Why are we hating all the men?

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think that's slightly too harsh, tbh. Our biology, for men at least, is to seek out a mate who would make a good mother to our children.
So oft times we want a motherly figure.

That said, if a woman treats a man like a child, and the man treats her like a mother-that's not a healthy relationship, probably won't last.

A motherly figure? Interesting one. If I understand correctly, that means 'childbearing hips'. Perhaps larger breasts (even though size has no bearing on lactation).

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.

I know the breast thing is a misconception because I have a few 'lactation consultant' friends

It irritates me when people make demeaning comments about very slender womens' ability to carry children. E.g I heard lots of comments suggesting Kate Middleton is too thin for childbearing. I'm not sure why it annoys me so much.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

As far as I have seen MRAs tend to be keener on preventing change than actually advocating for it.

That's absolute bullshit but it's bullshit that Cassie Jaye believed before she made the docu The Red Pill. In it you see that it has actually been feminist groups which have stood in the way of change, actively lobbying against bills designed to target court bias and indeed they have been very successful in that regard:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/206474-womens-rights-groups-host-statewide-media-conference-sb-668
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0802sacks.html

They even had a orchestrated email campaign to have the docu pulled from as many film festivals as they could and again they were largely successful. For the screenings they didn't manage to get cancelled, they protested them:

https://twitter.com/cassie_jaye/status/804482644675207168

Much like the many protests they have whenever Christina Hoff Sommers has the audacity to speak at college campuses.

Few pages back I posted about the man who single-handedly set up a battered shelter for men in Canada (all the female ones are government funded) even to the point of using his own home and getting in severe debt in an effort to keep it running. In the end the guy took his own life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/29/earl-silverman-dead-suicide_n_3179850.html

But yet it's the MRAs that don't want change apparently.

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.

You have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.

mzungu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In Sweden it's pretty rare to be a stay at home parent, it seems to almost be looked down upon by society because you are not contributing. From what I've read mothers and fathers work less hours after they have a child but few make the choice to give up work completely. in other countries without highly subsidised childcare, lots of people don't really have a choice because working would not be financially worth it for them.

Yep, in Sweden, a lot of mothers do take part time work with family friendly hours to fit around their child's schedule. They are still the parent who stays at home to look after the child. The flexible time arrangement suits many to the point where they are happy continuing like that thereafter. Hence why there are more women in the Swedish workforce (on less hours and in lower paid jobs), but they earn less than their counterparts in the USA who have better paid jobs and more hours, but they have zero flexible options in the work department. But thats America for you.

There are positives and negatives to both systems depending on what way you look at it.

Wibbs

B0jangles wrote: »

I've seen your many, many posts on the topic W, and the thing that always jumps out at me is that you equate 'the extremists of the MRA' with 'the modern "feminists"' - suggesting that you think every modern feminist is as extreme, as deluded and as irrational as the worst of the Red Pillers and the MRAs. That's quite a chunk of bias right there.

Nope, I do see most people who have skin in the game of feminism or MRA are generally speaking egalitarians, because as normal human beings they see that as a given so ignore the crazies in both camps.

However the public face and craw thumpers of current "feminism" are almost to a woman(and man) "just as extreme, deluded and as irrational" as the extremists in the other camp.

The main difference being they're seen as more acceptable, more mainstream. When was the last time you saw any MRA side debate/debater given the mainstream platform in media and politics that the "feminist" mouthpieces get regularly and are encouraged to do so?

If a "red pill" moron came up with something like the calling Shark! on an Aussie beach histrionic phrases like "trigger warning", "rape culture", or "it's always women's fault"(which is a staple of the red pill/MRA muppets under the surface) I would call utter bullshit on that too and tell them to sack the hell up and grow the hell up. And have.

Glenster

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can be serious.. but just in case you are:

I asked for the three most prolific.

Not some unspecific article about how women do bad things too devoid of any facts.

cantdecide

Wibbs wrote: »

The main difference being they're seen as more acceptable, more mainstream.

When in fact the grey feminist establishment has been peddling anti-masculinity from behind very suspiciously patriarchal looking desks in academia for decades.

retro:electro

Glenster wrote: »

I asked for the three most prolific.

Not some unspecific article about how women do bad things too devoid of any facts.

What are you even going on about? Make a point if you have one.

Mountainsandh

I chose to go part time a few years ago for two reasons : to spend more time minding the kids, and my sanity.

The Granny used to do the drop off and collection from school on days Mr M couldn't, so it wasn't a necessity, just an idea I had been toying with in my head for a while.
My job can be stressful and time consuming, with working hours and hours worth of work at home too. That's all halved now.

I'm so glad I did. Less money, more happy.

Mr M is self-employed and does 50% of the minding/school runs. Unless I'm free to let him work more, then I take on more.

Better child minding arrangements here are a must, but I don't think all women outside the school gates are "pressured" into going part time, or giving up their jobs. Some like me just make a life choice that's nothing to do with sexism.
edit : just to explain a bit further how not related it is to "my role as a woman", my father was very stressed and unhappy at his job, and that contributed to his early death at 47 years of age. It ain't happening to me.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

I asked for the three most prolific.

Not some unspecific article about how women do bad things too devoid of any facts.

The article was to retort to what I felt was your overall point, as is this and also the following quote from Esther Rantzen:

Last year, more than half the boys who rang disclosing sexual abuse reported that they had been abused by women. The most common female perpetrator – in almost 1,000 cases – was the boy's mother. Among the boys who reported being sexually abused by a man (almost the same number of callers), the most common perpetrator was the father – again, in about 1,000 incidents. Both shocking statistics.

But if you just want the three most highly prolific (I'll humour you... here you go):

Vanessa George:

George began to find time alone with children at Little Ted's, sometimes when she changed their nappies. She sexually assaulted them and used the camera on her mobile phone to record the abuse. She used objects found at the nursery in the assaults, but also smuggled a sex toy in for at least one attack.

Rosemary West:

Beginning in the early 1970s, Rosemary West regularly worked as a prostitute, often while her husband watched. She also actively encouraged Fred to sexually abuse her stepdaughter, Anne-Marie, beginning when the child was just eight years old; Rose would also sexually abuse the girl herself. Later, Anne-Marie was forced to prostitute herself within the household — being told by Rose she was a "lucky girl" for doing so.

Terri-Lynne McClintic:

Terri-Lynne McClintic lured eight-year-old Tori Stafford from her school in Woodstock, Ont., and presented her to her boyfriend, Michael Rafferty in April 2009. They drove her to a secluded field, where she was sexually assaulted and brutally beaten to death.

Now, care to tell us what your point is seeing as I apparently missed it.

RabbleRouser2k

Widdershins wrote: »

A motherly figure? Interesting one. If I understand correctly, that means 'childbearing hips'. Perhaps larger breasts (even though size has no bearing on lactation).

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

I know the breast thing is a misconception because I have a few 'lactation consultant' friends

It irritates me when people make demeaning comments about very slender womens' ability to carry children. E.g I heard lots of comments suggesting Kate Middleton is too thin for childbearing. I'm not sure why it annoys me so much.

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.

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.

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

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?

MURDER RATES ARE LOW AS IVE SAID AND POINTED OUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

IVE NEVER SAID ALL MEN ARE MURDERERS IM SAYING ALL MURDERERS ARE MEN.

F*CK SAKE!

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

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.

Youre not, your odds of being murdered are 16000 to 1.

SO?

Will I Am Not

Glenster wrote: »

MURDER RATES ARE LOW AS IVE SAID AND POINTED OUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

IVE NEVER SAID ALL MEN ARE MURDERERS IM SAYING ALL MURDERERS ARE MEN.

F*CK SAKE!

F*cking wow!!!

NinjaKirby

Glenster wrote: »

MURDER RATES ARE LOW AS IVE SAID AND POINTED OUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

IVE NEVER SAID ALL MEN ARE MURDERERS IM SAYING ALL MURDERERS ARE MEN.

F*CK SAKE!

How low though?

You are only offering up one set of facts. I think that's pretty convenient.

"Hey guys there is a 0.0000625% chance that you will be murdered but if you are murdered then it'll probably be a guy that does it."

I suppose it's not as eye catching.

You remind me of this giant orange American bloke who was banging on about immigrants doing bad crimes or something.

It really is a shame that some people are taken in by this kind of spin.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

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

The point (which you are deliberately choosing to ignore) is that men excel in almost all human pursuits be they good or bad. There are more male composers, more male Nobel Prize winners (at physics, chemistry etc) more male Fields Medal winners at mathematics and overall (and not very politically correct) there are more male geniuses............... almost more male everything is the point.

The male sex hormone testosterone results in men being far more competitive and motivated for success than women also, which unquestionably plays it's part in the above. Hence men excelling over women at almost everything.. and yes, that includes murder, but also at stuff like fire fighting, combat, surgery, policing, sports, hunting, inventing (the list is endless) and so to be highlighting specific crimes and effectively saying: 'Look, men bad!' ... is a complete absurdity.

There's a bigger picture, might be best if you took a look at it sometime.

AudreyHepburn

Glenster wrote: »

MURDER RATES ARE LOW AS IVE SAID AND POINTED OUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

IVE NEVER SAID ALL MEN ARE MURDERERS IM SAYING ALL MURDERERS ARE MEN.

F*CK SAKE!

I think Myra Hindley, Rose West, Aileen Wurnos, The Scissor Sisters and Catherine Nevin (to name a few) might disagree with you.

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

..you people freak out about it and call me; retarded

No one called you retarded.

Glenster wrote: »

IM SAYING ALL MURDERERS ARE MEN.

Arragh you've lost the run of yourself woman. There is at least a single murderer thats a woman (Catherine Nevin). That you're trying to continue this absurdity is hilarious.

Glenster

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

F*cking wow!!!

Statistically they are.

AudreyHepburn

Glenster wrote: »

Statistically they are.

That's not possible, I've already name 5 examples above. I'm sure there are more.

Glenster

NinjaKirby wrote: »

You remind me of this giant orange American bloke who was banging on about immigrants doing bad crimes or something.

It really is a shame that some people are taken in by this kind of spin.

If immigrants committed proportionally 20 times more crimes than Americans he would have had a point.

The issue we had with him wasn't that he was selectively giving facts its that the facts he was giving were incorrect.