The media and male violence

You can disagree with basic biology all you want. But you should see some value in trying to understand it.

Clearly you don't as you seem to think manual labour is what separates men and women.

I addressed your points, then you chose to go on about a circular argument when faced with with this.

Take that to the "Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh" thread and see how you get on.

This is what I meant by not appreciating the gravity of the problem. The biological differences is the ROOT CAUSE. If women were biologically stronger than men then the tables would be turned. One must accept this root cause as a constant. It can’t be changed. Solutions to the problem must work in spite of it.

She has said it will be a crime for a man to watch a woman if that woman feels threatened whether she knows she's being watched or not.

A quick Google on her new stalking legislation will bring you there.

So if I look at someone and she feels threatened I'm under criminal investigation. It's getting to a stage where men will have to look at the ground while out and about or just wear a paper bag over their heads.

Or will the accusation just be enough without any evidence that I was threatening. Seems her just feeling that way is enough.

If the wording of these articles changed it wouldn't get the same level of annoyance from men. The basic message is of course correct. Don't hurt women. Fine, I'm on board with that. But the people like me on board with that are not the people that will heed the message. We are not the ones you need to target with messages. And the ones you need to target don't care. They are evil.

Truth is, the wording is grouping decent men that adore, cherish, love, respect and will protect women with rapists, psychopaths, wife beaters, abusers and murderers.

Men. Quite a big diverse group of the population.

We went for a few pints yesterday and the male violence in the media topic came up. We all agreed we didn't like the tone one bit.

My suggestion is to make sure the wording is correct. Use the terms abusers, rapists, psychopaths, bullies instead of the generic term, men.

Until that happens and the decent men don't feel under attack, you will struggle to get them on side in discussions.

Fortunately, we are on side in real life, the media isn't even real.

Of course you did, why would you bring up such a nonsense point otherwise?

Seeing as we are in the realm of blaming "men" for male violence, how about discussing the sort of men that "women" date, marry and have children with. Thugs, gangsters and bullies have lots of children. Cavewoman thinking sees these men being regarded as dominant and rewarded with sex, relationships and thuglets.

As I mentioned in another thread, one of our current crop of female TDs married Pearse McAuley AFTER he had been convicted of the killing of Det. Garda Jerry McCabe. She then had children with him allowing him to pass on his genes. A few years later, he stabbed her 13 times in a domestic incident and she was luck to survive.

That's just one example that is on the public record. In my own life, I've come across women who appear to be excited by violent men, assholes, fighting. Women getting great pleasure in the idea that their man is a hard man. Commenting on male heights and the strength and fighting abilities of tall, muscular men compared to that of smaller men. Demeaning the latter men as being like children, dwarfs, unmasculine weaklings. Well educated woman casually talking about how her 6 foot 3 husband "gets into a lot of fights in niteclubs" as if this is something to be proud of or at least not worthy of negative comment.