In the context of what was being discussed, it's obvious. Merely a statement that a nagging woman and a physically abusive man are not on the same level.
Quote:
So, is your point that if don't make careful decisions about marriage and children, or have bad communication and conflict resolution skills, and end up in divorce... Well, then the fairness of divorce proceedings don't really matter because anyone who doesn't follow your sage advice deserves whatever they get? All the more so when a man gets the worst of it?
Did I say that? Because if I didn't what the hell is the point of asking me?
Do you know why you are asking me what you're asking?
---
Giguara:
Quote:
I did not talk about ONLY nagging as a means of "verbal violence", it includes all the things said for the sole purpose of hurting people. For example, a group of 6 years old kids 'nagging' about one of their friends being a 'lardass' in continuation, is not nagging but violence, especially if it leads the kid to be at 80 lb untill she'll / he'll be 30, caused mainly of that 'nagging'. if the continuos nagging of mother to her kids leads the kids to have an impaired image of themselves, not believing in themselves, having addictive behavious (alcoholism, drug abuse, eating disorders, gambling, sportholism etc) it is not 'nagging', it is violence.
Well that's the cycle of abusive relationships and any idea anyone who is reading my posts gets that women are perfect reflects nothing on my words and entirely on their own issues.
Quote:
As i said before, the physical violence hurts less. Getting badly beaten may hurt a month, but it hurts you less in 20 years than a longer lasting, conitnuos verbal violence did.
And being badly beaten by your father carries no pain except the physical trauma?
But you contradict yourself:
My father beating anyone was not caused by the behaviours of my mum, more likely just a shadow of his own childhood when he was abused.
groverat - i see no contradiction on the last phrase. if you were beaten as a child you are more likely to engage in the same kind of activity later as a parent. it is no excuse though.
and yes - the verbal stuff hurt more. period. boiling water or being beaten etc hurt only on the moment they occur ot at least they are easier to overcome.
"physically violent". Discuss what I say, don't generalize what I say to make refuting it easier. click
Sources? Links?
Your link below even says that women are less likely to kill their husbands and points out the obvious, female-on-male physical violence isn't as damaging as male-on-female physical violence.
If that's what you want to believe, then fine. You can quote "intellectualconservative" all day long and keep your anti-woman bullshit alive. Have fun in your victim world.
Ah I see your link "refutes" my links when it is to a site that is so biased toward women they don't even mention statistics about men with which to compare. Likewise you can quote a webside called endabuse.org and have it only mention women receiving violence and only men giving it when that obviously isn't the case.
You assertion, which I proved easily wrong, was not that women cause more damage when engaging in violence. It was that women initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. Women are more prone to attack when the subject is off guard, plan their attacks and also use weapons.
The fact that I assert men should have half custody puts me in a "victim world?" What is your definition of being victimized then? Women aren't powerless. I treat them with more respect than your wannabe empathy. I assume them equals, you assume them helpless.
Did I say that? Because if I didn't what the hell is the point of asking me?
Do you know why you are asking me what you're asking?
Let's recap:
Trumptman started this thread talking about default joint legal custody in divorce -- the point being that any custody arrangements other than equal custody should be based on the merits of the individuals involved, not on the gender of the individuals involved.
Other issues involving divorce, and how the law treats men in divorce, followed.
Now perhaps I have misread you, because you never really have directly addressed these points. You just went off on a tirade about whiny white men.
It seems you'd rather read an agenda into what's being said, and rail against the agenda you perceive, rather than addressing specific points being raised. I've tried to respond to you as if you were taking on the real issues at hand, but perhaps in doing so, I've cause some confusion.
groverat - i see no contradiction on the last phrase. if you were beaten as a child you are more likely to engage in the same kind of activity later as a parent. it is no excuse though.
and yes - the verbal stuff hurt more. period. boiling water or being beaten etc hurt only on the moment they occur ot at least they are easier to overcome.
If easier to overcome why did your father continue the cycle of physical violence?
--
trumptman:
Quote:
You assertion, which I proved easily wrong, was not that women cause more damage when engaging in violence. It was that women initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. Women are more prone to attack when the subject is off guard, plan their attacks and also use weapons.
How can the scale of violence be the seem when the results aren't?
Quote:
The fact that I assert men should have half custody puts me in a "victim world?"
I haven't stated a damned thing about who should get what custody. I've gone through that aspect in one of your dozen-other "poor men" threads.
What puts you in a victim world is your constant whining about this and about your ignorant sexism that you happily ignore when I point it out.
So when did your wife join NOW? "THIS IS WHAT WOMEN WANT! IT'S A DEATH SENTENCE FOR MEN!"
---
shetline:
Quote:
Now perhaps I have misread you, because you never really have directly addressed these points. You just went off on a tirade about whiny white men.
Because that's what I was addressing, not legislation. Thank you.
My problem is with trumptman starting one of these threads every couple of weeks with some sensationalist garbage about suicide rates or "Women are just as abusive as men!" with little/no backing and past that the general attitude of men who act like it's really *them* who have been victims all this time from the liberal media and the evil powerful feminazis (all women who aren't their beloved wives and mothers).
How can the scale of violence be the seem when the results aren't?
I haven't stated a damned thing about who should get what custody. I've gone through that aspect in one of your dozen-other "poor men" threads.
What puts you in a victim world is your constant whining about this and about your ignorant sexism that you happily ignore when I point it out.
So when did your wife join NOW? "THIS IS WHAT WOMEN WANT! IT'S A DEATH SENTENCE FOR MEN!"
My problem is with trumptman starting one of these threads every couple of weeks with some sensationalist garbage about suicide rates or "Women are just as abusive as men!" with little/no backing and past that the general attitude of men who act like it's really *them* who have been victims all this time from the liberal media and the evil powerful feminazis (all women who aren't their beloved wives and mothers).
How can the scale of be the same when the results aren't? Because violence doesn't have to end with death or serious hospitalization to be violence. If we were both in a fight and you punched me twice and I cut you with a knife. We both were still violent even though I didn't get stitches or have to go to a hospital.
I know you haven't posted about who should get custody. You would rather attack me or toss dust in the air instead of debating ideas. As for my "dozen" other threads, I believe they consisted of entirely different points and included links to contemporary articles.
Here are the titles of a few of them.
*Default joint legal and physical custody for kids
*Deadbeat dads = Death sentence
*masculinism vs. misogyny - Does fairness = hatred?
*Kidnapping, adulterizing, pedophile only gets two years!
*She works, he doesn't or does at a female job.
and of course the original thread, which a certain person I am replying to happened to lock...
*Men are not the oppressors, they are the oppressed.
The first post was on 4/30 so I probably throw up a male related thread about every 2-3 weeks. I hardly consider that spamming the boards to death. Plus they are all different. Custody, Female vs. male prison sentences, female vs. male education, does men's rights = hating women, etc.
If anything I am dead on with regard to the posting guidelines. They aren't just a link. I ask questions, and seek discussion. Heck I even give them interesting and informative titles, some of which you don't like because they could be a little sensationalistic in your opinion.
My wife has never joined NOW. These articles examine societal trends from gender perspectives. Education, work, child-raising, relationships, sentencing/law enforcement, these are all different aspects.
If you don't like the threads, you don't have to read or reply to them. Heck you can even ignore me. However you don't have to attack me and destroy the threads (now that you can't lock them I suppose) just because you don't like my perspective on certain issues.
Can you honestly name for me a single societal issue that men have not been blamed for? Violence, sexual assault/rape/abuse, criminality, war, oppression, etc. Six little threads over multiple months giving the other side of some of these issues is now me declaring all men victims, all women oppressors, and me wanting women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Originally posted by groverat, in response to my "Now perhaps I have misread you, because you never really have directly addressed these points. You just went off on a tirade about whiny white men.":
Because that's what I was addressing, not legislation. Thank you.
My problem is with trumptman starting one of these threads every couple of weeks with some sensationalist garbage about suicide rates or "Women are just as abusive as men!" with little/no backing and past that the general attitude of men who act like it's really *them* who have been victims all this time from the liberal media and the evil powerful feminazis (all women who aren't their beloved wives and mothers).
It would be a whole lot more interesting if you actually addressed the specific topics in these various trumptman threads, rather than taking your own read of the "agenda" and going after that.
A person can have an agenda, and still have a valid point or two you know. It's hardly as if I'm at all politically in tune with trumptman... you'd have to start at his general position, make a sharp left turn, and drive several miles before you found me. I certainly not about to join the Promise Keepers. I'm not about to join into a hearty round of Hillary bashing. Yet I still recognize when trumptman makes an interesting point or two, even if in some cases it's overstated in my opinion (like the suicide thing).
I certainly don't feel at all victimized by women myself. When I went through a divorce several years ago, it was settled amicably and without the expense of dragging lawyers in. But I can still recognize that men get a raw deal in divorce sometimes. It seems, however, that you don't want to give the slightest bit on recognizing this fairly obvious truth -- as if giving the slightest recognition to such things would be tantamount to instantly signing up for Downtrodden White Men of America and wearing their T-shirts.
How can the scale of be the same when the results aren't? Because violence doesn't have to end with death or serious hospitalization to be violence. If we were both in a fight and you punched me twice and I cut you with a knife. We both were still violent even though I didn't get stitches or have to go to a hospital.
Yes, I acknowledged that. You miss the point. The scale is not the same. That's what I said, you didn't address my point, just re-stated what you had already said.
You can draw no equivalency between the generalized male and female violence because they are on different scales.
Quote:
I know you haven't posted about who should get custody. You would rather attack me or toss dust in the air instead of debating ideas. As for my "dozen" other threads, I believe they consisted of entirely different points and included links to contemporary articles.
Like alimony/child support issues being a death sentence for divorced men.
Quote:
The first post was on 4/30 so I probably throw up a male related thread about every 2-3 weeks. I hardly consider that spamming the boards to death. Plus they are all different. Custody, Female vs. male prison sentences, female vs. male education, does men's rights = hating women, etc.
I didn't say you were spamming the boards to death, but you've made your anti-woman "poor men" stance quite clear with ridiculous generalizations and I would definitely say that a thread on essentially the same topic every 2-3 weeks is noteable.
Quote:
If anything I am dead on with regard to the posting guidelines. They aren't just a link. I ask questions, and seek discussion. Heck I even give them interesting and informative titles, some of which you don't like because they could be a little sensationalistic in your opinion.
Yeah, in my opinion "death sentence" could be a little sensationalistic. Probably just me.
Quote:
My wife has never joined NOW.
But that's what women want, trumpt, that's what they want! All they dream about all day is taking away everything you have! That's what women want!
Why can't you just admit your sexism and be done with it? You make no attempts to be diplomatic or address all sides. It's pathetic and repetitive.
It would be a whole lot more interesting if you actually addressed the specific topics in these various trumptman threads, rather than taking your own read of the "agenda" and going after that.
I have addressed his arguments and in the past when he's made points I've addressed them. Read his other threads on the topic. I'm not going to rehash every goddam time he feels like whining about how men get screwed over, and if he hadn't started spewing sexist drivel I would've stayed out of this thread and rolled my eyes, "There he goes again."
Quote:
It seems, however, that you don't want to give the slightest bit on recognizing this fairly obvious truth -- as if giving the slightest recognition to such things would be tantamount to instantly signing up for Downtrodden White Men of America and wearing their T-shirts.
Read his half-dozen other threads on this exact same issue, you'll find my view of legislation in there.
My entrance into this thread is purely about his whining sexism.
Yes, I acknowledged that. You miss the point. The scale is not the same. That's what I said, you didn't address my point, just re-stated what you had already said.
You can draw no equivalency between the generalized male and female violence because they are on different scales.
Like alimony/child support issues being a death sentence for divorced men.
I didn't say you were spamming the boards to death, but you've made your anti-woman "poor men" stance quite clear with ridiculous generalizations and I would definitely say that a thread on essentially the same topic every 2-3 weeks is noteable.
Yeah, in my opinion "death sentence" could be a little sensationalistic. Probably just me.
But that's what women want, trumpt, that's what they want! All they dream about all day is taking away everything you have! That's what women want!
Why can't you just admit your sexism and be done with it? You make no attempts to be diplomatic or address all sides. It's pathetic and repetitive.
You will need to clarify what you mean then by scale. I did attempt to address what I thought you were speaking about. I asserted that men and women initiate violence within relationships at comparable rates. I stated that men's attacks are often more impulsive and purely physical. Women's are more planned and use weapons and surprise. Other chimed in that women can bully men via verbal abuse and also with unfounded allegations. I believe you mentioned something about women ending up hurt and killed more often. I considered that to be the scale. If it is something else, then please clarify it.
The alimony/support issue being a death sentence for a man related to suicide rates. If women were 10 times more likely to commit suicide relating to a societal factor, I'm sure the last response you would give it is rolling your eyes. If female attorneys were ten times more likely to commit suicide as male attorneys, you would likely blame the system, and not the person.
What you call anti-woman, I simply call awareness. I have not advocated anything but equality. Some like yourself believe and likely have been socially conditioned to think that men are disposable and should never, ever seek protection or assistance. What is even more ironic is that you call my equality calls sexism while maintaining a macho facade that is supposedly female friendly or gender neutral.
Again if women were 3 times more likely to drop out then a man, it wouldn't be sexist to suggest looking into the problem. If men were 90% of the firefighters and a decade later they were 95% of the firefighters, someone would suggest that something stinks. Why is the reverse not true when the majority of failures in school are men? Why is it not true that men have gone from being 10% of elementary school teachers, to 5% over the last 10 years, nothing is wrong? We both know that education spending has risen and so has the average salary. So why is it sexist or victimizing to suggest a look into it, or even that women could be the cause.
As for a thread every two weeks being notable. I find it no worse than the barrel load of threads about WOMD, Bush and oil, Bush is an idiot, Bush is a conspiratorial mass-murderer, etc. on this board. Likewise if you check all the threads I have started, you will see they cover my interests but a broad range of subjects outside of just gender issues. I've even started some that aren't political at all.
*Runaway housing prices
*Roe seeks to overturn Roe
*Do you think like a millionaire?
*Democrats complain that targeted tax cuts are ...well...targeted
*Will science roll back Roe v. Wade
*savings, net worth, retirement-what do you do?
*Hillary Clinton..too conservative for liberal Democrats?
*There's a chill wind blowing across America..
*Bush tax cut could add 2 trillion in value back to stock market
*California....will work for food
*Cultural Darwinism
*Free speech, but only if you agree with me....
* Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?
*Why George W. Bush will be easily re-elected in 2004
*Religion freedom vs. academic freedom - discrimination or not?
I am sure that if you check around here, most people do what I do. They post about subjects of interest that they find articles on, or sometimes just want to discuss certain issues. Sometimes an anniversary or event can bring up several articles about one topic, for example the recent anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I think you are just being overly sensitive. If you are man enough to let your fiancee earn more than you and not have it hurt your ego, you should be man enough to let issues involving women and men be spoken about without feeling the women are being victimized by open thoughtful discussion. Lastly if you don't like my conclusions, assertions, sources, or statistics, you are obviously welcome to state yours and cite your own.
You will need to clarify what you mean then by scale. I stated that men's attacks are often more impulsive and purely physical. Women's are more planned and use weapons and surprise. Other chimed in that women can bully men via verbal abuse and also with unfounded allegations. I believe you mentioned something about women ending up hurt and killed more often. I considered that to be the scale. If it is something else, then please clarify it.
So you don't understand my use of the word "scale" when you freely admit (via your links) that one gender is more likely to be physically hurt/dead?
Quote:
If women were 10 times more likely to commit suicide relating to a societal factor, I'm sure the last response you would give it is rolling your eyes. If female attorneys were ten times more likely to commit suicide as male attorneys, you would likely blame the system, and not the person.
You have no idea what I would say in that situation.
Quote:
Some like yourself believe and likely have been socially conditioned to think that men are disposable and should never, ever seek protection or assistance.
Did I ever say that?
Notice how you can't take valid criticism of the sexism in your arguments without falling into a whining "you're like THEM!" retort?
If you're so thin-skinned don't start multiple threads on the same subject every couple of weeks. Don't be shocked when someone calls you out on your sensationalistic and sexist crap.
Quote:
What is even more ironic is that you call my equality calls sexism while maintaining a macho facade that is supposedly female friendly or gender neutral.
I call your "all women want to steal kids from men" tripe sexism.
Quote:
If men were 90% of the firefighters and a decade later they were 95% of the firefighters, someone would suggest that something stinks.
Yes, "someone" would. You're right. Someone out there says that Bush caused the shuttle crash. Someone out there thinks having sex with donkeys is a good thing. What the hell is your point?
Quote:
Why is the reverse not true when the majority of failures in school are men?
Is the reverse not true? Have studies in drop-out rates for been been decried as sexist? I have seen ZERO indication that this is so.
Quote:
Why is it not true that men have gone from being 10% of elementary school teachers, to 5% over the last 10 years, nothing is wrong?
Who says nothing is wrong? Who says it is wrong to question it? "WOMEN DO! WOMEN WANT TO CUT OFF MY BALLS!"
Defending yourself against phantom attackers again?
Quote:
We both know that education spending has risen and so has the average salary. So why is it sexist or victimizing to suggest a look into it, or even that women could be the cause.
Lumping women into categories to make yourself seem like a victim and blame them for raised suicide rates and whatnot is sexism. Bringing up valid points is not, too bad you couldn't just do the latter in this thread.
Quote:
If you are man enough to let your fiancee earn more than you and not have it hurt your ego, you should be man enough to let issues involving women and men be spoken about without feeling the women are being victimized by open thoughtful discussion.
In the Death Sentence thread I bemoan your plethora of whining white men threads and agree that they shouldn't go to jail. (And we see some wonderful instances of anti-woman sexism in there as well.)
In previous threads (before the steady march) I agreed completely with your gripe about male elementary school teachers and how unbalanced the legal divorce system might be.
I don't need to validate you in every one of your carbon-copy threads if you're going to raise the sexist factor as you move along.
If women were 10 times more likely to commit suicide relating to a societal factor, I'm sure the last response you would give it is rolling your eyes. If female attorneys were ten times more likely to commit suicide as male attorneys, you would likely blame the system, and not the person.
Women are a lot less like to die of suicide. They attempt it more, mostly for attention, or simply apply methods that have a scarse effectiveness. How do you really measure the "societal factor"? Fill in a form prior to ending your life - "What is the main reason for your suicide? Tick all that apply from above". Then, if all women or all men don't suicide themselves, it is not the system but the individual's choise.
Oh, american stats. men are 4 times more likely to die of it, but in europe, especially in hungary and finland, men die more likely. click
Women are a lot less like to die of suicide. They attempt it more, mostly for attention, or simply apply methods that have a scarse effectiveness. How do you really measure the "societal factor"? Fill in a form prior to ending your life - "What is the main reason for your suicide? Tick all that apply from above". Then, if all women or all men don't suicide themselves, it is not the system but the individual's choise.
Oh, american stats. men are 4 times more likely to die of it, but in europe, especially in hungary and finland, men die more likely. click
In some instances we can isolate for factors or note that a man or woman exposed to a particular factor dramatically increases the rate of that trait, then we can make some inferences as to that factor causing that trait.
I'm not claiming it's a one for one coefficient or thing of that nature. I mean we cannot even say that someone who smokes is going to get lung cancer for sure. But if we see a lot more lung cancer in smokers than non, we can draw some conclusions.
The study I was speaking about in the other thread isolated for male, female, single, divorced, and widowed. Divorced men who had been through the custody courts were 1000% more likely to successfully commit suicide than divorced women who had been through the courts. I consider that factor significant. I gave it the provocative title Deadbeat Dad's = Death Sentence. If you read the thread, it was well reasoned. However Grove can't get over the title which was intended to make people come take a look.
In some instances we can isolate for factors or note that a man or woman exposed to a particular factor dramatically increases the rate of that trait, then we can make some inferences as to that factor causing that trait.
I'm not claiming it's a one for one coefficient or thing of that nature. I mean we cannot even say that someone who smokes is going to get lung cancer for sure. But if we see a lot more lung cancer in smokers than non, we can draw some conclusions.
The study I was speaking about in the other thread isolated for male, female, single, divorced, and widowed. Divorced men who had been through the custody courts were 1000% more likely to successfully commit suicide than divorced women who had been through the courts. I consider that factor significant. I gave it the provocative title Deadbeat Dad's = Death Sentence. If you read the thread, it was well reasoned. However Grove can't get over the title which was intended to make people come take a look.
So you don't understand my use of the word "scale" when you freely admit (via your links) that one gender is more likely to be physically hurt/dead?
You have no idea what I would say in that situation.
Did I ever say that?
Notice how you can't take valid criticism of the sexism in your arguments without falling into a whining "you're like THEM!" retort?
If you're so thin-skinned don't start multiple threads on the same subject every couple of weeks. Don't be shocked when someone calls you out on your sensationalistic and sexist crap.
I call your "all women want to steal kids from men" tripe sexism.
Yes, "someone" would. You're right. Someone out there says that Bush caused the shuttle crash. Someone out there thinks having sex with donkeys is a good thing. What the hell is your point?
Is the reverse not true? Have studies in drop-out rates for been been decried as sexist? I have seen ZERO indication that this is so.
Who says nothing is wrong? Who says it is wrong to question it? "WOMEN DO! WOMEN WANT TO CUT OFF MY BALLS!"
Defending yourself against phantom attackers again?
Lumping women into categories to make yourself seem like a victim and blame them for raised suicide rates and whatnot is sexism. Bringing up valid points is not, too bad you couldn't just do the latter in this thread.
In the Death Sentence thread I bemoan your plethora of whining white men threads and agree that they shouldn't go to jail. (And we see some wonderful instances of anti-woman sexism in there as well.)
In previous threads (before the steady march) I agreed completely with your gripe about male elementary school teachers and how unbalanced the legal divorce system might be.
I don't need to validate you in every one of your carbon-copy threads if you're going to raise the sexist factor as you move along.
I understood scale. I just don't understand you. You really don't seem to be making sense/have a point anymore. I stated quite clearly that both initiate violence in the same percentages. The fact that one party ends up more seriously hurt or dead doesn't change the fact that both parties equally initiate the violence. Eitherway it is just dust because you claimed literally dozens of male violent acts for every one female act. I called bullshit on it, and that still is true.
As for your various other strange and convoluted rantings regarding your motivations and not actually addressing the thread topic, the basically amount to , "I think your a sexist and I'm going to repeat it over and over until you shut up or go away."
Do what you want, I suppose as moderator emeritus, the rules don't really apply to you. You could just cough up some balls and address the threads, or you could ignore them. You choose instead to intentionally derail them. You can also keep setting up straw men to knock down. Ignore the other posters who have asked you to get on topic, and continue to question others and call them names when they bring up points.
The fact that one party ends up more seriously hurt or dead doesn't change the fact that both parties equally initiate the violence.
And since the scale is different whether or not they "initiate" the violence is moot morally and legally. What you're doing here is making a very weak semantic argument.
What does it matter that they "initiate violence" at the same rate if the results of one are not as severe as the other?
Quote:
Eitherway it is just dust because you claimed literally dozens of male violent acts for every one female act. I called bullshit on it, and that still is true.
I wasn't putting "nagging" into the violence category.
Quote:
You can also keep setting up straw men to knock down.
Straw men?
I suppose these aren't sexist "woe is me" statements:
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment.
...
However if she decides she doesn't want him to be her "hunter/gatherer" anymore,...
...
The point is AFTER the marriage. Women will petition to essentually not have their lifestyle change. It doesn't matter if she takes half your 401k. What matters is if she believes you should somehow continue to contribute to HER retirement AFTER you are divorced.
...
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
...
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
Your phony diplomatic language is exposed as such by the words you use to describe these things and the logical exceptions you make.
"CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work."
Quote:
Ignore the other posters who have asked you to get on topic, and continue to question others and call them names when they bring up points.
I have addressed the topic, more than once! You just continually start new threads about the same damned thing and ratchet up the anti-woman crap every time. It gets tiring and damned if I don't call you on such idiotic crap as I posted above.
As far as you whining about me calling you names, why not abstain from the practice yourself before whining about it. Was it me that called someone a "dumbass" earlier in the thread?
Clears up a few myths from all sides. Apparently written by Gelles.
One trumpt and I seem to be wrangling over, a perspective from the guy who did the study:
Quote:
WOMEN ARE AS VIOLENT AS ARE MEN, AND WOMEN INITIATE VIOLENCE AS OFTEN AS DO MEN.
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
And since the scale is different whether or not they "initiate" the violence is moot morally and legally. What you're doing here is making a very weak semantic argument.
What does it matter that they "initiate violence" at the same rate if the results of one are not as severe as the other?
I wasn't putting "nagging" into the violence category.
Straw men?
I suppose these aren't sexist "woe is me" statements:
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment.
...
However if she decides she doesn't want him to be her "hunter/gatherer" anymore,...
...
The point is AFTER the marriage. Women will petition to essentually not have their lifestyle change. It doesn't matter if she takes half your 401k. What matters is if she believes you should somehow continue to contribute to HER retirement AFTER you are divorced.
...
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
...
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
Your phony diplomatic language is exposed as such by the words you use to describe these things and the logical exceptions you make.
"CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work."
I have addressed the topic, more than once! You just continually start new threads about the same damned thing and ratchet up the anti-woman crap every time. It gets tiring and damned if I don't call you on such idiotic crap as I posted above.
As far as you whining about me calling you names, why not abstain from the practice yourself before whining about it. Was it me that called someone a "dumbass" earlier in the thread?
It isn't semantics. Intent determines a lot with regard to society and the law. It is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. You might reward "success" with violence, but I don't. Likewise just because the act doesn't end up with a hospital stay or death, doesn't mean it wasn't harmful. Lastly even when considering the ratios with regard to murder and serious injury we still have just a statistical difference, not the dozenfold+ difference you claimed.
As for the statements...the first one is a plain statement of fact. Women initiated divorce more often by 2 to 1. (minimum) They give the reason and the blue collar part just denotes the job and income type of the man.
The second statement has quotes around the hunter/gatherer part which means I was relating it to a quote of what someone else said. Likely someone was mentioning something being neanderthals or something like that.
The third statement, again dead on based off women's rights groups recommendations, and the way many file their divorce petitions. I have read of cases where women have petitioned courts not to let a man change his job, retire, etc. because it would affect their percentage of his income. What is sexist about saying we get half of what we both built together but not half of what he (not she) builds or does after the divorce? If you want to find a case where the man petitioned the court about earnings and retirement relating to alimony received from a woman after the divorce, I'll be happy to call that unfair as well.
The fourth statement isn't sexist. You think a recommendation from NOW claiming that women should be the sole legal nad physical guardian the second a divorce is filed is a sexist statement against women? What planet are you on?
The last statement is again, just factual. Most people don't argue that he or she that has the gold, makes the rules. In the instance with high income males, the males have to choose to devote their income to supporting the family. We could argue semantically about his/versus their income. However if the check has his name on it, she can't cash it. So there is obviously choice still involved. She can choose to stay home because he devotes his income to that.
When you look at cases where women earn more than the men and easily earn enough to support them both, the men largely still work. Part of it could be his choice and inclination. However the huge statistical difference is more than just his choice. It must be hers as well. She is either unwilling to tolerate a lower standard of living or a man that is not working.
So, what percentage of physical and legal custody, assuming no abuse from both parties, should men and women get when there is a divorce?
Calling someone's opinion sexist, when you refuse to state your own is a bit disengenious, don't you think?
It isn't semantics. Intent determines a lot with regard to society and the law. It is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. You might reward "success" with violence, but I don't. Likewise just because the act doesn't end up with a hospital stay or death, doesn't mean it wasn't harmful. Lastly even when considering the ratios with regard to murder and serious injury we still have just a statistical difference, not the dozenfold+ difference you claimed.
Granted, 7 to 10 is not 12. You got me there.
Intent may determine a lot with regard to law, but that hardly matters in this instance. If my girlfriend were to attack me she knows damned well that she isn't going to beat me up, but if I attack her I sure as hell will. Me punching her as hard as I can is not the same as her punching me as hard as she can, legally or morally.
I never said it wasn't harmful, trumpt, you're swerving again. It's a different animal, though, there's a big difference between being in the hospital and not being in the hospital.
Quote:
As for the statements...the first one is a plain statement of fact. Women initiated divorce more often by 2 to 1. (minimum) They give the reason and the blue collar part just denotes the job and income type of the man.
"against" and you also badmouth the validity of "emotional unfulfillment".
Quote:
The second statement has quotes around the hunter/gatherer part which means I was relating it to a quote of what someone else said. Likely someone was mentioning something being neanderthals or something like that.
Actually what you were responding to had the woman as the breadwinner, which made your sexist crap even more egregious.
Quote:
What is sexist about saying we get half of what we both built together but not half of what he (not she) builds or does after the divorce?
That's not all you said, bud, "women will".
Quote:
The fourth statement isn't sexist. You think a recommendation from NOW claiming that women should be the sole legal nad physical guardian the second a divorce is filed is a sexist statement against women? What planet are you on?
You equate NOW (which in itself isn't a totally unified organization with only one spokesperson) with "women and women's group". If you don't see the problem with that I can't help you.
I guess we can say Osama bin Laden speaks for my friends here at UT who are from Saudi Arabia.
Quote:
The last statement is again, just factual.
First of all how is it "just factual"?
And again you fail to acknowledge the victim attitude. Read it again, I'll bold the parts you should note.
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
"It's all up to the women. Men have no choice, they are poor victims. Give them kleenex."
Not to mention you don't back the assertion up with any facts.
Quote:
When you look at cases where women earn more than the men and easily earn enough to support them both, the men largely still work. Part of it could be his choice and inclination. However the huge statistical difference is more than just his choice. It must be hers as well. She is either unwilling to tolerate a lower standard of living or a man that is not working.
Why "must" it be hers? Do you see how your sexist crap reinforces your baseless conclusion before it is even reached in a circular argument.
Step one: Women want lots of money and don't like a man who isn't working.
Step two: Women must send their men to work. Reason: See Step one.
Quote:
So, what percentage of physical and legal custody, assuming no abuse from both parties, should men and women get when there is a divorce?
Whatever the woman wants. I would have NOW independently audit each case and go with their recommendation.
Comments
What, if you have one, is your point?
In the context of what was being discussed, it's obvious. Merely a statement that a nagging woman and a physically abusive man are not on the same level.
So, is your point that if don't make careful decisions about marriage and children, or have bad communication and conflict resolution skills, and end up in divorce... Well, then the fairness of divorce proceedings don't really matter because anyone who doesn't follow your sage advice deserves whatever they get? All the more so when a man gets the worst of it?
Did I say that? Because if I didn't what the hell is the point of asking me?
Do you know why you are asking me what you're asking?
---
Giguara:
I did not talk about ONLY nagging as a means of "verbal violence", it includes all the things said for the sole purpose of hurting people. For example, a group of 6 years old kids 'nagging' about one of their friends being a 'lardass' in continuation, is not nagging but violence, especially if it leads the kid to be at 80 lb untill she'll / he'll be 30, caused mainly of that 'nagging'. if the continuos nagging of mother to her kids leads the kids to have an impaired image of themselves, not believing in themselves, having addictive behavious (alcoholism, drug abuse, eating disorders, gambling, sportholism etc) it is not 'nagging', it is violence.
Well that's the cycle of abusive relationships and any idea anyone who is reading my posts gets that women are perfect reflects nothing on my words and entirely on their own issues.
As i said before, the physical violence hurts less. Getting badly beaten may hurt a month, but it hurts you less in 20 years than a longer lasting, conitnuos verbal violence did.
And being badly beaten by your father carries no pain except the physical trauma?
But you contradict yourself:
My father beating anyone was not caused by the behaviours of my mum, more likely just a shadow of his own childhood when he was abused.
and yes - the verbal stuff hurt more. period. boiling water or being beaten etc hurt only on the moment they occur ot at least they are easier to overcome.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
"physically violent". Discuss what I say, don't generalize what I say to make refuting it easier. click
Sources? Links?
Your link below even says that women are less likely to kill their husbands and points out the obvious, female-on-male physical violence isn't as damaging as male-on-female physical violence.
If that's what you want to believe, then fine. You can quote "intellectualconservative" all day long and keep your anti-woman bullshit alive. Have fun in your victim world.
Ah I see your link "refutes" my links when it is to a site that is so biased toward women they don't even mention statistics about men with which to compare. Likewise you can quote a webside called endabuse.org and have it only mention women receiving violence and only men giving it when that obviously isn't the case.
You assertion, which I proved easily wrong, was not that women cause more damage when engaging in violence. It was that women initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. Women are more prone to attack when the subject is off guard, plan their attacks and also use weapons.
The fact that I assert men should have half custody puts me in a "victim world?" What is your definition of being victimized then? Women aren't powerless. I treat them with more respect than your wannabe empathy. I assume them equals, you assume them helpless.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
Did I say that? Because if I didn't what the hell is the point of asking me?
Do you know why you are asking me what you're asking?
Let's recap:
Trumptman started this thread talking about default joint legal custody in divorce -- the point being that any custody arrangements other than equal custody should be based on the merits of the individuals involved, not on the gender of the individuals involved.
Other issues involving divorce, and how the law treats men in divorce, followed.
Now perhaps I have misread you, because you never really have directly addressed these points. You just went off on a tirade about whiny white men.
It seems you'd rather read an agenda into what's being said, and rail against the agenda you perceive, rather than addressing specific points being raised. I've tried to respond to you as if you were taking on the real issues at hand, but perhaps in doing so, I've cause some confusion.
groverat - i see no contradiction on the last phrase. if you were beaten as a child you are more likely to engage in the same kind of activity later as a parent. it is no excuse though.
and yes - the verbal stuff hurt more. period. boiling water or being beaten etc hurt only on the moment they occur ot at least they are easier to overcome.
If easier to overcome why did your father continue the cycle of physical violence?
--
trumptman:
You assertion, which I proved easily wrong, was not that women cause more damage when engaging in violence. It was that women initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. Women are more prone to attack when the subject is off guard, plan their attacks and also use weapons.
How can the scale of violence be the seem when the results aren't?
The fact that I assert men should have half custody puts me in a "victim world?"
I haven't stated a damned thing about who should get what custody. I've gone through that aspect in one of your dozen-other "poor men" threads.
What puts you in a victim world is your constant whining about this and about your ignorant sexism that you happily ignore when I point it out.
So when did your wife join NOW? "THIS IS WHAT WOMEN WANT! IT'S A DEATH SENTENCE FOR MEN!"
---
shetline:
Now perhaps I have misread you, because you never really have directly addressed these points. You just went off on a tirade about whiny white men.
Because that's what I was addressing, not legislation. Thank you.
My problem is with trumptman starting one of these threads every couple of weeks with some sensationalist garbage about suicide rates or "Women are just as abusive as men!" with little/no backing and past that the general attitude of men who act like it's really *them* who have been victims all this time from the liberal media and the evil powerful feminazis (all women who aren't their beloved wives and mothers).
Originally posted by groverat
If easier to overcome why did your father continue the cycle of physical violence?
Ask him.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
How can the scale of violence be the seem when the results aren't?
I haven't stated a damned thing about who should get what custody. I've gone through that aspect in one of your dozen-other "poor men" threads.
What puts you in a victim world is your constant whining about this and about your ignorant sexism that you happily ignore when I point it out.
So when did your wife join NOW? "THIS IS WHAT WOMEN WANT! IT'S A DEATH SENTENCE FOR MEN!"
My problem is with trumptman starting one of these threads every couple of weeks with some sensationalist garbage about suicide rates or "Women are just as abusive as men!" with little/no backing and past that the general attitude of men who act like it's really *them* who have been victims all this time from the liberal media and the evil powerful feminazis (all women who aren't their beloved wives and mothers).
How can the scale of be the same when the results aren't? Because violence doesn't have to end with death or serious hospitalization to be violence. If we were both in a fight and you punched me twice and I cut you with a knife. We both were still violent even though I didn't get stitches or have to go to a hospital.
I know you haven't posted about who should get custody. You would rather attack me or toss dust in the air instead of debating ideas. As for my "dozen" other threads, I believe they consisted of entirely different points and included links to contemporary articles.
Here are the titles of a few of them.
*Default joint legal and physical custody for kids
*Deadbeat dads = Death sentence
*masculinism vs. misogyny - Does fairness = hatred?
*Kidnapping, adulterizing, pedophile only gets two years!
*She works, he doesn't or does at a female job.
and of course the original thread, which a certain person I am replying to happened to lock...
*Men are not the oppressors, they are the oppressed.
The first post was on 4/30 so I probably throw up a male related thread about every 2-3 weeks. I hardly consider that spamming the boards to death. Plus they are all different. Custody, Female vs. male prison sentences, female vs. male education, does men's rights = hating women, etc.
If anything I am dead on with regard to the posting guidelines. They aren't just a link. I ask questions, and seek discussion. Heck I even give them interesting and informative titles, some of which you don't like because they could be a little sensationalistic in your opinion.
My wife has never joined NOW. These articles examine societal trends from gender perspectives. Education, work, child-raising, relationships, sentencing/law enforcement, these are all different aspects.
If you don't like the threads, you don't have to read or reply to them. Heck you can even ignore me. However you don't have to attack me and destroy the threads (now that you can't lock them I suppose) just because you don't like my perspective on certain issues.
Can you honestly name for me a single societal issue that men have not been blamed for? Violence, sexual assault/rape/abuse, criminality, war, oppression, etc. Six little threads over multiple months giving the other side of some of these issues is now me declaring all men victims, all women oppressors, and me wanting women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat, in response to my "Now perhaps I have misread you, because you never really have directly addressed these points. You just went off on a tirade about whiny white men.":
Because that's what I was addressing, not legislation. Thank you.
My problem is with trumptman starting one of these threads every couple of weeks with some sensationalist garbage about suicide rates or "Women are just as abusive as men!" with little/no backing and past that the general attitude of men who act like it's really *them* who have been victims all this time from the liberal media and the evil powerful feminazis (all women who aren't their beloved wives and mothers).
It would be a whole lot more interesting if you actually addressed the specific topics in these various trumptman threads, rather than taking your own read of the "agenda" and going after that.
A person can have an agenda, and still have a valid point or two you know. It's hardly as if I'm at all politically in tune with trumptman... you'd have to start at his general position, make a sharp left turn, and drive several miles before you found me. I certainly not about to join the Promise Keepers. I'm not about to join into a hearty round of Hillary bashing.
I certainly don't feel at all victimized by women myself. When I went through a divorce several years ago, it was settled amicably and without the expense of dragging lawyers in. But I can still recognize that men get a raw deal in divorce sometimes. It seems, however, that you don't want to give the slightest bit on recognizing this fairly obvious truth -- as if giving the slightest recognition to such things would be tantamount to instantly signing up for Downtrodden White Men of America and wearing their T-shirts.
How can the scale of be the same when the results aren't? Because violence doesn't have to end with death or serious hospitalization to be violence. If we were both in a fight and you punched me twice and I cut you with a knife. We both were still violent even though I didn't get stitches or have to go to a hospital.
Yes, I acknowledged that. You miss the point. The scale is not the same. That's what I said, you didn't address my point, just re-stated what you had already said.
You can draw no equivalency between the generalized male and female violence because they are on different scales.
I know you haven't posted about who should get custody. You would rather attack me or toss dust in the air instead of debating ideas. As for my "dozen" other threads, I believe they consisted of entirely different points and included links to contemporary articles.
Like alimony/child support issues being a death sentence for divorced men.
The first post was on 4/30 so I probably throw up a male related thread about every 2-3 weeks. I hardly consider that spamming the boards to death. Plus they are all different. Custody, Female vs. male prison sentences, female vs. male education, does men's rights = hating women, etc.
I didn't say you were spamming the boards to death, but you've made your anti-woman "poor men" stance quite clear with ridiculous generalizations and I would definitely say that a thread on essentially the same topic every 2-3 weeks is noteable.
If anything I am dead on with regard to the posting guidelines. They aren't just a link. I ask questions, and seek discussion. Heck I even give them interesting and informative titles, some of which you don't like because they could be a little sensationalistic in your opinion.
Yeah, in my opinion "death sentence" could be a little sensationalistic. Probably just me.
My wife has never joined NOW.
But that's what women want, trumpt, that's what they want! All they dream about all day is taking away everything you have! That's what women want!
Why can't you just admit your sexism and be done with it? You make no attempts to be diplomatic or address all sides. It's pathetic and repetitive.
It would be a whole lot more interesting if you actually addressed the specific topics in these various trumptman threads, rather than taking your own read of the "agenda" and going after that.
I have addressed his arguments and in the past when he's made points I've addressed them. Read his other threads on the topic. I'm not going to rehash every goddam time he feels like whining about how men get screwed over, and if he hadn't started spewing sexist drivel I would've stayed out of this thread and rolled my eyes, "There he goes again."
It seems, however, that you don't want to give the slightest bit on recognizing this fairly obvious truth -- as if giving the slightest recognition to such things would be tantamount to instantly signing up for Downtrodden White Men of America and wearing their T-shirts.
Read his half-dozen other threads on this exact same issue, you'll find my view of legislation in there.
My entrance into this thread is purely about his whining sexism.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Yes, I acknowledged that. You miss the point. The scale is not the same. That's what I said, you didn't address my point, just re-stated what you had already said.
You can draw no equivalency between the generalized male and female violence because they are on different scales.
Like alimony/child support issues being a death sentence for divorced men.
I didn't say you were spamming the boards to death, but you've made your anti-woman "poor men" stance quite clear with ridiculous generalizations and I would definitely say that a thread on essentially the same topic every 2-3 weeks is noteable.
Yeah, in my opinion "death sentence" could be a little sensationalistic. Probably just me.
But that's what women want, trumpt, that's what they want! All they dream about all day is taking away everything you have! That's what women want!
Why can't you just admit your sexism and be done with it? You make no attempts to be diplomatic or address all sides. It's pathetic and repetitive.
You will need to clarify what you mean then by scale. I did attempt to address what I thought you were speaking about. I asserted that men and women initiate violence within relationships at comparable rates. I stated that men's attacks are often more impulsive and purely physical. Women's are more planned and use weapons and surprise. Other chimed in that women can bully men via verbal abuse and also with unfounded allegations. I believe you mentioned something about women ending up hurt and killed more often. I considered that to be the scale. If it is something else, then please clarify it.
The alimony/support issue being a death sentence for a man related to suicide rates. If women were 10 times more likely to commit suicide relating to a societal factor, I'm sure the last response you would give it is rolling your eyes. If female attorneys were ten times more likely to commit suicide as male attorneys, you would likely blame the system, and not the person.
What you call anti-woman, I simply call awareness. I have not advocated anything but equality. Some like yourself believe and likely have been socially conditioned to think that men are disposable and should never, ever seek protection or assistance. What is even more ironic is that you call my equality calls sexism while maintaining a macho facade that is supposedly female friendly or gender neutral.
Again if women were 3 times more likely to drop out then a man, it wouldn't be sexist to suggest looking into the problem. If men were 90% of the firefighters and a decade later they were 95% of the firefighters, someone would suggest that something stinks. Why is the reverse not true when the majority of failures in school are men? Why is it not true that men have gone from being 10% of elementary school teachers, to 5% over the last 10 years, nothing is wrong? We both know that education spending has risen and so has the average salary. So why is it sexist or victimizing to suggest a look into it, or even that women could be the cause.
As for a thread every two weeks being notable. I find it no worse than the barrel load of threads about WOMD, Bush and oil, Bush is an idiot, Bush is a conspiratorial mass-murderer, etc. on this board. Likewise if you check all the threads I have started, you will see they cover my interests but a broad range of subjects outside of just gender issues. I've even started some that aren't political at all.
*Runaway housing prices
*Roe seeks to overturn Roe
*Do you think like a millionaire?
*Democrats complain that targeted tax cuts are ...well...targeted
*Will science roll back Roe v. Wade
*savings, net worth, retirement-what do you do?
*Hillary Clinton..too conservative for liberal Democrats?
*There's a chill wind blowing across America..
*Bush tax cut could add 2 trillion in value back to stock market
*California....will work for food
*Cultural Darwinism
*Free speech, but only if you agree with me....
* Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?
*Why George W. Bush will be easily re-elected in 2004
*Religion freedom vs. academic freedom - discrimination or not?
I am sure that if you check around here, most people do what I do. They post about subjects of interest that they find articles on, or sometimes just want to discuss certain issues. Sometimes an anniversary or event can bring up several articles about one topic, for example the recent anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I think you are just being overly sensitive. If you are man enough to let your fiancee earn more than you and not have it hurt your ego, you should be man enough to let issues involving women and men be spoken about without feeling the women are being victimized by open thoughtful discussion. Lastly if you don't like my conclusions, assertions, sources, or statistics, you are obviously welcome to state yours and cite your own.
Nick
You will need to clarify what you mean then by scale. I stated that men's attacks are often more impulsive and purely physical. Women's are more planned and use weapons and surprise. Other chimed in that women can bully men via verbal abuse and also with unfounded allegations. I believe you mentioned something about women ending up hurt and killed more often. I considered that to be the scale. If it is something else, then please clarify it.
So you don't understand my use of the word "scale" when you freely admit (via your links) that one gender is more likely to be physically hurt/dead?
If women were 10 times more likely to commit suicide relating to a societal factor, I'm sure the last response you would give it is rolling your eyes. If female attorneys were ten times more likely to commit suicide as male attorneys, you would likely blame the system, and not the person.
You have no idea what I would say in that situation.
Some like yourself believe and likely have been socially conditioned to think that men are disposable and should never, ever seek protection or assistance.
Did I ever say that?
Notice how you can't take valid criticism of the sexism in your arguments without falling into a whining "you're like THEM!" retort?
If you're so thin-skinned don't start multiple threads on the same subject every couple of weeks. Don't be shocked when someone calls you out on your sensationalistic and sexist crap.
What is even more ironic is that you call my equality calls sexism while maintaining a macho facade that is supposedly female friendly or gender neutral.
I call your "all women want to steal kids from men" tripe sexism.
If men were 90% of the firefighters and a decade later they were 95% of the firefighters, someone would suggest that something stinks.
Yes, "someone" would. You're right. Someone out there says that Bush caused the shuttle crash. Someone out there thinks having sex with donkeys is a good thing. What the hell is your point?
Why is the reverse not true when the majority of failures in school are men?
Is the reverse not true? Have studies in drop-out rates for been been decried as sexist? I have seen ZERO indication that this is so.
Why is it not true that men have gone from being 10% of elementary school teachers, to 5% over the last 10 years, nothing is wrong?
Who says nothing is wrong? Who says it is wrong to question it? "WOMEN DO! WOMEN WANT TO CUT OFF MY BALLS!"
Defending yourself against phantom attackers again?
We both know that education spending has risen and so has the average salary. So why is it sexist or victimizing to suggest a look into it, or even that women could be the cause.
Lumping women into categories to make yourself seem like a victim and blame them for raised suicide rates and whatnot is sexism. Bringing up valid points is not, too bad you couldn't just do the latter in this thread.
If you are man enough to let your fiancee earn more than you and not have it hurt your ego, you should be man enough to let issues involving women and men be spoken about without feeling the women are being victimized by open thoughtful discussion.
In the Death Sentence thread I bemoan your plethora of whining white men threads and agree that they shouldn't go to jail. (And we see some wonderful instances of anti-woman sexism in there as well.)
In previous threads (before the steady march) I agreed completely with your gripe about male elementary school teachers and how unbalanced the legal divorce system might be.
I don't need to validate you in every one of your carbon-copy threads if you're going to raise the sexist factor as you move along.
Originally posted by trumptman
If women were 10 times more likely to commit suicide relating to a societal factor, I'm sure the last response you would give it is rolling your eyes. If female attorneys were ten times more likely to commit suicide as male attorneys, you would likely blame the system, and not the person.
Women are a lot less like to die of suicide. They attempt it more, mostly for attention, or simply apply methods that have a scarse effectiveness. How do you really measure the "societal factor"? Fill in a form prior to ending your life - "What is the main reason for your suicide? Tick all that apply from above". Then, if all women or all men don't suicide themselves, it is not the system but the individual's choise.
Oh, american stats. men are 4 times more likely to die of it, but in europe, especially in hungary and finland, men die more likely. click
Originally posted by Giaguara
Women are a lot less like to die of suicide. They attempt it more, mostly for attention, or simply apply methods that have a scarse effectiveness. How do you really measure the "societal factor"? Fill in a form prior to ending your life - "What is the main reason for your suicide? Tick all that apply from above". Then, if all women or all men don't suicide themselves, it is not the system but the individual's choise.
Oh, american stats. men are 4 times more likely to die of it, but in europe, especially in hungary and finland, men die more likely. click
In some instances we can isolate for factors or note that a man or woman exposed to a particular factor dramatically increases the rate of that trait, then we can make some inferences as to that factor causing that trait.
I'm not claiming it's a one for one coefficient or thing of that nature. I mean we cannot even say that someone who smokes is going to get lung cancer for sure. But if we see a lot more lung cancer in smokers than non, we can draw some conclusions.
The study I was speaking about in the other thread isolated for male, female, single, divorced, and widowed. Divorced men who had been through the custody courts were 1000% more likely to successfully commit suicide than divorced women who had been through the courts. I consider that factor significant. I gave it the provocative title Deadbeat Dad's = Death Sentence. If you read the thread, it was well reasoned. However Grove can't get over the title which was intended to make people come take a look.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
In some instances we can isolate for factors or note that a man or woman exposed to a particular factor dramatically increases the rate of that trait, then we can make some inferences as to that factor causing that trait.
I'm not claiming it's a one for one coefficient or thing of that nature. I mean we cannot even say that someone who smokes is going to get lung cancer for sure. But if we see a lot more lung cancer in smokers than non, we can draw some conclusions.
The study I was speaking about in the other thread isolated for male, female, single, divorced, and widowed. Divorced men who had been through the custody courts were 1000% more likely to successfully commit suicide than divorced women who had been through the courts. I consider that factor significant. I gave it the provocative title Deadbeat Dad's = Death Sentence. If you read the thread, it was well reasoned. However Grove can't get over the title which was intended to make people come take a look.
Nick
Correlation != Causation.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
So you don't understand my use of the word "scale" when you freely admit (via your links) that one gender is more likely to be physically hurt/dead?
You have no idea what I would say in that situation.
Did I ever say that?
Notice how you can't take valid criticism of the sexism in your arguments without falling into a whining "you're like THEM!" retort?
If you're so thin-skinned don't start multiple threads on the same subject every couple of weeks. Don't be shocked when someone calls you out on your sensationalistic and sexist crap.
I call your "all women want to steal kids from men" tripe sexism.
Yes, "someone" would. You're right. Someone out there says that Bush caused the shuttle crash. Someone out there thinks having sex with donkeys is a good thing. What the hell is your point?
Is the reverse not true? Have studies in drop-out rates for been been decried as sexist? I have seen ZERO indication that this is so.
Who says nothing is wrong? Who says it is wrong to question it? "WOMEN DO! WOMEN WANT TO CUT OFF MY BALLS!"
Defending yourself against phantom attackers again?
Lumping women into categories to make yourself seem like a victim and blame them for raised suicide rates and whatnot is sexism. Bringing up valid points is not, too bad you couldn't just do the latter in this thread.
In the Death Sentence thread I bemoan your plethora of whining white men threads and agree that they shouldn't go to jail. (And we see some wonderful instances of anti-woman sexism in there as well.)
In previous threads (before the steady march) I agreed completely with your gripe about male elementary school teachers and how unbalanced the legal divorce system might be.
I don't need to validate you in every one of your carbon-copy threads if you're going to raise the sexist factor as you move along.
I understood scale. I just don't understand you. You really don't seem to be making sense/have a point anymore. I stated quite clearly that both initiate violence in the same percentages. The fact that one party ends up more seriously hurt or dead doesn't change the fact that both parties equally initiate the violence. Eitherway it is just dust because you claimed literally dozens of male violent acts for every one female act. I called bullshit on it, and that still is true.
As for your various other strange and convoluted rantings regarding your motivations and not actually addressing the thread topic, the basically amount to , "I think your a sexist and I'm going to repeat it over and over until you shut up or go away."
Do what you want, I suppose as moderator emeritus, the rules don't really apply to you. You could just cough up some balls and address the threads, or you could ignore them. You choose instead to intentionally derail them. You can also keep setting up straw men to knock down. Ignore the other posters who have asked you to get on topic, and continue to question others and call them names when they bring up points.
Nick
The fact that one party ends up more seriously hurt or dead doesn't change the fact that both parties equally initiate the violence.
And since the scale is different whether or not they "initiate" the violence is moot morally and legally. What you're doing here is making a very weak semantic argument.
What does it matter that they "initiate violence" at the same rate if the results of one are not as severe as the other?
Eitherway it is just dust because you claimed literally dozens of male violent acts for every one female act. I called bullshit on it, and that still is true.
I wasn't putting "nagging" into the violence category.
You can also keep setting up straw men to knock down.
Straw men?
I suppose these aren't sexist "woe is me" statements:
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment.
...
However if she decides she doesn't want him to be her "hunter/gatherer" anymore,...
...
The point is AFTER the marriage. Women will petition to essentually not have their lifestyle change. It doesn't matter if she takes half your 401k. What matters is if she believes you should somehow continue to contribute to HER retirement AFTER you are divorced.
...
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
...
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
Your phony diplomatic language is exposed as such by the words you use to describe these things and the logical exceptions you make.
"CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work."
Ignore the other posters who have asked you to get on topic, and continue to question others and call them names when they bring up points.
I have addressed the topic, more than once! You just continually start new threads about the same damned thing and ratchet up the anti-woman crap every time. It gets tiring and damned if I don't call you on such idiotic crap as I posted above.
As far as you whining about me calling you names, why not abstain from the practice yourself before whining about it. Was it me that called someone a "dumbass" earlier in the thread?
Clears up a few myths from all sides. Apparently written by Gelles.
One trumpt and I seem to be wrangling over, a perspective from the guy who did the study:
WOMEN ARE AS VIOLENT AS ARE MEN, AND WOMEN INITIATE VIOLENCE AS OFTEN AS DO MEN.
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
And since the scale is different whether or not they "initiate" the violence is moot morally and legally. What you're doing here is making a very weak semantic argument.
What does it matter that they "initiate violence" at the same rate if the results of one are not as severe as the other?
I wasn't putting "nagging" into the violence category.
Straw men?
I suppose these aren't sexist "woe is me" statements:
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment.
...
However if she decides she doesn't want him to be her "hunter/gatherer" anymore,...
...
The point is AFTER the marriage. Women will petition to essentually not have their lifestyle change. It doesn't matter if she takes half your 401k. What matters is if she believes you should somehow continue to contribute to HER retirement AFTER you are divorced.
...
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
...
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
Your phony diplomatic language is exposed as such by the words you use to describe these things and the logical exceptions you make.
"CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work."
I have addressed the topic, more than once! You just continually start new threads about the same damned thing and ratchet up the anti-woman crap every time. It gets tiring and damned if I don't call you on such idiotic crap as I posted above.
As far as you whining about me calling you names, why not abstain from the practice yourself before whining about it. Was it me that called someone a "dumbass" earlier in the thread?
It isn't semantics. Intent determines a lot with regard to society and the law. It is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. You might reward "success" with violence, but I don't. Likewise just because the act doesn't end up with a hospital stay or death, doesn't mean it wasn't harmful. Lastly even when considering the ratios with regard to murder and serious injury we still have just a statistical difference, not the dozenfold+ difference you claimed.
As for the statements...the first one is a plain statement of fact. Women initiated divorce more often by 2 to 1. (minimum) They give the reason and the blue collar part just denotes the job and income type of the man.
The second statement has quotes around the hunter/gatherer part which means I was relating it to a quote of what someone else said. Likely someone was mentioning something being neanderthals or something like that.
The third statement, again dead on based off women's rights groups recommendations, and the way many file their divorce petitions. I have read of cases where women have petitioned courts not to let a man change his job, retire, etc. because it would affect their percentage of his income. What is sexist about saying we get half of what we both built together but not half of what he (not she) builds or does after the divorce? If you want to find a case where the man petitioned the court about earnings and retirement relating to alimony received from a woman after the divorce, I'll be happy to call that unfair as well.
The fourth statement isn't sexist. You think a recommendation from NOW claiming that women should be the sole legal nad physical guardian the second a divorce is filed is a sexist statement against women? What planet are you on?
The last statement is again, just factual. Most people don't argue that he or she that has the gold, makes the rules. In the instance with high income males, the males have to choose to devote their income to supporting the family. We could argue semantically about his/versus their income. However if the check has his name on it, she can't cash it. So there is obviously choice still involved. She can choose to stay home because he devotes his income to that.
When you look at cases where women earn more than the men and easily earn enough to support them both, the men largely still work. Part of it could be his choice and inclination. However the huge statistical difference is more than just his choice. It must be hers as well. She is either unwilling to tolerate a lower standard of living or a man that is not working.
So, what percentage of physical and legal custody, assuming no abuse from both parties, should men and women get when there is a divorce?
Calling someone's opinion sexist, when you refuse to state your own is a bit disengenious, don't you think?
Nick
It isn't semantics. Intent determines a lot with regard to society and the law. It is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. You might reward "success" with violence, but I don't. Likewise just because the act doesn't end up with a hospital stay or death, doesn't mean it wasn't harmful. Lastly even when considering the ratios with regard to murder and serious injury we still have just a statistical difference, not the dozenfold+ difference you claimed.
Granted, 7 to 10 is not 12. You got me there.
Intent may determine a lot with regard to law, but that hardly matters in this instance. If my girlfriend were to attack me she knows damned well that she isn't going to beat me up, but if I attack her I sure as hell will. Me punching her as hard as I can is not the same as her punching me as hard as she can, legally or morally.
I never said it wasn't harmful, trumpt, you're swerving again. It's a different animal, though, there's a big difference between being in the hospital and not being in the hospital.
As for the statements...the first one is a plain statement of fact. Women initiated divorce more often by 2 to 1. (minimum) They give the reason and the blue collar part just denotes the job and income type of the man.
"against" and you also badmouth the validity of "emotional unfulfillment".
The second statement has quotes around the hunter/gatherer part which means I was relating it to a quote of what someone else said. Likely someone was mentioning something being neanderthals or something like that.
Actually what you were responding to had the woman as the breadwinner, which made your sexist crap even more egregious.
What is sexist about saying we get half of what we both built together but not half of what he (not she) builds or does after the divorce?
That's not all you said, bud, "women will".
The fourth statement isn't sexist. You think a recommendation from NOW claiming that women should be the sole legal nad physical guardian the second a divorce is filed is a sexist statement against women? What planet are you on?
You equate NOW (which in itself isn't a totally unified organization with only one spokesperson) with "women and women's group". If you don't see the problem with that I can't help you.
I guess we can say Osama bin Laden speaks for my friends here at UT who are from Saudi Arabia.
The last statement is again, just factual.
First of all how is it "just factual"?
And again you fail to acknowledge the victim attitude. Read it again, I'll bold the parts you should note.
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
"It's all up to the women. Men have no choice, they are poor victims. Give them kleenex."
Not to mention you don't back the assertion up with any facts.
When you look at cases where women earn more than the men and easily earn enough to support them both, the men largely still work. Part of it could be his choice and inclination. However the huge statistical difference is more than just his choice. It must be hers as well. She is either unwilling to tolerate a lower standard of living or a man that is not working.
Why "must" it be hers? Do you see how your sexist crap reinforces your baseless conclusion before it is even reached in a circular argument.
Step one: Women want lots of money and don't like a man who isn't working.
Step two: Women must send their men to work. Reason: See Step one.
So, what percentage of physical and legal custody, assuming no abuse from both parties, should men and women get when there is a divorce?
Whatever the woman wants. I would have NOW independently audit each case and go with their recommendation.