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.
I dunno, don’t women find it offensive if people negatively generalize their gender? And for a good reason imo, even if they’re not the women being talked about.
Your comments have a lot of All Lives Matter energy. The post isn’t a random generalization about men. It’s one that reflects society’s systemic sexism and violence toward women. There’s a power imbalance in the situation.
Sure, but I’m not gonna claim it’s equivalent until I start getting harassed regularly about my body
Like, until men have to deal with this shit, I’m happy to listen when women complain about men. Like one guy said, it’s not all men, but it’s too damn many
Okay… There’s a whole issue with setting yourself in between someone’s expression of frustration at something sucky they experience and the problem itself. One of the things that helps is learning to temporarily shelve your priorities. Listen to people as if you were a complete outsider. Someone is telling you about their feelings and that often isn’t intended to be in competition with your feelings… Until somebody makes it a competition. The minute you try and make it a competition you have demonstrated to that person that you aren’t listening to their concerns. In doing that you make everything about your own priorities and that person who was frustrated isn’t in a place where they have reserves of energy to be kind and you just stepped inside the radius of a problem that you yourself were before only tangential to because you shut them down. Effectively you’ve said “Whatever, let’s talk about my needs.”
This move intended or not sucks all the oxygen in the room that could be devoted to making things better into addressing your problem if some one is empathetic to you or as an extention of the inertia behind addressing problem. Neither is good.
Let’s take an example. Say I go to my boss with a problem. Say it’s a matter of policy and it’s impacting my life negatively. Now my boss maybe didn’t write the rule which created the problem but they’ve enforced it in the past. As I am expressing how this policy effects me the boss starts acting huffy and going “Oh you must think I’m such a bad boss. How could you think that? Don’t you know how much I care about the people in my employ?” All of a sudden as an employee I now have a whole new problem to deal with because this person isn’t going to address my problem, they just became a new problem for me to deal with. Now you have a frustrated employee who isn’t in a position to solve the policy problem either having to console their boss or try and correct them back on course to realizing that the policy problem… Hasn’t changed. Nobody in a place to do better has acknowledged it even exists.
What would you think about the actions of that boss in the employee’s shoes?
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.
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.
You see how that’s still bad right? I’m saying let’s not just ignore ANY of these statistics and y’all are trying to do gymnastics to make a dumb meme more rational.
Yeah, exactly - that’s what I mean. Hypothetically, if 50% of the violence done by women involves men, then the 82% is really more like 91%, and the violence attributed to women starts to look more and more like a rounding error. This meme is getting more rational all the time. It’s almost like bringing statistics into it does nothing but present a lame fig leaf to cover up the underlying, endemic problem that inspired the meme in the first place.
Perfect is the enemy of good. In the real world we celebrate drops by like 1%. Disregarding *every *other issue with this hypothetical situation, a drop by 82% would be oh so incredibly world changing.
You aren’t wrong because violence is violence no matter the offender, but by bringing “whataboutism” in, you are arguably demonstrating bad faith right off the bat starting your discussion. At this point, if you are serious about wanting to tangent and discuss about solving the last 18%, maybe take it to its own thread? Like over to showerthoughts or asklemmy? I do think that’s always worth discussing, as is discussing how to solve the original 82% without the nuclear option. :)
Finally, this community is kind of memey. Let the witches cook.
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.
The meme has only two sentences. Try to read, rather than whatever the fuck this is. Go outside. Try interacting with humans in the real world. I promise you, your life doesn’t have to be like this.
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.
If the cause of most crime is related to the perception of a resource’s scarcity, we should:
a. Identify what resource is scarce in the lives of men.
b. Cause men’s perception of the resource’s scarcity to change, which does not necessarily mean restoring or replacing the resource.
Edit: lol if you’re concerned about changing people’s perception of something, you should definitely look inside the house first. If I understand correctly and you’re calling women’s bodies a fucking resource, you’re the problem.
let’s not pretend women never commit violent offences
Bro that’s a whole new sentence wtf are you talking about
The point was that in the modern day, pretty much 100% of the violence scenarios where women “need” a man in the equation to protect them, the source of the problem is another man.
I actually don’t agree with when the pendulum swings all the way to total misandry like “men are all the problem sources and even outside of physical-violence scenarios they aren’t really needed.” You need a balance. There is a hilarious article by someone who tried working in an all-female office and she found the experience intensely unpleasant and not at all like the post-gender feminist utopia that was advertised. But as far as I can tell, no one here was saying that that was the goal, or that women were never criminal or violent. Just that selling men as a vital solution to the problem of interpersonal physical violence is missing a crucial leap of logic.
It’s also frankly a hard line to walk for a man to defend one woman from another one. I think most people would prefer that someone looking to commit a violent act be prevented, but I’d assume men would be worried about the optics of physically defending against a woman, especially if you inadvertently overdo it. I’m a woman, so I can’t be sure, but I think that would be lurking in the back of my mind (and I know how easy it is for men to hurt me without intending to). Even worse, you might underdo it, leading to the original intended violence, your possible criminal consequences from your defense, and your loss of face.
I’ve seen the “white knighting” thing in videos, but in my small amount of personal experience people are actually pretty good at sorting out and agreeing on who is the primary aggressor regardless of gender. Maybe the “man is always wrong” reaction is an anecdotal thing that gets blown up to a more common occurrence than it actually is, or maybe it’s a factor of crowd size and people jumping in from far away with no idea of the context.
What really sucks is getting attacked by a woman as a man. There is absolutely no good answer, it’s just a bad place to be stuck in.
I don’t really see why that would be relevant. A lot of crimes happen and are reported, statistically speaking there shouldn’t be an issue and I would assume that anyone is equally likely to get away uncaught. That is however something that one can only really speculate about.
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 where is the room for critique of these hyperbolic tollbaiting statements?
People who genuinely want to make the point of the counterexample are welcome to do so in their own posts, not the comments of the example
Lol fuck off
You don’t make the rules, we can comment where ever we want
I want to agree with that post, as it’s (generally) a point that bears repeating, but it’s too close to a catch 22 that it undermines the point
It’s just not fun being blamed for your gender. Would think women would understand that feeling…
It’s not fun, but maybe if we’re being blamed it’s a good reminder that we are still in a position to remind the other men they are out of line.
And it shouldnt feel fun. That’s kind of the point. It doesn’t feel fun for women to have a generalization that causes them to fear most men.
Do you/would you say the same thing what certain people bring up crime statistics and incarceration rates by racial demographic?
I just feel like negative generalizations like that invite other negative generalizations and that’s the stuff we’re supposed to get to stop.
Personally I’ve never been offended because I know I ain’t the men they’re talking about
But you will be in a few moments, because you’re a man
I dunno, don’t women find it offensive if people negatively generalize their gender? And for a good reason imo, even if they’re not the women being talked about.
Your comments have a lot of All Lives Matter energy. The post isn’t a random generalization about men. It’s one that reflects society’s systemic sexism and violence toward women. There’s a power imbalance in the situation.
A lot of negative generalizations have some truth to them. But the act of negatively generalizing a group is something imo that should be avoided.
I don’t care what “energy” being against such things gives out tbh.
Sure, but I’m not gonna claim it’s equivalent until I start getting harassed regularly about my body
Like, until men have to deal with this shit, I’m happy to listen when women complain about men. Like one guy said, it’s not all men, but it’s too damn many
Okay… There’s a whole issue with setting yourself in between someone’s expression of frustration at something sucky they experience and the problem itself. One of the things that helps is learning to temporarily shelve your priorities. Listen to people as if you were a complete outsider. Someone is telling you about their feelings and that often isn’t intended to be in competition with your feelings… Until somebody makes it a competition. The minute you try and make it a competition you have demonstrated to that person that you aren’t listening to their concerns. In doing that you make everything about your own priorities and that person who was frustrated isn’t in a place where they have reserves of energy to be kind and you just stepped inside the radius of a problem that you yourself were before only tangential to because you shut them down. Effectively you’ve said “Whatever, let’s talk about my needs.”
This move intended or not sucks all the oxygen in the room that could be devoted to making things better into addressing your problem if some one is empathetic to you or as an extention of the inertia behind addressing problem. Neither is good.
Let’s take an example. Say I go to my boss with a problem. Say it’s a matter of policy and it’s impacting my life negatively. Now my boss maybe didn’t write the rule which created the problem but they’ve enforced it in the past. As I am expressing how this policy effects me the boss starts acting huffy and going “Oh you must think I’m such a bad boss. How could you think that? Don’t you know how much I care about the people in my employ?” All of a sudden as an employee I now have a whole new problem to deal with because this person isn’t going to address my problem, they just became a new problem for me to deal with. Now you have a frustrated employee who isn’t in a position to solve the policy problem either having to console their boss or try and correct them back on course to realizing that the policy problem… Hasn’t changed. Nobody in a place to do better has acknowledged it even exists.
What would you think about the actions of that boss in the employee’s shoes?
Man, this post has described the entire way I think, about anything.
I like that one.
Sorry but a black v neck is an awful choice.
It’s not a counter example, it’s a statistic. Puting your fingers in your ears and going “Nuh uh Nuh uh I can’t hear your” doesn’t help anyone
It doesn’t matter. Women don’t need men to protect us from women. We can solve our own problems if misogyny gets out of the way
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.
You see how that’s still bad right? I’m saying let’s not just ignore ANY of these statistics and y’all are trying to do gymnastics to make a dumb meme more rational.
Can we talk about the 82% first? Sounds more important in the moment
Yeah, exactly - that’s what I mean. Hypothetically, if 50% of the violence done by women involves men, then the 82% is really more like 91%, and the violence attributed to women starts to look more and more like a rounding error. This meme is getting more rational all the time. It’s almost like bringing statistics into it does nothing but present a lame fig leaf to cover up the underlying, endemic problem that inspired the meme in the first place.
Plus how many adult women murder adult men? It’s rare, and women being murdered by men is far more likely
It’s not rare, the crimes are never recorded & men are not counted as victims.
Are you saying women murdering male victims is being missed?
Alright then you’re just here to meme and not actually talk about real problems.
Perfect is the enemy of good. In the real world we celebrate drops by like 1%. Disregarding *every *other issue with this hypothetical situation, a drop by 82% would be oh so incredibly world changing.
You aren’t wrong because violence is violence no matter the offender, but by bringing “whataboutism” in, you are arguably demonstrating bad faith right off the bat starting your discussion. At this point, if you are serious about wanting to tangent and discuss about solving the last 18%, maybe take it to its own thread? Like over to showerthoughts or asklemmy? I do think that’s always worth discussing, as is discussing how to solve the original 82% without the nuclear option. :)
Finally, this community is kind of memey. Let the witches cook.
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.For the record it’s not 82%, 5% of the whole is listed as “Unknown”.
The entire point of my comment is the asinine comment IN the OP saying “from who?”
What exactly is your response to the question:
“Protect women from who?”
… From other women? I don’t see why men would be required for that.
Fair to call out the assumption of binary though, thanks! 77% is still absolutely crazy.
But women will try to demand men protect them as it is their duty.
The meme has only two sentences
Ok & ?? Women will still demand that men come to their rescue & then gaslight men that they’re violent & masculinity is toxic etc…
The meme has only two sentences. Try to read, rather than whatever the fuck this is. Go outside. Try interacting with humans in the real world. I promise you, your life doesn’t have to be like this.
So you’re saying we could cut violent crime by roughly 80% if we were rid of men? Neat
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.
If the cause of most crime is related to the perception of a resource’s scarcity, we should: a. Identify what resource is scarce in the lives of men. b. Cause men’s perception of the resource’s scarcity to change, which does not necessarily mean restoring or replacing the resource.
… What “resource”?
Edit: lol if you’re concerned about changing people’s perception of something, you should definitely look inside the house first. If I understand correctly and you’re calling women’s bodies a fucking resource, you’re the problem.
I read it as the crimes being a resource lol.
It’s all going to boil down to the patriarchy, which ties back to systems of control. The “loneliness epidemic” is entirely self inflicted
Removed by mod
Bro that’s a whole new sentence wtf are you talking about
The point was that in the modern day, pretty much 100% of the violence scenarios where women “need” a man in the equation to protect them, the source of the problem is another man.
I actually don’t agree with when the pendulum swings all the way to total misandry like “men are all the problem sources and even outside of physical-violence scenarios they aren’t really needed.” You need a balance. There is a hilarious article by someone who tried working in an all-female office and she found the experience intensely unpleasant and not at all like the post-gender feminist utopia that was advertised. But as far as I can tell, no one here was saying that that was the goal, or that women were never criminal or violent. Just that selling men as a vital solution to the problem of interpersonal physical violence is missing a crucial leap of logic.
It’s also frankly a hard line to walk for a man to defend one woman from another one. I think most people would prefer that someone looking to commit a violent act be prevented, but I’d assume men would be worried about the optics of physically defending against a woman, especially if you inadvertently overdo it. I’m a woman, so I can’t be sure, but I think that would be lurking in the back of my mind (and I know how easy it is for men to hurt me without intending to). Even worse, you might underdo it, leading to the original intended violence, your possible criminal consequences from your defense, and your loss of face.
I’ve seen the “white knighting” thing in videos, but in my small amount of personal experience people are actually pretty good at sorting out and agreeing on who is the primary aggressor regardless of gender. Maybe the “man is always wrong” reaction is an anecdotal thing that gets blown up to a more common occurrence than it actually is, or maybe it’s a factor of crowd size and people jumping in from far away with no idea of the context.
What really sucks is getting attacked by a woman as a man. There is absolutely no good answer, it’s just a bad place to be stuck in.
In the UK, the govt got rid of women’s prisons
18% reported.
This comment is being way overlooked.
I don’t really see why that would be relevant. A lot of crimes happen and are reported, statistically speaking there shouldn’t be an issue and I would assume that anyone is equally likely to get away uncaught. That is however something that one can only really speculate about.
Men rarely report violence against us by woman. And sometimes not even against other men!
And you know that based on what? If they don’t report it how is it known that it happened?
The only way to ascertain that that I can think of is the ratio of reports being made significantly later.
Also who is meant by ‘us’? Enbies? Some other group?
Source? That’s higher than I would have guessed, honestly.
Oh no. Get the men back, because women can’t run a society?
Did I say that? No. I said let’s not ignore real numbers. 18% is not an insignificant amount of violent crime
This whole chain of thought relies on assumptions and this is where it needs to be exited?
Removed by mod
jfc man, that’s messed up
Take a look at Finland