How about that famous picture of a gingerbread cookie? “The perfect man: he’s quiet, he’s sweet, and if he gives you any grief, you can bite his head off.”
I believe you’re not understanding the math. Here are some illustrative numbers:
[ul]
[li]100,000 women and 100,000 men.[/li][li]100 women are murdered; 45 by intimate partners, 55 by others.[/li][li]380 men are murdered; 19 by intimate partners, 361 by others.[/li][/ul]
If you compare the likelihood of being murdered by an intimate partner, it’s 70/30 (45/19). However you still get 45% of women murdered by intimate partners (45/100) versus 5% of men (19/380). But the 70/30 ratio is what’s relevant here. The 45%/5% number is mostly an artifact of the vastly increased likelihood that men have of being murdered by a non-intimate partner (361/55).
People like this can go fuck themselves which is probably what they’re going to end up dong anyway because I can’t fathom anybody would want to be in a relationship with someone who has such a terrible attitude.
There’s a certain contingent within female culture, a subgroup or a recurring theme I’ve noticed, that focuses on self-esteem, which is where the Marilyn Monroe comment came from. I understand the general impetus, that women are generally socialized into having low self-confidence, but the attempt to overcompensate just seems sad and narcissistic to me.
I have a cousin (with terrible ‘‘luck’’ in relationships) who posts shit like this all the time, about how she wants to be treated like a princess and has XYZ demands for any man who dates her, and I don’t see any indication she’s interested in contributing much on her end.
I understand the math. I’m not sure your conclusion follows from the statistics alone.
Let me put it this way. If you are a woman worrying about being murdered, it makes the most sense to worry about being murdered by a man you’re dating or married to.
If you are a man worried about being murdered, it makes the most sense to worry about being murdered by another man you know or a strange man.
Therefore, the ‘‘reverse equivalence’’ of this meme is not a meme about restraining orders against females. It’s a meme about watching your back around other men.
I don’t think you understand the context.
That’s a valid point.
Didn’t we also send fewer male athletes than female ones to the 2012 Olympics?
God, I hate this message. It seems to be some sort of girl power message, but maybe if I can’t handle you at your worst the better option is that you should just stop being such a terrible person.
For that to have been a valid percentage, there would have had to have been at least 100 such domestic murders in Michigan alone, with only one involving a woman shooting a man. I would doubt that, until I see the raw data. No combination would be “over 99%” unless it was a ratio of >100:1.
According to the link I posted, yes; 269 to 261.
The reasons are complicated, I’m sure. In London and Rio the U.S. qualified a team in women’s soccer, but not men’s, for example.
Are you suggesting that there are no “legitimate” – as in those you would not criticize on the grounds of sexism – historical reasons in 2016 to celebrate having more women than men in the Olympics?
When I’m at a table with my trivia team, one guy who’s my friend’s dad always drapes his arm over the back of my chair while I’m sitting there. I try to avoid sitting next to him at all costs. He’s a geezer so I can’t bring myself to tell him that I don’t like that.
If my husband were the one sitting next to him, I doubt he would still stretch his arm across the back of the adjacent chair like that.
The idea is: redraw pictures of women from comics using Hawkeye instead, in the same pose, to reveal how impractical, contorted, and uncomfortable those poses/outfits are.
No, I was merely replying to the claim that “the reverse would not represent an achievement or progress.” We sent more women than men the last time; does it represent an achievement or progress to simply do that again this time? Would it represent an achievement or progress to simply do that again next time?
Well, yes, I think so, but that’s what I’m asking you. It doesn’t represent that?
If you don’t think that it’s roughly as equally true in 2016 as it was in 2012 that the United States has enough of a history of placing social barriers in the path of women who want to achieve greatness in athletics to warrant celebration over having more female than male athletes, that’s one thing. But I can’t tell if that’s your position or if you just think there’s philosophical importance to the notion that eventually, that would hypothetically stop being true.
Hmmm. . . To me in those Hawkeye pictures, the guys just look “effeminate” or “having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman.” So, I’m not sure. You might get a similar effect if you drew Superman as Catwoman or something. But, I get the point. And it’s not really news that female heroes and villains are drawn to appeal to pubescent boys. Sex sells.
No, but it’s apparently news that not all fans of comics are prepubescent boys and some of us are tired of seeing that shit.
As a gamer, my biggest pet peeve is body armor on women. One of the reasons I love Diablo 3 is how badass the body armor is for female Barbarians and Paladins (usually I play melee class.) And by ‘‘badass,’’ I mean ‘‘complete.’’ Realistic, full chest plate, should pads, helmets. The sort of thing you would actually wear if you were swinging around an eight foot sword.
It’s hilarious to me when women get shit for complaining about sexism in video games. Video game players, as a group, are about the most whining entitled self-obsessed assholes when it comes to the specific things they want out of the product they consume. I remember the Diablo 3 forums were filled with complaints when Diablo 3 gave them a bunch of free bonuses as an anniversary gift, because the free bonuses should have been better in XYZ specific ways – but the minute the complaint comes from a woman about a woman thing it’s ‘‘stop trying to fucking ruin my video game.’’ Well, asshole, I shelled out $50 too, are you saying I’m not entitled to have a product I prefer to play also? Women currently make up about 50% of the market share in gaming so if you (you = entitled imaginary internet whiner in Diablo forums) think my voice shouldn’t count you can shove it up your ass.
I dunno what the gender stats are for market share in comic books but my feelings are generally the same. Any complaint with regard to comics or video games is essentially saying, ‘‘Hi, I’m a big fan of this thing, and if X were changed, it would be a more fun and engaging experience for me.’’ People do this shit all the time, the value of the complaint isn’t negated because the thing that would make it more fun for me happens to be less sexism.
I think we want to do well in the medal count, and so we send whatever team we think will do that; and I think we thought that way in '08, when we sent a team that was 48% female; and I think we thought that way in '12, when we sent one that had more females than males; and I think we still think that way in '16, when we’ve again sent a team that has more females than males; and I think we’ll still think that way in '20, and we’ll send whatever team we can field to that end, which may yet again consist of more females than males, since our position may yet still be unchanged.
I don’t think that our '16 position represents any real change from our '12 position, and I don’t think that our '20 position will represent any real change from either, and I’m not sure that any of them represented a real change from our '08 position: we just shrug and say, okay, if there are a lot of events that are only open to women, then we’ll send a lot of women; there are also a lot of events that are only open to men, so we’ll also send a lot of men; ideally, we’d send folks to compete in every event; we genuinely don’t give a crap.
All good points. And if more people felt and expressed those thoughts, there would be less sexism in games and other media.
Gotcha; thanks. What I think is that with respect to Robot Arm’s objection to the commentary about “you go, girls” vs. a hypothetical “you go, boys,” the distinctions between '08 and '12 and '16 and '20 aren’t that important; what’s important is the distinction between those years and, say, 1956 (when there were 245 US men and 41 US women). Or 1972 (316/84) or 1988 (332/195).
It seems clear to me that the commentator meant to indicate that having so many US women participating this year is a good sign because it is, as Peremensoe said, another data point in a progression from something less good toward something better. I think it’s more or less equally as relevant and noteworthy in 2016 as it was in 2012 that this is where we are, given where we were.
He’s right that celebrating having more male competitors than female would not be taken the same way. It’s my opinion that it’s really obvious and acceptable why that’s the case.