Why are we hating all the men?

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

name the three most prolific paedophiles in history.

do women "not have access" to children?

the prosecution rests.

Only an out right coward would continue to make insinuations without making an accusation.
The level of cowardice is at titanic levels considering its done on anonymously.

Just saying.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yes, I will admit there is an element of physicality to it-as in we obviously do go for traits we want in a partner-looks are a factor.

However, I was talking more about inherent traits-as in things like are they some one who seems cold, or are they kind? Are they reliable, or would they be late to their own funeral?
Are they someone to lean on when you feel like crap, or are you better off crying to your barman?

So while the looks may grab us, from the start, the old adage 'beauty fades, dumb is forever' comes into play.


It's the smile that always grabs me, tbh.

Yep, people like what they like, as long as old wives' tales aren't informing that and shaming women, that's great. I suspect it's women who do most of the shaming anyway.
The rest makes complete sense, naturally you'd look for a maternal instinct and a good companion in general.

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

As far as I have seen MRAs tend to be keener on preventing change than actually advocating for it. Most of the issues tend to be US-centric ones- One issue I think no-one could disagree with them on is male circumcision - its barbaric to carry out on infants and should only be done if medically necessary or if requested for whatever reason either medical or religious by a grown adult.
Another is child custody - this is a dodgier one; they tend to run with the narrative that the courts are biased against men and always give custody to the mother when apparently the split is closer to 50/50 as long as the father actually seeks custody. To be honest, I have rarely heard of MRA groups actually doing much in a practical sense to actively push for the changes they want - a lot of the time it just seems to end up in a lot of complaining about women and feminism.

I presume you want the very best for both of your children so I'd ask you to consider if it is fair that your daughter may be discriminated against in job interviews once she's in her mid-twenties to mid-thirties because of the perception that she might get pregnant. (This is not an imaginary scenario - I've seen multiple threads in Work and Jobs here where posters have openly said they do not hire women in this age group because they might go on maternity leave)

If she does have children, her career may well have to go on hold because of the assumption that primary responsibility for them will fall on her. Even if she does return to fulltime work, she might have the same experience reported by many other women; that once they became parents, they were given fewer opportunities and less important projects because they were perceived as being less focussed on and committed to the job they had once they had a child.

Hence the apparent reason those arguing against the existence of a pay gap tend to focus on women without children as evidence it doesn't exist; I'm not sure why they think this is a surefire argument since doing so effectively acknowledges that since men's earnings are largely unchanged whether or not they have children, women are clearly being penalized for having a family.

circumcision is worth discussing for sure, so is child custody im sure some of these are fathers who feel burned by the whole process. What do they say, politics is down stream from culture. there is probably no point actually fighting for change because not enough people care.
As for the whole work thing probably needs a separate thread but that one becomes a bit ideological because there are plenty of personal reasons why couples specialise whereas feminist tend to shame these women because they want a different life. As it is I would probably have to advise my son to avoid public sector and education (or look into it) because he will be subject to quotas that work against him because he is a "white male!"
As for your last point, its a trade off and its not like all women have flashy travel around the world jobs that they sacrificing . I work with some married women that love being part time and would hate to be full time. Its swings and roundabouts. At the end of the day its about 2 people building a life together. Its not feasible to have both parents being partners in a law firm for example working 80 hour weeks then the kids would suffer. If one of the parents and lets assume its the man is working the 80 hours then the family doesn't need both parents killing themselves working.
Its curious how feminism has rolled in behind neo-liberalism and corporitism

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

Only an out right coward would continue to make insinuations without making an accusation.
The level of cowardice is at titanic levels considering its done on anonymously.

Just saying.

Fair enough.

Murderers are men
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Paedophiles/rapists are men.

https://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

I'm sure this will be new information for everyone.


If someone doesn't want to live with a murderer or a paedophile the most efficient way of preventing that is not living with a man.

You reduce your (albeit already incredibly low risk) by over 95%.

Wibbs

Widdershins wrote: »

I've never researched the hip thing but I suspect it's not valid. Not your assertion that some men subcosciously seek it out, but the relevance of it in itself.

Actually the hip waist ratio seen as ideal in women is extremely universal across cultures and time. One of the few things seen as sexually attractive that is. It's not a "size" thing either. So for example Roman and Greek statues have the same ratio as Ruben's such fatter nudes. As does someone like Kate Moss who is at the more extreme of the thin scale. A few studies have found that women with this ratio also show more healthy hormonal profiles than women who don't. In men bodily symmetry and the inverted V shape torso is one of the universal attractions.

Widdershins

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the hip waist ratio seen as ideal in women is extremely universal across cultures and time. One of the few things seen as sexually attractive that is. It's not a "size" thing either. So for example Roman and Greek statues have the same ratio as Ruben's such fatter nudes. As does someone like Kate Moss who is at the more extreme of the thin scale. A few studies have found that women with this ratio also show more healthy hormonal profiles than women who don't. In men bodily symmetry and the inverted V shape torso is one of the universal attractions.

Yet it's become, to the average person, ''she's too thin to bear children.'' I have a problem with this. (I'm not that thin, myself, but that's not the point.)


''studies have found that women with this ratio also show more healthy hormonal profiles than women who don't'' ? Would that be women whose waist is obscured by layers of fat? In which case their diet's probably interfering with their hormonal balance. Or their weight's a consequence of a tricky thyroid, which would show in the hormone balance. All seems legitimate enough so far. I have no problem with that.

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

Fair enough.
Murderers are men...

What a retarded point to make. I trust and hope you have the courage of your own convictions and live life in exclusion of all men.

The converse is also true:
Non-murderers are men
non-paedophiles/rapists are men.

And the same can be said of women. In both cases.

HamsterFace

Did one of you write this? 😉😀

Equating ‘straight white men’ with privilege is idiocy (via @IrishTimes) http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/equating-straight-white-men-with-privilege-is-idiocy-1.3087639

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

What a retarded point to make. I trust and hope you have the courage of your own convictions and live life in exclusion of all men.

The converse is also true:
Non-murderers are men
non-paedophiles/rapists are men.

And the same can be said of women. In both cases.

I agree with your point that

Non-murderers are men and women
non-paedophiles/rapists are men and women


But murderers and paedophiles are men. Statistically speaking. That's just a fact.

And you wanted me to be clear in what I was saying, that's what I'm saying.

A human being is 25 times more likely to be raped or murdered by an man than by a woman.

If you think its hateful against men to point that out then you must hate reality.


EDIT: I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who uses the word retarded. It makes me think they don't talk to adults in the real world.

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

Fair enough.

Murderers are men
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Paedophiles/rapists are men.

https://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

I'm sure this will be new information for everyone.

If someone doesn't want to live with a murderer or a paedophile the most efficient way of preventing that is not living with a man.

You reduce your (albeit already incredibly low risk) by over 95%.

Is it OK to assume that you apply the same logic to race and religion?

misstearheus

I hate men right now 'cos they don't get Periods and I don't have 1 of them to bring me a Hot-Water-Bottle and tuck me in.

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

I agree with your point that

Non-murderers are men and women
Non-paedophiles/rapists are men and women

But murderers and paedophiles are men. Statistically speaking. That's just a fact.

And you wanted me to be clear in what I was saying, that's what I'm saying.

A human being is 25 times more likely to be raped or murdered by an man than by a woman.

If you think its hateful against men to point that out then you must hate reality.

EDIT: I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who uses the word retarded. It makes me think they don't talk to adults in the real world.

Sorry, but this is the exact same logic that the blockheads in the Alt-Right and/or Far Right movements use to demonize their "opponents".

Which is the more revealing statistic. The % of murderers that are men or the % of men that are murderers?

If one wants to demonize a specific group then they say "hey did you know that X% of people who commit this horrific act come from Group A"?

Instead of pointing out the very small % of people who actually commit these acts anyway.

It's a tactic. It's a tactic that preys on people who maybe don't have the time, or intelligence to think things through.

Tell me if you've heard these ones before, "X% of terror attacks are done by Mulsims" and ""Y% of murders are committed by Blacks".

GTFO of here with that.

As far as I am concerned you are parroting the talking points of racists and bigots right down to the "we need to protect our woman and children from these people".

It's how they get converts and it's dishonest and disgusting.

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Is it OK to assume that you apply the same logic to race and religion?

If Catholics were 95% more likely to murder than Muslims or vice versa then I would.

But they're not. So I don't worry about it.

And race is a self-describing social construct.

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

...If you think its hateful against men to point that out then you must hate reality.

The point itself isn't hateful, but I'd question the motives of the person who would look to present statistics to make such a point.
As NinjaKirby correctly put it, "Is it OK to assume that you apply the same logic to race and religion?"
It would be interesting if you apply the same worldview to other matters.

EDIT: I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who uses the word retarded. It makes me think they don't talk to adults in the real world.

I save it for those very special of circumstances, and frankly I wouldn't be concerned too much about what you think - clearly you choose to present a vexatious online persona, that I doubt exists in the real world. :rolleyes:

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

If Catholics were 95% more likely to murder than Muslims or vice versa then I would.

But they're not. So I don't worry about it.

And race is a self-describing social construct.

OK. So what's your cut off point?

95%? 80%? 75%?

We've established that if Group A commits at least 95% of Act Y then you will condemn Group A, no problem.

How did you arrive at the 95% figure? Is that just arbitrary?

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who uses the word retarded. It makes me think they don't talk to adults in the real world.

What if 95% of the uses of the word are to point out egregiously bad arguments on the internet?

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Which is the more revealing statistic. The % of murderers that are men or the % of men that are murderers?

The % of murderers that are men. obviously.

The % of men that are murderers is almost exactly double the percentage of humans that are murderers. Not really that helpful when talking about men specifically.

Instead of pointing out the very small % of people who actually commit these acts anyway.

I did point that out.

Tell me if you've heard these ones before, "X% of terror attacks are done by Mulsims" and ""Y% of murders are committed by Blacks".

I've never heard the Muslim one I'd be interested because I think its about 40%, approximately the proportion of Muslims in the world.

And I've seen the black one and its interesting, mainly because if you look further into the figures in America its poor black men in inner cities who commit murders. The rate of murders in predominantly Black African countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burkino Faso are significantly lower than in the USA or Russia, or Lithuania.

So based on that I wouldn't consider ethnicity to be a determining factor in crime rates.

Men commit 90%+ of murders and rapes across all social, religious, ethnic, and geographical groups.

So I think I'm being completely fair.

And if you have an issue with facts, then you have an issue with reality.

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

OK. So what's your cut off point?

95%? 80%? 75%?

We've established that if Group A commits at least 95% of Act Y then you will condemn Group A, no problem.

How did you arrive at the 95% figure? Is that just arbitrary?

Its the proportion of murders that are committed by men.

As per the links I provided.

Will I Am Not

So what has any of this got to do with the thread? Men commit more murders and rapes therefore everyone should hate men?

Arne_Saknussem

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

So what has any of this got to do with the thread? Men commit more murders and rapes therefore everyone should hate men?

Seems to be some sort of collective guilt thing yeah, with possibly a bit of original sin built in.

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

The % of murderers that are men. obviously.

The % of men that are murderers is almost exactly double the percentage of humans that are murderers. Not really that helpful when talking about men specifically.

I did point that out.

I've never heard the Muslim one I'd be interested because I think its about 40%, approximately the proportion of Muslims in the world.

And I've seen the black one and its interesting, mainly because if you look further into the figures in America its poor black men in inner cities who commit murders. The rate of murders in predominantly Black African countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burkino Faso are significantly lower than in the USA or Russia, or Lithuania.

So based on that I wouldn't consider ethnicity to be a determining factor in crime rates.

Men commit 90%+ of murders and rapes across all social, religious, ethnic, and geographical groups.

So I think I'm being completely fair.

And if you have an issue with facts, then you have an issue with reality.

Once again, this is the exact rhetoric coming from far-right types regarding various other groups.

I do not have an issue with the facts or with reality. I have an issue with how you are preventing the facts in a way that is deceitful.

If we took a population sample of 200 people, 100 men and 100 women. Let's say 1 of those men is a murderer. Then you can say "100% of the murderers in this group are men" and that would be a factually correct statement.

That would be true but if you are then using that statistic to push an agenda then, for me, you get thrown into the same bucket as alt-right types.

You are presenting facts in such a way that gullible people will be converted to your point of view.

I honestly have no respect for you AT ALL for pushing that agenda and I feel sorry for the fools who actually think you've got a valid point.

Can't believe you're actually bold enough to call out another poster for using the R-word whilst you pedal this absolute garbage.

Will I Am Not

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Once again, this is the exact rhetoric coming from far-right types regarding various other groups.

I do not have an issue with the facts or with reality. I have an issue with how you are preventing the facts in a way that is deceitful.

If we took a population sample of 200 people, 100 men and 100 women. Let's say 1 of those men is a murderer. Then you can say "100% of the murderers in this group are men" and that would be a factually correct statement.

That would be true but if you are then using that statistic to push an agenda then, for me, you get thrown into the same bucket as alt-right types.

You are presenting facts in such a way that gullible people will be converted to your point of view.

I honestly have no respect for you AT ALL for pushing that agenda and I feel sorry for the fools who actually think you've got a valid point.

Can't believe you're actually bold enough to call out another poster for using the R-word whilst you pedal this absolute garbage.

In fairness, I don't think they have much support on this one.

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

Its the proportion of murders that are committed by men.

As per the links I provided.

OK. I think i understand.

If we take a crime and we can establish that a disproportionate number of a particular demographic commit that crime then you don't have an issue with linking that demographic to that crime?

NinjaKirby

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think they have much support on this one.

They do though.

Look at the rise of all these moronic "Little Englander" types who strengthened the influence of clowns like Farrage in the UK.

Look at the popularity of Far Right rhetoric online or in the USA.

They are coming from the same logical position and they are grabbing power by using it.

X% of crime is committed by immigrants what should we do about it? *wink wink*

Y% of robberies in our neighborhood were committed by Minority Group. Should we really let more of "these people" in? *nudge nudge*

Hey, did you know that if someone doesn't want to live with a murderer or a paedophile the most efficient way of preventing that is not living with a man? *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

Yeah, it's just the same old flawed arguments with a fancy new paint job.

People actually believe it though. Not many of them, sure. Enough to have influence? I think the evidence is there.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

Murderers are men

Not exclusively so they're not but what's your point exactly anyway.. that men commit more crimes than women?? How profound, who knew

Sure, there have been more male serial killers, rapists, mass murders etc than female ones, but that goes for both ends of the scale as there have also been more male inventors, composers, soldiers, mathematicians etc than female ones also. Males excel more than women (not a slight on women) and therefore you will get men doing more of almost everything, and if it wasn't for that aspect of the male side of our species, none of us would be here at all as it has contributed to our survival. Camille Paglia touches on that (at 6m45s in).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrxQ4M3EOo

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Once again, this is the exact rhetoric coming from far-right types regarding various other groups.

I do not have an issue with the facts or with reality. I have an issue with how you are preventing the facts in a way that is deceitful.

If we took a population sample of 200 people, 100 men and 100 women. Let's say 1 of those men is a murderer. Then you can say "100% of the murderers in this group are men" and that would be a factually correct statement.

That would be true but if you are then using that statistic to push an agenda then, for me, you get thrown into the same bucket as alt-right types.

You are presenting facts in such a way that gullible people will be converted to your point of view.

I honestly have no respect for you AT ALL for pushing that agenda and I feel sorry for the fools who actually think you've got a valid point.

Can't believe you're actually bold enough to call out another poster for using the R-word whilst you pedal this absolute garbage.

I think when I say an undisputable fact you don't like, even caveated (Which I did) by saying that the proportion of murderers in society is very small, you people freak out about it and call me; retarded, dishonest, disgusting, etc.

The reason for that is you don't want to accept that the reason some people are wary of men is because men disproportionately do bad things.

Not all men do bad things, but the bad things that are done are done by men.

A people are 20 times more likely to be killed by a man than by a woman.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

...people are 20 times more likely to be killed by a man than by a woman.

...people are 93 times more likely to be saved from a fire by a man than a woman.


The penny will drop eventually... one would hope.

Glenster

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...people are 93 times more likely to be saved from a fire by a man than a woman.


The penny will drop eventually... one would hope.

That's because women make up only 7% of firefighters. (I assume)

Men make up 50% of people. but 95% of murderers.

tritium

Glenster wrote: »

That's because women make up only 7% of firefighters. (I assume)

Men make up 50% of people. but 95% of murderers.

Only 7% of women choose to become firefighters and put put themselves in a position to save these people. Theres absolutely no reason why they cant so it its a choice inbthe same as as committing a crime is a choice

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

I think when I say an undisputable fact you don't like, even caveated (Which I did) by saying that the proportion of murderers in society is very small, you people freak out about it and call me; retarded, dishonest, disgusting, etc.

The reason for that is you don't want to accept that the reason some people are wary of men is because men disproportionately do bad things.

Not all men do bad things, but the bad things that are done are done by men.

A people are 20 times more likely to be killed by a man than by a woman.

Look, if someone told me they were wary of Muslims or Immigrants or whoever using the same logic that you've used "they disproportionately do bad things" then I would argue with them on the idiotic use of that logic.

No different here.

You can proclaim that you are "just stating facts" all you like. You are also ignoring facts.

What % of men are murderers? Do you have that statistic to hand?

How more likely am I to be killed by a man than not be killed at all?

Convenient that you don't appear know, or at least won't share, those facts.