Welcome to Gaia! ::

So don't you think it's a moot point to refer to the extent of violent crimes committed by men when you said yourself no-one can accurately capture violence with statistics?

I would say both genders have the tendency to use both. I wouldn't say men resort to physical violence simply because they are physically stronger, because even men who are weaker than the average man will still resort to violence. I'd say it's more related to matters of testosterone and masculine culture. I mean, if it was simply a question of strength, then women wouldn't resort to violence at all, which they do. I wasn't disputing the fact that men are the main culprits of violent crime. I was just making a point that women should not be left out of the equation simply because they do it less. 3nodding

I'd say any cultural bias can work both ways. That doesn't mean I agree with cultural bias at all, nor did I say "it works more for women than it does for men". It's just a fact that there are cultural biases and restrictions on action for both genders, such as the pay gap for women, and the fact that many divorced men have a hard time seeing their children in the United Kingdom because custody is almost always given to the mother.

Don't criticise my school of thought as "lacking depth" simply because I disagree with needlessly extreme feminism. Yes, there are cultures in which male and female social roles are reversed, but the fact is, male and female gender roles still exist in those societies. Just because they're reversed doesn't mean they're not there, and I also find it pretty funny that you're trying to use these cultures to support your theory when you describe the gender role of the male (who represents the Western female) as "just for looking at". In my understanding, women aren't objects. But I am drifting from the point. You're saying that it's possible to change Western society because these other culturals have a reversal of our values? Well, please, go to one of these cultures and suggest to them traditional Western gender roles and see how open they are to change. Cultural values cut deep, and to just say to people "You're wrong and must change" doesn't generally get you many followers. These cultures still have gender roles, which means that gender roles are universal. No, these gender roles don't have to apply to particular genders, but they have to apply to SOMEONE. You can't have one gender for all of society, which is what radical feminism wants and what it cannot have.

I never said anything about "playing the victim" or that there was no bias. At all. So don't put words in my mouth. I know there's discrimination, but that applies to ANYONE. Everyone has to suffer some form of it, because it's a product of being a social animal. Out there, somewhere, is going to be a part of society which disagrees with your actions, or thinks you should be doing something which you don't want to do. And that goes for everyone here. Everyone.

I'm sorry Blind, the part about playing the victim wasn't directed at you. I should've been more clear about that. I was referring to a comment Khalida made.

In any case, I'm not taking shots at your school. Read what I said very carefully...to argue that our cultural biases are impossible to change would mean that your school doesn't go very in depth. American culture has gone through many, many extreme changes in its short history. African Americans started out as slaves, but now they are legally able to do everything white people can. There's still a very long way to go, but to say you can't change one's culture when there are so many examples to the contrary just doesn't make sense to me. We've come so far, why should we give up now?

And again, I'm not accusing men of being the only ones capable of violence. The fact is, we don't know what the scope of actual violence IS, so there is no point in arguing TO WHAT EXTENT it exists right now. I also never made any sweeping statement that men never use emotional abuse, and women never use physical abuse.

These are tendencies that I have seen in statistics and from my experiences volunteering at the domestic violence shelter. Men lean more toward physical violence, while women lean toward other kinds. If you want my opinion, this is partially because men tend to be physically stronger, and partially because of our culture.

The reason this violence crap came up was the accusation that a woman would be much more likely to start a war than a man.

I'm was merely providing evidence that the tendency of committing violent crimes swings the opposite way, and that women who have been in power, shockingly, haven't started a war every month. neutral

In all honesty, the victim comment was aimed specifically at Zurine.

I still don't know what degrading statements I've made, but I must have made a few otherwise I doubt Zurine would have bothered with saying I enjoyed degrading women.

The meaning of the victim comment: if you're not fixing the problem, you're making it worse. Acts of omission are just as morally reprehensible as acts of commission (i.e., actively working against women is as bad as not doing something about it).


As for arguing on the internet... it isn't as dumb as it feels/seems. We as citizens in any free society are charged with the responsibility of open debate in public places. The public places just happen to both be global and Digital (see author/philosopher John Stuart Mill)

In other words, I've given everyone an excuse to keep going. I thought the original intent of this thread was a joke, actually (albeit in poor taste). Thus why I've not gone and made a second thread for us all to argue in.

i hope that she doesnt get elected....i'm a girl and i think shes weak and i do hope that a guy *who cares who?* get elected....but i do think that cuz shes a weak little girl that we might end up getting attaced by something. but thats just me. and sorry if i affended any one.

This statement seems fairly condescending, if its not, or doesn't seem that way, please correct me. Thanks for the realclimate site, its amusing.

Dropping whatever I may have been using to beat this dead horse, assuming I was involved in beating this dead horse, I'd say it seems likely that the majority of people who would be involved in discussing this subject are likely to be too close to the subject.

@Zurine-And somehow that post also seems noncontributive.

I think I'm beginning to understand. You make an inflammatory statement, just to see who is most likely to challenge/respond to it.

Let me assure you, I'll continue to respond.
Please try to understand: what you say is important. The only thing about the internet is you don't need to worry about how upset you make people.

If you wish to be taken seriously, I'd advise reading what people have to say to you. Otherwise I imagine most people will stop responding to you, and eventually stop caring about your opinions as a result.

I think I'm going to vote Huckabee even though I'm registered Democratic; all because he has Chuck Norris.

Obama really should get a more appealing celebrity.


Unrelated to the topic? You decide.

no no no no you pertained to the topic.