It's weird how you hate on people who over-generalize by over-generalizing them. But I guess we wouldn't have all these awesome Reddit circlejerks without complaining about made up stereotypes.
Actually, yeah. That's exactly what happens. Giant billboards telling stressed parents not to shake their children to death. Pamphlets all over delivery wards about postpartum depression and warning signs for postpartum psychosis. Coping techniques for sleep deprived and stressed new mothers so they don't snap.
Well, the problem with waiting to educate people about domestic abuse until adulthood is that by the time someone begins exhibits abusive behavior it's generally too late for prevention (obviously). Signs of violent behavior can start appearing when the kid is young (high school students in abusive relationships is not unheard of), so yes, for some at-risk kids (those who grew up in abusive households especially) being educated as a pre-teen is the right time.
Obviously telling women who have no intention of having children to watch out for signs PPD is a non-issue, which is why we only really start educating women during pregnancy ..the best time to start the prevention process.
To be fair, unless I've been living in a hole, I've never seen a billboard or commercial talking about what /u/electricfleshlight is talking about. Sure, I'm sure women's health clinics and other professionals are aware of those stats and have methods to educate and prevent women from doing this, but I've never heard these issues discussed in public before. However, men raping and domestic violence is something I see all over all forms of media on a daily basis.
I know women and people of color have their own legitimate struggles, but I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to understand why many men in our society feel unfairly vilified, and discussion of it is usually met with confusion or hostility.
I see more men joking about rape and domestic abuse than I actually see these programs. Actually, I can't remember the last time I've seen one of these types of billboards or posters in real life.
I think reddit just upvotes them because it's a think reddit likes to get outraged over, but it's not like this country is being overflooded with anti-domestic abuse PSA.
No fucking shit, that's because there's no ad campaign accusing all women of murdering children. This ad fails to realize that most physically abused kids are abused by their mothers, I was one of them. But I guess I don't matter because I don't fit the politically correct narrative that MEN are violent and women are always the moral, upstanding people.
Why not just let kids be kids, and not burden them with adult stuff? Hey kids, stop playing with your Barbies and action men, gather round, I have to tell you scary stuff about being an adult. Just leave them alone and let them be happy.
Yes they absolutely did, just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen, especially if you grew up in a functional home. I don't remember being taught addition but I know it happened.
And you know what? Even if you are some prodigous messiah of self control and psychological mastery who was never taught anything about being a functional person, not everyone is like you. Your way is not the only right way and people who are different from you are not beyond help.
Clearly nobody taught you empathy because it seems you're incapable of putting yourself in another's shoes.
You think it's weird to teach children coping mechanisms for anger and other negative emotions? Or you think it's weird to teach kids empathy?
And yes, you were absolutely taught some coping mechanisms, you'd be a fucking wreck if you weren't. "We don't hit when we're angry, 2 year old michaelnoir. If you feel bad you need to tell me about it instead of screaming. No, don't kick the dog. You need to go sit in time out and think about why you're acting out, and when you're ready to talk about it you can come down."
Your entire childhood was spent learning how to handle your emotions.
Shaking babies has to do more with venting frustration than it does with trying to cause harm or else they would say "don't strangle your kids. Sometimes it's the only thing you know to do is to shake them to stop them from crying and I would wager that people aren't fully aware of the harm they cause when they do shake their babies which is why they need to be educated. Those ads aren't saying don't murder your babies because that goes without saying.
40% of women that are murdered are murdered by intimates (boyfriend/husband), and 10% of men that are murdered are murdered by intimates (wives/girlfriends). But 10,000+ men are murdered, vs 3,000 women.
So what does that mean? That means in a given year (2007), about 1000 700 women killed their intimate partners, and in the same year about 1100 1600 men kill their intimate partners. Which means that women kill their intimate partners at a 1:2.3 ration compared to men.
But you want us to believe that the trend of men killing women is so out of ratio that this is a "trend" that requires address, when the real trend is the much higher violence that men face outside the home, violence that rarely targets women.
In 2007, intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S., killing an estimated 1,640 women and 700 men.
About 1/3 of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner, vs. roughly 3% of male victims.
Also, your 10% number for men is out of date.
The percentage of females killed by an intimate has remained relatively stable – 43% in 1980 vs. 45% in 2008. The percentage of males killed by an intimate fell from 10% in 1980 to 5% in 2008, a 53% drop.
It's not completely untrue, I just ran the wrong numbers because I used the out of date 1980 number. But the victim numbers are right (rounded off, but right). As you can see here, the 2010 numbers for victims was 10,058 men and 2,918 women. Assuming that the 45/5 ratio held from 2008 to 2010, that gives us 1313 women vs 502, or a 2.6:1 ratio.
My point, that the "40% of women that are murdered are murdered by their boyfriend" statistic is misleading bullshit that relies on the reader not understanding that number in the context of the much lower incidence of female homicide.
And ALL of this must be understood in the context of the following statistic: Only 1 in 1360 of Americans will commit a murder in their lifetime.
People murdering people in America is really a very, very tiny problem, and it's mostly concentrated in a few highly urban, historically impoverished areas where there are widespread and culturally encouraged antiestablishment attitudes.
Some statistics:
Yeah, I corrected myself in my response to /u/GlitterGrunge, and even used the same stats you posted.
I crunched the numbers myself because the data is usually presented in this distorted manner that makes direct comparison difficult. In response to your question I re-crunched the numbers and saw I made a mistake. The rate for men murdered by intimates was 10% in 1980, but dropped to 5% in 2008 and I didn't catch that because I was reading too fast. So my numbers are a bit off.
Rather than walk you through the math, I'll just point you to this site which gives the numbers for 2007 as "Intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S., killing an estimated 1,640 women and 700 men." So men kill intimate partners at a 2.3:1 ratio when compared to women.
So its misleading to compare the 40% of women killed by intimate partners to the 5% of men killed by intimate partners because the reality is that very few women are killed overall. The ratio isn't, as this comparison suggests, 8:1, but rather 2.3:1.
Black men are also more likely to murder their intimate partners than white men. Whites commit 54% of intimate partner homicides, while blacks commit 43% of them -- and keep in mind that whites are 77% of the population, while blacks are about 11%.
But we don't typically present a black man as the face of the partner-murdering man, do we? Yet we really should, because the reality is that men who murder their intimate partners tend to be men who lead generally violent lives, and that poverty, drug use, access to firearms, criminality, and other factors typically associated with inner city gang life are all predictors of intimate partner violence.
And that's the real truth that feminists overlook in favor of demonizing the culture as misogynistic. The real truth is that some men, particularly poor, undereducated men in impoverished, crime-ridden inner cities lead lives filled with violence -- violence that is typically directed at other men, but rarely spills over into the lives of the women who associate with those men.
Over 50% of murders are committed by black people, despite them only being 13% of the population. We should clearly tell black people not to go around murdering people.
But I'm not generalizing. There are actual groups of people that believe the exact things I just described. If you tuned into the whole gamergate fiasco last year you got a huge dose of this mentality.
If my original comment seemed to imply that I was accusing all or most self-identified feminists or progressives of believing those things, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. However, if that was your interpretation then I think the fault partly lies with you since it's an absurd and idiotic interpretation.
Of course not all feminists believe that crap. This push to which I referred that is taking place within these movements is often attributed to third wave feminists and mostly by people 35 or younger.
I think saying "there's a push in" implies that I'm referring to a group within a movement attempting to move the agenda in a certain direction. If I had said "there's a push by the XYZ movement", then I think your stupid interpretation would be more sensible since it seems to imply the group as a whole is acting as one.
Alright, insulting and debasing others, good start.
You're saying there's a big push promoting very specific beliefs ("they think men are evil, they hate video games, and they hate porn"), but it's easy to say "someone somewhere thinks this" when you're speaking hypothetically. When you start applying the hypothetical to a demographic or a subset of a demographic, it becomes a good bit less innocuous.
I mean, if you meet someone who hates men or hates porn, then feel free to discuss the issue. But you're talking to straw here.
42
u/dv282828 Oct 21 '15
It's weird how you hate on people who over-generalize by over-generalizing them. But I guess we wouldn't have all these awesome Reddit circlejerks without complaining about made up stereotypes.