Serious PC thread

[brokenshoelace]

It's such a laughably one-sided outlook too. Yeah, men may not report domestic violence, but let's not account for the thousands (millions?) of women too terrified to report their husband's abuse because they know very well that's a recipe for more.

 

[Federberg]

Literally everything you mentioned is anecdotal. The actual numbers are different and you know it.

actually there are research pieces I've looked at as well on this issue. I'll try to find them and post them here. But again I repeat, men and women have vastly different incentives to report violence against them. If you can't even acknowledge that then this is not an honest debate

 

[Federberg]

It's such a laughably one-sided outlook too. Yeah, men may not report domestic violence, but let's not account for the thousands (millions?) of women too terrified to report their husband's abuse because they know very well that's a recipe for more.

it's fascinating to me that you imply there's significant under-reporting because women are too terrified to report. But you seem to discount that men are too ashamed, or don't take seriously enough the violence that's perpetrated against them. Bias much? I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that there's a sub-set of women who don't report, but I would argue that that sub-set is heavily influenced by the surrounding culture. Note I'm not saying culture is the be all and end all, but it's significant

 

[Kieran]

Ah OK, well my neighbor is not the only murderer in town either. It's odd why I continue to single him out and scoff at his family praising his values.

Mate, "we're not the only rapists, racists, murderers, thieves in town, we just did it better than everyone else" is not the argument you think it is.

I don’t think you’re replying to me. You’re certainly not replying to the discussion I’m having.

Go back a couple of pages, where you sneered at the wests heritage. Our cultural heritage is philosophically and spiritually Graeco-Roman, followed by Judeo-Christian, with the disputations and gains of the Enlightenment, the loosening of the grip of monarchy and priesthood, where every sacred cow is openly challenged and has to gain its right to wield influence in the public square.

From there we reach a point where women gained the vote and relative freedoms can flourish. Compare that to Iran. As I said, we’re still prone to our fallen nature, but it’s better than it could be. It’s better than most places. There’s a reason why so many people want to flee here.

There’s also a reason why China styles itself The People’s Republic of China - to associate itself with the concept of a republic, an ancient ideal in the west since the Roman Republic, an ideal which suggests that justice and power is available to the people. There’s a reason why the dictator Putin and his country maintain the pretence of being a democracy, a thought development in Greece.

These are seen as ideals that even the worst want to be associated with, even cynically.

Is the West perfect? No, it’s as open to abuse as anywhere, but it thrives because aspirations can be met here, people can hope with more objective reason than they can in theocracies.

 

[Murat B.]

10 kids dead ( so far ) in BC, Canada in a school shooting , 25 wounded. The shooter is dead, self inflicted injury.
We are calling the shooter a "gunperson" , not to offend the feelings of the dead shooter. Heaven forbid if we misgender the little fuck.
There is your PC of the day.

 

[brokenshoelace]

it's fascinating to me that you imply there's significant under-reporting because women are too terrified to report. But you seem to discount that men are too ashamed, or don't take seriously enough the violence that's perpetrated against them. Bias much? I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that there's a sub-set of women who don't report, but I would argue that that sub-set is heavily influenced by the surrounding culture. Note I'm not saying culture is the be all and end all, but it's significant

I don't discount. It's just that the numbers are overwhelming on the other side of your argument.

 

[Federberg]

I don't discount. It's just that the numbers are overwhelming on the other side of your argument.

they're not overwhelming mate. Not when you factor in the differing incentives to report. Women literally gain social currency from making victims of themselves even if it's false. Hell just look at this Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni case. The woman, in a position of power, still felt it appropriate to claim she was sexually harassed, because she knew it would destroy his career and gain her sympathy. This is the world we live in. As long as imbalances exist where detrimental assumptions are made about males, powerful women will abuse the system. Just like elites abuse the legal system to gain advantage. There's no difference. You know why? Because we're human. The wicked do what the wicked do, regardless of gender. Until society comes to terms with this truth there will always be opportunists to make fools out of the credulous

 

[brokenshoelace]

There's no difference. You know why? Because we're human. The wicked do what the wicked do, regardless of gender. Until society comes to terms with this truth there will always be opportunists to make fools out of the credulous

I think this is where the chore misunderstanding of the argument lies. I don't think men do horrible things because they're biological males. It's not some genetic predisposition. I just think the system is heavily in their favor (thus allowing them to do what they do) and quite honestly, I believe it's delusional to argue otherwise. That is not to say that identity politics and virtue signaling can't be insanely annoying, or that white liberal feminists can't be insane hypocrites who absolutely killed the movement by focusing on needless posturing and some performative lunacy, or that some of your arguments aren't valid. I just don't think they change the bigger picture anywhere near enough for it to matter.

 

[mrzz]

Men take more risks because in a patriarchal society (pleaaaaase let's not have to debate whether we live in a world that largely favors men in the way literally everything is set up) you can afford to take more risks as a man for very obvious reasons.

Goign back to the beginning of the discussion...

Broken, the argument above is simply not true, specially the bolded "because". Yes, if you live in a society where a given group has advantages, that group could take more risks (more on that later). But there is a thing called neuroscience, and also neuropsychology. Those are stablished scientific fields, with close to a century of data. There is no controversy for them: men take more risks, by nature. They even know which specific parts of the brain are responsible for what. They not only know this, they know it in detail, it is part of a much larger body of knowledge.

Of course that this is on average. You will find men extremely risk adverse, and you will find women with high appetitte for risk. But, on average, men take more risks. Then, on average, men pay the price for those risks more often, but also reap the rewards. You see those effects even in extremeley progressive (I hate that term) societies. There is not mcuh room for debate here.

As for patriarchy... IMO most of the time this term is misused. Go back mere 100 years in history and 95% of humankind still lived in a world were physical strenght is the trump card. The further back you go, the more this is true. Obviously societies would gravitate around men, which, on average, are stronger than womem, and on average again, more aggressive. People speak of patriarchy as some sort of conspiracy theory, some cult of men in funny clothes conspiring to stay in power. Nothing good or useful, nothing that can actually solve any real world problem will ever come out of that way of thinking.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Goign back to the beginning of the discussion...

Broken, the argument above is simply not true, specially the bolded "because". Yes, if you live in a society where a given group has advantages, that group could take more risks (more on that later). But there is a thing called neuroscience, and also neuropsychology. Those are stablished scientific fields, with close to a century of data. There is no controversy for them: men take more risks, by nature. They even know which specific parts of the brain are responsible for what. They not only know this, they know it in detail, it is part of a much larger body of knowledge.

Of course that this is on average. You will find men extremely risk adverse, and you will find women with high appetitte for risk. But, on average, men take more risks. Then, on average, men pay the price for those risks more often, but also reap the rewards. You see those effects even in extremeley progressive (I hate that term) societies. There is not mcuh room for debate here.

As for patriarchy... IMO most of the time this term is misused. Go back mere 100 years in history and 95% of humankind still lived in a world were physical strenght is the trump card. The further back you go, the more this is true. Obviously societies would gravitate around men, which, on average, are stronger than womem, and on average again, more aggressive. People speak of patriarchy as some sort of conspiracy theory, some cult of men in funny clothes conspiring to stay in power. Nothing good or useful, nothing that can actually solve any real world problem will ever come out of that way of thinking.

Regarding your first paragraph, I don't think this contradicts anything I said. The "nature vs. nurture" debate is as old as time for so many subject but the above doesn't entirely change the larger point. So much of our behavior is shaped by society, culture, norms, etc... The pre-frontal cortex is ultimately not the only, or even biggest reason why men take more risks than women. Risks will almost always involve a measure of assessment, and it's silly to think that if society (for a lack of better term) didn't reward those risks on average, or didn't punish failure enough, that men would continue to take those risks just because they are predisposed to do so, or that women would not have felt compelled to catch up.

As for your bit about patriarchy, it's the same thing I said to Moxie in the other thread re: conspiracy theories. You don't need a secret counsel of men to keep the patriarchy alive and keep tilting things in their favor. The same way you don't need the political elite to conspire. Their interests are almost always intertwined and thus, patriarchy can live pretty organically.

 

[Federberg]

I think this is where the chore misunderstanding of the argument lies. I don't think men do horrible things because they're biological males. It's not some genetic predisposition. I just think the system is heavily in their favor (thus allowing them to do what they do) and quite honestly, I believe it's delusional to argue otherwise. That is not to say that identity politics and virtue signaling can't be insanely annoying, or that white liberal feminists can't be insane hypocrites who absolutely killed the movement by focusing on needless posturing and some performative lunacy, or that some of your arguments aren't valid. I just don't think they change the bigger picture anywhere near enough for it to matter.

how is the system in their favour? Please explain that to me. How is it in their favour when they are more likely to be jailed for the same crime? When they die in greater numbers in wars or even in every day jobs. When the legal system has been distorted to favour women in divorce... no fault divorce. When by default women are more likely to be given custody of children even when the data clearly shows that after about age 4, fathers have far better outcomes raising children? Where is the advantage please? You keep stating that there's a blatantly obvious advantage. Where?

Someone pointed out the career choices in the most socially advanced countries, particularly Scandinavia where women still target jobs that remuneratively rewarding, despite the opportunities available to them. This isn't about patriarchy, it's about choices. Men take risks because they want to marry and look after their women. The most successful women often don't get married because of hypergamy. It's not the men rejecting them, but the women themselves seeking men more successful than them, and their success has reduced their dating pool. This is the nature of things, not patriarchy. It's who we are as humans. It's primordial. Men would go out hunting to get the meat, and demonstrate his worth to the women. I don't think things are going to change and that's nothing to do with patriarchy. Patriarchy is just the bullshit made up by feminists to secure political power, and it frustrates me that something so blatantly obvious is still overlooked by so many people

 

[mrzz]

Regarding your first paragraph, I don't think this contradicts anything I said. The "nature vs. nurture" debate is as old as time for so many subject but the above doesn't entirely change the larger point. So much of our behavior is shaped by society, culture, norms, etc... The pre-frontal cortex is ultimately not the only, or even biggest reason why men take more risks than women. Risks will almost always involve a measure of assessment, and it's silly to think that if society (for a lack of better term) didn't reward those risks on average, or didn't punish failure enough, that men would continue to take those risks just because they are predisposed to do so, or that women would not have felt compelled to catch up.

As for your bit about patriarchy, it's the same thing I said to Moxie in the other thread re: conspiracy theories. You don't need a secret counsel of men to keep the patriarchy alive and keep tilting things in their favor. The same way you don't need the political elite to conspire. Their interests are almost always intertwined and thus, patriarchy can live pretty organically.

We really disagree them. For me it is fairly obvious that society, on average, *do not* reward those risks. For each success story, there are thousands of failures. And the punishment is very harsh. Problem is that people are stupid and have selective memory, or pay attention only to what they want.

Yes, patriarchy can only live organically. But, in this case, it needs to fight for its space with a lot of other groups and power structures that also live organically, and with those that are in fact explicitely organized. Patriarchy is simply irrelevant in the last century.

 

[Federberg]

We really disagree them. For me it is fairly obvious that society, on average, *do not* reward those risks. For each success story, there are thousands of failures. And the punishment is very harsh. Problem is that people are stupid and have selective memory, or pay attention only to what they want.

Yes, patriarchy can only live organically. But, in this case, it needs to fight for its space with a lot of other groups and power structures that also live organically, and with those that are in fact explicitely organized. Patriarchy is simply irrelevant in the last century.

preach!

For every success who took risks probably another 5 or 10 tried the same thing and failed! Only those who look from the finish line, seeing the success story are naive enough to believe it's as simple as that. It's the nature of men to take that risk because of the reward of family and a good mate, to continue his line. It sickens me that success because of risk taking can be used against those who've succeeded.

Funny story.. it took a few years for my business partner and I to succeed. In that period we lost money. But the moment we turned the corner, we were out with a mutual friend and I recall the look of rage on my business partner's face when this "friend" off handedly claimed we had been "lucky". I literally had to put my hand on my business partner's shoulder and shake my head. I knew exactly how he felt. I felt it to. All our efforts, our fears of failure, casually dismissed by someone looking from the finish line, at the finished product and thinking it had all been smooth. That is the view of the entitled. Those who don't take risk, and just expect to have the same benefits as other's who have bled to get where they are.

 

[Murat B.]

Since the beginning of time, 0.00001 % of the population pretty much squeezed the life out of the 99.99999% of the population , made up of men and women equally. Men died hunting beats, fighting wars, working impossible jobs. Now they die as victims of violent crime, suicide, etc. Women died from lack of hygiene at birth, disease, famine, etc...They buried more of their kids than saw them grow up. Men and women suffered equally and side by side at the hands of the 0.00001 % that are made up of kings, queens, sultans ,pharaohs etc and if you are telling me those were mostly made up of men, then I will give you that patriarchy. Other than that, life has been a sad tragedy for everyone since day one and still is.

 

[britbox]

preach!

For every success who took risks probably another 5 or 10 tried the same thing and failed! Only those who look from the finish line, seeing the success story are naive enough to believe it's as simple as that. It's the nature of men to take that risk because of the reward of family and a good mate, to continue his line. It sickens me that success because of risk taking can be used against those who've succeeded.

Funny story.. it took a few years for my business partner and I to succeed. In that period we lost money. But the moment we turned the corner, we were out with a mutual friend and I recall the look of rage on my business partner's face when this "friend" off handedly claimed we had been "lucky". I literally had to put my hand on my business partner's shoulder and shake my head. I knew exactly how he felt. I felt it to. All our efforts, our fears of failure, casually dismissed by someone looking from the finish line, at the finished product and thinking it had all been smooth. That is the view of the entitled. Those who don't take risk, and just expect to have the same benefits as other's who have bled to get where they are.

There is a quote attributed to golfer Gary Player. After holing a long putt somebody in the crowd shouted "Player, you lucky South African"... To which he replied "Yes, the more I practice, the luckier I get".

The point being that to a large degree, you reap what you sow.

I totally take your post on business. You backed yourself and reaped the reward. Most new businesses don"t last 18 months.

 

[britbox]

"women would not have felt compelled to catch up."

Catch up to what?

 

[Murat B.]

Bee is the best

Canadian Reporterperson Announces Policepersons Have Identified Gunperson

VANCOUVER — Canadian reporterpersons announced that policepersons have confirmed the identify of the gunperson in Tumbler Ridge.

babylonbee.com

 

[brokenshoelace]

if you are telling me those were mostly made up of men, then I will give you that patriarchy.

Weren't they?

 

[brokenshoelace]

We really disagree them. For me it is fairly obvious that society, on average, *do not* reward those risks. For each success story, there are thousands of failures. And the punishment is very harsh. Problem is that people are stupid and have selective memory, or pay attention only to what they want.

Yes, patriarchy can only live organically. But, in this case, it needs to fight for its space with a lot of other groups and power structures that also live organically, and with those that are in fact explicitely organized. Patriarchy is simply irrelevant in the last century.

How many men get away with sexual assault/rape yearly? Are we serious here?

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as thinking I'm claiming most risks reap rewards, you guys can't possible that obtuse, sorry.