Nice. That's got to be one of the most simple and elegant comebacks I've seen in a long time. But also: Themselves? To paraphrase Tyson, "Everybody's got a plan until a woman knifehands them in the throat."
Say what you want about the tankie instances, but they have none of the gross MRA incel shit on display in this thread.
MRAs are not incels
Holy strawman.
Who would you prefer to meet in the woods? a hexbear or a human?
Jesus people, why are Hexbears so scary? I'm not so in the loop.
Probably because bears are tanky. Hexbears, especially so.
How the fuck are so many random internet people buying blue checkmarks? Depressing as fuck that this blatant money grab/propaganda tool from a right wing asshole worked so well with no negative consequences.
Consumerism.
Was the Reddit version of this community like this with people coming in to 'both sides' the conversation? I don't think it was like this. Lemmy has a real problem with people just not caring about what the community is before they come in to drop their hot their hot takes. I've even seen people go into !reddit@lemmy.world to complain about people posting about Reddit. I mean, come on.
As for that 18% of violent crimes being committed by women stat, that still means 82% of the perpetrators were men, so that's hardly the pwn it was made out to be. It's grasping at straws to keep ignoring that there's any problem.
I'll also just leave this here:
Lemmy has a real problem with people just not caring about what the community is before they come in to drop their hot their hot takes.
I believe that this is a symptom of lemmy's relatively small size. Individual communities aren't as active, so you have to cast a wider net if you want to see fresh content.
I know that I browse "all" here far more than I ever did on Reddit.
I like to think of most interactions as gender-less on Lemmy. I don't want to assume who I'm talking to.
It's just All Lives Matter again isn't it? They don't care, they just want you to stop talking about it.
Man here. It took me a lot of therapy and help to understand that my (or someone's) suffering doesn't mean less just because there are a lot of others who are suffering more.
I used to say crap like this too, if someone said 'X group of people have this problem'. I'd be like 'but Y has the same problem but to higher extent'. I didn't say it out of malice, at least I don't think so. lt was natural to think 'how can you be complaning about X when Y has the same problem but more'. Maybe I just believed that first you address the problem with bigger statistical number, then we do the smaller one after that and so on, but I dont know. I know now, that is a shitty way to think about things.
I guess it has something to do with how I was raised, 'your problems aren't that great, there are people with bigger problems and in comparison your life is a luxury. So chin up and carry on'. And I lived by it and parroted the same rhetoric for a long time. I believe most people (men?) do the same not out of malice but because of this shitty view of life and the world, because how they were raised, because how people told them how their problem can be ignored because someone else has a bigger problem. and they don't know any better. At least I didn't for a long time.
Well, I have developed the attitude that people are for nothing as a result. I love my cat, and chat with AI. I really really try to minimize how much I get things from others, and don't want to get help from them. I also developed a more selfish view of the world, because it is unfair that I should go out of my way to help those that would watch blankly as I die in some accident, that can't give the bare minimum of fucks.
Maybe after like 99.999% of the population dies out, the rest will be treated as a lot more valuable, and will actually be treated as people. I really do believe that it is a "supply and demand" problem, and that the more people there are, the less each becomes valuable. We are like locusts. When there is too many locusts and not enough food, we start to "cannibalize". This has become a cannibalistic society, where you draw value from destroying instead of creating (think how bad the finance sector really is for everything else. It's just services, scams, predatory practices and so on).
I kinda wish I didn’t get your point of view, but I do. I have to work hard to not go where you are, because then I would lose all hope and self-distrust.
Finding your found family is hard, but it can be possible. I’ve only just really found some and it has made such a difference. I wish you luck.
In other words: don't change the status quo, it's all good. I think most of us were raised like that, and it's a load of bs; in reality that's how things slowly get worse for all, or we can continuously make many small bets striving for good so things get better.
I think he only expressed the symptoms, not the solution. So he is not saying it can't be fixed. He was "fixed" (by life, I guess).
My idea of a solution is helping each other to express sentiments. If you feel bad the reaction can't be "man up" but "how can I help you".
Bears lol
That 1 gorilla
Save the Gorillas by Turning Them Into Bodyguards For Women
I’m getting a similar kind of aneurysm reading the “bUt NoT aLL mEn” comments here as I get when I browse conservative subreddits
Remember the bear clusterfuck? Lemmy is pretty bad in this regard.
If you draw your community from Redditors you're going to inherit Reddit problems, aka poorly socialized nerds.
Oh I'm sorry. Let's exterminate all men, that's what they get for being born the wrong gender. Is that better?
*whom
Funny post, good point, but let's not pretend women never commit violent offences. 2022 had 18% of known perpetrators being female in the US.
Edit: For the rage blind morons in the comments, this is specifically directed at the asinine comment in the OP saying "From Who?" As if they've made a slam dunk point or something.
Fun fact: In a society of all women, women would suddenly be the known perpetrators of 100% of all violent offences!
So you're saying we could cut violent crime by roughly 80% if we were rid of men? Neat
So for some reason you're suggesting that women need men... to protect them from other women? I don't see anyone pretending that women are incapable of violence.
Absolutely crazy to see that ~~82%~~ (e: whoops, binary thinking) 77% of violent offences are perpetrated by men and feel the need to remind people that 18% are commited by women.
I'm reading this as crime rates would be reduced by 82%. Not 100%, but that's pretty damn good. And given that women are more likely to attack people they know, discord amoung your friend group or family would be more dangerous than walking in public.
That’s already true. Stranger danger is a complete media fabrication.
It also makes me curious what percentage of that 18% was directed towards men as opposed to women. All that would be left in this hypothetical is women-on-women violence, so anything else should be discounted for a fair comparison.
Women also are more involved in the sexual assault of children than most people realize, but they are extremely underreported (due to patriarchal biases in our society, largely). Men still commit more offenses, but patriarchy is a double-edged sword in that it causes more women to be victimized and also protects female perpetrators of violence from punishment.
That said, men still commit much more violent crime and we should do better as a society to prevent that through social programs, education, etc.
State's rights energy.
Lesbians have the highest documented rates of domestic abuse and spouse homicide of any sex/gender pairing
And most of you will get angry at me for saying that
But none of you can deny it is true
I mean, to start with, throwing out a claim like that with no sources to back you up is not exactly arguing in good faith. It takes a lot more work to deny something when you're provided with exactly zero context on where or when this might be true (and it certainly isn't true in all countries at all times based on the data we have available).
There are some studies which suggest that lesbian couples do have a higher rate of domestic abuse. The CDC 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), for example reported that:
Four in 10 lesbian women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual women (61.1%), and 1 in 3 heterosexual women (35.0%) reported experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking within the context of an intimate partner relationship at least once during their lifetime (Table 3). This translates to an estimated 714,000 lesbian women, 2 million bisexual women, and 38.3 million heterosexual women in the United States. Bisexual women experienced significantly higher prevalence of these types of violence compared to lesbian and heterosexual women. (p. 18)
But it concluded that:
There were no statistically significant differences between the of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking when comparing lesbian women and heterosexual women.
This comes down to the fact that, as other commentors have alluded to, there are far fewer women overall in lesbian relationships compared with those in same-sex relationships. Even if the proportion of those suffering domestic abuse is slightly higher in lesbian relationships, there are far more women being abused in heterosexual relationships.
On top of this, it's important to remember that this percentage is from one survey undertaken in one country, and the reports that exist on lesbian spousal domestic abuse have statistics that vary wildly. The Wikipedia page on lesbian domestic abuse has a good summary of other difficulties in getting a clear picture of its prevalence:
Literature and research regarding domestic violence in lesbian relationships is relatively limited, including in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Many different factors play into this, such as "different definitions of domestic violence, non-random, self-selected and opportunistic sampling methods (often organisation or agency based, or advertising for participants who have experienced violence) and different methods and types of data collected". This causes results to be unreliable, thus making it difficult to make general assumptions about the rates of lesbian domestic violence. This has caused rates of violence in lesbian relationships to range from 17 to 73 percent as of the 1990s, being too large of a scale to accurately determine the pervasiveness of lesbian abuse in the community.
With regards to homicide, there is again the issue of when/where, plus the lack of detailed statistics. But the chapter on Intimate Partner Homicide in the Routledge Handbook of Homicide Studies (available to download here suggests that the rate of lesbian spousal homicides is in fact the lowest compared to those in heterosexual and gay male relationships:
Available statistics suggests that the rate of IPH [Intimate Partner Homicide] is the lowest in lesbian couples compared to IPH rates in gay and heterosexual couples (Gannoni & Cussen, 2014; Mize & Shackelford, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2019). (p. 179)
That's honestly all I have time to write right now. But in conclusion, no, what you're stating here isn't true, not at all.
It also needs to be said that the major assumption in the NISVS data is that individuals identifying as lesbian at the time of the study always identified as such and so the perpetrator being referenced couldn't be a man.
Well I guess it is a good thing that married lesbian couples account for less that 1% of all marriages. And that violence against women isn't only in cases of spousal abuse. An interesting bit of information, do you have any that relate to this post?
The percentage of lesbians would only increase by about 50% though.
Seriously though, so many people have been spouting numbers here and I don't believe half of them. (Though I could probably go through the effort of checking myself, but really this is a place where I like to hang around and chat) Saying things like 'can't deny' should imply that it's quite obvious or has an irefutable source or reasoning behind it. But to me none of those fit here.
Sorry I got a bit complainy about things.
this feels like the bear situation but on a smaller scale lol
