Creative Destruction

January 4, 2007

Tools of the Patriarchy

Filed under: Feminist Issues — Daran @ 10:19 am

I said:

Here’s where I think feminists have a point: Women are constantly being told “watch out, you’re at risk”. Men don’t get that message, despite the fact that we’re the ones at most risk. Consequently, women fear violence more than men, and it curtails their behaviour in a way that men’s aren’t.

Of course, it’s the feminists doing most of the fearmongering…

Snowe:

That has not been my experience at all. All the wacky “advice” about how to prevent stranger rape and abduction has come from my very conservative family.

“Most” was a baseless, and hence Odious Comparison, and I withdraw it. I should have said “some”. As Robert said, it comes in variable formats. Here are some feminist birds in your garden:

Maia worries that a newborn girl might be victimised some day. She worries that a newborn boy might become a victimiser, but it never occurs to her to worry that he might be victimised, even though the risk to him is higher than for a girl. Not content with scaring her own readers, she posts the same on Alas. Q Grrl posts rape stats higher even than found by Koss, twenty years ago. The incidence of female rape has fallen in America by a third since then. Richard Jeffrey Newman says that “women, as a class, have to worry about being raped and sexually assaulted in a way, and to a degree, that men as a class do not”. Not merely that they worry more, (which is true), but that they have to.

Your very conservative family may have given you wacky advice, but at least they don’t blame other people for their own fearmongery.

So what’s the real situation for men and women? The National Violence Against Women Survey, a study which didn’t survey prisons, nor the homeless, nor others living in institutions where these attacks are most common, still found one male rape victim for every three females raped during the survey year. (Thanks to David for reminding me of this) When you take this undercounting into consideration the ratio is probably closer to 1:2 or even 1:1. Then consider that men are much more likely to face non-sexual violance and about 20 times more likely to be murdered.

But Richard is still right about men. They don’t have to worry, and neither do women. Rape is a truly crap thing to happen to anyone, but it only one of many crap things that happen to everybody at some point in their lives our lives. But you can recover from it. It’s not the end of the world. It’s not the worst thing in the world. It’s not even close.

So don’t listen to the wacky advice; take sensible precautions instead. Then go out and enjoy yourself. Enjoy your female privilege which is your relative immunity to violence. (I don’t begrudge you that. I object to feminist denial of it, but I woudn’t want women to face more violence, just to make it eeequal.) Then, if your taste runs to men, go out and find some nice ones, and have yourself a good time with them.

Do all of this in the certain knowledge that at some point in your life, and probably more than once, something really, really crappy is going to happen. It probably won’t be rape, but it will be something. Be prepared for that, but don’t worry about it, because whether it’s rape or something else, you will be able to deal with it when it happens.

24 Comments »

  1. Daran wrote:

    So don’t listen to the wacky advice; take sensible precautions instead. Then go out and enjoy yourself. Enjoy your female privilege which is your relative immunity to violence.

    Do females really enjoy the privilege of relative immunity to violence (relative to me)? What if instead it’s that females have heeded the shrieking hysterics and warnings directed to them (and not to men) and reduced the incidence of their victimhood? What if all the overreacting to perceived threat has SAVED JUST ONE LIFE? Was it worth it?

    Comment by Brutus — January 4, 2007 @ 11:46 am | Reply

  2. Do females really enjoy the privilege of relative immunity to violence (relative to me)?

    Yes.

    What if instead it’s that females have heeded the shrieking hysterics and warnings directed to them (and not to men) and reduced the incidence of their victimhood?

    Because the masked guy jumping out the bushes and beating up a man is just as mythical as the one that rapes the woman. Men face random street-violence in well-lit, crowded streets and bars, often where women are present, not in the empty streets far from the crowds, where women fear to tread. Those places are relatively safe for both sexes.

    Planned violence, typically robbery, takes place in quiet areas near busy areas, such as car parks etc. Women are often targetted, but less likely to get physically hurt, because they’ve not been conditioned to believe that they need to fight to be a man.

    What if all the overreacting to perceived threat has SAVED JUST ONE LIFE? Was it worth it?

    If you really think that, then you should eat your own dogfood.

    Comment by Daran — January 4, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Reply

  3. What usually happens … not in the US where the violence outside prisons is small, but places where the US has destroyed civil society like Afghanistan and Iraq… is that women and children are told not to go out because it’s dangerous — and it is dangerous — with the result that men have to go out on behalf of the women a lot more and therefore the men are dying at an increased rate.

    For example in Afghanistan whereas the casualties from direct warfare is obviously mostly male just because that’s true of all wars, if you look at for example casualties from all the old land mines then men suffer far more than women in part because of this rule they have that women’s lives are worth more so women need to be protected by keeping them indoors. To be fair, feminists do complain about the sexism of this situation though — sexist against women they say.

    At any rate although the US is far smaller in terms of violence than Iraq it’s bad for a western country and I would guess that the whole emphasis on protecting women also comes at the expense of men in the US, though at a much reduced rate.
    ———

    The National Violence Against Women Survey, a study which didn’t survey prisons, nor the homeless, nor others living in institutions where these attacks are most common, still found one male rape victim for every three females raped during the survey year. (Thanks to David for reminding me of this)

    Remember that the definition of rape by the NVAWS is such as to try and exclude female rape of men. This is especially dishonest given that they pretend to be a survey about domestic violence. For NVAWS to recognise a rape the victim has to be penetrated. Men who are forced to have sex by women are not counted as victims unless anal rape (penetration) also takes place.

    This sort of sexist definition of rape is very common. To be fair feminists have often complained that traditional definitions of rape were sexist… against women.

    Comment by DavidByron — January 4, 2007 @ 2:21 pm | Reply

  4. Daran, did you even read Maia’s post? Her friend said that, after she’d been raped while she was pregnant. Maia then went on to say that she worries he will be victimized (though she didn’t use the word) by the way we expect and encourage men to be violent (something I believe you have mentioned repeatedly).

    Comment by Snowe — January 5, 2007 @ 1:42 am | Reply

  5. Snowe said:

    Daran, did you even read Maia’s post? Her friend said that, after she’d been raped while she was pregnant. Maia then went on to say that she worries he will be victimized (though she didn’t use the word) by the way we expect and encourage men to be violent (something I believe you have mentioned repeatedly).

    I went and looked at Maia’s post, and I don’t think Daran’s interpretation is far off.

    This is what Maia said:

    I’m so scared of what this world will turn him into. That’s one of the things that the US soldeirs who have raped Iraqi women makes me think about. How our world in general, and the army more than anything, makes men into monsters.

    At the moment we can protect him from all that. I can sing him songs of hopes and struggle and there ain’t nothing can harm him. But that only works so long.

    So yes, she does worry about him being “harmed,” which Daran glossed over. But as far as we can tell from the post, what she means by “harm” is that the boy might be turned into a monster and go rape a woman. She only fears that he will be victimized by being turned into a victimizer, which, as Daran says, ignores the possibility that he might be an innocent victim, a possible future that Maia only envisions for a girl.

    Comment by HughRistik — January 5, 2007 @ 2:41 am | Reply

  6. What usually happens … not in the US where the violence outside prisons is small, but places where the US has destroyed civil society like Afghanistan and Iraq… is that women and children are told not to go out because it’s dangerous — and it is dangerous — with the result that men have to go out on behalf of the women a lot more and therefore the men are dying at an increased rate.

    That’s almost certainly part of the story. It’s not the complete story. The Militias Really are targetting men specifically but to what degree is hard to tell, given the way the media whitewashes these issues.

    Here’s a half-baked idea I’ve had for a while, but never blogged about: Orders of gender-selection.

    Primary gender-selection is your classic “kill the men and (maybe) rape the women”. The above cite is an instance of primary male-selective victimisation. (I’m still waiting for the next UN report with promises to cover this incident.)

    Secondary gender-selection happens when the perpetrator selects a future victim on the grounds of sex, but not for the purpose of victimising them. That intent forms later. An example would be the much higher rates of murder of female intimate partners over male. I argue that this is not, as feminists claim, a Patriarchal plot to kill women, but a second order effect of men prefering women as intimate partners.

    A tertiary gender-selective effect happens when societal factors other than perpetrator choice make men more vulnerable. To the extent that your theory is correct about Iraq and Afghanistan, (or the USA, for that matter) it is tertiary selection. Random violence affecting men because men are where it happens.

    The point of this analysis is to give us a vocabulary to critique the feminist analysis of gender-violence. We can all see, I hope, that the feminist practice of only considering violence as gender-based if it affects women is clearly a self-serving framing of the issue. But there’s a second problem with their analysis: They treat second-order selection as though it was first-order.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Reply

  7. So yes, she does worry about him being “harmed,” which Daran glossed over.

    I said “She worries that a newborn boy might become a victimiser”. Perhaps I should have said “might be turned into a victimiser”

    Even then, she only thinks of him victimising women. If he does victimise, it is most likely that his victims will be male.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  8. An example would be the much higher rates of murder of female intimate partners over male.

    That’s a bad example then. Whether it is because dead male bodies cannot be explained away or ignored as easily by police as injuries can, or for some other reason the murder rates in DV as reported by police are actually closer between the sexes than other types of DV. In fact among black families a few decades ago, black men were the victims of more DV homicide than black women were. Now since feminists began building centers for helping DV victimizers for women only, and not allowing men into them, the result has been that women have been killing a lot less men, and although the rate of husbands killing wives has also decreased it is not by as much.

    This is an odd result so you should take it into account. It seems to falsify your statement above.

    The reason female-only DV shelters work better for men than for women (at least for deaths) is because in contradiction to the feminist image of the angelic female victim and feindish husband, about 50% of DV is mutual and the rest is evenly divided between woman on man and vice versa. Therefore about two thirds of “victims” also beat their partner. In general the sort of people who get involved in these marriages and stick with them, have grown up in violent families and have a sort of craving for the excitement brought about by anger, violence and that “passion” if you will.

    At any rate your assumption of much higher rates of DV homicide for women is false.

    The other reason that example would be out of place is that you are discussing areas where there is a selection of people by sex and I don’t think there is any in that example. Unless you claim most people are bisexual and chose whether their partner will be male or female?

    I argue that this is not, as feminists claim, a Patriarchal plot to kill women, but a second order effect of men prefering women as intimate partners.

    Feminist central dogma is that men are to blame for everything and so they believe that everything is a big plot — named “Patriarchy”. [cf “International Jewish Conspiracy”] It’s all intentional somehow. Naturally this is such utter nonsense that the statement is mostly metaphorical, however because feminists believe in collective punishment and collective guilt, the difference between a literal plot and a metaphorical plot or collusion is small.

    I don’t think a sane person would want to say ANYTHING was what you label a first order selection. Leave that for the feminists. Nobody really thinks that eg. men get shot in war because people hate men. But feminists really think the explanation for women being raped in war (to the small extent it happens as an organised affair at all) is that men like to hurt women.

    A tertiary gender-selective effect happens when societal factors other than perpetrator choice make men more vulnerable. To the extent that your theory is correct about Iraq and Afghanistan, (or the USA, for that matter) it is tertiary selection. Random violence affecting men because men are where it happens.

    Perpertrator choice? What choice? Are you saying US soldiers are told in Iraq they can either shoot men or women and it’s up to them? Or that the reason their commanders tell them to kill men only is because they hate men? No, it is because they know the battle aged men are most likely to oppose the occupation. This becomes a general rule whereby men are given the violent roles in society and it’s no coincidence that violent roles are also the most dangerous roles.

    I guess the Gender Transition Movement would call the first type a direct selection and the other type an indirect selection, or a selection by society. The important difference then becomes between the feminist view that discrimination is largely due to individual people (ie men only, but all men) or whether it is due to society as a whole. Or in other words: is someone to blame or is it just the way things happened and nobody is to blame, and indeed it may not be a question of the system even being wrong as such but merely functional 200 years ago, but not functional today.

    Comment by DavidByron — January 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am | Reply

  9. I said “She worries that a newborn boy might become a victimiser”. Perhaps I should have said “might be turned into a victimiser”

    Even then, she only thinks of him victimising women. If he does victimise, it is most likely that his victims will be male.

    I understand the concern about her position and the affects it will have, particularly since one of the foster kids I stay with was subjected to similar, but is it appropriate to question her like this?

    Comment by toysoldier — January 5, 2007 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

  10. David (quoting me):

    An example would be the much higher rates of murder of female intimate partners over male.

    That’s a bad example then. Whether it is because dead male bodies cannot be explained away or ignored as easily by police as injuries can, or for some other reason the murder rates in DV as reported by police are actually closer between the sexes than other types of DV. In fact among black families a few decades ago, black men were the victims of more DV homicide than black women were. Now since feminists began building centers for helping DV victimizers for women only, and not allowing men into them, the result has been that women have been killing a lot less men, and although the rate of husbands killing wives has also decreased it is not by as much.

    This is an odd result so you should take it into account. It seems to falsify your statement above.

    No it doesn’t. The statement is in the present tense. The Data are here. According to the latest figures available, 2004, intimate murders of women are running at three times the rate of intimate murders of men. And the rate for women has never been higher than the rate for men.

    I agree that the historical picture is complex, especially when you look at race. The overall figure for women held roughly steady between 1976 and 1993, before beginning a decade long downtrend. However, a fall in the rate for black women between 1976 and 1993 was masked by a proportionally much smaller but numerically equivalent rise for white women over the same period. From 1994 onward, both rates fell, in the case of white females, back to where they were in 1976.

    The reason female-only DV shelters work better for men than for women (at least for deaths) is because in contradiction to the feminist image of the angelic female victim and feindish husband, about 50% of DV is mutual and the rest is evenly divided between woman on man and vice versa. Therefore about two thirds of “victims” also beat their partner. In general the sort of people who get involved in these marriages and stick with them, have grown up in violent families and have a sort of craving for the excitement brought about by anger, violence and that “passion” if you will.

    That’s all very interesting, and it might even be correct, (though I don’t see how it explains why the rate for white women went up and then back down again) But it doesn’t answer the question. Why is the rate much higher for women than for men?

    At any rate your assumption of much higher rates of DV homicide for women is false.

    Don’t underestimate me. Don’t think you can distract me by pointing to some quirk in the data from two decades ago while you hide the pea under another cup. Don’t think you can fool me with smoke and mirrors arguments, and don’t ever, ever, assume that I assume anything.

    The pea in this case is the statement that there are “much higher rates of murder of female intimate partners over male”. And it’s under the cup marked “true”.

    There are only two possible explanations for this. More women than men are being killed by their heterosexual partners, or more women than men are being killed by their homosexual partners, or both.

    I don’t know about homosexual intimate killing, I’ve looked for data, but haven’t been able to find any. but it’s certainly true that husbands kill wives far more than wives kill husbands, and it’s very probably true that the comparatively high rates of girlfriend murder are being committed mostly by boyfriends.

    The other reason that example would be out of place is that you are discussing areas where there is a selection of people by sex and I don’t think there is any in that example. Unless you claim most people are bisexual and chose whether their partner will be male or female?

    Er, no. I think most people are heterosexual, and that’s why when men kill their partners it’s women who get killed.

    I argue that this is not, as feminists claim, a Patriarchal plot to kill women, but a second order effect of men prefering women as intimate partners.

    Feminist central dogma is that men are to blame for everything and so they believe that everything is a big plot — named “Patriarchy”. [cf “International Jewish Conspiracy”] It’s all intentional somehow. Naturally this is such utter nonsense that the statement is mostly metaphorical, however because feminists believe in collective punishment and collective guilt, the difference between a literal plot and a metaphorical plot or collusion is small.

    While that’s basically correct (and yes, I’ve noticed the similarity between antisemitism, and feminist misandry. What is all this “male violence against women” business but blood-libel?), what I think you’re missing is that there are systems within feminist thought whose sole function is to mask the incoherency from the feminist herself. They don’t fool anyone else. That’s what I’m targetting here. You’re mistaken when you say that nobody actually believes what feminists say. Feminists do, and it’s the systems that enable them to do so, which I have in my sights.

    So while you’re fighting the battle for every tree, I don’t actually care too much about the individual trees. I want to burn down the entire forest.

    I don’t think a sane person would want to say ANYTHING was what you label a first order selection. Leave that for the feminists. Nobody really thinks that eg. men get shot in war because people hate men.

    Men get shot in war because people don’t care what happens to men. They’re disposable. Also first-order selection is real. The militias really are targetting men in Iraq. They’re not just killing men because they’re randomly attacking those in the streets, and those in the streets are men, though that’s part of it too.

    But feminists really think the explanation for women being raped in war (to the small extent it happens as an organised affair at all) is that men like to hurt women.

    Which isn’t true. Men protect women from rape in war. Not only did Bosniac men protect Bosniac women during the Bosnian war, until they were incapable of protecting anyone, Serbian men protected Bosniac women from other Serbian men. You won’t find that information in most treatments of war rape, because each level of indirection from the primary sources whitewashes everything that doesn’t fit into the mould of “women are universal victims and its all men’s fault”, which isn’t just a description of feminism, it’s a description of society. The best secondary sources, though, contain the information, and given the difficulty in accessing primary sources, that’s where you need to look.

    A tertiary gender-selective effect happens when societal factors other than perpetrator choice make men more vulnerable. To the extent that your theory is correct about Iraq and Afghanistan, (or the USA, for that matter) it is tertiary selection. Random violence affecting men because men are where it happens.

    Perpertrator choice?

    No, not “perpetrator choice”, I said “societal factors other than perpetrator choice”, i.e., 180 degree out from perpetrator choice.

    Is it the word “choice” that is causing you a problem? Should I say “selection” instead?

    What choice? Are you saying US soldiers are told in Iraq they can either shoot men or women and it’s up to them? Or that the reason their commanders tell them to kill men only is because they hate men? No, it is because they know the battle aged men are most likely to oppose the occupation. This becomes a general rule whereby men are given the violent roles in society and it’s no coincidence that violent roles are also the most dangerous roles.

    And it’s also because they know that the folks back at home don’t care if they kill male civilians, but God help them if women or children get caught in the crossfire.

    But if we really cared about men, then we wouldn’t be having this war in the first place.

    You’re wrong about men being most likely to oppose the occupation. Everybody is opposing the occupation. Women and children are mostly non-frontline soldiers in the resistance, but they do the same jobs as their non-frontline counterparts in the US military. That too gets whitewashed by the “women are universal victims” media treatment.

    I guess the Gender Transition Movement would call the first type a direct selection and the other type an indirect selection, or a selection by society. The important difference then becomes between the feminist view that discrimination is largely due to individual people (ie men only, but all men) or whether it is due to society as a whole. Or in other words: is someone to blame or is it just the way things happened and nobody is to blame, and indeed it may not be a question of the system even being wrong as such but merely functional 200 years ago, but not functional today.

    Feminism is to blame to a considerable degree because it’s doing the worst of the whitewashing.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 6:26 pm | Reply

  11. I understand the concern about her position and the affects it will have, particularly since one of the foster kids I stay with was subjected to similar, but is it appropriate to question her like this?

    Um, why not? She posted to two public blogs, one of which attracts a huge and vocal following. It’s not like she didn’t know she could be subject to critical commentary.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  12. I’ll remind you that you suggested that for inherent reasons men kill women far more than the other way around. I pointed out that black men were actually killed by their wives more than vice versa not so long ago. So what happened to human nature in the late 1980’s? Did human nature change or did the environment change? Clearly your concept that it was something about men and women that determined these facts is wrong or else the facts wouldn’t have proven so changeable across race and across that short passage of time.

    Don’t underestimate me. Don’t think you can distract me by pointing to some quirk in the data from two decades ago while you hide the pea under another cup. Don’t think you can fool me with smoke and mirrors arguments, and don’t ever, ever, assume that I assume anything.

    Why do you think figures from 2004 represent how human nature really is but figures from 1980 are “smoke and mirrors”? Why shouldn’t the 1980’s figures be the ones indicating the “real facts” and the 2004 figures the “anomoly”?

    The pea in this case is the statement that there are “much higher rates of murder of female intimate partners over male”. And it’s under the cup marked “true”.

    So long as you ignore certain aspect of the data you mean? The data actually shows that which sex kills more or less of the other depends quite a lot on other factors. There is no simple answer such as you propose. By taking an average you are just ignoring the data you have.

    There are only two possible explanations for this. More women than men are being killed by their heterosexual partners, or more women than men are being killed by their homosexual partners, or both.

    Unless you think there was a huge change in the number of gay black people in the last few decades that doesn’t really help.

    Clearly the cause is something environmental that could change between 1980 and 2004. Gender, sexual preference and race did not change between 1980 and 2004. One thing that did change is the availability of domestic violence shelters for women only.

    Comment by DavidByron — January 5, 2007 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  13. Daran let me throw this little puzzle at you.

    I have two drugs A and B which are candidates for treating a certain condition so I am running a medical trial to test them both against an equal number of trial subjects. The results come in and drug A has a higher rate of recoveries than does drug B.

    But wait! When we break down the numbers by sex we find that drug B has a higher rate of recovery than drug A for women. And also for men. Drug B does better for both men and women when the figures are divided by sex.

    Which drug is better?
    ———–

    If you can figure that out then you can figure out why you are wrong in your analysis of the DV homicide data.

    Comment by DavidByron — January 5, 2007 @ 7:16 pm | Reply

  14. I think you’ve got a hole in your example, David. Unless there’s a numerically significant third gender in there, it’s not possible for Drug B to do better among both the male and female subsamples, but for Drug A to do better overall.

    Comment by Robert — January 5, 2007 @ 7:25 pm | Reply

  15. By equal number of trial subjects I presume you mean that the number of subjects who received drug A equals the number of subjects who received drug B.

    So of more women than men got drug A, and more men than women got drug B, these results could be explained of more women recovered regardless of whether they were given drug A or drug B. However drug B is better.
    ——-
    Let’s apply this to the intimate murder problem

    I have two types of partner Wives and Husbands … and I am running a … trial to test them both against an equal number of trial subjects. The results come in and Wives has a higher number of murders than does Husbands

    But wait! When we break down the numbers by sex we find that Husbands has a higher rate of murder than Wives for Blacks. And also for Whites…

    Except that it doesn’t, Wives have always had a higher rate of murder for whites.

    I give up. Why don’t you explain it to me.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

  16. I’ll remind you that you suggested that for inherent reasons men kill women far more than the other way around.

    I did not say “inherent”. I have not expressed any view on whether the reasons are inherrent.

    I pointed out that black men were actually killed by their wives more than vice versa not so long ago. So what happened to human nature in the late 1980’s? Did human nature change or did the environment change? Clearly your concept that it was something about men and women that determined these facts is wrong or else the facts wouldn’t have proven so changeable across race and across that short passage of time.

    I am suggesting that men murder women more than women murder men because men murder their partners more than women do, and not, as feminists claim, that men want to murder women. The fact that men’s partners are women is not what causes men to murder them.

    It really is as simple as that. I’ve not said that there is an essentialist reason for this. I’ve not suggested any reason for this. I don’t really know why men murder their partners more than women do, and for the purpose of my argument, the detailed reasons don’t matter.

    Don’t underestimate me. Don’t think you can distract me by pointing to some quirk in the data from two decades ago while you hide the pea under another cup. Don’t think you can fool me with smoke and mirrors arguments, and don’t ever, ever, assume that I assume anything.

    Why do you think figures from 2004 represent how human nature really is but figures from 1980 are “smoke and mirrors”? Why shouldn’t the 1980’s figures be the ones indicating the “real facts” and the 2004 figures the “anomoly”?

    If the 2004 figures turned out to be anomolous, then we could choose some other recent year. But they’re not. Here’s the pea again: “There are much higher rates of murder of female intimate partners over male”. This is a present tense statement. And it’s still under the cup marked “true”. Call it statement A.

    I have also argued that this is because men select women for their partners and men murder their partners more than women do. Two more present tense statements, call them B and C.

    You do not appear to dispute statement C. You appear to agree with the statement “men murder their partners more than women do”. You are very keen to give non-essentialist reasons for this, but you accept that it’s true. You also appear to accept B that “men select women for their partners”. In this case, it probably is for essentialist reasons, but this is still irrelevent.

    B and C in turn imply A. The provide a complete explanation for A. There is no need to conjecture, as feminists do, that men are killing their partners because they’re women. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that in fact men have a tendency to want to protect women, again probably at least partly for non-essentialist reasons.

    Yet for some bizzare reason, you have claimed, contrary to fact, that statement A is false. I don’t know why you’re doing this, but it’s getting bloody tiresome. I have other feminist nonsense to dispose of. Why are you wasting my time like this?

    So long as you ignore certain aspect of the data you mean?

    Yes. I ignore the aspects of the data that have no bearing on the truth of statements A, B, and C.

    The data actually shows that which sex kills more or less of the other depends quite a lot on other factors. There is no simple answer such as you propose. By taking an average you are just ignoring the data you have.

    The data show a lot of things that have no bearing on the truth of statements A, B, and C.

    There are only two possible explanations for this. More women than men are being killed by their heterosexual partners, or more women than men are being killed by their homosexual partners, or both.

    Unless you think there was a huge change in the number of gay black people in the last few decades that doesn’t really help.

    The pea is still a present tense statement. It still refers to the current situation. I am not trying to explain what has happened over the past twenty years. I’m trying to understand what the data is telling me now. It was a long shot, but it was not inconceivable that a significant proportion of intimate murders were by homosexual couples, and I wanted to verify that this was not true.

    Clearly the cause is something environmental that could change between 1980 and 2004. Gender, sexual preference and race did not change between 1980 and 2004. One thing that did change is the availability of domestic violence shelters for women only.

    You’re almost certainly right. But your refutation only works against one tree. Mine works against a whole class of feminist trees. Yours is a fact-based argument which depends upon the data having a particular explanation, which new information could render incorrect. Mine is a purely logical argument, which attacks the coherency of the feminist position.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 8:35 pm | Reply

  17. I think you’ve got a hole in your example, David. Unless there’s a numerically significant third gender in there, it’s not possible for Drug B to do better among both the male and female subsamples, but for Drug A to do better overall.

    Yes it is. Numbers in brackets are the numbers cured.

    Drug A is given to 8 (6) women and 2 (0) men: Overall Recovery Rate: 6/10
    Drug B is given to 2 (2) woman and 8 (3) men: Overall Recovery Rate: 5/10

    Drug A cures 75% of women and 0% of men.
    Drug B cures 100% of women and 37.5% of men.

    Comment by Daran — January 5, 2007 @ 8:49 pm | Reply

  18. Um, why not? She posted to two public blogs, one of which attracts a huge and vocal following. It’s not like she didn’t know she could be subject to critical commentary.

    That she did, but it still feels inappropriate. I am not saying the criticism is wrong. I very much agree with it. However, because of the topic, it comes off more as an attack than criticism.

    Comment by toysoldier — January 6, 2007 @ 2:05 pm | Reply

  19. Oh, I get it. Dur. Thanks.

    Comment by Robert — January 6, 2007 @ 2:25 pm | Reply

  20. That she did, but it still feels inappropriate. I am not saying the criticism is wrong. I very much agree with it. However, because of the topic, it comes off more as an attack than criticism.

    Yeah, I realise that for some posters, and for some topics, criticism feels like an attack. I don’t know what to do about that, but I’m not prepared to accept that those topics and posters should be free from criticism, particularly when those topics (though not necessarily this poster) amount to a sustained attack on men.

    So I guess its one of those things I’ve given up worrying about.

    Comment by Daran — January 6, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  21. Oops. I forgot aboutn this thread.

    Daran your statistic that women die more is entirely dependent upon time and race. If we had looked at a predominantly black population in 1985 you would have concluded that it was women who killed more men. But the real situation is that the average figure is just not giving you an accurate result — as with the results for the test of drug A and B where as you say it is drug B — the one that breaks down the population into the subgroups — that gives the more reliable result.

    And yes your comment “men kill more than women” sounds like an inherent claim because you offer no qualification. In the context you offered it there’s no other way to interpret it. You made it a general rule just like the other situations. For example you also said more men die in war. Now you didn’t mean by that that as it happens in 2004 more men died in war but if we were to pick a different year or slightly different circumstances maybe more women would die. You meant it as a general rule, which it is, so far as we know, for all warfare. And you were replying to a conversation where such general statements were being made. Your claims were general. You were saying NOT that men just happen by luck to be killing more women in DV violence this year but every year, and as a general rule but that just isn’t true.

    Oh btw just about nobody ever gets that drug test puzzle right so big congratulations on that.
    ——————-

    I’m feeling very oppressed by women today. It must be the fact that the US now has a female head of congress. The waves of gender oppression radiating from Washington must have just hit me.

    Comment by DavidByron — January 7, 2007 @ 12:24 pm | Reply

  22. […] is a repost of an article originally posted at Creative Destruction. Comments older than Wednesdau 10 January 2007 were originally posted there. See this post for […]

    Pingback by Feminist Critics — January 14, 2007 @ 2:35 pm | Reply

  23. 1) Women are rarely raped.

    2) If women do report a rape, most likely they are lying.

    3) Men are raped all the freakin’ time, and deserve lots ‘o tea and sympathy.

    4) Women are evil bitches.

    5) Men are noble and perfect.

    6) Consider #3. Now consider #5.

    7) Reconsider #3. What were they wearing, and had they been drinking? So…can we assume they made it up because they rilly, rilly liked it but didn’t know how to explain the bruises to the wifey?

    8) So you’re assuming that a person who is in her own home with a date knocking on the door can expect the exact same repercussions as a convicted criminal who is locked up in confined spaces with other angry frustrated criminals?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for true equality, and when women one day in the distant future finally get theirs, we can all hold hands in a circle and sing campfire songs.

    What do the MR’s group actually want anyway? I mean, besides being able to sow their wild oats with no annoying financial repercussions, and for women to stop falsely accusing them of rape? It seems like men are demanding for themselves what they are not willing to extend to others.

    Tell me how that’s “equal”. This place is not for equality, it’s a badly disguised attempt at manipulating women into relinquishing hard-won civil and legal rights.

    Comment by Johanna — January 15, 2007 @ 4:17 am | Reply

  24. and for women to stop falsely accusing them of rape?

    The above statement suggests that women do falsely accusation men of rape, based on the context of your statement.

    Comment by toysoldier — January 15, 2007 @ 6:57 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: