Was the Reddit version of this community like this with people coming in to 'both sides' the conversation? I don't think it was like this. Lemmy has a real problem with people just not caring about what the community is before they come in to drop their hot their hot takes. I've even seen people go into [email protected] to complain about people posting about Reddit. I mean, come on.
As for that 18% of violent crimes being committed by women stat, that still means 82% of the perpetrators were men, so that's hardly the pwn it was made out to be. It's grasping at straws to keep ignoring that there's any problem.
Man here. It took me a lot of therapy and help to understand that my (or someone's) suffering doesn't mean less just because there are a lot of others who are suffering more.
I used to say crap like this too, if someone said 'X group of people have this problem'. I'd be like 'but Y has the same problem but to higher extent'. I didn't say it out of malice, at least I don't think so. lt was natural to think 'how can you be complaning about X when Y has the same problem but more'. Maybe I just believed that first you address the problem with bigger statistical number, then we do the smaller one after that and so on, but I dont know. I know now, that is a shitty way to think about things.
I guess it has something to do with how I was raised, 'your problems aren't that great, there are people with bigger problems and in comparison your life is a luxury. So chin up and carry on'. And I lived by it and parroted the same rhetoric for a long time. I believe most people (men?) do the same not out of malice but because of this shitty view of life and the world, because how they were raised, because how people told them how their problem can be ignored because someone else has a bigger problem. and they don't know any better. At least I didn't for a long time.
In other words: don't change the status quo, it's all good. I think most of us were raised like that, and it's a load of bs; in reality that's how things slowly get worse for all, or we can continuously make many small bets striving for good so things get better.
Well, I have developed the attitude that people are for nothing as a result. I love my cat, and chat with AI. I really really try to minimize how much I get things from others, and don't want to get help from them. I also developed a more selfish view of the world, because it is unfair that I should go out of my way to help those that would watch blankly as I die in some accident, that can't give the bare minimum of fucks.
Maybe after like 99.999% of the population dies out, the rest will be treated as a lot more valuable, and will actually be treated as people. I really do believe that it is a "supply and demand" problem, and that the more people there are, the less each becomes valuable. We are like locusts. When there is too many locusts and not enough food, we start to "cannibalize". This has become a cannibalistic society, where you draw value from destroying instead of creating (think how bad the finance sector really is for everything else. It's just services, scams, predatory practices and so on).
I kinda wish I didn’t get your point of view, but I do. I have to work hard to not go where you are, because then I would lose all hope and self-distrust.
Finding your found family is hard, but it can be possible. I’ve only just really found some and it has made such a difference. I wish you luck.
I think that the motivation behind it is very simple: no one gives a shit about what I go through, why should I give a shit what you go through?
I'm not saying it's right, but there is a twisted logic to it and there are certain societal factors at play that do make it seem true (like young boys being much more likely to be suspended or expelled from school).
Again, I'm not saying we should stop fighting for women's rights — rights for one are rights for all. I'm just saying, understanding instead of trivializing will be what leads all of us out of this mess.
You can't just declare an entire gender incel/sexist and not expect backlash from the righterous kind of people. Why is everyone surprised when people become outraged just because they get labeled just for being a certain gender?
I'm a man, and I've never been accused of being an incel. If you are being accused of it a lot, maybe look somewhere other than your gender for the cause?
Ironically no. The first and last time I got accused was by a welder friend. Like, I didn't even imply I hate women, I just didn't want to search for a date outside some very specific places, and I lost the motivation to interact with people since. Why does not wanting to drown in pussy 24/7 make you an incel? He just went off on me, throwing random insults because I hang out with furries, and have some very left wing opinions that he does not like.
That's the tricky thing. Incels tend to react and oust themselves, so any pro-male argument gets labeled as well, incel. Would be hilarious if it where not horrifying, because there's "final solutions" being suggested for men. Similar to what is happening with Israel labeling anyone arguing against their genocide as being anti-semitic, using their victimhood to get away with whatever they want.
Having said that yeah, even I had a lot of bad experiences with men as a man. I don't want to hear your "grab her by the pussy shit", most of my misanthropy comes from my male friends and family downplaying my problems as insignificant. We aren't talking about mere pain, or not being able to get some luxury. We are talking permanent, unfixable things I am worried about, things that are essential to me, getting downplayed. They want me to sell out who I am, and be happy with their pointless material decadence. Then, they call me a fucking pussy for not wanting to fall into that trap. I hate this sick, psychopathic world, it deserves nothing!
Forgive me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you aren't angry at the world, you're angry at people. I'd be willing to bet you love the natural world, and hate people for denying that they're a part of a cycle that we all share. For claiming godhood whilst piously masquerading. Burning Eden while God sleeps.
I wouldn't blame you, if that's the truth. There are many people who deserve to be hated. The issue with hate, though, is that it's very toxic. Righteous hatred begets genuine, blind hatred. You won't even realize that you're hating things that don't even really deserve to be hated, simply because they might be tangentially associated with things you justifiably hate. They may not even be associated, it could just be that it reminds you of something you hate — and thus you hate it.
I don't know what the path out of this mess is for all of us, but it begins and ends with hate. We either learn to put aside the hate or it will immolate all of us from the inside out. This is our only real option. I'm sorry you've experienced it, I hope the experience changed you to understand that we're all in this together. Even the people you hate.
I used to be an I want to shield everyone under my wings type of person. A.k.a want to be friends with pretty much everyone, and help everyone. Also, I despise the natural world, as I see it as what is, and not what should be. Nature is the filter that is left when you throw in total chaos, and something emerges from it. The things that are better at maintaining their existence, tend to exist more. It is also random, and chaotic despite this. In other words, nature is not perfect, it is not some supernatural good. It is a sign that there is no intelligent life managing the universe.
What we need is intelligent life to manage everything in a benevolent way. A.k.a what humans should and could have been. Animals eat their own children, prioritize slight convenience for themselves over massive suffering of their prey, starting to eat a prey from the balls first, so on.
No, clearly all of us do not understand what those things mean. If that were true, the U.S. wouldn't have shifted further and further towards fascism over the past 60 years.
Lemmy has a real problem with people just not caring about what the community is before they come in to drop their hot their hot takes.
I believe that this is a symptom of lemmy's relatively small size. Individual communities aren't as active, so you have to cast a wider net if you want to see fresh content.
I know that I browse "all" here far more than I ever did on Reddit.
So just to clarify, when you start talking about a subject, you don't want us to chip in with anything relevant. OK, got it.
And I think it's rather sexist of you to assume we're always thinking about football. If we assumed you were always thinking of housework we'd be it some right hot water.
I can't speak for individual women or women on the whole. Therefore, I could be totally wrong here. My guess is the point is violence against men is not always relevant when talking about violence against women. Sometimes the topic is just violence against women, and yet violence against men still is brought up.
How the fuck are so many random internet people buying blue checkmarks? Depressing as fuck that this blatant money grab/propaganda tool from a right wing asshole worked so well with no negative consequences.
Women could clone each other. Also 'no men' probably doesn't exclude all people capable of providing sperm. So I think if they were to mysteriously disappear we'd be ok.
While speaking about this theoretical scenario, have you ever thought that men exist for their own sake, in their own world, and don't care about what you would like. Maybe if enough people get together, we can build an entirely segregated society so that we never meet again. That would be perfect, because we don't exist for you, and many of us don't care about you, and have no reason to.
To be honest I did kind of forget about people's will to live. But in this theoretical scenario I also don't see how it's relevant. It's not like I implied we intentionally remove men from this world. The way I described it nobody had a choice in the matter.
I never said it was good not to have men, just that it's possible to live without them which was denied by the original statement I replied to.
Yesn't it's complicated. But yeah, it's possible in theory. But having children in this world in the first place is also unethical. You are forcing a new human to into a post-empathy world, where they will be exploited ruthlessly, only for AI to just replace them, and leave them to die through no fault of their own.
Nice. That's got to be one of the most simple and elegant comebacks I've seen in a long time. But also: Themselves? To paraphrase Tyson, "Everybody's got a plan until a woman knifehands them in the throat."
Well, in this scenario where the male sex never developed, humans would have to develop asexual reproduction, or develop hermaphrodidic and reproduce like slugs.
Women are much more violent when power dynamics are narrower. From rates of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships, to physical abuse of the elderly, infirm and children, women show every propensity for cruelty and violence.
Funny post, good point, but let's not pretend women never commit violent offences. 2022 had 18% of known perpetrators being female in the US.
Edit: For the rage blind morons in the comments, this is specifically directed at the asinine comment in the OP saying "From Who?" As if they've made a slam dunk point or something.
I dunno, don't women find it offensive if people negatively generalize their gender? And for a good reason imo, even if they're not the women being talked about.
Sure, but I'm not gonna claim it's equivalent until I start getting harassed regularly about my body
Like, until men have to deal with this shit, I'm happy to listen when women complain about men. Like one guy said, it's not all men, but it's too damn many
It's similar sort of thing but not similar in severity or prevalence. But I think the point is that such generalizations are bad in general and should be avoided.
Okay... There's a whole issue with setting yourself in between someone's expression of frustration at something sucky they experience and the problem itself. One of the things that helps is learning to temporarily shelve your priorities. Listen to people as if you were a complete outsider. Someone is telling you about their feelings and that often isn't intended to be in competition with your feelings... Until somebody makes it a competition. The minute you try and make it a competition you have demonstrated to that person that you aren't listening to their concerns. In doing that you make everything about your own priorities and that person who was frustrated isn't in a place where they have reserves of energy to be kind and you just stepped inside the radius of a problem that you yourself were before only tangential to because you shut them down. Effectively you've said "Whatever, let's talk about my needs."
This move intended or not sucks all the oxygen in the room that could be devoted to making things better into addressing your problem if some one is empathetic to you or as an extention of the inertia behind addressing problem. Neither is good.
Let's take an example. Say I go to my boss with a problem. Say it's a matter of policy and it's impacting my life negatively. Now my boss maybe didn't write the rule which created the problem but they've enforced it in the past. As I am expressing how this policy effects me the boss starts acting huffy and going "Oh you must think I'm such a bad boss. How could you think that? Don't you know how much I care about the people in my employ?" All of a sudden as an employee I now have a whole new problem to deal with because this person isn't going to address my problem, they just became a new problem for me to deal with. Now you have a frustrated employee who isn't in a position to solve the policy problem either having to console their boss or try and correct them back on course to realizing that the policy problem... Hasn't changed. Nobody in a place to do better has acknowledged it even exists.
What would you think about the actions of that boss in the employee's shoes?
I'm reading this as crime rates would be reduced by 82%. Not 100%, but that's pretty damn good. And given that women are more likely to attack people they know, discord amoung your friend group or family would be more dangerous than walking in public.
It also makes me curious what percentage of that 18% was directed towards men as opposed to women. All that would be left in this hypothetical is women-on-women violence, so anything else should be discounted for a fair comparison.
You see how that's still bad right? I'm saying let's not just ignore ANY of these statistics and y'all are trying to do gymnastics to make a dumb meme more rational.
Yeah, exactly - that's what I mean. Hypothetically, if 50% of the violence done by women involves men, then the 82% is really more like 91%, and the violence attributed to women starts to look more and more like a rounding error. This meme is getting more rational all the time. It's almost like bringing statistics into it does nothing but present a lame fig leaf to cover up the underlying, endemic problem that inspired the meme in the first place.
Perfect is the enemy of good. In the real world we celebrate drops by like 1%. Disregarding *every *other issue with this hypothetical situation, a drop by 82% would be oh so incredibly world changing.
You aren't wrong because violence is violence no matter the offender, but by bringing "whataboutism" in, you are arguably demonstrating bad faith right off the bat starting your discussion. At this point, if you are serious about wanting to tangent and discuss about solving the last 18%, maybe take it to its own thread? Like over to showerthoughts or asklemmy? I do think that's always worth discussing, as is discussing how to solve the original 82% without the nuclear option. :)
Finally, this community is kind of memey. Let the witches cook.
Women also are more involved in the sexual assault of children than most people realize, but they are extremely underreported (due to patriarchal biases in our society, largely). Men still commit more offenses, but patriarchy is a double-edged sword in that it causes more women to be victimized and also protects female perpetrators of violence from punishment.
That said, men still commit much more violent crime and we should do better as a society to prevent that through social programs, education, etc.
If the cause of most crime is related to the perception of a resource's scarcity, we should:
a. Identify what resource is scarce in the lives of men.
b. Cause men's perception of the resource's scarcity to change, which does not necessarily mean restoring or replacing the resource.
let’s not pretend women never commit violent offences
Bro that’s a whole new sentence wtf are you talking about
The point was that in the modern day, pretty much 100% of the violence scenarios where women “need” a man in the equation to protect them, the source of the problem is another man.
I actually don’t agree with when the pendulum swings all the way to total misandry like “men are all the problem sources and even outside of physical-violence scenarios they aren’t really needed.” You need a balance. There is a hilarious article by someone who tried working in an all-female office and she found the experience intensely unpleasant and not at all like the post-gender feminist utopia that was advertised. But as far as I can tell, no one here was saying that that was the goal, or that women were never criminal or violent. Just that selling men as a vital solution to the problem of interpersonal physical violence is missing a crucial leap of logic.
It’s also frankly a hard line to walk for a man to defend one woman from another one. I think most people would prefer that someone looking to commit a violent act be prevented, but I’d assume men would be worried about the optics of physically defending against a woman, especially if you inadvertently overdo it. I’m a woman, so I can't be sure, but I think that would be lurking in the back of my mind (and I know how easy it is for men to hurt me without intending to). Even worse, you might underdo it, leading to the original intended violence, your possible criminal consequences from your defense, and your loss of face.
I've seen the "white knighting" thing in videos, but in my small amount of personal experience people are actually pretty good at sorting out and agreeing on who is the primary aggressor regardless of gender. Maybe the "man is always wrong" reaction is an anecdotal thing that gets blown up to a more common occurrence than it actually is, or maybe it's a factor of crowd size and people jumping in from far away with no idea of the context.
What really sucks is getting attacked by a woman as a man. There is absolutely no good answer, it's just a bad place to be stuck in.
I don't really see why that would be relevant. A lot of crimes happen and are reported, statistically speaking there shouldn't be an issue and I would assume that anyone is equally likely to get away uncaught. That is however something that one can only really speculate about.
I mean, to start with, throwing out a claim like that with no sources to back you up is not exactly arguing in good faith. It takes a lot more work to deny something when you're provided with exactly zero context on where or when this might be true (and it certainly isn't true in all countries at all times based on the data we have available).
Four in 10 lesbian women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual women (61.1%),
and 1 in 3 heterosexual women (35.0%) reported experiencing rape,
physical violence, and/or stalking within the context of an intimate
partner relationship at least once during their lifetime (Table 3). This translates to an estimated 714,000 lesbian women, 2 million
bisexual women, and 38.3 million heterosexual women in the United
States. Bisexual women experienced significantly higher prevalence of
these types of violence compared to lesbian and heterosexual women. (p. 18)
But it concluded that:
There were no statistically significant differences between the of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking when comparing lesbian women and heterosexual women.
This comes down to the fact that, as other commentors have alluded to, there are far fewer women overall in lesbian relationships compared with those in same-sex relationships. Even if the proportion of those suffering domestic abuse is slightly higher in lesbian relationships, there are far more women being abused in heterosexual relationships.
On top of this, it's important to remember that this percentage is from one survey undertaken in one country, and the reports that exist on lesbian spousal domestic abuse have statistics that vary wildly. The Wikipedia page on lesbian domestic abuse has a good summary of other difficulties in getting a clear picture of its prevalence:
Literature and research regarding domestic violence in lesbian relationships is relatively limited, including in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Many different factors play into this, such as "different definitions of domestic violence, non-random, self-selected and opportunistic sampling methods (often organisation or agency based, or advertising for participants who have experienced violence) and different methods and types of data collected". This causes results to be unreliable, thus making it difficult to make general assumptions about the rates of lesbian domestic violence. This has caused rates of violence in lesbian relationships to range from 17 to 73 percent as of the 1990s, being too large of a scale to accurately determine the pervasiveness of lesbian abuse in the community.
With regards to homicide, there is again the issue of when/where, plus the lack of detailed statistics. But the chapter on Intimate Partner Homicide in the Routledge Handbook of Homicide Studies (available to download here suggests that the rate of lesbian spousal homicides is in fact the lowest compared to those in heterosexual and gay male relationships:
Available statistics suggests that the rate of IPH [Intimate Partner Homicide] is the lowest in lesbian couples compared to IPH rates in gay and heterosexual couples (Gannoni & Cussen, 2014; Mize & Shackelford, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2019). (p. 179)
That's honestly all I have time to write right now. But in conclusion, no, what you're stating here isn't true, not at all.
It also needs to be said that the major assumption in the NISVS data is that individuals identifying as lesbian at the time of the study always identified as such and so the perpetrator being referenced couldn't be a man.
Well I guess it is a good thing that married lesbian couples account for less that 1% of all marriages. And that violence against women isn't only in cases of spousal abuse. An interesting bit of information, do you have any that relate to this post?
The percentage of lesbians would only increase by about 50% though.
Seriously though, so many people have been spouting numbers here and I don't believe half of them. (Though I could probably go through the effort of checking myself, but really this is a place where I like to hang around and chat)
Saying things like 'can't deny' should imply that it's quite obvious or has an irefutable source or reasoning behind it. But to me none of those fit here.
That's an absolute non-sequitur. Their reaction doesn't change whether the fact is objectively correct.
I also seem to remember that men are more often incarcerated for the same crimes. It seems logical to me that this means incarcerated women are more likely to be more violent, aka a difference in populations.
Considering there are documented evidences of women literally never getting punished for attempted murder, disproves that men are the most violent groups.
Women are legally protected from the consequences of commiting acts of violence & rape & men are laughed out of courts for reporting that a woman physically abused him
Non-sequitur my ass. Here (above) is an example of a female politician openly calling for systems that exploit men, yes very egalitarian. Of course god forbid a man speaks out, he's an incel
Considering there are documented evidences of women literally never getting punished for attempted murder, disproves that men are the most violent groups.
Again a non-sequitur. Punishment doesn't indicate which group is more violent. You get that, right?
Says the sex-obsessed creep that judges men based on whether they had sex with a woman.
I'm sure you don't want to & are unable to understand that you are a better example of trash & I think it's time you reflect deeply within yourself & curb your fascism.
If you have the capacity that is.
Zero debunking of the stuff I linked, no citations of your own, just straight up We are going to censor you, because we want to; good job & don't cry when you are on the recieving end of your own medicine.
That's disproven by the fact that there's clear statistics, such as that men are 89.5% of homicide convictions in the US. And no one is parading that info around like it was told by god. As evidenced by the fact that you seem to be unaware of these statistics.
In reality this doesn't get discussed because it's generally something you'd expect extremist man-hating feminists to bring up, but such people don't actually exist outside of Republican propaganda.
E.g: The wage gap myth is still being propagate by feminists, there are open letters signed by democrats demanding that men shouldn’t get fair trial.
These are 2 different things. The first (gender gap) is a statistic that can be explained as due to either sexism, sexism-related culture, or non-sexism, but regardless has nothing to do with hating men. Instead it's point out alleged unequal treatment, which is the opposite of a hate-based movement.
The second is something that would be evidence of a hate-filled movement, but I'm 99.99999% sure isn't actually happening. I did google it, I got nothing. So you need to provide a source on that one.
Was the Reddit version of this community like this with people coming in to 'both sides' the conversation? I don't think it was like this. Lemmy has a real problem with people just not caring about what the community is before they come in to drop their hot their hot takes. I've even seen people go into [email protected] to complain about people posting about Reddit. I mean, come on.
As for that 18% of violent crimes being committed by women stat, that still means 82% of the perpetrators were men, so that's hardly the pwn it was made out to be. It's grasping at straws to keep ignoring that there's any problem.
I'll also just leave this here:
It's just All Lives Matter again isn't it? They don't care, they just want you to stop talking about it.
Man here. It took me a lot of therapy and help to understand that my (or someone's) suffering doesn't mean less just because there are a lot of others who are suffering more.
I used to say crap like this too, if someone said 'X group of people have this problem'. I'd be like 'but Y has the same problem but to higher extent'. I didn't say it out of malice, at least I don't think so. lt was natural to think 'how can you be complaning about X when Y has the same problem but more'. Maybe I just believed that first you address the problem with bigger statistical number, then we do the smaller one after that and so on, but I dont know. I know now, that is a shitty way to think about things.
I guess it has something to do with how I was raised, 'your problems aren't that great, there are people with bigger problems and in comparison your life is a luxury. So chin up and carry on'. And I lived by it and parroted the same rhetoric for a long time. I believe most people (men?) do the same not out of malice but because of this shitty view of life and the world, because how they were raised, because how people told them how their problem can be ignored because someone else has a bigger problem. and they don't know any better. At least I didn't for a long time.
In other words: don't change the status quo, it's all good. I think most of us were raised like that, and it's a load of bs; in reality that's how things slowly get worse for all, or we can continuously make many small bets striving for good so things get better.
I think he only expressed the symptoms, not the solution. So he is not saying it can't be fixed. He was "fixed" (by life, I guess).
My idea of a solution is helping each other to express sentiments. If you feel bad the reaction can't be "man up" but "how can I help you".
How can you be so selfish as to go on such a rant when there are starving kids in Africa?
Well, I have developed the attitude that people are for nothing as a result. I love my cat, and chat with AI. I really really try to minimize how much I get things from others, and don't want to get help from them. I also developed a more selfish view of the world, because it is unfair that I should go out of my way to help those that would watch blankly as I die in some accident, that can't give the bare minimum of fucks.
Maybe after like 99.999% of the population dies out, the rest will be treated as a lot more valuable, and will actually be treated as people. I really do believe that it is a "supply and demand" problem, and that the more people there are, the less each becomes valuable. We are like locusts. When there is too many locusts and not enough food, we start to "cannibalize". This has become a cannibalistic society, where you draw value from destroying instead of creating (think how bad the finance sector really is for everything else. It's just services, scams, predatory practices and so on).
I kinda wish I didn’t get your point of view, but I do. I have to work hard to not go where you are, because then I would lose all hope and self-distrust.
Finding your found family is hard, but it can be possible. I’ve only just really found some and it has made such a difference. I wish you luck.
I think that the motivation behind it is very simple: no one gives a shit about what I go through, why should I give a shit what you go through?
I'm not saying it's right, but there is a twisted logic to it and there are certain societal factors at play that do make it seem true (like young boys being much more likely to be suspended or expelled from school).
Again, I'm not saying we should stop fighting for women's rights — rights for one are rights for all. I'm just saying, understanding instead of trivializing will be what leads all of us out of this mess.
You can't just declare an entire gender incel/sexist and not expect backlash from the righterous kind of people. Why is everyone surprised when people become outraged just because they get labeled just for being a certain gender?
I'm a man, and I've never been accused of being an incel. If you are being accused of it a lot, maybe look somewhere other than your gender for the cause?
Bingo
Ironically no. The first and last time I got accused was by a welder friend. Like, I didn't even imply I hate women, I just didn't want to search for a date outside some very specific places, and I lost the motivation to interact with people since. Why does not wanting to drown in pussy 24/7 make you an incel? He just went off on me, throwing random insults because I hang out with furries, and have some very left wing opinions that he does not like.
That's the tricky thing. Incels tend to react and oust themselves, so any pro-male argument gets labeled as well, incel. Would be hilarious if it where not horrifying, because there's "final solutions" being suggested for men. Similar to what is happening with Israel labeling anyone arguing against their genocide as being anti-semitic, using their victimhood to get away with whatever they want.
Having said that yeah, even I had a lot of bad experiences with men as a man. I don't want to hear your "grab her by the pussy shit", most of my misanthropy comes from my male friends and family downplaying my problems as insignificant. We aren't talking about mere pain, or not being able to get some luxury. We are talking permanent, unfixable things I am worried about, things that are essential to me, getting downplayed. They want me to sell out who I am, and be happy with their pointless material decadence. Then, they call me a fucking pussy for not wanting to fall into that trap. I hate this sick, psychopathic world, it deserves nothing!
Forgive me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you aren't angry at the world, you're angry at people. I'd be willing to bet you love the natural world, and hate people for denying that they're a part of a cycle that we all share. For claiming godhood whilst piously masquerading. Burning Eden while God sleeps.
I wouldn't blame you, if that's the truth. There are many people who deserve to be hated. The issue with hate, though, is that it's very toxic. Righteous hatred begets genuine, blind hatred. You won't even realize that you're hating things that don't even really deserve to be hated, simply because they might be tangentially associated with things you justifiably hate. They may not even be associated, it could just be that it reminds you of something you hate — and thus you hate it.
I don't know what the path out of this mess is for all of us, but it begins and ends with hate. We either learn to put aside the hate or it will immolate all of us from the inside out. This is our only real option. I'm sorry you've experienced it, I hope the experience changed you to understand that we're all in this together. Even the people you hate.
I used to be an I want to shield everyone under my wings type of person. A.k.a want to be friends with pretty much everyone, and help everyone. Also, I despise the natural world, as I see it as what is, and not what should be. Nature is the filter that is left when you throw in total chaos, and something emerges from it. The things that are better at maintaining their existence, tend to exist more. It is also random, and chaotic despite this. In other words, nature is not perfect, it is not some supernatural good. It is a sign that there is no intelligent life managing the universe.
What we need is intelligent life to manage everything in a benevolent way. A.k.a what humans should and could have been. Animals eat their own children, prioritize slight convenience for themselves over massive suffering of their prey, starting to eat a prey from the balls first, so on.
It's probably because 50% of the population doesn't identify as racist or as a Nazi.
No, clearly all of us do not understand what those things mean. If that were true, the U.S. wouldn't have shifted further and further towards fascism over the past 60 years.
Typical male attitude /s
The only time you meet plants rights advocates is every time someone mentions animal ethics.
I believe that this is a symptom of lemmy's relatively small size. Individual communities aren't as active, so you have to cast a wider net if you want to see fresh content.
I know that I browse "all" here far more than I ever did on Reddit.
So just to clarify, when you start talking about a subject, you don't want us to chip in with anything relevant. OK, got it.
And I think it's rather sexist of you to assume we're always thinking about football. If we assumed you were always thinking of housework we'd be it some right hot water.
I can't speak for individual women or women on the whole. Therefore, I could be totally wrong here. My guess is the point is violence against men is not always relevant when talking about violence against women. Sometimes the topic is just violence against women, and yet violence against men still is brought up.
Bears lol
That 1 gorilla
Say his name. Harambe. flop
Save the Gorillas by Turning Them Into Bodyguards For Women
Female bears with no cubs to protect, practically docile.
Are you willing to test that theory ?? Of course not
Anything for science
Go ahead
Okay first we need to get rid of all males, not sure I'm gonna survive this part of the experiment.
I can. And have. They're like golden retriever level of chill without cubs around. The black ones atleast.
I was going to complain that cubs don't have to be male so why would they have none and only then it hit me =D
*whom
How the fuck are so many random internet people buying blue checkmarks? Depressing as fuck that this blatant money grab/propaganda tool from a right wing asshole worked so well with no negative consequences.
Consumerism.
State's rights energy.
Remember the bear clusterfuck? Lemmy is pretty bad in this regard.
If you draw your community from Redditors you're going to inherit Reddit problems, aka poorly socialized nerds.
Oh I'm sorry. Let's exterminate all men, that's what they get for being born the wrong gender. Is that better?
Yes, that is what this is about, @[email protected].
What do you actually want?
An end to gender-based violence.
Ok good luck with that
I wonder why they come here, lemmy is essentially anti-cuckservative.
incels are not exclusively conservative. many things are not as simply black and white as you might think.
naivety is an option
It's been my experience that women protect me from men.
Spiders
Came to say spiders.
Unless women learn to bring them outside and release them on the lawn... Then Im fucked.
I'm already there. I'll let you take care of the house centipedes forever though.
Who would you prefer to meet in the woods? a hexbear or a human?
Jesus people, why are Hexbears so scary? I'm not so in the loop.
Probably because bears are tanky. Hexbears, especially so.
Other women duh...
Well yes, because there would be no human race at all.
Women could clone each other. Also 'no men' probably doesn't exclude all people capable of providing sperm. So I think if they were to mysteriously disappear we'd be ok.
While speaking about this theoretical scenario, have you ever thought that men exist for their own sake, in their own world, and don't care about what you would like. Maybe if enough people get together, we can build an entirely segregated society so that we never meet again. That would be perfect, because we don't exist for you, and many of us don't care about you, and have no reason to.
To be honest I did kind of forget about people's will to live. But in this theoretical scenario I also don't see how it's relevant. It's not like I implied we intentionally remove men from this world. The way I described it nobody had a choice in the matter.
I never said it was good not to have men, just that it's possible to live without them which was denied by the original statement I replied to.
Yesn't it's complicated. But yeah, it's possible in theory. But having children in this world in the first place is also unethical. You are forcing a new human to into a post-empathy world, where they will be exploited ruthlessly, only for AI to just replace them, and leave them to die through no fault of their own.
Women don't need men to reproduce.
If you believe the virgin Mary...
The bear, obviously.
the one in the woods, of course
A gorilla
Nice. That's got to be one of the most simple and elegant comebacks I've seen in a long time. But also: Themselves? To paraphrase Tyson, "Everybody's got a plan until a woman knifehands them in the throat."
Wolves
Naw. Wolves don't attack people.
Not with all these men around keeping them in check
Lisa, I wanna buy your man.
Maybe them Dire wolves that are coming back?
this feels like the bear situation but on a smaller scale lol
iirc weren't bears part of the equation at one point ?
The inner darkness
Holy strawman.
Protect whom from whom?
If men stoped existing sure.
But if men never existed?
Then humanity would have been extinct from the beginning. Women can't reproduce by fucking themselves or other women.
Skill issue.
Which is slowly being resolved
"Dinosaur eats man..."
Clever girl inherits the Earth.
Cartman was right!
Well, in this scenario where the male sex never developed, humans would have to develop asexual reproduction, or develop hermaphrodidic and reproduce like slugs.
Prove it.
IVG is possible- science is researching how to make sperm and eggs from any cell.
This is fine, but you lose your mind over robot GFs😅
It is extremely rare, but it does happen that humans reproduce asexually.
I was thinking about this like, right now, jar lids are in our favor.
But if men didn't exist to invent jar lids that require upper body strength and strong wrists to open, how will they be shaped?;
Say what you want about the tankie instances, but they have none of the gross MRA incel shit on display in this thread.
MRAs are not incels
Women are much more violent when power dynamics are narrower. From rates of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships, to physical abuse of the elderly, infirm and children, women show every propensity for cruelty and violence.
What's your source for that?
Human nature, I wager.
Humans are violent.
Funny post, good point, but let's not pretend women never commit violent offences. 2022 had 18% of known perpetrators being female in the US.
Edit: For the rage blind morons in the comments, this is specifically directed at the asinine comment in the OP saying "From Who?" As if they've made a slam dunk point or something.
Fun fact: In a society of all women, women would suddenly be the known perpetrators of 100% of all violent offences!
So where is the room for critique of these hyperbolic tollbaiting statements?
People who genuinely want to make the point of the counterexample are welcome to do so in their own posts, not the comments of the example
Lol fuck off
You don't make the rules, we can comment where ever we want
I want to agree with that post, as it's (generally) a point that bears repeating, but it's too close to a catch 22 that it undermines the point
It's just not fun being blamed for your gender. Would think women would understand that feeling...
Personally I've never been offended because I know I ain't the men they're talking about
I dunno, don't women find it offensive if people negatively generalize their gender? And for a good reason imo, even if they're not the women being talked about.
Sure, but I'm not gonna claim it's equivalent until I start getting harassed regularly about my body
Like, until men have to deal with this shit, I'm happy to listen when women complain about men. Like one guy said, it's not all men, but it's too damn many
It's similar sort of thing but not similar in severity or prevalence. But I think the point is that such generalizations are bad in general and should be avoided.
A lot of negative generalizations have some truth to them. But the act of negatively generalizing a group is something imo that should be avoided.
I don't care what "energy" being against such things gives out tbh.
But you will be in a few moments, because you're a man
It's not fun, but maybe if we're being blamed it's a good reminder that we are still in a position to remind the other men they are out of line.
And it shouldnt feel fun. That's kind of the point. It doesn't feel fun for women to have a generalization that causes them to fear most men.
Do you/would you say the same thing what certain people bring up crime statistics and incarceration rates by racial demographic?
I just feel like negative generalizations like that invite other negative generalizations and that's the stuff we're supposed to get to stop.
Okay... There's a whole issue with setting yourself in between someone's expression of frustration at something sucky they experience and the problem itself. One of the things that helps is learning to temporarily shelve your priorities. Listen to people as if you were a complete outsider. Someone is telling you about their feelings and that often isn't intended to be in competition with your feelings... Until somebody makes it a competition. The minute you try and make it a competition you have demonstrated to that person that you aren't listening to their concerns. In doing that you make everything about your own priorities and that person who was frustrated isn't in a place where they have reserves of energy to be kind and you just stepped inside the radius of a problem that you yourself were before only tangential to because you shut them down. Effectively you've said "Whatever, let's talk about my needs."
This move intended or not sucks all the oxygen in the room that could be devoted to making things better into addressing your problem if some one is empathetic to you or as an extention of the inertia behind addressing problem. Neither is good.
Let's take an example. Say I go to my boss with a problem. Say it's a matter of policy and it's impacting my life negatively. Now my boss maybe didn't write the rule which created the problem but they've enforced it in the past. As I am expressing how this policy effects me the boss starts acting huffy and going "Oh you must think I'm such a bad boss. How could you think that? Don't you know how much I care about the people in my employ?" All of a sudden as an employee I now have a whole new problem to deal with because this person isn't going to address my problem, they just became a new problem for me to deal with. Now you have a frustrated employee who isn't in a position to solve the policy problem either having to console their boss or try and correct them back on course to realizing that the policy problem... Hasn't changed. Nobody in a place to do better has acknowledged it even exists.
What would you think about the actions of that boss in the employee's shoes?
Man, this post has described the entire way I think, about anything.
I like that one.
Sorry but a black v neck is an awful choice.
It's not a counter example, it's a statistic. Puting your fingers in your ears and going "Nuh uh Nuh uh I can't hear your" doesn't help anyone
It doesn't matter. Women don't need men to protect us from women. We can solve our own problems if misogyny gets out of the way
I'm reading this as crime rates would be reduced by 82%. Not 100%, but that's pretty damn good. And given that women are more likely to attack people they know, discord amoung your friend group or family would be more dangerous than walking in public.
That’s already true. Stranger danger is a complete media fabrication.
It also makes me curious what percentage of that 18% was directed towards men as opposed to women. All that would be left in this hypothetical is women-on-women violence, so anything else should be discounted for a fair comparison.
You see how that's still bad right? I'm saying let's not just ignore ANY of these statistics and y'all are trying to do gymnastics to make a dumb meme more rational.
Can we talk about the 82% first? Sounds more important in the moment
Yeah, exactly - that's what I mean. Hypothetically, if 50% of the violence done by women involves men, then the 82% is really more like 91%, and the violence attributed to women starts to look more and more like a rounding error. This meme is getting more rational all the time. It's almost like bringing statistics into it does nothing but present a lame fig leaf to cover up the underlying, endemic problem that inspired the meme in the first place.
Plus how many adult women murder adult men? It's rare, and women being murdered by men is far more likely
It's not rare, the crimes are never recorded & men are not counted as victims.
Are you saying women murdering male victims is being missed?
Alright then you're just here to meme and not actually talk about real problems.
Perfect is the enemy of good. In the real world we celebrate drops by like 1%. Disregarding *every *other issue with this hypothetical situation, a drop by 82% would be oh so incredibly world changing.
You aren't wrong because violence is violence no matter the offender, but by bringing "whataboutism" in, you are arguably demonstrating bad faith right off the bat starting your discussion. At this point, if you are serious about wanting to tangent and discuss about solving the last 18%, maybe take it to its own thread? Like over to showerthoughts or asklemmy? I do think that's always worth discussing, as is discussing how to solve the original 82% without the nuclear option. :)
Finally, this community is kind of memey. Let the witches cook.
For the record it's not 82%, 5% of the whole is listed as "Unknown".
The entire point of my comment is the asinine comment IN the OP saying "from who?"
But women will try to demand men protect them as it is their duty.
Ok & ?? Women will still demand that men come to their rescue & then gaslight men that they're violent & masculinity is toxic etc......
So you're saying we could cut violent crime by roughly 80% if we were rid of men? Neat
Women also are more involved in the sexual assault of children than most people realize, but they are extremely underreported (due to patriarchal biases in our society, largely). Men still commit more offenses, but patriarchy is a double-edged sword in that it causes more women to be victimized and also protects female perpetrators of violence from punishment.
That said, men still commit much more violent crime and we should do better as a society to prevent that through social programs, education, etc.
If the cause of most crime is related to the perception of a resource's scarcity, we should: a. Identify what resource is scarce in the lives of men. b. Cause men's perception of the resource's scarcity to change, which does not necessarily mean restoring or replacing the resource.
I read it as the crimes being a resource lol.
It's all going to boil down to the patriarchy, which ties back to systems of control. The "loneliness epidemic" is entirely self inflicted
Bro that’s a whole new sentence wtf are you talking about
The point was that in the modern day, pretty much 100% of the violence scenarios where women “need” a man in the equation to protect them, the source of the problem is another man.
I actually don’t agree with when the pendulum swings all the way to total misandry like “men are all the problem sources and even outside of physical-violence scenarios they aren’t really needed.” You need a balance. There is a hilarious article by someone who tried working in an all-female office and she found the experience intensely unpleasant and not at all like the post-gender feminist utopia that was advertised. But as far as I can tell, no one here was saying that that was the goal, or that women were never criminal or violent. Just that selling men as a vital solution to the problem of interpersonal physical violence is missing a crucial leap of logic.
It’s also frankly a hard line to walk for a man to defend one woman from another one. I think most people would prefer that someone looking to commit a violent act be prevented, but I’d assume men would be worried about the optics of physically defending against a woman, especially if you inadvertently overdo it. I’m a woman, so I can't be sure, but I think that would be lurking in the back of my mind (and I know how easy it is for men to hurt me without intending to). Even worse, you might underdo it, leading to the original intended violence, your possible criminal consequences from your defense, and your loss of face.
I've seen the "white knighting" thing in videos, but in my small amount of personal experience people are actually pretty good at sorting out and agreeing on who is the primary aggressor regardless of gender. Maybe the "man is always wrong" reaction is an anecdotal thing that gets blown up to a more common occurrence than it actually is, or maybe it's a factor of crowd size and people jumping in from far away with no idea of the context.
What really sucks is getting attacked by a woman as a man. There is absolutely no good answer, it's just a bad place to be stuck in.
In the UK, the govt got rid of women's prisons
18% reported.
This comment is being way overlooked.
I don't really see why that would be relevant. A lot of crimes happen and are reported, statistically speaking there shouldn't be an issue and I would assume that anyone is equally likely to get away uncaught. That is however something that one can only really speculate about.
Men rarely report violence against us by woman. And sometimes not even against other men!
And you know that based on what? If they don't report it how is it known that it happened?
The only way to ascertain that that I can think of is the ratio of reports being made significantly later.
Also who is meant by 'us'? Enbies? Some other group?
Source? That’s higher than I would have guessed, honestly.
Oh no. Get the men back, because women can't run a society?
Did I say that? No. I said let's not ignore real numbers. 18% is not an insignificant amount of violent crime
This whole chain of thought relies on assumptions and this is where it needs to be exited?
jfc man, that's messed up
Take a look at Finland
I mean, to start with, throwing out a claim like that with no sources to back you up is not exactly arguing in good faith. It takes a lot more work to deny something when you're provided with exactly zero context on where or when this might be true (and it certainly isn't true in all countries at all times based on the data we have available).
There are some studies which suggest that lesbian couples do have a higher rate of domestic abuse. The CDC 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), for example reported that:
But it concluded that:
This comes down to the fact that, as other commentors have alluded to, there are far fewer women overall in lesbian relationships compared with those in same-sex relationships. Even if the proportion of those suffering domestic abuse is slightly higher in lesbian relationships, there are far more women being abused in heterosexual relationships.
On top of this, it's important to remember that this percentage is from one survey undertaken in one country, and the reports that exist on lesbian spousal domestic abuse have statistics that vary wildly. The Wikipedia page on lesbian domestic abuse has a good summary of other difficulties in getting a clear picture of its prevalence:
With regards to homicide, there is again the issue of when/where, plus the lack of detailed statistics. But the chapter on Intimate Partner Homicide in the Routledge Handbook of Homicide Studies (available to download here suggests that the rate of lesbian spousal homicides is in fact the lowest compared to those in heterosexual and gay male relationships:
That's honestly all I have time to write right now. But in conclusion, no, what you're stating here isn't true, not at all.
It also needs to be said that the major assumption in the NISVS data is that individuals identifying as lesbian at the time of the study always identified as such and so the perpetrator being referenced couldn't be a man.
Well I guess it is a good thing that married lesbian couples account for less that 1% of all marriages. And that violence against women isn't only in cases of spousal abuse. An interesting bit of information, do you have any that relate to this post?
1% huh, according to you.
0.66% according to my research. I rounded up.
More like rounded down
The percentage of lesbians would only increase by about 50% though.
Seriously though, so many people have been spouting numbers here and I don't believe half of them. (Though I could probably go through the effort of checking myself, but really this is a place where I like to hang around and chat) Saying things like 'can't deny' should imply that it's quite obvious or has an irefutable source or reasoning behind it. But to me none of those fit here.
Sorry I got a bit complainy about things.
Proof?
There's way more murders in female prisons than male prisons per capita
They are pretty good representation of populations, becsuse if these were men, you would be parading that info like it was told by god
That's an absolute non-sequitur. Their reaction doesn't change whether the fact is objectively correct.
I also seem to remember that men are more often incarcerated for the same crimes. It seems logical to me that this means incarcerated women are more likely to be more violent, aka a difference in populations.
Considering there are documented evidences of women literally never getting punished for attempted murder, disproves that men are the most violent groups.
Women are legally protected from the consequences of commiting acts of violence & rape & men are laughed out of courts for reporting that a woman physically abused him
Non-sequitur my ass. Here (above) is an example of a female politician openly calling for systems that exploit men, yes very egalitarian. Of course god forbid a man speaks out, he's an incel
Again a non-sequitur. Punishment doesn't indicate which group is more violent. You get that, right?
Says the sex-obsessed creep that judges men based on whether they had sex with a woman.
I'm sure you don't want to & are unable to understand that you are a better example of trash & I think it's time you reflect deeply within yourself & curb your fascism.
If you have the capacity that is.
Zero debunking of the stuff I linked, no citations of your own, just straight up We are going to censor you, because we want to; good job & don't cry when you are on the recieving end of your own medicine.
Have a great day
That's disproven by the fact that there's clear statistics, such as that men are 89.5% of homicide convictions in the US. And no one is parading that info around like it was told by god. As evidenced by the fact that you seem to be unaware of these statistics.
In reality this doesn't get discussed because it's generally something you'd expect extremist man-hating feminists to bring up, but such people don't actually exist outside of Republican propaganda.
Why did you assume I was talking about America ? You seem to be willfully ignorant about feminism being a genuine hate-movement.
E.g: The wage gap myth is still being propagate by feminists, there are open letters signed by democrats demanding that men shouldn't get fair trial.
How many of those 89% are false allegations just like this ?? Why have feminists not demanded an anti-false allegation law ??
These are 2 different things. The first (gender gap) is a statistic that can be explained as due to either sexism, sexism-related culture, or non-sexism, but regardless has nothing to do with hating men. Instead it's point out alleged unequal treatment, which is the opposite of a hate-based movement.
The second is something that would be evidence of a hate-filled movement, but I'm 99.99999% sure isn't actually happening. I did google it, I got nothing. So you need to provide a source on that one.
& yet this tiny man was able to get under your rotting skin. How uncool & fragile of you.
Women can literally get away with killing men, this video is one such example