Red Mosquito

oh boy

mookie wrote:One other thing, if you could please start using my current handle, that would be great.

I've read a lot of ridiculous things on message boards. This one for some reason ranks toward the top.

What zeppe said.

cutuphalfdead wrote:What zeppe said.

You have been on your A game of late, drying machine.

I don't want to start a fight, I just don't see what you're getting at. I don't disagree with any of the 3 points you just made, but they're more or less irrelevant to the conversation.

@SkitchP wrote:

mookie wrote:One other thing, if you could please start using my current handle, that would be great.

I've read a lot of ridiculous things on message boards. This one for some reason ranks toward the top.

No means no, @SkitchP.

theplatypus wrote:I don't want to start a fight, I just don't see what you're getting at. I don't disagree with any of the 3 points you just made, but they're more or less irrelevant to the conversation.

Well, alright. Let me know when the conversation touches on women and their use of violence.

The violence perpetuated by internet user px against quality posting is probably the greatest proof of her point.

mookie wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

mookie wrote:One other thing, if you could please start using my current handle, that would be great.

I've read a lot of ridiculous things on message boards. This one for some reason ranks toward the top.

No means no, @SkitchP.

theplatypus wrote:I don't want to start a fight, I just don't see what you're getting at. I don't disagree with any of the 3 points you just made, but they're more or less irrelevant to the conversation.

Well, alright. Let me know when the conversation touches on women and their use of violence.

I think that anti-rape advocacy usually does, to be fair. Men are also raped; it's much rarer but it happens. Domestic violence is certainly an issue amongst the LGBT community and in gay relationships between men. No one is doubting this. But it's a question of degrees, you know? You can't deny that there are imbalances in terms of what gets reported, why / which perpetrators generally get off lightly in situations of abuse against women (famous, rich men) etc. It's all about proportion; you do not need to say that women don't perpetuate violence in order to say that the 'culture(s) of violence' is / are heavily weighted on one side. Am I going mad here?

mookie wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Sorry PX, I don't follow the point you're making. Women have forgotten how to take a punch, but there are groups fighting against violence against women, except it's just "good old fashioned violence"? Can you explain it to me like I'm five?

1. Since the beginning of time women have been struggling for "equality." At some moments taking our lumps, and at other time finding success.

2. Not all women can be measured the same. Or should be. Not all women be required to be the same as the next.

3. Some women are very capable of violence, as a means to a certain outcome.

I've been thinking about that chart on the other page, Jorge. Maybe more fleshing out the thoughts I've been having since seeing it.

Where does this stop? Would you argue the same thing about children and parents? Parents abuse children but to advocate against that is to ignore how often children are total dicks to their parents?

mookie wrote:

harmless wrote:

mookie wrote:

harmless wrote:

mookie wrote:Why is violence against women different from good old fashioned violence?

Because generally, the only people using the term 'good old fashioned violence' are men.

Oh. I feel like women have just forgotten how to take a punch. We've been subjugated for so long that we forgot we are capable of warfare in our own right. That's not to say that all women can take a punch or should take a punch. Some women just by the nature of things have to be prepared to take a punch.

It's life. What ya gonna do.

Rape? Forced abortions? Genital mutilation? Drunken, drugged wife-beating?

Nope? Still nothing, huh? Just 'how it is'? That's interesting. What do I know, I'm not a woman.

There are groups that are working and have been working in these areas of violence against women. These groups don't just sit around on it.

When did I talk about 'sitting around on' anything? What are you talking about now?

@SkitchP wrote:The violence perpetuated by internet user px against quality posting is probably the greatest proof of her point.

Quality posting? LOL that's pretty funny, @SkitchP.

harmless wrote:

mookie wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

mookie wrote:One other thing, if you could please start using my current handle, that would be great.

I've read a lot of ridiculous things on message boards. This one for some reason ranks toward the top.

No means no, @SkitchP.

theplatypus wrote:I don't want to start a fight, I just don't see what you're getting at. I don't disagree with any of the 3 points you just made, but they're more or less irrelevant to the conversation.

Well, alright. Let me know when the conversation touches on women and their use of violence.

I think that anti-rape advocacy usually does, to be fair. Men are also raped; it's much rarer but it happens. Domestic violence is certainly an issue amongst the LGBT community and in gay relationships between men. No one is doubting this. But it's a question of degrees, you know? You can't deny that there are imbalances in terms of what gets reported, why / which perpetrators generally get off lightly in situations of abuse against women (famous, rich men) etc. It's all about proportion; you do not need to say that women don't perpetuate violence in order to say that the 'culture(s) of violence' is / are heavily weighted on one side. Am I going mad here?

I don't know if you're going mad, harmless. You have gotten mad pretty easily in the past.

Let's leave rape out of it for a moment. Rape is too easy - it's obvious.

I sort of wanted to specifically discuss women's use of violence. What activities and behaviors are considered violence under the law. I can see though, that violence within an intimate relationship is more or less about the personalities of each person with in the couple - rather than just it being a man thing to beat women.

A study I read from the Dept of Justice states empirically that women do not employ the use of violence unless they are essentially "forced" to, in order to level the playing field, as it were.

Many women used violence in self defense, but many also used violence to control their
partners. Jealousy was a frequent motivator of women’s violence.

^ This is a conclusion from a study done by the US Dept of Justice
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208611.pdf



My personal feelings are that women shouldn't get a pass simply because they are traditionally the weaker sex.

harmless wrote:

mookie wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Sorry PX, I don't follow the point you're making. Women have forgotten how to take a punch, but there are groups fighting against violence against women, except it's just "good old fashioned violence"? Can you explain it to me like I'm five?

1. Since the beginning of time women have been struggling for "equality." At some moments taking our lumps, and at other time finding success.

2. Not all women can be measured the same. Or should be. Not all women be required to be the same as the next.

3. Some women are very capable of violence, as a means to a certain outcome.

I've been thinking about that chart on the other page, Jorge. Maybe more fleshing out the thoughts I've been having since seeing it.

Where does this stop? Would you argue the same thing about children and parents? Parents abuse children but to advocate against that is to ignore how often children are total dicks to their parents?

I wasn't one of those parents that spanked. So I don't know. Spanking them for hitting their brother or sister seemed like a terrible way to show them that hitting people was wrong.

mookie wrote:I don't know if you're going mad, harmless. You have gotten mad pretty easily in the past.

What about addressing my points instead of hurling insults?

I'm not sure where you've read that women don't ever perpetrate violence, but it certainly wasn't from me. Neither do I understand why you'd want to erase violence against women or 'redress the balance' when the balance, as it is, already so heavily favours men.

harmless wrote:

mookie wrote:I don't know if you're going mad, harmless. You have gotten mad pretty easily in the past.

What about addressing my points instead of hurling insults?

I'm not sure where you've read that women don't ever perpetrate violence, but it certainly wasn't from me. Neither do I understand why you'd want to erase violence against women or 'redress the balance' when the balance, as it is, already so heavily favours men.

As if asking if you've gone mad wasn't an insult of sorts.

Are you absolutely certain that men do have the upperhand? Maybe they don't, and that's why they've traditionally resorted to coercive violence.

mookie wrote:

harmless wrote:

mookie wrote:I don't know if you're going mad, harmless. You have gotten mad pretty easily in the past.

What about addressing my points instead of hurling insults?

I'm not sure where you've read that women don't ever perpetrate violence, but it certainly wasn't from me. Neither do I understand why you'd want to erase violence against women or 'redress the balance' when the balance, as it is, already so heavily favours men.

As if asking if you've gone mad wasn't an insult of sorts.

Are you absolutely certain that men do have the upperhand? Maybe they don't, and that's why they've traditionally resorted to coercive violence.

So asking whether I, myself, have gone mad, is an insult towards you? It wasn't just, like, a rhetorical question?

Regarding your question, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies on you here.

harmless wrote:
Regarding your question, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies on you here.

It's a theory and yes the burden of proof lies on me. I would need a lot of money to conduct a study, so that's not going to happen.

I hope you'll be at least wondering about this theory. x

Yes clearly woman have the upperhand in today's society. They just love to play the victim. It's not as if men have historically resorted to violence to resolve issues.

I can't help but feel that a general reworking of American divorce laws and the complete abolition of all things the Huffington Post would do wonders for addressing both the "angry man" reaction to feminism as an ideal and the scoffing faction who can't seem to take it seriously.

The Huff Post are also horrendously muddled in their stance on disability issues too.

Some women just by the nature of things have to be prepared to take a punch.

which things, which women?

and how is rape too easy and obvious?