In this thread, you feel it perfectly sensible to ascribe all sorts of things to men, from the truly bad, like murder, to the merely slightly harmful, like porn. Furthermore, you fail to account for societal pressure affecting the data, and making the fundamental fallacy born of bigotry that something statistically higher for a group applies to everyone in that group. This isn’t even touching this:
because if I do I fear I may spontaneously turn into a gibbering maniac.
Your proposed solution: mass infantacide! Seriously? If that were any other group, your proposed genocidal schemes would be thoroughly piled upon and locked before it reached the second page! It is a fucking tragedy that a society like ours implicitly okays bigoted prejudiced assholes like you.
Which is why I thought the thread was some sorta meta commentary on something or other. But maybe not. There are all kinds of loonies with strange beliefs around these parts (first poster with the obvious reply of “including you!” wins a prize).
If it wasn’t couched in infanticide language, it might be an interesting question. Not so much how do we fix men, but why are men so much more likely to commit violent crimes, like rape/murder, etc.?
Agree with this. I mean, the OP is so over-the-top it’s barely worth responding to (uh, though I did, sort of), but as a feminist I think it’s ridiculous to advance women’s rights and shift roles and attitudes when it comes to gender and not examine the other side of the coin. A huge undertaking, no doubt, mixed up (or bogged down) in evolutionary science, sociology, criminology, history, even geography. Maybe a bit broad, even for the GD.
Part of me wonders if the easy answer is just ‘Because they can.’ The naysayers, men who argued for women’s right to vote, people who fought to free the slaves, Christians who hid Jews – sometimes it’s more interesting to see what’s unique about those who don’t follow the status quo. Because really, if you are a man in a ‘traditional’ society who has been raised to believe girls and women are chattel, affording them equal status means not only a major shift in your perception, it also means losing their servitude, both domestic and sexual, giving them more resources (education, medical attention), and convincing others to do the same (including, often, the girls and women themselves). How much easier it is to just accept the state of things, especially when you benefit from it.
(Underlining added) One of these things is not like the other… ;). Perhaps you mean “white people”?
I agree with this. It’s no good to beatify the folks with power who work to share or extend or even give up their power, but it is worth noting that it happens, and that almost all struggles for equality require the cooperation of the folks with power (the exceptions involve bloody revolutions). Struggles for equality that hold those in power with universal contempt tend to be automarginalizing.
marshmallow, I take it, is interested in dooming hundreds of millions of people to horrifying death–or does he hold in contempt the men who do things like invent antibiotics, vaccines, and other lifesaving techniques? It’s unfair to focus on disproportionate male involvement in crime, and not look at disproportionate male involvement in lifesaving discoveries.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness;11389977**marshmallow I take it, is interested in dooming hundreds of millions of people to horrifying death–or does he hold in contempt the men who do things like invent antibiotics, vaccines, and other lifesaving techniques? It’s unfair to focus on disproportionate male involvement in crime, and not look at disproportionate male involvement in lifesaving discoveries.[/QUOTE]
You should probably go to the linked thread and read Marshmallow’s whole post.
Anyway your joke raises an interesting point about gender roles. Society raises men to value dominance-being the alpha (whether by strength or brain power) and not showing emotion, where as women are raised to value cooperation and being more open, and in many cases submissive.
The thing of it is I think women and men have the same psychological and emotional needs for power, openness, cooperation, etc. This leads to nagging, and seeking the dominance craved, but denied by social roles. I also think men could be socialized to not value aggression as much, to value cooperation and such.
I think we need to dispel gender roles and teach kids there’s a time to be assert, and a time to be cooperative. There’s a time to be guarded, and a time to be open. That those times are the same for either gender. This is because masculine and feminine roles represent useful and needed qualities for either gender.
Society is evolving to blur the lines, but the hateful thread quoted in the op sets progress back.
There’s a thread somewhere commenting on how there seem to be more “Guests” posting nowadays. My first thought on seeing its title was “Maybe, maybe not; but there sure seem to be more trolls nowadays.”
…though it does seem that some of the “Guests” are old regulars who didn’t shell out the $14.95. Still, there’s a little extra crazy around here for sure. “Troll” gets tossed around with too much reckless abandon for my taste, but there certainly do seem to be more folks posting just to get a rise out of people. There are some posters who get mocked as trolls who I actually appreciate, even if I think they’re shithouse insane.
I’m interested. What societal pressure affects the data of the cites he gave?
Before anyone loses their shit, I’m not saying I am for “fixing” anyone, I’m just curious about the OP’s accusation
ETA:
I can’t speak for her, but I’d have to guess that your little haha would sting a lot more if it didn’t come from someone who thinks it’s art to dress up as a wizard and show his wang to people.
Why the hostility? I posted the Bart Simpson quote as a joke. If you read my post in Marshmallow’s thread you’d see I agree with Catfight. Further research would reveal that I am also a feminist (or possibly a post-feminist). CatFight posted a keyword that triggered a Simpson quote. It was not intended as any kind of commentary on her post. It was meant to ellicit a brief feeling of amusement, nothing more.