Taramere Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Offcourse the reasons are often different when a women gets killed compared to when a man gets killed. But does it really matter? Both are still equally dead. The motives really doesn't matter, that more women get killed in intimate relationships doesn't make it "worse" than if a man got killed in a fight or a gang shooting. It's not "worse". One life is not worth more than another. I think the issue is one that gets discussed in terms of loss of life in war. Greater outrage generally arises from events where there is loss of civilian life...and it's not because a soldier's life is worth less. It's because civilians are regarded as being innocent victims. They don't get killed in the process of trying to kill. They get caught in the crossfire. You got the facts. Now it would be cool if women stopped acting like they are the biggest victims, since statistically you're not. mens violence against women ... Mens violence against other men is a FAR bigger problem. I covered this in another thread fairly recently, and I did state that men are more at risk from violence when they go out. http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3713790&postcount=46 What you're saying is that the biggest problem is male v male violence...and I agree. It points to men being significantly more aggressive. More likely to get involved in physical altercations. The lowest murder rate relates to women v women. The highest - men v men. So this is evidently a predominantly male problem. What should happen then? Should the high incidence of male v male violence be addressed by encouraging men to redirect their violent urges against women instead of against other men? I'm sure nobody's seriously going to suggest that, so the alternative would surely involve men becoming less violent generally. However, there's not unanimous support for that idea either. I've often heard men argue that violence and aggression is part of being a male. That a society which discourages these urges is emasculating towards men. If a man embraces rage, aggression and violence and then dies as a result of it, is he a victim in the same way that a non-aggressive person who gets killed as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a victim? I don't believe so. I think the phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword" is apt. If a man wants to live the gangster life, there's a very good chance he'll die young. If he feels he has no choice, then we need to ask why that is. Why are there so many songs glorifying the gangster life? Who are the people buying these songs, and buying into the glamourisation of such a lifestyle? I know I'm not one of them. I don't glamourise it. I don't hanker after men who are gangsters or encourage men to fight eachother. So who does it? Who promotes this aggressive, violent and deadly lifestyle as a good thing? Isn't it time that the spotlight was shone on them, rather than on women who can do absolutely bugger all about this predominantly male desire (and the statistics you provided fully support me in saying that it's predominantly male) to kill or maim other human beings?
Feelsgoodman Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 So who does it? Who promotes this aggressive, violent and deadly lifestyle as a good thing? Isn't it time that the spotlight was shone on them, rather than on women who can do absolutely bugger all about this predominantly male desire (and the statistics you provided fully support me in saying that it's predominantly male) to kill or maim other human beings? Women can do something about it, alright. For starters, they can stop breeding with gang members, drug dealers and other criminal scumbags. Why is it that women are so willing to spread their legs for these types? If women were a little more discriminating, violent criminals would not be able to pass on their genes and society would be much safer.
Cypress25 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Maybe in the US, men just walk up to women in shops and ask them out? I would find that odd...I get the impression that in the US there's more this sense of I want it and I want it NOW! "Interesting news story, right? My name's George. How are you? Would you like to go out for dinner tonight?" No, that's not normal in the US, either. That would seem very abrupt and strange. Women are not likely to respond favorably to that. dasein, I understand that you don't like feminism. But you must be aware that you have a flawed understanding of feminism. Feminists don't hate men. It's not their goal to label men as evil perpetrators and women as innocent victims. Feminists are equalists. They want men and women to be equal, that's all. Women (and especially feminists) love to play the victim. No one wants to be a victim. Don't you think women (and especially feminists) would be thrilled if they could report that no one has ever been sexually assaulted? That's a statistic they could be happy with. In the US, it's true that an average of 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. No one is happy about that, but that's the way it is. And that number didn't come from a biased survey that asked vague questions. I know you want to believe that it's propaganda, but the truth is, there is no feminist agenda to convince women that men are evil. If that was the goal, they could have used a much higher number. They're simply reporting the facts so people can be aware. Trust me, it doesn't make women feel good to know that 1 in 4 women are victims. Besides, no matter how high the number is, it doesn't make anyone hate men. It makes people hate sexual abusers. Most men don't fall into that category. When I hear about a rape, I'm not thinking "omg, men are horrible." I'm thinking "omg, rapists are horrible." Do you see the difference? If we're supposed to hate anyone, we're supposed to hate the people who commit these crimes. Yes, some men are rapists, but it doesn't make sense to hate all men because of that. Let's get some clarity here, "drug related and gang related" violence means "inner city minority crime," right? What's your point in separating out inner city minority murders perpetrated against men due to gangs and drugs, from inner city minority crimes perpetrated against women? Because that's exactly what you are doing despite not stating the conclusion. That somehow the gang and drug violence is insular and separate despite that those gangs and criminals are the exact same people murdering women, due to sexual or whatever motive? Makes no sense. I'd like to challenge your assumption that "drug related/gang related violence" means "inner city minority crime." Where it takes place and the ethnicity of those involved are irrelevant. There's a reason why it's important to make the distinction between drug/gang related violence and a random attack. People who are involved in drugs and gangs are living a very dangerous lifestyle, so of course they're more likely to get killed. They expose themselves to that kind of violence every day, and they know it's dangerous. People in gangs don't expect to live to an old age. A random act of violence, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the victim's lifestyle. And it can happen to men or women. An innocent man waiting at a bus stop at night could get mugged and killed, as easily as an innocent woman walking alone at night could get raped and killed. So imagine that an equal number of men and women get killed in random attacks. Then add all the men who get killed in drug/gang related crimes, and you've got a lot more male murder victims than female murder victims. Simply because women are not usually involved in drug/gang related violence. It's mostly men who choose that lifestyle. If a man embraces rage, aggression and violence and then dies as a result of it, is he a victim in the same way that a non-aggressive person who gets killed as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a victim? I don't believe so. I agree. Gangsters can hardly be considered victims of their own violence. Not innocent victims, that is. Rationalize away however you like, that men are the victims of 75% of murder, young old whatever, is a perfectly valid statistic, documented by the poster. There's no "massaging" it away or trick that can be used to discount it or convert it back to evidence of female victimhood. No one is trying to rationalize or discount anything. And certainly the number of men who get killed in drug/gang related violence has nothing to do with female victimhood. The point is that people who are involved in drugs and gangs are intentionally putting themselves in harm's way. They often become victims of violence because they seek it out. And sometimes it's hard to tell who the victim is. If two gang leaders draw their guns and simultaneously shoot each other, who was the murderer and who was the victim? They're probably both men anyway. Now it would be cool if women stopped acting like they are the biggest victims, since statistically you're not. It's only the men here who are competing for the "Biggest Victim" title. I don't think any woman wants that label. Besides, the OP was about fear of sexual assault, and unfortunately, more women than men are victims of sexual assault. I wish that wasn't true, I wish there was no such thing as sexual assault, but that's the world we live in. Men just don't have to worry about strangers trying to rape them (unless they're in prison). It would be nice if women didn't have to worry about that either. Maybe someday.
Cypress25 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Women can do something about it, alright. For starters, they can stop breeding with gang members, drug dealers and other criminal scumbags. Why is it that women are so willing to spread their legs for these types? If women were a little more discriminating, violent criminals would not be able to pass on their genes and society would be much safer. You can't be serious. No one is born a violent criminal. There's no such thing as gangster DNA. But nice try, trying to blame women for violence among men. I think violent men can take responsibility for their own actions. I would certainly expect violent women to take responsibility for their actions.
Feelsgoodman Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 You can't be serious. No one is born a violent criminal. There's no such thing as gangster DNA. But nice try, trying to blame women for violence among men. I think violent men can take responsibility for their own actions. I would certainly expect violent women to take responsibility for their actions. Predisposition to violence is genetic. There is no question about it. If women did not like violent men, violent men would have been bred out of existence generations ago. Also, if women, for example, refused to have sex with drug dealers, I'm pretty confident there would be no drug dealers. Who wants to take on an occupation that guarantees you can't get laid? Yet, criminals suffer from no shortage pussy (quite the opposite actually). So maybe you feminists could do something useful for a change and start a campaign aimed at your fellow wymyn-folk. Maybe try to educate young girls about the dangers of sleeping with Jamal-the-crack-slinger or Jose-the drive-by-shooter? Or you could wait for Jamal and Jose to take responsibility for their actions. Yeah, that will happen
Cypress25 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Murder is worse than sexual assault surely. That's subjective. And who cares? This thread is not about which crime is worse or who is more likely to be victimized. The OP wanted to know if women would be wary of strange men approaching them. And the answer is yes, many of them would, because sexual assault is a concern for them. The only ones in this thread who are fighting for Biggest Victim status are men. Predisposition to violence is genetic. There is no question about it. You think nonviolent people can't have violent kids? And you think violent people can't have nonviolent kids? Drug/gang violence is usually a product of its environment. If women did not like violent men, violent men would have been bred out of existence generations ago. Even you know perfectly well that's not true. Anger is an emotion, violence is a learned behavior, you can't breed those things out of people. Plenty of violent, rebellious kids have perfectly nice, well-mannered parents. This isn't Gattaca, this is the real world. You can't pick and choose which genetic traits will show up in your offspring. Also, if women, for example, refused to have sex with drug dealers, I'm pretty confident there would be no drug dealers. Who wants to take on an occupation that guarantees you can't get laid? Oh OK, so women could single-handedly get rid of all the evildoers in the world by simply refusing to have sex with men who engage in unethical behavior? And you're suggesting that it's our responsibility to do this? Women are supposed to fight crime by withholding sex? Are you crazy? So maybe you feminists could do something useful for a change and start a campaign aimed at your fellow wymyn-folk. Maybe try to educate young girls about the dangers of sleeping with Jamal-the-crack-slinger or Jose-the drive-by-shooter? Yeah, because telling people who to have sex with and who to have kids with is perfectly acceptable. And of course we should be teaching women that no matter what a man does, it's a woman's fault. Specifically, it's a woman's fault for having sex. How dare a woman have sex with a man of her choice! Doesn't she realize it's her fault if the kid grows up to be a gangster?! Or you could wait for Jamal and Jose to take responsibility for their actions. Yeah, that will happen It needs to happen. Blaming someone else for their actions just doesn't work. The only ones who can stop gang violence are the gangsters.
AHardDaysNight Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 You can't be serious. No one is born a violent criminal. There's no such thing as gangster DNA. But nice try, trying to blame women for violence among men. I think violent men can take responsibility for their own actions. I would certainly expect violent women to take responsibility for their actions. Actually, some argue that violence is genetic, and that if the father or mother was violent, the child is more prone to be violent. Same as some argue that pedophiles are created, not only by circumstance, but also by genetics. I am not sure I believe it, but there is a lot of research to support that.
dasein Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Feminists are equalists. Get back to me once you have learned that "equalists" is not a word, and we can certainly discuss the matter further. Until then, you aren't in any position to opine on any "flawed understanding" I may or may not have. As far as gang and drug related crime, take it up with the poster who suggested that ridiculous distinction in the first place, it wasn't me.
Wolf18 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 You can't be serious. No one is born a violent criminal. There's no such thing as gangster DNA. But nice try, trying to blame women for violence among men. I think violent men can take responsibility for their own actions. I would certainly expect violent women to take responsibility for their actions. This is typical unfounded, marxist propaganda. Maybe it's not 100% of the equation, but there is an obvious correlation between genetics and tendency towards certain behavior. If you think genetics play a role on what's on the outside, why are you so uncomfortable in admitting that they can play a role on what's on the inside?
Ruby Slippers Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Probably my favorite kind of approach is when a stranger says hello, chats me up, and asks me out. I love the random chance and romance aspects of it. However, the last 2 guys I went out with who approached in this way turned out to be a little crazy, so maybe I should rethink that.
Feelsgoodman Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 It needs to happen. Blaming someone else for their actions just doesn't work. The only ones who can stop gang violence are the gangsters. It needs to happen?? What kind of a stupid argument is that? According to your logic, instead of going to war with the Nazis, we should have just sit back waiting for them to own up to their actions. Because, you know, it NEEDS to happen. The only people who could stop Nazi violence were the Nazis, right? Here's a shocking revelation. Just because you think that something needs to happen doesn't mean it will. I was giving the feminists a suggestion on what they can actually do to reduce violence against women. But apparently, you have little interest in proactive solutions. You just want to wait for gangsters to own up to their actions
Cypress25 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Get back to me once you have learned that "equalists" is not a word, and we can certainly discuss the matter further. LOL, once upon a time, "feminism" was not a word either. Neither was "Marxism" or "carjacking." People coin new words all the time, and I'm not the first person to coin the term "equalist." This is typical unfounded, marxist propaganda. Maybe it's not 100% of the equation, but there is an obvious correlation between genetics and tendency towards certain behavior. Now I'm a Marxist just because I pointed out the obvious fact that you can't breed specific personality traits into your offspring? Tendency toward certain behavior is not a guarantee. If two piano players get together and have a baby, does that mean their child will be a gifted piano player? Maybe, maybe not. If no one ever procreates with a violent criminal, does that mean future generations won't have any violent criminals? Of course not. A nonviolent couple can easily produce a violent kid. If you think genetics play a role on what's on the outside, why are you so uncomfortable in admitting that they can play a role on what's on the inside? Of course they play a role in what's on the inside. But the role that genetics plays in determining personality traits is less than 50% of the equation. It's not as simple as "nonviolent, law-abiding mother + nonviolent, law-abiding father = nonviolent, law-abiding child." If it were that easy, every parent would have the child of their dreams. So the notion that women could prevent future gangsters from being born just by not procreating with existing gangsters is ridiculous.
Cypress25 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 It needs to happen?? What kind of a stupid argument is that? According to your logic, instead of going to war with the Nazis, we should have just sit back waiting for them to own up to their actions. Because, you know, it NEEDS to happen. The only people who could stop Nazi violence were the Nazis, right? Hey, if people want to go out and actually fight violent criminals until they surrender, that's great. That's why we have law enforcement and military. And I believe they try their best to keep violent criminals off the streets. But they use registered guns and the legal system to fight crime. They don't do it by withholding sex. They're not sitting around waiting for criminals to stop committing crimes, because it's their job to enforce the law. Just like it was the job of soldiers in WW II to go overseas and fight the Nazis. And they defeated the Nazis by fighting them, not by withholding sex from them. It is NOT the job of women to stop men from committing crimes by withholding sex from them. First of all, it wouldn't even work. Second of all, withholding sex is not the way to fight crime. (Of course you know that, you're just jealous of any guy who can get laid.) Third of all, no one is responsible for the bad behavior of other people. To use your analogy, the Allies were not responsible for Nazi violence. It wasn't their fault and they couldn't be blamed for it. By your logic, the Nazi regime would have ended if women simply refused to have sex with Nazis. I mean, who would want to be a Nazi if they couldn't get laid? Yeah right. Here's a shocking revelation. Just because you think that something needs to happen doesn't mean it will. A lot of things should happen that probably never will. That doesn't mean you can blame other people for your actions. You might spend your whole life doing it, but that doesn't make it OK. And you can go your whole life refusing to take responsibility for your actions, but that doesn't mean other people should take the blame for you. That will never work, no matter how much you want it to. I was giving the feminists a suggestion on what they can actually do to reduce violence against women. But apparently, you have little interest in proactive solutions. You just want to wait for gangsters to own up to their actions Oh please, you don't even believe your own bullsh*t suggestion. You really believe that women can and should reduce violence against women by not having sex with men who may or may not have violent tendencies? That women should somehow be able to predict which men will father violent children? That women should somehow be able to perfectly control the genetic makeup of their children and any behavior that may or may not be a result of it? And you believe that men shouldn't take any responsibility for their own behavior, or the behavior of their children? That they should keep blaming women as long as they can get away with it? You know perfectly well that women not having sex with certain men is not a proactive solution. It isn't any kind of solution. It's just your way of trying to eliminate the competition, which is rather foolish because even if all women did stop having sex with gangsters, they still wouldn't have sex with you. You'll never convince anyone that women having sex are responsible for male violence. And you'll certainly never convince anyone that women could stop male violence by withholding sex. You can't even convince yourself of that.
dasein Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 People coin new words all the time, and I'm not the first person to coin the term "equalist." If you say so.
fortyninethousand322 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) If you say so. I put "ist" at the end of many words to form new ones so I fully endorse the idea of coining the term "equalist". Just a few other samples: -Mathist: one who is good with math -Timeist: one who knows what time it is -countist: one who's good at counting (rudimentary counting not calculus or any advanced math which would fall under the "mathist" heading) -knowist: a person who knows things -doist: one who does things -snackist: a person who likes to have snacks -LoveShackist: someone who posts on LS Edited November 30, 2011 by fortyninethousand322
dasein Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Well I was getting at the "I'm not the first person to coin the term..." which is either the best Yogi Berra impression I've ever seen or...
thatone Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 That's subjective. And who cares? This thread is not about which crime is worse or who is more likely to be victimized. The OP wanted to know if women would be wary of strange men approaching them. And the answer is yes, many of them would, because sexual assault is a concern for them. The only ones in this thread who are fighting for Biggest Victim status are men. no, it is not subjective. murder is worse than other crimes. i would say nice try but it wasn't, lol. bad try.
Recommended Posts