It's feminist slander that men are inherently violent

Link
6/8/2008

"In what came to be known as the "third wave," which has now been with us for two decades, the partially comprehensible motives and intentions of the second wave diverged, then converged, and resurged, in a great heaving flood of moral acids, and in the blather of post-modern irrationalism (or "subjectivity" as its exponents call it) -- e.g. "womanism," "ecofeminism," "sex-positivity," "post-colonial theory," "anti-racism," "queer theory," "transgender politics," and so forth."

Yes.  Its not gender, its species.  Humans are inherently violent.

I am simply wondering where he understood that feminism believes men 'are inherently violent?' Men may be inherently aggressive. Or some may be, others may not be. Men may be inhesrntly subject to fight/flight reactions while women may be subject to gather/move closer reactions. Both tend to maintain the integrity of the group -- women gather and protect their children, men move toward the danger.

Despair and frustration are probably more the causes of violence than most anything.

His statistics about 50/50 physical/emotional abuse is NOT correct. Far greater numbers of women are violently abused in their living situations. Perhaps the only 'close to 50/50 scenarios involving domestic violence are gay/gay and lesbian/lesbian situations.

You accept my premises, false though they may be, I can probably get you to accept my argument as well. Mr. Warren's argument may be just logical as can be, but it's not based on a firm foundation.

N~

Canada has it's own cranky old white guy!  He may not be Rush but they always do things in an understated way, eh!

Men may be inhesrntly subject to fight/flight reactions while women may be subject to gather/move closer reactions. Both tend to maintain the integrity of the group -- women gather and protect their children, men move toward the danger.

That might well be cultural in nature, the crime stats in the last 20 years have seen an almost phenomenal increase in women involved in very violent crime.

the crime stats in the last 20 years have seen an almost phenomenal increase in women involved in very violent crime.

THAT might be cultural in nature! There is little doubt in my mind that in USA we reach a new level of personal volence every few years. Nor do I believe it's entirely my imagination that overall there is a decrease here for the way people view the importance of other humans in general. We have become rather remote from one another socially.

That both women and men are more violent surprises me none at all. It seems like our general regard of other people also drops on a regular basis. My guess is its due to the overall focus of all those good christians that Karen shows us reports from focussing their sermons on bathrooms & sexual predators, gay marriage and how horrible it is and in their forgetting their primary purpose: to teach their own followers the efficacy of care, sacrifice for and compassion for others.

Instead they seem to think their purpose is to raise the consciousness of 'foot-soldiers' for Christ for that their regimes can rule the country and the world. Just a thought. They inspire me to find 'reasons.' 

There is little doubt in my mind that in USA we reach a new level of personal volence ever few years.

Stats for male violence have gone down since the early 90s.  And that's largely due to an age deal (most violent perps are between 14 and 29, it trails off at a rapid pace after that).  It just might be that violence is species based, not gender based.

It just might be that violence is species based, not gender based.


And we are arguing ... why? I believe that Robert Ardrey, wasn't it?, may well have been right. We are violent and naked apes.   

If men have grown less violent as a percentage then good (did most of the 14-29 y/os kill one another off, or did some actually mature out of the age group!!) *smirk*

We tend to be the rudest-assed society on the planet do we not?

Nichole

I'm a violent, well-dressed ape myself, but if you have your naked ape pictures....

And no, I don't think we are the rudest society on earth, blunt perhaps, but you don't know rude till you go to China and try to ride the train.

Quote from: tekla on June 08, 2008, 09:54:36 PM
I'm a violent, well-dressed ape myself, but if you have your naked ape pictures....

And no, I don't think we are the rudest society on earth, blunt perhaps, but you don't know rude till you go to China and try to ride the train.

I have to go with Tekla on this one, Nicole.  You don't need to go all the way to China to experience it either.  The Muni underground in San Francisco will do! 

I don't think we are the rudest society on earth, blunt perhaps, but you don't know rude till you go to China and try to ride the train.

Blunt and rude are two separate words for me and they are not synonymous with one another. It's fine to be blunt. Rude is simply walking over another in some way so as to get your own way at anyone else's expense. But, that's just me.

Your first sentence lapses toward a debate-point type ploy. We're not doing Froensics here are we?

Perhaps you don't drive much and I know you don't live among the suburban ego-maniac I live among, either of you for that matter. By it's demographics SF is would seem to have to be a lot more 'polite' than other locales, simply to avoid the LA spectre of violence and disenfranchisement. I never read those types of characterisations about your city. I presume I would were those overwhelming problems there.

Go back and re-read, I was agreeing with you. 

N~

I don't drive at all.  Gave my car away on 9-12, have not driven one since, and in SF/Bay Area I don't need one (or want one, I know people who pay almost as much to park their car as they do in rent, which is not cheep either, and that's not even counting the $4.50 a gallon gas and the $5-7 bridge tolls), and walking and biking are good for me in many ways.  I am aware that for some reason - perhaps some social scientist could do a study, on how and why so many Walter Middy and Pollyanna types get behind the wheel and become some sort of cross between Rambo and the Incredible Hulk.  That car seems to change personality almost like a drug.  Very strange.  But not unknown or unique either.  The same people will often react the same way if you give them a gun and make them a security guard.  (Cops tend not to be like this, perhaps they are that way all the time, and the shift is not perceptible, or the screening process is different.)

And I know we are kind of agreeing, in part.  The real issue is the root of violence, and if the level of violence is cultural, social, or genetic or ... (most likely) ... some combination of all those in a murky soup where the actual levels are hard to determine. 

And I'm not even going to argue that all violence is bad.  It may well be tragic, but often its the only solution.  And there is a third choice to fight or flight, and its that frozen like a deer in the headlights deal, which is the worst of all possible worlds.

And SF is very polite, that might be socio-economic as its income standards are pretty high (as is the education level that seems to accompany higher incomes) and rich people don't get into bar brawls at the country club at the same rate that fights break out in poorer bars.  I've had people tell me that they think it's the climate (which sort of trips me out, as the people in the real Mediterranean Climate - Italy, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Israel - are not exactly noted for being even tempered compared to the more Northern Climates.)  Or perhaps all the pot stores, opps, excuse me, dispensaries for medical marijuana, have everyone mellow to the point of coma.  I've always thought that the diversity thing plays into it, though I'm not sure how.  I know I've never seen a fight at a gay bar, or at the Opera or ballet.

And MuniMetro is bad during commute times, sort of, but no match for the #38 Stockton bus, known in town as "the Orient Express," where little Chinese women half my size have body checked me out of the door like it was the Stanley Cup playoffs.


Your first sentence lapses toward a debate-point type ploy. We're not doing Froensics here are we?
Ah, I might not go to church or believe anymore, but other aspects of a classical and classic Jesuit education seem harder to shake.

Ah, I might not go to church or believe anymore, but other aspects of a classical and classic Jesuit education seem harder to shake.

That WAS the idea the educators had in mind, no?   > Ah, train the young and they will never depart, in some ways, from the training!! 

Hugs,

N~

Give us the boy/girl and you can have the man/woman, something like that.  On the up side I was able to spend a lot of time my first two years in college doing plays and bands and following the Dead around while the kids from public school were busy reading all the stuff I had read in high school.

Quote from: tekla on June 09, 2008, 11:40:25 AM
while the kids from public school were busy reading all the stuff I had read in high school.

My partner didn't follow around The Dead, but had the same take at the small liberal arts college she attended after high school. She felt that she had been much better exposed to a range of stuff that many of her public school compatriots had not been exposed to yet. A leg up.

Quote from: Nichole on June 08, 2008, 09:37:08 PM

We tend to be the rudest-assed society on the planet do we not?

Nichole

Yes we do....so SHUT UP!!! 

I am only kidding about the 'shut up' part.....or am I?  ..........oh wait..I am. 

Seriously though, things would be much better if people were nicer  instead of acting like totally inconsiderate idiots most of the time.

The Jesuit saying went: "Give us a child until he is seven, and then he is ours for life." I feel disturbed that I know that sinister quote from memory. Anyway, they were wrong. I was sent to Jesuit schools, but it never took. I'm Pagan now and I stay out of arguments. Whatever they tried to inculcate in me has been thoroughly shaken off. When I take the Beliefnet quiz, Catholic comes up dead last.  >

Well I'm not sure how much of the religion stuff took, but out of 62 graduates in my class, 12 turned into lawyers, which is kind of iccky.  3 got Ph.Ds, one in history, one in EnglishLit and one in church doctrine.  All but three got 4 year degrees, and two of those missed because they died.  So my teachers did something right.

And, needless to say, going to school with people whose families owned wineries had its benefits.

I taught all of that Jesuit Logic stuff to my kids, the oldest was on two All-State debate teams, and won the All-State extempore debate championship his senior year.  And NEVER, EVER teach you kids to debate that well, made my life hell for a few years there.