• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven dead in drive by California shootings

Stout said:
Ha! Jenna Marbles. She's great.
Click to expand...

I actually kind of loathe her a little bit. But a lot of people disagree with me and think she's all kinds of awesome and the video seemed relevant to both the facial expression mentioned and the subject of being sexually harassed, so I thought people other than me might find it funny.

I wonder how many death and rape threats she gets and how often she gets harassed. It has to be lots, right. After all Phil Plait talks about the crime of being a woman on the internet and Laurie Penny just had to return from taking a couple of day off, due to rape threats, to write her rant in New Statesman.
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask her.
 
TeapotCavalry said:
Catcalling is persistent if it's done or experienced persistently - can't disagree with that. Persistent catcalling is harassment - sure, I guess.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the last time I heard somebody getting catcalled, male or female. It has to have been 7 or 8 years ago, at least. Yet to hear feminists tell it, it's an everyday occurrance. I'm sure that I would notice it a lot more if I were a woman, but still...if it's that prevalent, I think that I would be more apparent. When a sexy woman walks past, most guys will stare, but I can't remember the last time I heard one say anything.

Is this really such a huge problem?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I can't remember the last time I heard somebody getting catcalled, male or female. It has to have been 7 or 8 years ago, at least. Yet to hear feminists tell it, it's an everyday occurrance. I'm sure that I would notice it a lot more if I were a woman, but still...if it's that prevalent, I think that I would be more apparent. When a sexy woman walks past, most guys will stare, but I can't remember the last time I heard one say anything.

Is this really such a huge problem?
Click to expand...

Probably really culture-specific. The stereotype is usually construction workers commenting and whistling at women. In Estonia, the weather for most of the year is so bad we don't see a lot of skin nor do the construction workers have any desire to idly ogle at passers by in the cold/rain/snow/wind.

When I worked in Australia for a landscaping company, that was another culture and climate altogether. We actually had a system to let others know if a hot woman was in vicinity. Sort of a game to mitigate the tediousness of hard physical labor. No-one ever said anything out loud. The most severe it got was just staring for half a minute too long. I found it extremely juvenile and stupid, but since I was easily replaceable new employee, I never said anything. Also, because I didn't think anyone took serious offense at being looked at, even if they noticed. Hell, is looking at someone harassment?
 
Stout said:
That's because I'm not making that comparison. I'm illustrating offensive behaviour by gays and wondering whether, or not you're going to defend that behaviour by saying not all gays do that.

You can't tell me that they're not doing it, because this is my lived experience, you can't tell me it's not offensive because I find it so and I've made my story so it applies to all gays.
Click to expand...

Not being gay, I don't rightly have the wherewithal to say what any of them do, let alone some or all of them.
 
Last edited:
One Tenth said:
Wow, the one that really struck me was the 7.9 average guns each for men.

Here's a link to the average and median for various demographics:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/table/tbl3/

Note that the median is probably more useful here to offset the serious gun collectors. Median is at 5 for single, 4 for married men. That seems like a lot.
Click to expand...

Mind you, nobody knows how many of those are actually serviceable, but most of the gun owners I know have several which are.
 
BenBurch said:
Seems timely and relevant; http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Click to expand...

I smelled a bit of fudging there. For example:
Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
Click to expand...

How does the information address the myth? You'd expect gun death rates to be higher with more guns, just as you'd expect more "deaths by tiger attack" where there are more tigers. What would make the point (but isn't there) is overall murder rate. All the stats show is that when guns are available, guns are used - duh. It says nothing about guns causing more homicides.

I'm claiming spin because, if the real story was a drop in overall homicide by any means, the authors would have mentioned that. As it stands, the "myth" wasn't busted at all.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Not All Gun Owners are men!
Click to expand...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

<SNIP>

There is a substantial gender gap when it comes to gun ownership: men are three times as likely as women (37% vs. 12%) to personally own a gun. However, women are more likely than men to live with someone else who owns a gun. Overall, 45% of men live in a gun-owning household compared with 30% of women. (Just 8% of people say that both they and someone else in their household own guns – these people are counted as personal gun owners in this analysis.)

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
Morrigan said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because both use ********** up logic to reach their incorrect conclusions.

I don't think Valenti is necessarily correct with that statement (it certainly needs qualifiers, but I haven't read the Guardian article), but regardless, "most men being taught X" is a different statement than "most men behave like X". As a young girl I have been taught many things that I never integrated even when I was younger (and even less as a grownup). So Plait's statement isn't contradictory with Valenti's.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. She is claiming that they are taught that so they do that.

:confused: You've lost me.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. Claiming cultural misogyny is the cause of this mass shooting is as stupid as claiming videos games caused mass shootings ten years ago or that heavy metal music cause mass killings 20 years ago.

I.... what....? :boggled:
Click to expand...

What part of that simple concept didn't you understand. The part where cultural misogyny doesn't exist or the part where if it did the shooting wouldn't have happened?
 
qayak said:
It's pretty simple. Claiming cultural misogyny is the cause of this mass shooting is as stupid as claiming videos games caused mass shootings ten years ago or that heavy metal music cause mass killings 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Actually, if misogyny were as commonplace as feminists claim, I think that you'd be hearing a lot of men defending this guy, and that's just not happening.

BTW..."misogyny"...I know Morrigan thinks I'm picking nits here, but here's the dictionary definition: "hatred of women". From several dictionaries. Not a mild dislike. Not stereotyping. Hatred. Which this guy had, but most of society does not have. I mean, I can't prove that a large number of men don't secretly hate women (impossible to prove a negative), but I find it highly unlikely...mainly because fondness of women is built into our genes, since it's so helpful in perpetuating the species.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Actually, if misogyny were as commonplace as feminists claim, I think that you'd be hearing a lot of men defending this guy, and that's just not happening.

I suppose on this matter we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW..."misogyny"...I know Morrigan thinks I'm picking nits here, but here's the dictionary definition: "hatred of women". From several dictionaries. Not a mild dislike. Not stereotyping. Hatred. Which this guy had, but most of society does not have. I mean, I can't prove that a large number of men don't secretly hate women (impossible to prove a negative), but I find it highly unlikely...mainly because fondness of women is built into our genes, since it's so helpful in perpetuating the species.
Click to expand...

Well I for one certainly do not want to mistakenly call someone a misogynist when he only mildly dislikes women; perhaps someone could research what the correct term for a person who mildly dislikes women is, so that I can more correctly assign contempt to both it and misogyny, rather than solely the latter thinking that it covers the former as well.

It will be up to women, however, to decide whether the "fondness of women" that is built into men's genes (which I had always referred to as "sexual attraction" for some reason up until now) precludes the possibility that anyone who expresses it can be misogynist.
 
I saw a report that Adriana Lima slept with Justin Bieber. If there's a shred of truth to this then I would understand it if undersexed young males immediately set out on shooting sprees. The Universe isn't indifferent: it's fundamentally evil.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Actually, if misogyny were as commonplace as feminists claim, I think that you'd be hearing a lot of men defending this guy, and that's just not happening.
Click to expand...

Eh, there are some Rodger sympathizers. They mostly keep to their own horrible little forums, though. And Twitter. And comment sections.

Anyway, most misogynists won't go so far as to condone murder. Apologism for incidents like these mostly takes a slightly less indefensible form. For instance, there are people saying the shootings were a staged "false flag" attack engineered to discredit masculist activism. Ain't life grand?
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
It will be up to women, however, to decide whether the "fondness of women" that is built into men's genes (which I had always referred to as "sexual attraction" for some reason up until now) precludes the possibility that anyone who expresses it can be misogynist.
Click to expand...

Why? I'm really curious. It's the second time in a short while in this thread I hear it's up to women to decide something that is by no apparent reason exclusively theirs to decide at all - it's a matter of rational discourse regardless of genders. It pertains to logic and facts, but now I'm excluded from the discourse, because I'm not a woman.

Sexual attraction and misogyny don't seem to be mutually exclusive by definition. Fondness of women - whatever that means - and misogyny, on the other hand, seem to be antonyms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom