic violence often includes rape, because yes, rape is still rape even if it takes place within a relationship, and often concludes in murder.
I’ve been raped. A whole lot of people have been raped. A whole lot. Way too many. It’s not the simplest thing to just ‘go back to your life’, because you can’t. Everything changes from that moment. That includes ability to trust. Me, I have PTSD and hypervigilance. It doesn’t take all that much to set either off, especially the hypervigilance. It’s not fun to live with. I live with a man, one I love and trust, but he can set those off, unintentionally, and has had to learn how to cope, and what to do. He’s had to learn about trust issues.
A lot of people have lived with domestic violence, many for years on end. Trust issues would be something of an understatement when someone manages to get out. There’s a good reason for that, too. A lot of abusers can be very charming, and put on their best behaviour until their position is secured. Then the abuse starts.
Toxic masculinity has a lot of blame here, and yes, boys are raised in that toxicity, are oftentimes abuse victims themselves, or see such abuse their whole childhood. That does not excuse abusing anyone, ever. It does, however, point to a very deep rooted problem, and it does help to ignore it, or to castigate women who have been abused and are rightfully wary. Even women who have not been abused know women who have, we have all heard the stories, listened while friends broke down. Wariness is natural.
Oy. It does not help to ignore it.
I’m not much of a debater, but I thought I might help the discussion along by adding a source if anyone is interested in using it.
http://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page
@Rowan
It’s unfortunate that you’ve been stalked and nearly raped but two men is a small portion of the total amount of men on earth. I would bet there are at least two woman on the planet who have stalked and raped men but it would be irrational of me to fear any interaction with women based on two people (I’m a man in case that isn’t clear). The fact that you had personal experience with these two men rather than just knowing they exist doesn’t make your fear more rational, just more emotional. There’s another response like yours (as in relating a personal anecdote about rape) so I think I should point out that relating anecdotes isn’t a form of logical argument. It’s interesting to me that I have to point this out here because this exact same point was made by J.T. Eberhard in a Skepticon (atheist event that PZ has regularly spoken at) video I watched recently when he was “debating” a young earth creationist.
@69
You’re fucking disgusting. Can you maybe not pull the “anecdotes aren’t a rational argument” when referring to people’s experiences with rape and harassment?
Well I’ll acknowledge that I’m being callous and I’m genuinely sorry I can’t empathize with those kinds of experiences, but again, that isn’t actually a coherent point (nor is calling someone “fucking disgusting”) and I figured that a “free thought blog” run by a science professor would be a safe haven for rational discussion.
It’s not a safe haven for assholes being callous to survivors of rape and sexual harassment, so why don’t you fuck off and find somewhere a little more ~rational~
No I won’t “fuck off.” You’re repeatedly cussing at me for simply making a point and I’m the one whose supposed to leave? Get over yourself and re-evaluate your life.
No, I’m cussing at you for being an asshole to people that have survived sexual violence and harassment, and are just a little fucking uncomfortable around people in that same demographic. We don’t give people shit for avoiding dogs over something as trivial as being bitten – how is this somehow more unreasonable?
You are not simply making a point you vile shitstain. You’re dismissing the lived experiences of people who have been harmed, and you’re willing to knowingly cause distress in aid of your fucking point, Fuck you. It’s none of your business what strategies the victims of sexual assault use to ease the distress of their experiences.
And don’t you wonder why, as you try to make sense of this
Why is it always men who resort to the gun, the sword and the fist
Why does gunman sound so familiar while gunwoman doesn’t quite ring true
What is it about men that makes them do the things they do
And I know there are men of conscience who aren’t like that at all
Who would never raise a hand in anger and who reject the macho role
And if you were to ask them about the violence that men do
I know they’d say they hate male violence too
And so we wonder why, as we try to make sense of this
Why is it always men who resort to the gun, the sword and the fist
Why does gunman sound so familiar while gunwoman doesn’t quite ring true
What is it about men that makes them do the things they do
– Judy Small
npb7
You made your point. Nobody here has to accept it, and it is being pretty firmly rejected by several people. You can leave now.
As Vivec put it so kindly,
We’re a morass of emotional arguments here, so not the place for rational you.
Paraphrasing Alison Bechdel: Why is it that women are considered “emotional” when it’s men that shoot a dozen people because they’re upset at a rejection?
Paulino (#41)
Mmm, yeah… That isn’t what that putrefying, broken-stringed tampon is saying at all. They think that Muslims are never selective in their approach to their holy texts, at least where horrible teachings are concerned. But then they turn around and indulge in special pleading where Christians and the Bible are concerned.
To the contrary – Paulino is exactly correct.
You, A.Noyd, have my entire argument wrong – 180 degrees wrong as a matter of fact. But given the level of discourse here I’m not surprised.
Oh npb7, how delightfully ignorant you are of the sorts of experiences most women face.
Let’s take that 3 men who were explicitly awful (in a 2 year span) and add to it the 3 or 4 unknown-to-me men a year who would pet me when I had long hair (we’ll call this 21 for a low-end estimate), my Jr. High metalshop teacher who would look down my shirt, the men who crowded me at conventions when I was cosplaying (nothing sexy), the client who kissed me while i was at work and attempting to weigh their dog, and let’s factor in that I am a bit of a homebody and so don’t go out all that often to areas that have a lot of people in them, so I don’t get to include any club or bar incidences which many women would get to include.
So I’m around at least 50 men who’ve been outright, explicit assholes… from age 11 to 28. That I can remember. There’s likely more. And this doesn’t include comments men make. Or the ones who insist on conversing with me when I’m reading in public.
So yeah, culturally people are MUCH more tolerant of someone with a fear of dogs after a single bite than a fear of men after a lifetime of dangerous or unsettling experiences.
@81:
Perhaps because there is no baseline for any other experience? The number of women I know with no history of unsettling experiences with men is…zero. In fact, I’m not sure I know any women with no history of actual sexual assault, though it is often “only” groping. We simply don’t have any baseline for what it is like for men to not do creepy things. Not all men, sure, but quite enough to make it impossible to ignore.
npb7 #71
You appear to be confused about what “freethought” means.
Perhaps you should try looking it up.
Nope, this is a safe place for the victims. Too many folks who come here for Vulcan discussion are told to go elsewhere, as they trigger people. If you won’t handle the emotion, you can’t discuss the problem. And you can’t handle the emotion.
Testimony of the victims is EVIDENCE. You lie if you claim merely anecdotes.
@Vivec
I don’t understand why this “we don’t give people shit for fearing dogs” thing is being brought up so much. It doesn’t matter what a generalized “we” do. You’re asking me why I think it’s more reasonable to fear dogs and I have never made that point. I used to fear dogs as a kid but I’ve gotten over it because I’ve realized it’s irrational to fear something based on a few experiences.
@FossilFishy
I don’t care how rape victims cope with their distress, I was originally just trying to make a point about generalizing to all men. If a female rape victim chooses to not interact with a single man after her experience that’s perfectly fine. Her actions are none of my business. I’m just saying it’s not “courageous” for a woman to interact with a man, which is the point that OP made.
@rq
Well at least you admit this place is full of people just being emotional. Maybe I should stick around and help you all out, regardless of how much you don’t want me here.
@Rowan
Again, 50 is a small portion of men and anecdotes aren’t arguments and I’m sure you don’t even care about this point since I’ve already said it. So, let me indulge your anecdote. If you’re factoring in men who’ve touched you (petting hair) and crowding around you as harassment or rape or whatever claim you’re making, then I can honestly say I empathize. When I was in middle school I was short so other boys would rest their arms on my shoulders as a way to mock me (physical touching). When I entered a new high school after being homeschooled for 3 years, lots of people, especially girls, would crowd around the new kid, something I, being very shy and introverted, thought was pretty intimidating. Some of these girls would even hug me without my permission. I’ve had many other experiences of people talking to me or touching me when I didn’t want them to but that is just life in a society with arbitrary social norms. Despite these experiences, I have never once felt “courageous” for talking to either a man or woman. Now I’ve told my own little anecdote, is that how I’m supposed to make my point around here?
@Chigau
I did look it up and I think I was using it correctly. So maybe you should tell me the definition and explain why I wasn’t instead of basically saying “google it.”
@Nerd of Redhead
If you genuinely think arguments should involve emotion rather than logic I honestly don’t know how to help you. How about this, it would make me very happy to be right on the point I’m making in this thread. Ok then, I guess my point is correct. Also, if testimony is evidence than specifically what is it evidence of? I honestly don’t even know the point that the supposed rape victims are making. I just know they’re pissed at me. Lastly, claiming anything online isn’t evidence of anything, you should know that if you’ve been on the internet for a while. It’s possible for people to lie. I’m a rape victim. Oh look, I said it online, I guess it must be true and now you must agree with me or be a disturbed asshole.
npb7
Bless your heart.
@ npb7
Let’s just address the part of PZ’s article you originally objected to:
(I’m going to use a heterosexual, female-victim / male-abuser narrative, because that was the language of the initial post. Even though this is the most common manifestation of DV, it is by no means the only one.)
I don’t see this excerpt as particularly controversial, because it doesn’t imply that the majority of men are shits who will ruin a woman’s life. The ‘courage’ part comes in because even abusive men can be difficult to spot until the woman has already invested a lot of time and trust in the relationship. Often, there’s no way to tell if a man will be abusive, until it happens. And it happens a lot. Moreover, our society makes it very difficult for women when they are abused: people dismiss victims, blame them, bungle arrests and prosecutions (my family experienced this first-hand), and do everything they can to side with the abuser when the abuse becomes too dramatic to ignore. The victim finds herself fighting a war on two fronts: the abuser on one side, and (in the moment, what seems to be) the rest of the world on the other. Almost inevitably, she will lose; and she will be blamed for that, too, even though the standards of perfect victimhood are an impossibly narrow and moving target. The whole experience is exhausting, and it completely derails the direction of a victim’s life.
This potential hell-hole situation is the backdrop of every new heterosexual encounter. Even if the majority of male-female relationships never deteriorate into abuse, the possibility that any encounter could, and the difficulty of screening the bad from the good, makes the designation of ‘courage’ rather reasonable. In fact I find your petulant opposition to it rather inappropriate, and unseemly. Disagree, maybe, but why so vehemently? What greater sentiment is lurking there?
npb7 @ 61;
Tashiliciously Shriked addressed your argument well @ 62;
It functions like the notion of Schrodinger’s rapist, except this is more Schrodinger’s violent and potentially murderous man. Men given to violence if they feel their masculinity is impugned share a factor in common with rapists (indeed, they are often also rapists, but put that to one side for the moment) – they have no outward tells or physical attributes that betray their dangerous mindset toward women. Human evil doesn’t come with convenient horns, a trident, or an ultra ruddy skin tone to neatly identify it. A woman has no way of knowing if the man walking down the street toward her is just a harmless bloke going about his business or a rapist or violent misogynist, and so she is forced to make a judgement call, and reasonably enough a lot of women err on the side of caution.
I am a feminist, and like to think of myself as at least a reasonably decent human being, However, nothing about me conveys that to a woman who doesn’t already know me well. From my outward appearance, I could just as easily be a total monster, and so I don’t begrudge women choosing to be cautious.
I know how you feel about anecdotes (though at Nerd of Redhead observes, it is pretty poor behaviour to assume a hyper skeptical stance about the lived experiences of rape victims – assuming that the word of women cannot be trusted is not a neutral or inherently rational position to adopt, but rather a personal value judgement that reveals problematic attitudes toward women in its own right), but allow me to share one more with you. I was walking down a street at night a couple of years ago. There was a woman walking ahead of me. She turned down the alley I planned to head along on my route to my destination. I didn’t think anything of it, and continued on my way. After I took the same alley, I noticed that she kept glancing back at me with a nervous expression. She started varying her pace, and seemed to be looking for something in her handbag at the same time (which in hindsight was probably a personal alarm or pepper spray or some such, not that this occurred to me at the time).
With my mind on other matters, I was bemused by her behaviour, and glanced back down the alley myself, assuming that she must have spotted some shifty looking type behind me, and that was the cause of her discomfiture, but there was no one there. A little further on, she ducked into a bar in what was clearly an evasive maneuver. I continued on my way, only at that point realizing that I was the cause of her concern.
Whose fault do you think this situation was? Do you honestly think that she was being unreasonably paranoid, and I should be offended to be treated as a figure of suspicion just for being out at night while male? That isn’t how I view that event. Through my inattention, ignorance of the situation, and failure of empathy, I behaved like a crass, insensitive idiot. I followed a lone woman down a darkened and deserted alley at night without even once thinking about how that action might appear to her. That I know I am no threat whatsoever to her is meaningless, she had no way of knowing that. From her perspective, a fairly large and powerfully built man, far stronger than she is, has turned from the street to follow her into a darkened area with no witnesses and scant possibility of aid, his motives and character totally unknown. Her concern was wholly justified, and if I had been more on the ball that night I would have had the sense to use a different route to get where I was going or waited for her to traverse the alley before entering. The fault was mine, and mine alone.
The same can apply to relationships. When a relationship first begins, neither party will have a truly intimate understanding of the character of the other in most circumstances. Given the existing power dynamics and patterns of domestic violence in our society, caution or even fear on the part of the woman would be an entirely prudent response, and I would accept such a response form my partner and (I hope) would have the sense to recognize it for what it is and do all in my power to put her at her ease and remain sensitive to her concerns.
Most men are not a threat to women, but there is no easy way to tell those who are dangerous apart from those who aren’t ahead of time, and getting that call wrong can have dire, even fatal consequences, and so PZ is right – it does take no small measure of courage for a woman to risk a relationship with any man, given the stakes involved and the society we live in. That isn’t unreasonable misandry or the demonization of all men; it is simply a recognition of the reality on the ground.
Congrats, you’re a vile motherfucker.
Never go full MRA.
npb7, #85
What Vivec said.
npb7 @ 85;
Annnnnd bang goes any possible benefit of the doubt I might have been inclined to extend to you. I would like to second Vivec and Saad – vile indeed.
@npb7
Just as long as you keep in mind that emotions do not imply irrationality and do your work. All thought involves emotion, even when one is being rational and logical. An emotion is a program that the brain runs and the experiences, memories and communication associated with the statements of feeling are too often confused with the feelings of emotion only. One can be emotional and reasonable and logical and it will be your job to show that the former is a problem with the latter.
npb7:
Heh. Well, this “supposed” rape victim wasn’t pissed at you when I commented @ 66, but you chose to ignore me completely. I might get the idea we’ve interacted in the past, with using a different nym. Shades of jacksul’s “if”.
Again. Oy.
with you [npb7] using a different nym.
@npb7
In fact here is an example of how it works with your first statement in this thread because I tend to be disgusted* with people that look at the presence of emotion in argument negatively. Claims that people are simply being too emotional are very commonly directed at those who experience sexual assault, bigotry and hate crimes and work to improve things. So far you are included.
Feelings of emotion are the body sensations that go along with the rest of the program as it runs. We perceive something and what we perceive recalls from memory the details of our past experiences with what is in perception. That recall comes along with emotional signatures that indicate what the thing in perception means to us based on our past experiences and those signatures are simulations of body states.
For negative emotions (or negative-ish in the case of anger) communications that act to leave the thing destroyed or otherwise rendered no longer an obstacle by force suggests anger, communications that act to leave the thing rejected or ejected from society suggests disgust, communications that act to express loss suggest sadness, communications that do no work beyond expressing an intense direction of attention suggest surprise, and communications that act to indicate harm and damage suggest fear.
Basically emotion is the targeting system that reason and logic use, and how our experience and memory derived motivations are translated to actions of thought and communication in text and speech. It’s interesting because more than one emotion is usually present in a single sentence.
First of all the way that you missed that PZ’s statement indicated that women often can’t tell who will be some sort of abuser or harasser suggests that your emotional reactions led you to interpreting his words poorly. That you leaped to the proportion of abusers, murderers and rapists among men and ignored the fear of if a particular man might be a problem is, interesting.
Assertion of factual wrongness is a negation of the asserted facts of another and the removal of an obstacle (an incorrect fact) suggests anger. The assertion that it does not require a lot of courage from women works the same functionally.
This is anticipation (suggested via an imminent event) and anger related since it has to do with negating the same fact PZ presented through a future interaction between PZ and his wife.
Also anger related since this is meant to negate the way of thinking that PZ presented, through mere assertion.
This is disgust related as it paints someone who is concerned about social issues the way that PZ is as equivalent to rapists and murderers who are people whose behavior society rejects and tries to eject from society.
Watching you “help” people with their emotionality should also be, interesting. I wish I had more time to comment during this week’s arguments.
*With reason because disgust computationally involves the rejection of something, the way that many people look at emotion in communication is wrong and basically rhetorical. The implication of social disgust suggesting the ejection of something from society is simply information.
@Gregory
I understand the point about “schrodingers rapist” but it’s still a flawed point. I’m sorry I didn’t acknowledge it at first though as I had a lot of people to respond to.
The basic flaw with “schrodingers rapist” logic is that it can apply to virtually anything. Yes, there is always a chance that a woman meeting a new man will result in her being raped or violated in some other way. There’s also always a chance that a woman will rape a man. There’s also always a chance that a dog will be feral and kill you. There’s also always a chance that the vending machine you’re using will fall on you. There’s also always a chance that someone will crash into your car while you’re driving. There’s always a chance that a meteorite will hit me right now. People don’t generally worry about these things because the chance is slim. The important factor in this discussion isn’t that there is a chance of rape, but how large the chance is and I have been given no reason in his thread to think the chance of rape is unusually high compared to these other incidents. Frankly, I don’t care if a woman chooses to be wary when dating men, it’s her choice, not mine, obviously. I’m just saying it doesn’t make that woman courageous and implying that it does shows a low standard of what qualifies as courage.
Also, I’m not skeptical of the possible rape victims in this thread because they’re women and I think it’s interesting you assume that. I’m “hyper-skeptical” of them because 1) they are people (so sex and gender are irrelevant to me) and 2) they are on the internet, where it’s generally easier to lie about your life.
That is not a flaw, but a feature.
And it is easier for YOU to lie about your intentions. Which is obvious to anybody here since Elevatorgate. You have the stench and script of MRA about you…
Double posting because of post length, sorry if that’s looked down on here.
@Brony
I realize it’s impossible to be a completely rational computer and we are all guided by our emotions. It’s not inherently rational for me to sit here and respond to everyone here but I am motivated by my emotions. Regardless, I think there’s degrees of rationality/emotionality that should be expected in an argument and I think it’s plainly obvious that the people telling me anecdotes about their harassment are leaning too much on the emotion side. There’s a difference between being motivated by your emotions to make a point and emotionally relating an anecdote and acting like it actually is a point.
Also, I wasn’t trying to compare Myers to a rapist or murderer, I was trying to point out that people who fret about the possibility of being raped or murdered are a small minority and I was trying to be comprehensive in describing what kinds of people would fret about those things. The only categories that came to my mind were rapists, murderers and, for lack of a better term, “SJW’s”, which I classified Myers as.
npb7
Would you care to explain what you mean by ?
Evidently you don’t consider the female half of the species, who are just as human as you are….
As I said, your script is showing.
I’m fascinated that you think a 1 in 6 lifetime chance of being raped if you are a woman is at all equivalent to having a vending machine kill you.
@npb7
You really think domestic violence (which was the context of the OP, not just rape) is only as prevalent as death by meteor, vending machine, or feral dog?
@Nerd
I seriously doubt most women constantly fret about being raped and murdered any time they engage with another person. I admit I can’t prove that point because I can’t read minds but I think people would socialize a lot less often than they currently do if half of the entire species was scared of the other half. Are you implying that all women worry about being raped and murdered on a regular basis? You didn’t bother to specify “most” or “some” like I have this entire time so I assume you are, in which case you should worry about your own blatant sexism since generalizing about an entire sex is the literal definition of sexism. I’m not 100% sure what you mean by MRA and I’ve never heard of Elevatorgate but if you’re implying I frequent theredpill or /pol/ then I honestly don’t know what to say to convince to otherwise. I guess I would just encourage you to realize not everyone is an extreme on a spectrum.
npb7
What do you mean by ?
Never mind.
I’m joining the “npb7 is a vile motherfucker” club.
Thank You, your MRA fuckwittery is confirmed with your own words. Way to show your hand….
Time to go away and bother other sane folks.
Too many men just do not understand how fear of not correctly identifying the man who could harm us affects how we women move through life. I’m a fairly ordinary woman as are the women I’ve known in my several decades of life, and the majority of us live this way, always cautious and constricted in ways that our male friends and acquaintances are not. This article is an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/what-women-have-to-do-to-be-careful_n_7072080.html. Of course we know that MOST men won’t harm us. The issue is that we have to screen most of them to know when we’re safe. Not only are we aware of what happens to women who aren’t “careful”, most of us have experienced ugly, unwanted attention or abuse from strangers or those we thought we could trust. I have hated living this way, and hold contempt for those who refuse to acknowledge that it is real or minimize our experiences.
Huh, still no response from my posts by npb7. So, what nym did you go by before, you cowardly asshat? Never heard of E-gate, never heard of this, never heard of that.
Why yes, people do lie on the internet. I’m reading a big, puffed up asshole of a liar right now, npb7. Gather up your courage, cupcake, and come clean.
No blockquote because phone.
@npb7
You are not getting it, and you own emotions are attached to responses that are unreasoning.
>”I realize it’s impossible to be a completely rational computer and we are all guided by our emotions. It’s not inherently rational for me to sit here and respond to everyone here but I am motivated by my emotions.”
It is rational because while your responses are not rational or logical in content, the fact that you do not like what PZ or the rest of us are saying is the reason for your response.
>”Regardless, I think there’s degrees of rationality/emotionality that should be expected in an argument and I think it’s plainly obvious that the people telling me anecdotes about their harassment are leaning too much on the emotion side.”
1) Each degree of rationality will have it’s own emotional content. Emotion is never the issue, it’s always the reason or logic bringing me to…
2) “Plainly obvious” is a cheap and unimpressive attempt to avoid giving your reason for why you think people here are not being reasonable. “The emotion side” is simply gibberish given the reality of what emotion is and how it works.
>”There’s a difference between being motivated by your emotions to make a point and emotionally relating an anecdote and acting like it actually is a point.”
No one is “motivated by their emotions”, instead emotions include motivating memories of experiences. Experiences you seem to be motivated to avoid, I sense fear.
>”Also, I wasn’t trying to compare Myers to a rapist or murderer, I was trying to point out that people who fret about the possibility of being raped or murdered are a small minority and I was trying to be comprehensive in describing what kinds of people would fret about those things. The only categories that came to my mind were rapists, murderers and, for lack of a better term, “SJW’s”, which I classified Myers as.”
You directly compared PZ to rapists and murderers on the dimension of obsessional quality of thought without giving reason for why his manner of thought should be considered obsessional as a rapist or murderer’s would be. It’s my understanding that “SJW” has a definition and the last time I read it it said nothing about rapists or murderers and obsession. Since I don’t want to attempt to work through two metaphorical layers I’ll just recommend that your lazy ass finally does their job with respect to properly outlining the logic and reason of their opinions.
Brony
The problem with npb7 is not that npb7 doesn’t get it.
The problem is that npb7 is a fucking asshole.
There are various things going around social media where women (or more recently QUILTBAG) people are asked if they have ever experienced sexual harassment because of their gender, or in the more recent ones, orientation. I have yet to see anyone respond to that to indicate they have never encountered such a thing, so #yesallwomen.
It sucks that I can’t trust new people I meet. It sucks that I do have to consider whether being alone with someone might be dangerous for me. And it really sucks that if something did happen to me then unless I had followed all the ‘do not do this’ rules and been the perfect victim then chances are I’d be the one blamed by society for it happening to me.
It’s true that people are very bad at judging risk, but npb7 is so out of the ballpark bad at this, mostly because those risks don’t apply to him, and he doesn’t want to have to consider or change his behaviour to put others at ease. So yes, npb7 is a vile fucking asshole who is also probably an MRA who wonders why none of the hot chicks will date him, and chances are that’s because his personality sucks and 5 minutes exposure will make it clear to any woman thinking clearly that they don’t want to touch him with a ten foot pole.
5% of men admit to having raped a woman. 5%. That’s one in 20. That’s 5 men in the house I currently live in, 5 men with whom I share an elevator late at night. 5% of about 3.5 billion men on earth…
We’ve noted. For all you care rape victims can apparently fuck off and die before the horrible crime is committed where one man might not be believed to be totally harmless right before the moment he brutally rapes and murders us.
Fuck you. Every. Single. Woman. (and quite a few of the men and most non-binary people here) has had multiple experiences with sexual harassment and assault, from groping our various body parts to multiple rape and attampted murder. That’s not “anecdotes”, that’s data.
Yeah, like a 20% lifetime chance of that happening. Like the chances a woman has of being raped. Domestic violence is even higher, AKAIK, like 33%. If you think that’s the same as the risk of being hit by a meteor, nobody can help you.
iggles
Quoted for motherfucking truth.
+++
@Nerd of Redhead
Do you want to explain how my MRA status is confirmed instead of just asserting it? Is it really that crazy to say that most women don’t constantly worry about being abused? Are you insinuating that my own mother, grandmothers, close female friends, coworkers and basically half the people I’ve ever interacted with are/were scared of me because I’m male but I’ve never caught on to it because I’m just too sexist and socially oblivious?
@Caine
Here’s your response. This thread is the only time I’ve ever posted on this site and I don’t generally go around forums arguing about rape.
@Brony
Fine, I did compare Myers to murderers and rapists because I did say that they all three have an obsession with murder and rape, which is technically a comparison. When I said “I wasn’t comparing Myers…” I should have said I wasnt comparing him to those two groups for a negative purpose. I was not trying to say “Myers is as bad as murderers and rapists because he has this one thing in common with them'” that would be silly. Also, the term SJW does imply an obsession. It implies an obsession with social issues such as gender and racial equality amongst other things. I think it’s safe to say Myers does have this obsession because he frequently posts about these kinds of issues. I think it’s also safe to say that murderers and rapists are obsessed with these issues because they engage with abuse more often than the average person. Is that sufficient explanation for the comparison?
I admit I think I’m not getting what your saying about emotions and rationality. For example, you said my decision to argue with people here was rational because the reason for it is that I don’t like what the commenters are saying. I don’t see how that’s rational. It does have a reason but it isn’t a logical reason it is an emotional reason, it has to do with what I like and don’t like, or what makes me happy versus what makes me sad or angry. You also claim that no one is motivated by their emotions, which I completely don’t get. If I eat something and it makes me happy, wouldn’t my happiness motivate me to eat the same thing again?
@Ariaflame
Explain to me specifically what I said that justifies your whole caricature of me in your last paragraph. I have never claimed that women should not worry about being abused. I have no problem with a woman being wary of anything. This is what I meant when I said “I don’t care how rape victims cope with their distress” which Gilliell someone misinterpreted as “I don’t care about rape victims”. Everyone is an autonomous being and is free to choose who they are wary of. The main points I’ve tried to stress are that not all men are abusive, which everyone in this thread seems to have agreed to but I pointed it out in response to Myers’ original quote, which implied that this is false (along with other posts he’s made in the past), and that it’s not necessarily courageous to be wary of people. So again, if a woman chooses to be wary of every man she crosses she is free to do that, I just think it’s insulting to use such a strong word as “courage” for what is essentially just being prudent. Lastly, if you’re gonna throw personal insults I’ll point out where you’re wrong even though I obviously can’t prove anything about my life to you. I have rarely felt that a woman was intimidated by me (I’m shy and physically unimpressive) but when I have felt that a woman was intimidated by me I try my best to put them at ease instead of acting like some bullshit “MRA” caricature you made up on the spot. Also, being shy and physically unattractive I have not once in my entire life complained that a “hot girl” wasn’t interested in me or even seriously pursued a woman at all for that matter.
@Gileil
I’m thankful you’ve given me an actual number unlike nearly every other poster here. Now would you mind linking me to the source of the statistic that 5% of men have admitted to raping a woman? For your second quote you got from me, read my response to Ariaflame.
@Rowan
As I said to Galeil, thank you for giving me a number. Now can you please cite the source of that number? However, I’m insulted by your presumption that I already knew that statistic.
@iggles
No I don’t think domestic violence is as frequent as death by meteor and vending machine. My point was just that I think domestic violence is infrequent. If I’m wrong, please tell me the exact frequency.
@chigau
By “fret” I essentially meant “worry”.
I hope I responded to everyone I needed to.
@ npb7
Happy hunting.
You’re insulted that I presumed you knew something that I was taught in my sex-ed class as a pre-teen? Something that the boys learned in that class as well? Something that is a widely used statistic? You’re insulted that I presumed that before you spouted out shit about rape and the prevalence thereof that you might *know* something about it?
So you’ve admitted that you know SHIT ALL about rape, but say that my fear of it is totally over the top?
You’ve just admitted that you’re ignorant as fuck? You *admit* this! Holy crap.
Here. I’ll be nice, even though I’m pretty damned sure you’re being disingenuous.
https://www.nsopw.gov/en-us/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
How about YOU doing the research and reporting to us, and in doing so, explain why any abuse is considered anything other than unacceptable.
You don’t have an argument, except “I don’t like it”, same as everybody else, usually misogynists, who made the same vapid argument here over the years. Whoopie shit.
You might not like reality, but believing in falsehoods doesn’t make it go away.
@Rowan
I’ve commonly heard the statistic that 1 out of 5 women have experienced rape, not 1 out of 6. I also have never been given an actual source on that statistic. I also have never taken a sex-Ed class, though I was told the statistic in an intro level sociology course, amongst other places. Being mad at people for not knowing all the same facts as you do seems pretty pointless to me. Regardless, thanks for linking me to something.
@Nerd of Redhead
I have tried to do as much research on as I can in my spare time and I still have never been convinced. I didn’t realize it was such a great sin to ask for information. A point that I’ve made in this thread that you call my “argument” is essentially that I have no reason to think abuse, rape, and murder are frequent enough to believe that all or most women do or should worry about them every single time they interact with a man. That is a null statement. The responsibility is then on other people to prove the contrary statement. What you’re doing is analogous to a religious person asking an atheist to “prove” there is no god.
@ npb7
That’s not actually true. You are the one who tried to claim that DV was infrequent. This hypothesis is easily verified or falsified by statistics (unlike the God hypothesis, which is unfalsifiable). Since you are the one who presented that claim, you are the one who must back up your argument with the corresponding statistics – not us.
Maybe you should do a little research on the statistics, rather than assuming your lack of imagination is a substitute for factual information? I assure you that possible abuse, rape, and murder via men are the constant companion of every woman. We are taught to be alert for it from birth, because it is so common as to be ubiquitous. It must be nice to just mansplain away toxic masculinity, and then declare that it’s silly for women to fear violence from men.
Typical misogynist pleading of ignorance, and that we have to educate them. You are scripting them. Stop that if you want to be heard.
Try another tact. Accept the fact the you are a Schrodinger rapist/abuser, and live with the results. I figured that out years ago….
So you heard a *higher* incidence rate (it varries, between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6 just as statistics say 18% to 20%) and STILL compared it to DEATH BY VENDING MACHINE????? Which, by the way, is 1 in 112 MILLION. Death by shark is 1 in 250 million. In my state, the odds of me dying in a car accident are 1 in 12,500. And in the united states, death by pregnancy is around 1 in 4,000.
For every 1 person who dies via vending machine 24 million women are raped.
Please tell me, again, why having a 1 in 5 chance of being raped, where the most likely perpetrator is a man, is not a good reason to be wary of men?
Wrong. When they do that, they are told the null hypothesis is that their imaginary deity doesn’t exist base on physical evidence to date, and that they must supply positive evidence for their claims of their imaginary deity. You make a claim. You back it up.
You claim abuse doesn’t happen. We know better. Show us your definition of permissible level of abuse/rape. Or shut up. Any is too much.
@Rowan
Did you just completely ignore where I said I had never been given a proper source on that statistic? Just hearing a statistic isn’t a reason to believe it.
@Nerd of Redhead
I claimed abuse doesn’t happen at all? Where did I say that? I can take the insults but blatantly lying about what I said, unbelievable.
@Tethys
I’m not claiming it’s silly for women to fear violence from men, I don’t know for sure if it is or not. I am claiming that the specific reasons (and by reasons I mean insults and anecdotes) most of the people in this thread have given me for why women should or do fear violence from men are silly.
And you were unable to spend 30 seconds to google “incidence rate of rape” or “rape statistics” but had so much time to compare my fear of rape as being as unreasonable as being afraid of death by vending machine?
And you still harp on about anecdotes, when you’re faced with the fact that 1 in 5 (or 6) women will be raped in her lifetime. And if that’s for rape, imagine how many more have close calls? How many more are harassed? How many more are threatened?
But yeah, sure, it’s totally silly for me to fear violence from men when I have a 1 in 5 (or 6) chance of being raped, most likely by a man, and have personally had 2 close calls with nearly being raped, and have been stalked by 2 guys (the overlap there is not 1 to 1), and have had many men be perfectly willing to pet me.
You are simply a disingenuous fucknugget.
What I see as unbelievable, as you trying to change our minds without presenting any third party evidence. Which shows me, like all the misogynists, we have to take your word for it without you showing evidence. And I’m not buying that concept.
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/PredatoryNature.pdf
I neither nor about being raped or assaulted.
But I’m always prepared.
@Rowan
I didn’t say it was “silly” for you to fear violence from men. You only described your personal experiences and I just said that wasn’t really a logical argument. And that’s still correct, just describing your experiences was not an argument for anything really, maybe you should have made the “1-in-6” point earlier. I also said its not courageous of you to fear violence from men. That isn’t the same thing as saying its silly. I actually think it’s not a bad idea to be skeptical of everyone you meet but that isn’t being courageous, just prudent, and I see no reason to restrict that to a particularly sex, gender, sexuality, or race. Lastly, I want to point out that the source you linked me to gave the “1-in-6” statistic but didn’t explain the methodology behind it. It also linked to the study for that statistic but that just lead to an error message
@chigau
Well I’m glad you’re always prepared but I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything I’ve said.
I’m not even a little bit surprised.
Misogynist fuckwit, that is EVIDENCE. Which you don’t supply. Your opinion of the evidence isn’t important unless you acknowledge it for what it is. And your dismissal shows your misogyny.
Time to go away. You are exposed for what you are, by your own words.
One of the things about Schrodinger’s Rapist is that it’s not just about uncertainty. It’s about how women know plenty of warning signs, but many, many men—not just rapists—violate boundaries, ignore women’s communication, and get up to all the other inappropriate shit that women have to look out for. And they don’t generally do it out of malice, but because society has told them they’re allowed to and even required to in order to be men.
To think about it as women “fretting” about rapists is naive. We’re never not dealing with a whole continuum of consent-ignoring behaviors from men, of which rape is just one of the worst. It’s not like we think a rapist is just as bad as a man pestering a woman on the train to take out her headphones and humor him with a conversation, but the latter man is exhibiting the same entitled mindset as a rapist, where the wishes of the woman are less important than him getting what he wants.
So every woman is vigilant as a matter of course because we never get away from the reminders that our boundaries or wishes don’t matter up to or beyond a certain point. Where the uncertainty comes in is that we can’t know ahead of time what that exact point is for any given man.
A. Noyd #132
Well said.
I have one quibble.
I don’t think the use of the word was naive.
I think it was deliberately condescending and demeaning.
Ahem.
You implied, heavily, that the reason for my fear is silly, as I provided lived experiences, oh wait, I’m sorry, “anecdotes”, and you find these reasons/lived experiences/”anecdotes” to be of no import. You knew of the 1 in 5 statistic, but decided without ANY attempt at verification, that it was false, or exaggerated. Verifying it is super easy, and I even provided a government source. You said that I might as well be afraid of being killed by a vending machine.
Also, the link totally works. Now I know you’re a liar.
@Nerd
I already pointed out that claims on the Internet are not evidence and I even proved this point by making a false claim about my life, which is that I was raped. Scroll up on the thread will you?
@chigau
How is the word “fret” either naive or condescending?
@Rowan
My point is that it was silly of you to bring up your story when it wasn’t relevant to what I said and that it did not qualify as a argument, which I thought you and others were trying to pass it off as. And to be clear about the link, I’m not claiming the link you gave didn’t work, I am saying that the link you gave had a link in it that didn’t work (it would be the link for endnote 12). I’ll check it again and try to report back to you.
The link does in fact work, I’m honestly not sure what happened the first time around.
I gave you MY reasons for being wary of men. MINE. Which are EMINENTLY valid because I have been in direct danger and been harassed by a sufficient quantity of men to warrant wariness. And assholes like you pooh-pooh a valid wariness when no such disdain is exhibited towards people who fear dogs after being bit once. There is NOTHING silly about bringing up lived experiences when discussing why a woman might be wary or afraid of men.
Bringing up the ease of false claims merely works to show that you believe women are liars. Because of course women totes lie about being raped ALL THE TIME because they’re always believed and there’s never any social repercussions and they get soooo much sympathy and no one ever tries to blame it on them or harass them or tell them that they deserved it, or that they hope they get raped again, or that they should go kill themselves. Nope. Everything is sugar and sympathy for a woman who says she was raped, and the cops always believe her and some poor sod always goes to jail.
The previous paragraph was sarcasm, by the way. Fucknugget.
npb7
Quoting myself:
“I don’t think the use of the word was naive.
I think it was deliberately condescending and demeaning.”
.
Quoting you:
.
There is a difference.
Do you perceive it?
@npb7
First of all, are you going to say anything about “plainly obvious” or not? Don’t chicken out now. You had the courage to tell a bunch of women here that they are being irrational, that what they experience is not worth getting upset about and that they are wrong about things they pay attention to and that you do not. Surely you have to courage to explain how it’s “…plainly obvious that the people telling me anecdotes about their harassment are leaning too much on the emotion side.” It’s certainly not obvious to me.
>”Fine, I did compare Myers to murderers and rapists because I did say that they all three have an obsession with murder and rape, which is technically a comparison. When I said “I wasn’t comparing Myers…” I should have said I wasnt comparing him to those two groups for a negative purpose.”
That makes no sense. A comparison of PZ’s interest in the experiences of women with respect to harassment and rape with the way that rapists and murderers show interest is clearly and obviously negative. You said that PZ’s interest is like that of a rapist or a murderer with respect to “that garbage”. You know what “negative” means right?
>”I was not trying to say “Myers is as bad as murderers and rapists because he has this one thing in common with them’” that would be silly.”
Yes you did. You said,
“Also, the term SJW does imply an obsession. It implies an obsession with social issues such as gender and racial equality amongst other things.”
Have you even looked up the definition of “SJW”? Despite the fact that I have never seen anyone use the term and actually match the characteristics to a person successfully I know that it has to do with how a person advocates and not their interest in what they advocate. Apparently I know your pejoratives better than you do.
>”I think it’s safe to say Myers does have this obsession because he frequently posts about these kinds of issues.”
And you have yet to offer your reason or logic for how PZ’s interest constitutes an obsession. Mere frequency is only a measure of a person’s intensity or skill of interest in something and the use of obsession indicates some problem beyond that because of the negative connotations. You really suck at this whole reason thing.
>” I think it’s also safe to say that murderers and rapists are obsessed with these issues because they engage with abuse more often than the average person. Is that sufficient explanation for the comparison?”
Not really. There is nothing unusual in caring about women who are abused and preventing such abuse. That you find caring about women who are abused to be an obsession is very interesting. Especially since you seem unable to describe why PZ’s interest is a bad thing outside of how often he posts about it.
It makes one go over your words for clues for why you would want someone to care about women who are abused less. If a person were to suggest such an awful thing ans they were still a good person they would offer a really specific and good reason. I don’t think you are a good person.
>”I admit I think I’m not getting what your saying about emotions and rationality. For example, you said my decision to argue with people here was rational because the reason for it is that I don’t like what the commenters are saying. I don’t see how that’s rational.”
It’s rational to actively oppose things you don’t like. I made a motivation and content distinction. The content of the reason can still be crap and yours smells pretty bad. The experiences of women are actually reasonable places to get information on what it’s like for women with respect to abuse, harassment and rape of women.
>”It does have a reason but it isn’t a logical reason it is an emotional reason, it has to do with what I like and don’t like, or what makes me happy versus what makes me sad or angry.”
Did you even see what I posted about emotions? Logic and reason are emotion driven processes because all thought is emotion driven. It’s the happiness and anger that lets us choose to apply reason or logic.
>”You also claim that no one is motivated by their emotions, which I completely don’t get. If I eat something and it makes me happy, wouldn’t my happiness motivate me to eat the same thing again?”
I said no such thing. I said that motivations were memory and experience driven, and both of those are part of emotion. Emotion targets reason and logic and it does so based on memory and experience driven motivation. All of which are packaged into emotional reactions.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/18/emotion-is-not-the-enemy-of-reason/
@Rowan
“…you believe women are liars”
Why are people here making this claim about me? I mean, it’s not strictly false. I do believe women are liars. I also believe men are liars. I believe everyone has the ability to lie and I believe nearly everyone, if not everyone, has used this ability at some point in their lives. Several people in this thread have accused me of being a liar and their skepticism is warranted. But why is it that me saying “people lie on the Internet” is being interpreted as “women and only women lie on the Internet”? Inventing this image of me isn’t going to help anyone out.
@chigau
Maybe I’m not perceiving it. Let me rephrase my question and see if this addresses the point more directly. How could my usage of “fret” have been naive, and why do you think I was actually being condescending instead?
npb7:
I suspect they *should* be afraid of you.
By the way, the methodology you claim isn’t mentioned starts on page 10 of this document that I found via Rowan’s link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf
Also it looks like nbp7’s reasons for thinking that PZ is showing interest like rapists and murderers has changed. In the comment I just responded to they mentioned how often PZ posts about this subject as indicating obsession. But in their first post it was the fact that PZ was wondering about how much courage it takes women to enter into a relationships with men, which given the experiences of women and the data collected about those experiences is not a thing that is obsessive.
npb7 #140
From my ExtensiveResearch® on the word “fret”, I have found that it is NEVER used to refer to a legitimate concern.
Your decision to use a word that is usually used in reference to babies says stuff about you.
….
® google translate
….
“use” is better.
Yep, you lie when you dismiss women’s EVIDENCE. You haven’t proven your arguments with EVIDENCE, so you lie there.
Ah, you admit you LIED. Nothing you say or argue can be trusted. Thank you for making yourself irrelevant.
This isn’t a philosophical site, but a scientific site. Unevidenced arguments are so much bullshit. Which you are good at, along with lies.
Well, if they saw your posts here, they’d have good reason to be scared of you.
People who stick around in safe spaces for survivors to be an asshole to them and deny their experiences are not the sort of people I’d feel safe around.
npb7, is there a particular reason that you’ve decided this is the hill you’re going to die on? What is so terrible about calling someone ‘courageous’ for risking herself for the sake of trust? If you disagree, then fine, whatever, that’s just your opinion, and there’s no good trying to talk you out of it. But why the vitriol? Let’s look at your opening salvo, all the way back at comment #57, before anyone had a chance to insult you or inflame your temper:
What could possibly have provoked such anger? Right in the second sentence, you make a sneering little jab at PZ’s wife (!). You continue with the rather belittling use of the word ‘fretting’ (which is its own digression at the moment) to make women appear ridiculous for taking some care about their safety and wellbeing. Then a sarcastic follow-up to emphasize the point (‘Because you know, that’s how most people think.’). You then accuse PZ of being ‘obsessed with “social issues”‘ for pondering, for the length of a single sentence, the courage it might take to trust the kind of person who is most likely to hurt you or even kill you. And you conclude by insinuating that he has some commonality with rapists and murders, and rejecting his words as ‘garbage.’
Do you see why people might wonder about your motivations when they encounter this exceptional level of hostility? To my eye, your comments seem like the work of someone who protests too much. I see excessive defensiveness toward any possible slight against men or masculinity (‘most men aren’t abusers, murderers, and rapists’), coupled with suspicion and deep resentment toward women (e.g. your subsequent comments wherein you try to insist that the rape victims in this thread are as likely to be lying as telling the truth, and your oddball denialism about the prevalence of DV). One can only infer so much from online comments, of course. But you seem suspiciously similar to the kind of aggrieved male described in Soraya Chemali’s article. If so, it would explain a lot. Perhaps you ought to take a closer look at yourself, and see if you can find the qualities that the people in this thread might be reacting to.
npb7 also said this at #118
How anyone could do even one hour of research into the statistics on domestic violence and sexual assault and fail to be convinced that they occur with alarming frequency?
Nobody accused you of sinning you twit. If you have truly done your research (which I doubt) you wouldn’t ask anyone here to prove that the easily available statistics are in error because you personally aren’t convinced. This behavior indicates that you are at the very least,an ignorant, arrogant, asshole.
Asserting your opinion that you pulled out of your ass is a null statement is rather the opposite. It’s also a strawman, because nobody but np made the ridiculous claim that all or most women fear rape and murder ‘every single time’ they interact with a man. I count multiple distortions and outright lies in this one snippet, so stop pretending that you have no idea why people here aren’t being very nice to your sorry entitled lying ass.
@Brony
“A comparison of PZ’s interest… rapists and murderers sow interest is obviously negative”
You’re imposing a connotation on what I said that I didn’t intend, as I already said. Comparing something to a bad thing does not automatically imply a negative reason for making the comparison. I’ll make another comparison to make this more obvious. I am a person. Rapists and murderers are also people. I am comparable in this way to murderers and rapists. Do you think I’m trying to insult myself? I already explained why I made this comparison but I’ll do it again. The point was that Myers was claiming that a large group of people (all women) are courageous for interacting with men, which implies that all women worry about being abused in some way, otherwise they couldn’t be courageous because courage would require acting despite their fears. I then said that only SJW’s (though I didn’t use the term originally), rapists and murderers actually worry about abuse all the time. These groups all constitute a small amount of people compared to the total world population, whereas all women constitute a large portion of the world’s population. My implication was that Myers was imposing a niche worldview onto all women and that this was wrong of him. If I just said “only SJW’s worry about abuse all the time” then I would be implying that the amount of people who “worry about abuse all the time” is smaller than I really think it is, which I saw as dishonest, so I included other categories of people who would “worry about abuse all the time,” the only two coming to mind were rapists and murderers, for reasons also explained earlier. I suppose it was stupid of me to use those particular examples, but can we get over it now so you can address the actual logic and point of my post instead of psychoanalyzing my motivations?
“I was not trying to say “Myers is as bad as murderers and rapists because he has this one thing in common with them’” that would be silly.”
Yes you did. You said,
“Also, the term SJW does imply an obsession. It implies an obsession with social issues such as gender and racial equality amongst other things.””
How does the second quote of mine imply that I think Myers is “as bad” as murderers and rapists?
“Have you even looked up the definition of “SJW”? Despite the fact that I have never seen anyone use the term and actually match the characteristics to a person successfully I know that it has to do with how a person advocates and not their interest in what they advocate. Apparently I know your pejoratives better than you do.”
Where exactly would I look it up? It’s a slang term, I doubt any serious dictionary has it. I used it as I’ve commonly seen it used. SInce you brought up looking up the definition I did look the term up on urbandictionary because that’s the only place I imagine would have it and I don’t see how I used it incorrectly. I think the confusion here is not over my definition of SJW but over my definition of obsession.
“Mere frequency is only a measure of a person’s intensity or skill of interest in something and the use of obsession indicates some problem beyond that because of the negative connotations.”
I’m pretty sure I know the definition of the terms obsession and interest but just to be sure, I also looked them up on dictionary.com.
Obsession: “the domination of one’s thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.”
Interest: “the feeling of a person whose attention, concern, or curiosity is particularly engaged by something”
If you’re strongly “particularly engaged by something” wouldn’t it “dominate your thoughts and feelings”? I see no significant difference between an “obsession” and an “interest”, just a difference in the degree of interest each term implies maybe. Regardless, you’re crying “connotation” again and I have to tell you again that you are imposing your own connotation on what I’m saying. You say that Myers isn’t “obsessed” with social issues but you do admit that he frequently writes about them, which was my point. So what exactly have you accomplished by nitpicking my word choice? And back to “SJW”, would you admit that an “SJW” as it’s commonly used implies an interest in social issues, if not an “obsession.”
“There is nothing unusual in caring about women who are abused and preventing such abuse. That you find caring about women who are abused to be an obsession is very interesting.”
You’re right that there isn’t anything unusual about caring about women who are abused. There is something unusual about posting about it constantly on a blog and using it as an excuse to demonize white males. And yes, this time I am intentionally using strong language when I say “demonize.” I will say upfront that I already expect you to ask me to support the statement that Myers does this and I won’t bother supporting it because you can easily read the posts on this blog on your own. Now you can respond and say “haha he admits he won’t support his assertions.” Good for you, I’m starting to get tired of this.
“It’s rational to actively oppose things you don’t like.”
This definitely needs some support. I see nothing inherently rational about opposing things you don’t like.
“”You also claim that no one is motivated by their emotions, which I completely don’t get. If I eat something and it makes me happy, wouldn’t my happiness motivate me to eat the same thing again?”
I said no such thing.”
Yes you did. You said, and i’m copying and pasting this from post 110, “No one is “motivated by their emotions””
@chigau
I guess I really am naive because I have never seen “fret” as a patronizing term, only as being synonymous with “worry”.
@Nerd of Redhead
“Ah, you admit you LIED. Nothing you say or argue can be trusted.”
Yes, I admit I lied about the one obvious thing that I already said I lied about immediately before saying it, and which I only lied about to make a point about how easy it is to lie on the internet. That doesn’t prove that nothing I say can be trusted. Everyone lies, I guess nothing anyone says can ever be trusted.
@iggles
“Right in the second sentence, you make a sneering little jab at PZ’s wife”
I was intending that as a jab at Myers himself, not his wife.
“You continue with the rather belittling use of the word ‘fretting’ ”
As I said to chigau, I really don’t see that as a belittling term.
“Then a sarcastic follow-up to emphasize the point”
I’ll just give you this one.
“You then accuse PZ of being ‘obsessed with “social issues”‘ for pondering, for the length of a single sentence,”
As I explained earlier, I don’t see obsession as being an inherently bad thing. I was using the term to mean a strong interest with no negative connotation. This is not to say that I wasn’t being negative at all in my post, I obviously was, just that my use of “obsession” was not supposed to be negative. Also, Myers has written a great deal about these issues besides that single sentence, so I wasn’t just blowing one sentence out of proportion, I was keeping in mind every single sneering comment Myers has ever made about men. You may notice that this is the first and only thread I’ve posted in.
“And you conclude by insinuating that he has some commonality with rapists and murders”
Again, see my response to Brony above.
I will admit I am being hostile. I genuinely apologize for that and I hope I will be calmer in the future, not just here but in life in general. As for my motivation, at this point I think I’m mainly just trying to be clear on what I was claiming earlier rather than make new or even argue in favor of my old claims. I just want to finish up responding to the latest responders to me.
@Tethys
“How anyone could do even one hour of research into the statistics on domestic violence and sexual assault and fail to be convinced that they occur with alarming frequency?”
Well I’ve certainly done more than one hour of research so I guess you’ll just have to keep asking yourself that. I’ll make this point if you’re actually curious about my opinion instead of wanting to call me ignorant. Virtually all abuse/rape statistics I’ve encountered (and most psychological studies in general I’ve encountered) involve questionnaires and interviews. I do not consider this a fool-proof because as I said earlier, people can and do lie for a variety of reasons. Being skeptical doesn’t make me an uncaring asshole.
“It’s also a strawman, because nobody but np made the ridiculous claim that all or most women fear rape and murder ‘every single time’ they interact with a man.”
Nobody except possibly Myers himself. I’ve already explained why I think he was making this claim.
chigau (#133)
Wasn’t talking about the word use, but the whole framing of the situation as if our concerns boil down to “completely harmless men” vs “rapists.” And I definitely don’t mean naive in the sense of “innocent” but rather “credulous and unreasoning.”
“It makes me wonder how much courage it takes for a woman to enter into any kind of relationship with a man.”
Seriously? So many of the murders/rapes/mutilations/assorted-assaults you’re referencing are about adult and legally capable female persons who _refuse_ to engage in “relationships” with men. And you’re acting like _purposely_ socializing with them is daring? What the fuck do you think the odds are for those who DON’T decide to enter into relationships with them?
If you’re female, you’re systematically hosed. Accept the hose and be a trinket of patriarchy; refuse the hose and… well things get broken, don’t they? You’re gonna be sexually assaulted (no, not genderally-assaulted) from as long as you have memories from.
(Longtime reader, firsttime subscriber here. FTR, originally drawn by the cephalopods. Reckon I should say goodby now.)
No, being so hyper skeptical about rape that you are becoming hostile to women about it DOES make you an uncaring asshole.
It also makes you unsafe to be around, in my opinion. You are exactly the kind of person I work to actively avoid in real life because your callous attitude makes you dangerous.
I said it with heavy sarcasm before, but I’ll lay it out bluntly now.
Women admitting to being raped is often social suicide. We (women) are actively blamed. People search for ANY reason why it’s not completely the rapist’s fault that a rape occurred. Questions are asked about clothing choice, inebriation status, past sexual encounters as if ANY of that has ANY bearing on culpability on the part of the woman. And if they can find something, like you were dressed “provocatively” or you were drunk, or you’ve had casual sex before… now it’s either not rape just regretted sex, or you were ‘asking for it’. Don’t walk alone at night, or you’re asking for it. Don’t go anywhere with a strange guy, or you’re asking for it. Didn’t you know better? Police don’t believe us. Friends and family often don’t believe us.
Even in clear cases of rape, like the Stanford case where he was caught in the act of sex with an unconscious woman in an alley, nearly all the focus was how he was such a good guy who never hurt anyone. How his future was damaged now. And despite being caught IN THE ACT, the judge gave him a whopping 6 months jail time, because of the letters of support for the rapist that he read. That young man will be out in 3 months… and next time he’ll be more cautious about where he rapes.
When women tell their tales of sexual assault or harrassment, people (usually men) will come crawling out the woodwork to accuse them of being liars, of doing it for attention, they’ll dox, they’ll threaten more rape, they’ll threaten murder, they’ll encourage suicide.
It also works to show the misogynistic attitude of society in general that if you think about something men are routinely believed to lie about, it’s probably fishing/hunting tales…. but for women it’s being raped or nearly raped, or harassed by men. We’re told that catcalls are ‘compliments’. So of course society would say that most women lie about rape, because to society rape only ever happens to some pure, modestly dressed virgin who was kidnapped off a street in broad daylight. If you’re drunk, it’s just regretted sex. If you dressed in a way to show cleavage or that was ‘sexy’, it’s just regretted sex. If you’ve had sex before, it’s just regretted sex.
And if you agree about ‘regret sex’, then you have bought into that society misogyny hook, line, and sinker. And that makes you dangerous for any woman to be around no matter what gender you are.
@npb7
So are you going to get to that “plainly obvious” thing?
>”You’re imposing a connotation on what I said that I didn’t intend, as I already said. Comparing something to a bad thing does not automatically imply a negative reason for making the comparison. I’ll make another comparison to make this more obvious. I am a person. Rapists and murderers are also people. I am comparable in this way to murderers and rapists. Do you think I’m trying to insult myself?”
I simply do not believe you (and your behavior is all you need when insulting yourself). You are not listing things the way that people typically do. I’ve never seen people ONLY toss in negative examples (rapist, murderer, SJW) in a set with people they are comparing them to (PZ) and just assume people will only get neutral out of it, I know how rhetoric works intimately. I think you’ve been caught and are trying to squirm. You wanted the benefit of comparing PZ’s interests with those of rapists and murderers as a way to end a paragraph that was condemning his interest in how women felt about social interaction with men, a reasonable thing to think given what is known about women with respect to abuse, harassment and rape.
>”I already explained why I made this comparison but I’ll do it again. The point was that Myers was claiming that a large group of people (all women) are courageous for interacting with men, which implies that all women worry about being abused in some way, otherwise they couldn’t be courageous because courage would require acting despite their fears.”
If the implication that all women feel that way is there, you will be able to show me in PZ’s text. Do your work lazy-ass.
>”I then said that only SJW’s (though I didn’t use the term originally), rapists and murderers actually worry about abuse all the time. These groups all constitute a small amount of people compared to the total world population, whereas all women constitute a large portion of the world’s population.”
Meaningless and irrelevant. The proportion of rapists, murderers and SJWs (which I would argue is zero given the inability of people using the term to actually apply it with any ability) was not how you used them in the comparison. You suggested that PZ’s interest was like that of rapists and murderers because they also obsess over “that garbage”.
>”My implication was that Myers was imposing a niche worldview onto all women and that this was wrong of him.”
Your implications are of poor quality in general and that specific implication was non-present.
>”If I just said “only SJW’s worry about abuse all the time” then I would be implying that the amount of people who “worry about abuse all the time” is smaller than I really think it is, which I saw as dishonest, so I included other categories of people who would “worry about abuse all the time,” the only two coming to mind were rapists and murderers, for reasons also explained earlier. I suppose it was stupid of me to use those particular examples, but can we get over it now so you can address the actual logic and point of my post instead of psychoanalyzing my motivations?”
This is relevant to what you said but I don’t believe it was stupid, I believe that it really reflected how you feel. Also I have addressed the actual logic and point of your post and you have not addressed that part of my responses to you.
>”How does the second quote of mine imply that I think Myers is “as bad” as murderers and rapists?”
I explained it above in this post.
>”Where exactly would I look it up? It’s a slang term, I doubt any serious dictionary has it. I used it as I’ve commonly seen it used. SInce you brought up looking up the definition I did look the term up on urbandictionary because that’s the only place I imagine would have it and I don’t see how I used it incorrectly. I think the confusion here is not over my definition of SJW but over my definition of obsession.”
I’m addressing both things, people can do that.
The urbandictionary definition is the commonly quoted definition and that would be doubly inept of you to toss around a pejorative that you can’t even use properly. You are using it improperly because as I said that pejorative has to do with how a person advocates for social justice. It says nothing about the intensity with which a person is interested in social justice. If a group of people want a pejorative to actually have a useful meaning it needs some consistency.
>”I’m pretty sure I know the definition of the terms obsession and interest but just to be sure, I also looked them up on dictionary.com. Obsession: “the domination of one’s thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.”
>”Interest: “the feeling of a person whose attention, concern, or curiosity is particularly engaged by something”
>”If you’re strongly “particularly engaged by something” wouldn’t it “dominate your thoughts and feelings”? I see no significant difference between an “obsession” and an “interest”, just a difference in the degree of interest each term implies maybe. Regardless, you’re crying “connotation” again and I have to tell you again that you are imposing your own connotation on what I’m saying. You say that Myers isn’t “obsessed” with social issues but you do admit that he frequently writes about them, which was my point. So what exactly have you accomplished by nitpicking my word choice? And back to “SJW”, would you admit that an “SJW” as it’s commonly used implies an interest in social issues, if not an “obsession.””
Look down the page of the definition you used. It also covers negative connotations. Given the rest of the content of your comparison an assumption of a negative connotation was a reasonable assumption. I believe that you used it negatively and that you are again trying to squirm out of what you posted because it really does look bad and I think accurately conveys your feelings.
>”You’re right that there isn’t anything unusual about caring about women who are abused. There is something unusual about posting about it constantly on a blog and using it as an excuse to demonize white males.”
And now you want to change the subject? Whatever works for you. It’s not like it’s making me look any worse.
1) You have yet to demonstrate why PZ’s rate of posting of this subject is a problem.
2) White males are rationally being pointed out as a problem in multiple areas and it’s fair to point it out when the pattern presents itself like it does in PZ’s post. Whining about a piece of reality won’t make it go away. If a white person did not share any of these problem characteristics they don’t have a reason to be upset since PZ did not say or imply that all white people had these characteristics. I’m certainly not bothered by it.
>”And yes, this time I am intentionally using strong language when I say “demonize.” I will say upfront that I already expect you to ask me to support the statement that Myers does this and I won’t bother supporting it because you can easily read the posts on this blog on your own. Now you can respond and say “haha he admits he won’t support his assertions.” Good for you, I’m starting to get tired of this.”
I don’t actually have a problem with the use of pejoratives and insulting characterizations in general. I’m more interested in seeing if a person using them can unpack them and graduate to something beyond a mere name-caller. I enjoy seeing if people can actually defend their use as it’s a perfectly appropriate way of getting at the reason and logic of a characterization.
>”This definitely needs some support. I see nothing inherently rational about opposing things you don’t like.”
If one does not like something they feel negatively about it. Each of the negative emotions is associated with a raw computational characteristic that is reasonable to act on in order to solve a problem. Removal of an obstacle in the case of anger, ejection of something toxic in the case of disgust, loss of something valuable in the case of sadness, understanding the nature of a potential problem in the case of surprise, and prevention of harm or injury in the case of fear.
Independent of the reasons for a specific feeling, acting on such feelings is reasonable in a general sense. There are good and bad reasons, but the reasonableness of the instincts remains and I would expect a person that did not realize the underlying reasons for their reactions were irrational would still act on them. Therefore your need to comment on PZ’s post was rational in a general sense and irrational in it’s specific application.
>”Yes you did. You said, and i’m copying and pasting this from post 110, “No one is “motivated by their emotions””
You really aren’t paying attention. The way that is structured given the reality of what emotion is and how it works, saying that you are “motivated by your emotions” is like saying you are going to “drive your gas tank to work”. Motivation is an internal component of emotion.
I can admit that this one is breaking down in semantic problems and I could be describing things better. Nevertheless the rhetorical damage that is done to language as a result of how people tend to look at emotions is a problem I will continue to work on. There are no “emotional arguments” as they are commonly understood. Instead a given person’s underlying reasons for reacting in a given manner are irrational (while the instinct itself is rational in a general sense with a mis-targeted specific example).
no, not genderally-assaulted
That’s an interesting aside, care to exolain it?
Also I’m ignoring the shitstain from now on, if PZ isn’t going to do anything about him. Comparing survivors to rapists, murderers, and then going on to deny our experiences makes him not worth my spoons.
@153 explain*
Ah look, the shitstain has splained his faulty thinking yet again.
Except that the studies we have linked you to do not involve multiple choice questionaires. They are taken from men who are in jail for rape, the crime statistics on rape and domestic violence, and the undetected rapists themselves who admit to rape as long as you don’t use the word rape in the question.
Being skeptical of very sound and replicated scientific statistics on the subject in favor of your personal opinion does in fact make you an uncaring asshole, and a misogynist. Bravo!
I don’t think anybody introduced Crystal Clear Consent to our asshole.
The Introduction:
No Crystal Clear Consent, it is rape.
For some reason, I don’t think consent weighs heavily upon the *snicker* thinking of the asshole.
Man, the tells are just spilling out at this point, aren’t they? The poor, maligned white males of the world, having to endure such hardship as written criticism.
It is interesting how whiteness has crept into the discussion, though. Nothing in the OP or the linked article had anything to say about white males, so it is more than a little suspicious that this came out in npb7’s defensive squirming, as automatic as a reflex. Poor npb7, betraying his insecurities with every step. It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for him.
@Tethys
I haven’t had a chance to view your link yet but he links Rowan and iggles gave me both relied off of telephone interviews. So you’re blatantly lying when you say “we” didn’t link those kinds of studies.
@iggles
I already said to you in my most recent response that my anger comes not just from this post but others that Myers has made. For a specific example, when referring to the Stanford rapist Myers said that he acted “as any white male” would when he raped a woman. That is a literal statement that literally any white male would rape a woman. That is not some ambiguous “schrodingers rapist” point, it’s a statement about an entire race and sex of people. That’s the issue I took originally with Myers in this post as well and I’ve already been told a million times that “no one” is making that point. I realize most rapists are males. I don’t know if most are white, but if most are then I wouldn’t take issue with that fact. I take issue with someone calling me a rapist because it’s clearly insulting and false. I’m sure you don’t think this is what Myers was claiming but you keep questioning my motivation so I have to keep explaining myself. I assure you, I would take the same issue with a generalization about any sex or any race, although admittedly I would take it less personally.
@Brony
I’ll try to get to your points later.
Apparently our shitstain friend sucks at reading comprehension too.
What he says PZ said:
What PZ said:
“Privileged male asshole” =/= “Any white male” and the fact that they are equivalent in your fucked up head is none of our problem.
If you scroll to PZ’s photo on the left sidebar, and click on the link immediately above his head you will find an enormous wealth of links to the latest science and statistics on all types of gendered violence. Spoiler, they all confirm that the rate of extreme sexual violence per capita is horrendous at between 25 and 30 % of the population having been raped, and nearly 100% of the non-cis-male demographic have been subject to sexual assault.
Being skeptical of the actual data/ claiming to have done extensive research/ accusing the multiple people here of lying about their personal experiences of sexual violence = being a really fucking stupid entitled white (assumed) asshole sociopath.
Too stupid to look up the data, like you are too stupid to evaluate data? By the way, 52% are white. Your anger is irrelevant to you being stupid asshole.
Show us a reason to give a shit about what you say.
Start with showing us you know how to evidence your arguments, so you don’t get shown to be too stupid to look up data, and that the data backs your claims. It took me about 10 minutes 15 years ago to figure out Google.
I detect bigotry on top of your misogyny. Not surprising, given your anger at the world, and those who describe it in terms you don’t like.
@Vivec
So you’re claiming that not all white males are privileged? Do you not understand systematic racism and sexism? Also, generally when people say “adjective assholes” they aren’t specifying that a group of “adjective” people are assholes, they are generalizing to the group. Saying “white assholes” implies all white people are assholes.
@Nerd of Redhead and Tethys
The things I have admitted ignorance on are not relevant to the points I’ve argued for here. There’s nothing stupid about me not knowing every rape statistic in existence. Specifically, how is the amount of white rapists relevant to any of my arguments? If you can’t adequately answer this question then I don’t see your point.
They are utterly and totally relevant. YOU don’t tell me what I consider relevant. I use my 65+ years and being a scientist for 40 of them to decide what I consider relevant.
The stupidity come with the inability to use Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc , to find information. Or you are just to lazy to learn.
Your whole argument is irrelevant. It is temper tantrum of somebody who fails to understand basic logic, and only knows that which offends them because they are ignorant.
Now, what the fuck is your problem, other than your ego?
Example of your stupidity asshole.
One search, first example, and I had the answer. You preferred to remain ignorant and stupid. Take causes you to lose any credibility at this site. Your ignorance is your Achilles heel. Learn before you post, and show your sources.
Maybe in the fucked up mind of a sociopathic asshole.
“Privileged male assholes” are a subgroup of “privileged males”
Also, you once again extract “white” from PZ’s statement, when he did not, in fact, say it. There are privileged males that are not white.
Alternatively, their a subgroup of “assholes”
Either way, “privileged male assholes” neither implies that all privileged males are assholes, nor that all assholes are privileged males.
That being said, you do lend a datapoint in favor of males being assholes and creepy sociopathic fucks, so perhaps there’s something to that hypothesis.
They’re*
So adjectives are things that make subgroups a whole group? Interesting. It’s amazing the sorts of category errors that that paranoia drives a mind to.
The lack of self-awareness is simply staggering. np’s latest explanation for why they keep insisting that rape victims are liars, and their continued defense of the rapists, abusers, and mass murderers.
I don’t identify with sociopaths, so I don’t take it personally when PZ accurately states that the perpetrators of all mass murders are male, and 100% of that sub-set have abused their wives and children before committing mass murder.
But sure, go on defending toxic masculinity and white men in particular in a post about domestic violence. Speak out in support of the guy with the big gun and bruised knuckles, not the woman and children in the hospital, or the LGBT people in the ground.
I like the little slimy anti-sj “Don’t you get how systemic racism works” thing. Anti-SJ advocates, MRAs and Drumpf worshippers all love to do that little “you’re the real bigot see I learned your code words aren’t I smart and funny” smug bullshit.
Vivec
Well, that’s apparently what our resident reverse racism MRA seems to believe. But somehow we’re the ones who hate white men…
+++
Saying “black cats” implies that all black animals are cats.
Saying “strawberry ice cream” implies all strawberries are frozen.
Saying “well behaved children” implies all children are well behaved.
Language, how does it work?
@Tethys
I have not said all rape victims are liars and I am not defending murderers and rapists. I said it’s possible for people to lie, therefore it’s possible for a person to lie about being raped. I can’t imagine what I said that implied I am defending murderers and realists.
As to this adjective business. I’m saying an adjective before a pejorative usually implies a generalization to people that fit that adjective. Not that any adjective before any noun implies a generalization. I agree that Gileil’s examples do not imply generalizations about cats, strawberries, and children. Let me provide a counter example for my point.
“He stole my bike, like any black asshole would.”
Few people would read that and think “he’s not a racist who’s saying all black people are assholes who steal bikes, he’s just specifying that this particular black person was an asshole who stole bikes”.
Systematic oppression, how does it work?
Also, skin colour, when did it come into this?
npb7, #162
Uh, no. It quite clearly doesn’t. Observe:
npb7, #172
Saying that would be racist. And saying “privileged white dude” isn’t racist. Deal with it.
That’s just one of the horrible burdens white people have to put up with for centuries of dehumanization and brutality against darker skinned people.
Just like it is possible for you to be a evidenceless liar and bullshitter. Somebody lying about rape, less that 10%. You on the other hand, we are 100% certain of you are lying and bullshitting.
I’m a white male, meaning very privileged. I don’t get excited about some white males being told what they do is bad, as it is bad. That’s because I learned how to “check my privilege”, unlike you.
This must be one of those fact resistant humans I’ve been hearing about on facebook. He can’t imagine how saying rape victims lie, even though the statistics prove exactly the opposite, is defending rapists and murderers.
The rate of false reports is low. Between 98 and 95% of reports are true, so it’s pretty much a sure bet that any given report is true.
The most likely reason those like nbp7 personalize such accusations is that the accusations are personal, that they do apply to them. The more someone spews the “not all _____” line, the more likely they are one.
Does hearing “White people _____” make me cringe? Yes, but only because it’s so often true and from being or becoming aware of my own privilege. Being silent except to be supportive says more positive things about oneself than becoming defensive about it.
npb7 never did seem to notice that the OP is about aggrieved men and the toxic masculinity that leads to aggrieved violent abusers and mass murderers.
He was far to busy insisting rape victims lie and he knows this due to his skepticism, What about the menz!?, and then making sure to speak up in defense of white men in particular. He has almost achieved bingo in misogyny, rape apologia, and clueless entitled racist git between constantly moving goalposts and lying about public health and crime statistics.