The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Borderlands of Rojava]

"Equally likely" is an example of not correct.

Sure, if you read it as meaning 1 in 3 men are rapemurderers but why stop there? Why not read it to mean 1 in 3 men are literally jack sparrow, jack Ryan, or jack the ripper? That shocks the conscious, it would mean all nonficitional men are one english prostitute killer, it would require a conspiracy of a magnitude I can hardly imagine!

Of course this would be undercut by the previous sentence saying you probably aren't someone who would ever hurt a woman and be a shocking departure from the general tendency of the text to focus on women's feelings.

Personally I think 90% of men are none of the three, so they still wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure, if you read it as meaning 1 in 3 men are rapemurderers but why stop there? Why not read it to mean 1 in 3 men are literally jack sparrow, jack Ryan, or jack the ripper? That shocks the conscious, it would mean all nonficitional men are one english prostitute killer, it would require a conspiracy of a magnitude I can hardly imagine!

Of course this would be undercut by the previous sentence saying you probably aren't someone who would ever hurt a woman and be a shocking departure from the general tendency of the text to focus on women's feelings.

Personally I think 90% of men are none of the three, so they still wrong.

The stats indicate that there are more women rapists than men rapists in any case. (Since the victimization rate is comparable, but tellingly, male victims are more likely to be victims of gang rapes.).

[Des-Bal]

Personally I think 90% of men are none of the three, so they still wrong.

Almost nobody is jack the ripper, jack Ryan, or jack sparrow. From a statistical standpoint nobody is, in the entire history of the universe one person has been one of those people. It's definitely wrong if they were arguing it's one in three.

[Ostroeuropa]

Personally I think 90% of men are none of the three, so they still wrong.

Almost nobody is jack the ripper, jack Ryan, or jack sparrow. From a statistical standpoint nobody is, in the entire history of the universe one person has been one of those people. It's definitely wrong if they were arguing it's one in three.

Those are analogous examples of what is argued to be essentially "The three types of men", with the "Equally likely" comment and the overall validation of the paranoia and anxiety women report about interacting with men suggesting that there's an equal distribution of men among them.

[Des-Bal]

Those are analogous examples of what is argued to be essentially "The three types of men", with the "Equally likely" comment and the overall validation of the paranoia and anxiety women report about interacting with men suggesting that there's an equal distribution of men among them.

At no point does the text argue there are three kinds of men. The article is about omen's feelings, it is not "validating"ctheir paranoia it is acknowledging it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Those are analogous examples of what is argued to be essentially "The three types of men", with the "Equally likely" comment and the overall validation of the paranoia and anxiety women report about interacting with men suggesting that there's an equal distribution of men among them.

At no point does the text argue there are three kinds of men. The article is about omen's feelings, it is not "validating"ctheir paranoia it is acknowledging it.

While it's accurate that on an individual level men should be aware most women think this way, I take issue with the way the article frames this discussion. It seems more concerned with not upsetting women than it actually helping men, as the tone of the article and the way it is structured carries the risk of telling men that they should occupy the headspace of someone who views them this way and, in line with my previous memetic contagion point, carries the risk of encouraging men to internalize this pathological view of men.

If the article were actually concerned with helping men it would take great pains to point out that while understanding this and moulding your interactions with women around it is beneficial to dating, it is destructive to your mental wellbeing to actually internalize this view or think of it as anything other than paranoia, misandry, and mental unwellness.

I completely disagree that it's not about validating their paranoia. For example it frames these feelings as based in experience and rational reaction to their environment rather than pathology and propaganda.

[Des-Bal]

While it's accurate that on an individual level men should be aware most women think this way, I take issue with the way the article frames this discussion. It seems more concerned with not upsetting women than it actually helping men, as the tone of the article and the way it is structured carries the risk of telling men that they should occupy the headspace of someone who views them this way and, in line with my previous memetic contagion point, carries the risk of encouraging men to internalize this pathological view of men.

If the article were actually concerned with helping men it would take great pains to point out that while understanding this and moulding your interactions with women around it is beneficial to dating, it is destructive to your mental wellbeing to actually internalize this view or think of it as anything other than paranoia, misandry, and mental unwellness.

I completely disagree that it's not about validating their paranoia. For example it frames these feelings as based in experience rather than pathology.

So we're back to where it started, you're saying "this is not true" when you mean "this is not okay."

[Ostroeuropa]

While it's accurate that on an individual level men should be aware most women think this way, I take issue with the way the article frames this discussion. It seems more concerned with not upsetting women than it actually helping men, as the tone of the article and the way it is structured carries the risk of telling men that they should occupy the headspace of someone who views them this way and, in line with my previous memetic contagion point, carries the risk of encouraging men to internalize this pathological view of men.

If the article were actually concerned with helping men it would take great pains to point out that while understanding this and moulding your interactions with women around it is beneficial to dating, it is destructive to your mental wellbeing to actually internalize this view or think of it as anything other than paranoia, misandry, and mental unwellness.

I completely disagree that it's not about validating their paranoia. For example it frames these feelings as based in experience rather than pathology.

So we're back to where it started, you're saying "this is not true" when you mean "this is not okay."

No.
The article doesnt' say "You have to understand, women have been drinking koolaid for years and this is how they see you" it says "You have to understand, women experience x and this is how they see you".

This is not a distinction without a difference if the purpose of the article is to actually help men rather than validate womens pathological views to them.

[Des-Bal]

No.
The article doesnt' say "You have to understand, women have been drinking koolaid for years and this is how they see you" it says "You have to understand, women experience x and this is how they see you".

This is not a distinction without a difference if the purpose of the article is to actually help men rather than validate womens pathological views to them.

You said no but then argued about why it was not okay rather than arguing it's not correct.

[Ostroeuropa]

No.
The article doesnt' say "You have to understand, women have been drinking koolaid for years and this is how they see you" it says "You have to understand, women experience x and this is how they see you".

This is not a distinction without a difference if the purpose of the article is to actually help men rather than validate womens pathological views to them.

You said no but then argued about why it was not okay rather than arguing it's not correct.

It's the difference between

"When interacting with bob, please remember that he thinks spoons can read peoples thoughts because he is a schizophrenic. Do not bring spoons into bobs room" and "When interacting with bob, try and understand and remember that he is traumatically victimized constantly by spoons because they read peoples thoughts. You need to understand and accept this as true.".

The former is acceptable. The latter, when it becomes a ubiquitious societal message, merely results in the transmission of elements of bobs mental illness to the rest of the population who aren't aware that's what is happening.

The latter is flat out not correct in addition to not being okay. You're not "Understanding bob" by accepting his mental unwellness and delusions as a factual thing based in his experiences. "Understanding" bob would be the former, not the latter.

And again, if the purpose of the article is to "Help" men, this is absolutely not the approach that should be taken. It is not teaching men to understand women. It is teaching men to internalize their pathologies. We've covered the results of this before with the posts on how many male feminists report what is essentially trauma from internalizing this view of men.

There's also the stats on how male feminists are the least attractive section of the population, even to female feminists, probably because of the damage they have done to themselves through this view of themselves and other men. So it's "Not correct" even in its assertion that this will help men date women.

Meanwhile, MRAs are in line with population norms, incels, red pillers, and MGTOWs are obviously below it, suggesting something quite notable about which gender framework actually works in this matter.

"Understanding" women helps with dating, that is almost tautologous. Acceptance is not the same thing as understanding.

[Des-Bal]

It's the difference between

"When interacting with bob, please remember that he thinks spoons can read peoples thoughts because he is a schizophrenic. Do not bring spoons into bobs room" and "When interacting with bob, try and understand and remember that he is traumatically victimized constantly by spoons because they read peoples thoughts. You need to understand and accept this as true.".

The former is acceptable. The latter, when it becomes a ubiquitious societal message, merely results in the transmission of elements of bobs mental illness to the rest of the population who aren't aware that's what is happening.

The latter is flat out not correct in addition to not being okay. You're not "Understanding bob" by accepting his mental unwellness and delusions as a factual thing. "Understanding" bob would be the former, not the latter.

And again, if the purpose of the article is to "Help" men, this is absolutely not the approach that should be taken. It is not teaching men to understand women. It is teaching men to internalize their pathologies.

You're really not pointing to that. The thing you presented was "equally likely" and with that as the stick in your craw and if it actually meant equally likely then it would mean there are three archetypes of men and all of them kill people.

Your complaint is that it's not okay to not call women delusional

[Ostroeuropa]

It's the difference between

"When interacting with bob, please remember that he thinks spoons can read peoples thoughts because he is a schizophrenic. Do not bring spoons into bobs room" and "When interacting with bob, try and understand and remember that he is traumatically victimized constantly by spoons because they read peoples thoughts. You need to understand and accept this as true.".

The former is acceptable. The latter, when it becomes a ubiquitious societal message, merely results in the transmission of elements of bobs mental illness to the rest of the population who aren't aware that's what is happening.

The latter is flat out not correct in addition to not being okay. You're not "Understanding bob" by accepting his mental unwellness and delusions as a factual thing. "Understanding" bob would be the former, not the latter.

And again, if the purpose of the article is to "Help" men, this is absolutely not the approach that should be taken. It is not teaching men to understand women. It is teaching men to internalize their pathologies.

You're really not pointing to that. The thing you presented was "equally likely" and with that as the stick in your craw and if it actually meant equally likely then it would mean there are three archetypes of men and all of them kill people.

Your complaint is that it's not okay to not call women delusional

That was one example of my complaint. Another is the section that without a hint of self-awareness outright says women perceive men as lesser and then says "and they're right".

[Stellar Colonies]

If I was ever actually interested in pursuing a relationship, I think it is reasonable for me to be mindful of concerns a woman would have about me regarding the potential risks I pose to her.

However, I would hope that she would also be mindful of the concerns I would have about her, which boil down to pretty much the same she would have about me.

From what I've seen, statistics which show women being victimized by men have generally been inflated by adding all sorts of stuff into there which doesn't necessarily belong, while statistics which show men being victimized by women have been whittled down by breaking it off into separate categories which don't make sense and narrowly defining those categories in a way which leaves out many actual cases. Then that situation is worsened by the societal perception that only women are victimized by men, resulting in women reporting minor incidents which men wouldn't even perceive as an issue if it happened to them, while men report far less stuff which would definitely be perceived as serious if it happened to a woman.

It's not that I don't think women are victimized that much by men, because they are, but they seem to view a lot of instances smaller than the serious victimization as a problem which, as mentioned earlier, when they happen to men, are barely even noticed and usually viewed as a nonissue when it does happen to them. I am not saying those minor instances are not a problem, because they could very well be, but as with the larger and more grave offenses, they're seen in a more serious light when they happen to women instead of men.

I really don't know how accurate this perception of things is and it could be wrong, but it is generally just a part of my worldview as an implicit bias, and what I've seen in my research does seems to confirm it, although that may be confirmation bias in action.

As part of it, I tend to view men and women as equally likely to be the perpetrator and victim of a rape for instance, which brings me back to the reason I wrote this all out in the first place.

It did get a bit long, but this was generally intended to show why I would have these concerns about my hypothetical partner in the same way she probably would about me.

---

Extrapolating on my sparse knowledge of this subject, people initially have such and other worries about who they are engaging romantically with, and part of how a healthy and ideal relationship would develop is putting those worries to rest and building their trust of the other person.

[Stellar Colonies]

Also, about rape claims confirmed false, I have no problem finding the reported rates of it: 2%-6%. However, I consistently have a really difficult time figuring out the percentage of rape claims confirmed true. I don't really care about the unconfirmed claims, I do care about the confirmed true/false so I can compare them, but all I find are comparisons between confirmed false and everything else, which is nonsensical.

[Baniztan]

If I was ever actually interested in pursuing a relationship, I think it is reasonable for me to be mindful of concerns a woman would have about me regarding the potential risks I pose to her.

However, I would hope that she would also be mindful of the concerns I would have about her, which boil down to pretty much the same she would have about me.

From what I've seen, statistics which show women being victimized by men have generally been inflated by adding all sorts of stuff into there which doesn't necessarily belong, while statistics which show men being victimized by women have been whittled down by breaking it off into separate categories which don't make sense and narrowly defining those categories in a way which leaves out many actual cases. Then that situation is worsened by the societal perception that only women are victimized by men, resulting in women reporting minor incidents which men wouldn't even perceive as an issue if it happened to them, while men report far less stuff which would definitely be perceived as serious if it happened to a woman.

It's not that I don't think women are victimized that much by men, because they are, but they seem to view a lot of instances smaller than the serious victimization as a problem which, as mentioned earlier, when they happen to men, are barely even noticed and usually viewed as a nonissue when it does happen to them. I am not saying those minor instances are not a problem, because they could very well be, but as with the larger and more grave offenses, they're seen in a more serious light when they happen to women instead of men.

I really don't know how accurate this perception of things is and it could be wrong, but it is generally just a part of my worldview as an implicit bias, and what I've seen in my research does seems to confirm it, although that may be confirmation bias in action.

As part of it, I tend to view men and women as equally likely to be the perpetrator and victim of a rape for instance, which brings me back to the reason I wrote this all out in the first place.

It did get a bit long, but this was generally intended to show why I would have these concerns about my hypothetical partner in the same way she probably would about me.

---

Extrapolating on my sparse knowledge of this subject, people initially have such and other worries about who they are engaging romantically with, and part of how a healthy and ideal relationship would develop is putting those worries to rest and building their trust of the other person.

"potential risks I pose to her"

lmaoooo what kind of a pathetic individual are you

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, about rape claims confirmed false, I have no problem finding the reported rates of it: 2%-6%. However, I consistently have a really difficult time figuring out the percentage of rape claims confirmed true. I don't really care about the unconfirmed claims, I do care about the confirmed true/false so I can compare them, but all I find are comparisons between confirmed false and everything else, which is nonsensical.

2-6% of false claims *to the police* are *proven* to be false.
Around 10% of claims to the police are *proven* to be true.

(For a given definition of 'proven').

[Stellar Colonies]

If I was ever actually interested in pursuing a relationship, I think it is reasonable for me to be mindful of concerns a woman would have about me regarding the potential risks I pose to her.

However, I would hope that she would also be mindful of the concerns I would have about her, which boil down to pretty much the same she would have about me.

From what I've seen, statistics which show women being victimized by men have generally been inflated by adding all sorts of stuff into there which doesn't necessarily belong, while statistics which show men being victimized by women have been whittled down by breaking it off into separate categories which don't make sense and narrowly defining those categories in a way which leaves out many actual cases. Then that situation is worsened by the societal perception that only women are victimized by men, resulting in women reporting minor incidents which men wouldn't even perceive as an issue if it happened to them, while men report far less stuff which would definitely be perceived as serious if it happened to a woman.

It's not that I don't think women are victimized that much by men, because they are, but they seem to view a lot of instances smaller than the serious victimization as a problem which, as mentioned earlier, when they happen to men, are barely even noticed and usually viewed as a nonissue when it does happen to them. I am not saying those minor instances are not a problem, because they could very well be, but as with the larger and more grave offenses, they're seen in a more serious light when they happen to women instead of men.

I really don't know how accurate this perception of things is and it could be wrong, but it is generally just a part of my worldview as an implicit bias, and what I've seen in my research does seems to confirm it, although that may be confirmation bias in action.

As part of it, I tend to view men and women as equally likely to be the perpetrator and victim of a rape for instance, which brings me back to the reason I wrote this all out in the first place.

It did get a bit long, but this was generally intended to show why I would have these concerns about my hypothetical partner in the same way she probably would about me.

---

Extrapolating on my sparse knowledge of this subject, people initially have such and other worries about who they are engaging romantically with, and part of how a healthy and ideal relationship would develop is putting those worries to rest and building their trust of the other person.

"potential risks I pose to her"

lmaoooo what kind of a pathetic individual are you

...what?

Also, about rape claims confirmed false, I have no problem finding the reported rates of it: 2%-6%. However, I consistently have a really difficult time figuring out the percentage of rape claims confirmed true. I don't really care about the unconfirmed claims, I do care about the confirmed true/false so I can compare them, but all I find are comparisons between confirmed false and everything else, which is nonsensical.

2-6% of false claims *to the police* are *proven* to be false.
Around 10% of claims to the police are *proven* to be true.

(For a given definition of 'proven').

Ah.

Where did you find those? I haven't been able to find anything suggesting the percentage of 'proven true' cases.

[Ostroeuropa]

"potential risks I pose to her"

lmaoooo what kind of a pathetic individual are you

...what?

2-6% of false claims *to the police* are *proven* to be false.
Around 10% of claims to the police are *proven* to be true.

(For a given definition of 'proven').

Ah.

Where did you find those? I haven't been able to find anything suggesting the percentage of 'proven true' cases.

I got it wrong.
It's significantly less than 10%.

It's 2 percent, if we only count those reported to the police.

Notice the feminist framing of these stats is to make the argument rape victims are being fucked over, but they take precisely the opposite view on false rape stats.

[The Blaatschapen]

The only risk I pose to women is an overdose of puns

[Mint Jelly]

The only risk I pose to women is an overdose of puns

Static Cling!

[Albrenia]

How does one jail .6 of a rapist?

[Kowani]

Just chiming in here, because RAINN is…not great with actually citing their sources: the true conviction rate for rape seems to be about 88%

[Adamede]

How does one jail .6 of a rapist?

I guess let them go home on the weekends and alternate between Fridays off too.

[Kowani]

Puerto Rico's governor declares a state of emergency against gender violence

Full order here

[Fahran]

I got it wrong.
It's significantly less than 10%.

(Image)

It's 2 percent, if we only count those reported to the police.

Notice the feminist framing of these stats is to make the argument rape victims are being fucked over, but they take precisely the opposite view on false rape stats.

If for every 1000 murders we only obtained 5 convictions, we'd have a clearance rate of less than 1%. We have between 2% and 6% of rape allegations being proven false, almost invariably by admission from those who brought the allegations. The issue with sexual violence is that a lot of people simply don't report it, and that probably self-selects for people who are less likely to be believed and people from marginalized communities. For women in particular, among whom we have the best statistics, we can observe extremely high rates of victimization. Close to 1 in 5 women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Among indigenous women, that number is closer to 1 in 3. And I'm largely switching this to a conversation about general victimization because the present framing makes it sound like underreporting of sexual violence is a problem that impacts women exclusively. The basic claim that feminists present, namely that most rapists will never actually serve time in prison, is probably correct. It's even more correct if we look at female perpetrators.