Sex offenders at work

[JesseB]

@JesseB and @EvieTheAvocado

You are actually both correct. Yes, the number of rape and sexual agression perpetrated by women is severely underestimated. Right now, if we were to only look at the numbers of report and convictions for rape, over 98% of rapist and sexual assaulters are men and over 80% of their victims are women. Yet, as JesseB did show, women are under reported as rapists and sexual assaulters due mostly to sexual stereotypes that shame men who would reporting having been assaulted in such a way even more then women and the fact that there are still quite a few people who believes rape requires a penis. Realistically speaking, most studies on this crime, when they take into account all age groups and ethnicity, find that around 75-80% of rapist and sexual assaulters are men (for molesters and stalkers it's more around 60% I even saw 50/50 a time or two). Men are more likely to be victimised when they are boys and teenagers with a peak in the 8-16 age group with coaches, girlfriend/boyfriend, pastors, parents and school teachers as the most likely perpetrators. Women tend to be victimised for longer with a peek a few years later when they reache the 16-24 age group. The most likely perpetrator have pretty much the same position in their social circle. A rate of 75% of rapist being men would be consistent with the crime rates of other similar violent crimes.

Are men more often rapist then women? Yes, they are. Is rape a uniquely male problematic? No, women are often guilty of rape even if convictions and report rates might not reflect this truthfully. Are women under represented in rape statistics? Yes, they are. Are rapes commited at a 50/50 or close to rate between men and women? No, they are not and neither are any other violent crimes. The only crime where we can start to see some 50/50 (or relatively close to that) ratio are fraud and embezzlement and petty theft. Are traditional gender roles responsible for this disrepency? Yes, traditional gender roles certainly play a role in the difference in ratio in crimes, including rape and sexual assault, between men and women.

As for a would you work with a sex offender? In my profession, it's impossible since I work with teenagers and young adults, but hypotheticaly speaking, I would really be uncomfrotable with such a person.

Thank you so much. Fucking A, this

Also I said women commit crimes I think at 50/50 not specifically rape. I think it's entirely likely that men commit more violent crime and rape than women, from what I've seen much of the crimes women commit are a bit less..... obvious. Tend to be more subtle and in many cases far more severe, at least emotionally/financially. But that's anecdotal. My point wasn't that every crime shares exact parity. I think just over all people in general commit crimes at about the same rate, even if due to cultural or biological differences the exact nature of the crime varies. Other people played games to try and twist what I said into being specifically about violence and rape, which was not the case. Also in my thinking (which may or may not be accurate) I do include many things that are not crimes which absolutely should be. I'll openly admit that. Parental alienation (which both men and women engage in but women tend to do more often not because they are women but because the law encourages them to) should fucking be illegal. it is abusive to the child and the estranged partner. So many other things like that should be illegal. Paternity fraud. Various forms of extortion that go on. And none of these are gender specific but they all do tend to have over representation by one side or the other. I think personally that most likely it all pretty much evens out in the end. PERSONALLY I THINK THIS, this is not a statement of fact or knowledge as like I said my biggest problem is the lack of people honestly looking at it and collecting the data so we can fucking know. I could be wrong but none of us will ever know because of these fucking lies people say.

[JesseB]

I have to wonder what kind of employer thinks it's ok to hire a convicted rapist. Was he really the best candidate for that position?

I agree totally.  Out of numerous(?) candidates, why choose this bloke?  Spending half his working
life in jail, how could he possibly hold better workplace qualifications than all the other applicants?
Or was this a case of financial Government incentives for employers to hire past convicted criminals?

And...

Recidivism among Australian prisoners can be measured by the rate at which released prisoners
return to prison. In Australia overall, 44.8% of prisoners released during 2014-15 returned to prison
within two years, to 2016-17.

According to US Bureau of Justice Statistics research, State prisoners released have a five-year recidivism
rate of 76.6% to 2016, while Federal prisoners released have a five-year recidivism rate of 44.7%.

The first figure is pretty alarming, considering your "hypothetical" ex-con worker's been out for 5 years.
Statistically could make him likely to re-offend.

I mean sure, however keep in mind the justice system in the US at least is intentionally designed to keep people in the system. It's designed to force Recidivism (which I copied from your post because I can't even begin to spell that word lol). So again still not that simple. Nothing ever is. So you can't just use these stupid statistics to draw conclusions without thinking about the other various factors involved.

[SYZ]

According to US Bureau of Justice Statistics research, State prisoners released have a five-year recidivism
rate of 76.6% to 2016, while Federal prisoners released have a five-year recidivism rate of 44.7%.

The first figure is pretty alarming, considering your "hypothetical" ex-con worker's been out for 5 years.
Statistically could make him likely to re-offend.

I mean sure, however keep in mind the justice system in the US at least is intentionally designed to keep people in the system. It's designed to force Recidivism (which I copied from your post because I can't even begin to spell that word lol). So again still not that simple. Nothing ever is. So you can't just use these stupid statistics to draw conclusions without thinking about the other various factors involved.

What makes you claim that the stats I cited are "stupid"?  They are what they are.
Or are you suggesting they're erroneous or I've misinterpreted them?  If not for
actual statistics, then what better source of data do you suggest?  And what other
"various factors" are you referring to specifically?

(I might have trouble saying recidivist, but at least I can spell it LOL.)

[JesseB]

According to US Bureau of Justice Statistics research, State prisoners released have a five-year recidivism
rate of 76.6% to 2016, while Federal prisoners released have a five-year recidivism rate of 44.7%.

The first figure is pretty alarming, considering your "hypothetical" ex-con worker's been out for 5 years.
Statistically could make him likely to re-offend.

I mean sure, however keep in mind the justice system in the US at least is intentionally designed to keep people in the system. It's designed to force Recidivism (which I copied from your post because I can't even begin to spell that word lol). So again still not that simple. Nothing ever is. So you can't just use these stupid statistics to draw conclusions without thinking about the other various factors involved.

What makes you claim that the stats I cited are "stupid"?  They are what they are.
Or are you suggesting they're erroneous or I've misinterpreted them?  If not for
actual statistics, then what better source of data do you suggest?  And what other
"various factors" are you referring to specifically?

(I might have trouble saying recidivist, but at least I can spell it LOL.)

No no, it's just a generalization about all the statistics people use in debates on these topics. All of it is shit and inaccurate and it's annoying. It causes everyone to get more polarized than they should be on these issues. We'd find a way forward more easily if we dealt with reality and not the manipulative lies put foward by activists with an axe to grind on both sides.


(also there's a lot of words I can't spell, and I've spent a lifetime trying to learn. Thanks for that. Why do you think I say prolly? Answer: I actually struggle to spell the actual word. Fun fact, my vocabulary is quite a bit larger than what I demonstrate in text mostly because of the number of words I know but can't spell.... so I avoid using them entirely in text. Hell someone on the TTA PM'd me because I was saying ETC as ECT)

Just so you know I don't think any of the statistics I use to counter yours are even remotely accurate. When you bother to focus on methodologies for soundness in my experience the entire spectrum of studies on all sides is asinine horse shit. Why do you think I have such low opinion of humanities departments. They are doing us all a disservice with their bullshit. They wanna be a social sciences department without scientific rigor. It's annoying. Until they fix their shit they are nothing more than social studies departments and even that is a generous concession. I mean I've made this point a dozen times today along... No body actually know the facts. Without sound methodologies for collecting data any analysts of collected data is worthless.

[JesseB]

According to US Bureau of Justice Statistics research, State prisoners released have a five-year recidivism
rate of 76.6% to 2016, while Federal prisoners released have a five-year recidivism rate of 44.7%.

The first figure is pretty alarming, considering your "hypothetical" ex-con worker's been out for 5 years.
Statistically could make him likely to re-offend.

I mean sure, however keep in mind the justice system in the US at least is intentionally designed to keep people in the system. It's designed to force Recidivism (which I copied from your post because I can't even begin to spell that word lol). So again still not that simple. Nothing ever is. So you can't just use these stupid statistics to draw conclusions without thinking about the other various factors involved.

What makes you claim that the stats I cited are "stupid"?  They are what they are.
Or are you suggesting they're erroneous or I've misinterpreted them?  If not for
actual statistics, then what better source of data do you suggest?  And what other
"various factors" are you referring to specifically?

(I might have trouble saying recidivist, but at least I can spell it LOL.)

Wanna know why I can't spell? I mean this is just a guess from my personal perspective. It's because when I read most of the time I don't see words at all I see pictures. Sadly when I do math I don't see pictures I see numbers, and thus I struggle to assigning proper value to those number which makes my arrhythmic total shit, but once you get away from basic math suddenly I do pretty ok. And lets face it I'm lucky spell check and calculators exist.

[JesseB]

What the hell? I think we crashed the forum all I'm seeing are blank posts that say "click to edit"

[SYZ]

Once again, I can only supply Australian crime rates with any certainty.  I don't know
which US sites to refer to, but I'd assume that American crime figures would be similar
with maybe variations caused by an excess of available firearms in the community.

•  In 2016, females were four and a half times as likely as males to have a recorded
incidence of sexual assault: 155 females per 100,000 females, compared with 34 males
per 100,000 males. These rates have remained relatively stable since 2010.

•  In 2016, males were around three times as likely to have been robbed as females
(that is, where someone stole or attempted to steal their property by physically attacking
them or threatening them with violence).

•  Rates of murder for both males and females have stayed steady over the past 6 years,
at around 1.2 deaths per 100,000 males and 0.7 deaths per 100,000 females. More males
than females are murdered overall, and males are more likely to have experienced a murder attempt.

•  Offenders are people aged 10 years and over who police have taken legal action against
for one or more criminal offences. In 2015-16 there were 3,139 male and 923 female offenders
per 100,000 males and females.  Rates of offenders have remained relatively stable since 2008-09,
with male offender rates consistently more than triple that of female offender rates.  The highest
offender rate for males was for illicit drug offences (616.2 per 100,000 males compared with 184.4
per 100,000 females).

•  Between 2012-13 and 2015-16, the male offender rate for sexual assault and related offences
increased from 59 to 71 males per 100,000 males aged 10 years and over. The female rate increased
from 3 to 6 females per 100,000 in this time.

—Australian Bureau of Statistics,  Gender Indicators, Australia, Sep 2017


These figures may cause you to rethink your claims about the supposed equivalence of male
and female crime rates Jesse.

[SYZ]

What the hell? I think we crashed the forum all I'm seeing are blank posts that say "click to edit"

Yep, same here in Oz. WTF happened?   

[Tres Leches]

Blame Aliza!
There's already a thread in "Forum Comments"

-Teresa

[Phaedrus]

Even sex offenders have bills to pay.

[JesseB]

Once again, I can only supply Australian crime rates with any certainty.  I don't know
which US sites to refer to, but I'd assume that American crime figures would be similar
with maybe variations caused by an excess of available firearms in the community.

•  In 2016, females were four and a half times as likely as males to have a recorded
incidence of sexual assault: 155 females per 100,000 females, compared with 34 males
per 100,000 males. These rates have remained relatively stable since 2010.

•  In 2016, males were around three times as likely to have been robbed as females
(that is, where someone stole or attempted to steal their property by physically attacking
them or threatening them with violence).

•  Rates of murder for both males and females have stayed steady over the past 6 years,
at around 1.2 deaths per 100,000 males and 0.7 deaths per 100,000 females. More males
than females are murdered overall, and males are more likely to have experienced a murder attempt.

•  Offenders are people aged 10 years and over who police have taken legal action against
for one or more criminal offences. In 2015-16 there were 3,139 male and 923 female offenders
per 100,000 males and females.  Rates of offenders have remained relatively stable since 2008-09,
with male offender rates consistently more than triple that of female offender rates.  The highest
offender rate for males was for illicit drug offences (616.2 per 100,000 males compared with 184.4
per 100,000 females).

•  Between 2012-13 and 2015-16, the male offender rate for sexual assault and related offences
increased from 59 to 71 males per 100,000 males aged 10 years and over. The female rate increased
from 3 to 6 females per 100,000 in this time.

—Australian Bureau of Statistics,  Gender Indicators, Australia, Sep 2017


These figures may cause you to rethink your claims about the supposed equivalence of male
and female crime rates Jesse.

They absolutely would if there wasn't problems with the statistics, the justice system in general and various biases involved...

Also I didn't make said claim you accuse me of, I said I think it's probably closer to even or about even, I said I also include many things that aren't crimes but absolutely should be. I include biases in sentencing and the fuckery that goes on.... I mean do you accept those same crime statistics when it says black people commit significantly more crimes than white people? Or do you think that at least to some extent there's other factors involved that inflate those crime statistics against black people? I've been consistent about this and yet it keeps getting fucking ignored.

Fix the problems, do the math, the numbers will change. If they don't change by much I'll accept that, provided the methodologies you use to derive your statistics are sound. Until they are I don't really give a flying fuck about your bullshit numbers. Do the work right. OH RIGHT YOU CAN"T why? Because you don't have the ability to properly collect the data. The only thing you could do is analyze it see why I think there's holes then start trying to convince other people that maybe the numbers are a bit off. And if enough people start asking for the actual facts then we can get some accurate information. That's all I want.

What I think is one thing, it's simply what I think is most likely to be the case, but seeing as we have no data to go on what I think is based entirely on anecdotal information which is hardly worth much. What I claim is we don't fucking know what's going on. We don't know what the numbers are because there's problems with the statistics you're siting are. And I guarenfuckingtee you your country is just as fucked up when it gathers this information as mine.


Edit: also again you're only using violent crimes, you're neglecting the fact there's a shit ton of crime out there. And even in the violent crime realm you're leaving a hell of a lot of crimes out. I'm not gonna accuse you of cherry picking. I'm just pointing out this is part of the source of your error and bias. I don't think it's intentional that you and others keep doing this.

Double Edit: You really shouldn't blindly accept every statistic you see as gospel truth. 90% of all statistics are just made up on the spot *this is a joke by the way since so many here can't figure shit like that out without being explicitly told. Even the ones performed by the government if you bothered to look into them would become dodgy as hell.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My point of view sees feminism as a supremacy movement

I also think that almost all feminists don't realize this and want equality not realizing that "feminist" theory is anything but about equality if people would actually read it. [...]

That's my honest view.

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

[Thumpalumpacus]

<double-post deleted>

[JesseB]

My point of view sees feminism as a supremacy movement

I also think that almost all feminists don't realize this and want equality not realizing that "feminist" theory is anything but about equality if people would actually read it. [...]

That's my honest view.

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

Feminists are working towards what they think is equality, most of them. The leadership is not.

The democrats value liberal ideals. The leadership are corporate stooges

The republicans value conservative ideals. The leadership are corporate stooges both leadership groups are working towards the same goal in this case (also "conservative Ideals" have been pretty perverted over the course of history but then again so have "liberal ideals")

Christians think they are doing good things, christian leadership are mostly going after padding their own wallets and controlling the people under them....

Often what people claim to believe in and support is something that exists only in their minds. While their actions are hijacked by scumbags who don't want what they want. In the case of feminism it was never about equality just actually fucking read feminist theory.... oh right... you won't. Just like Christians won't read their bible.... funny.... that.

What I said is feminism and feminist are not the same thing. It's not condescending it's pretty normal with any group or ideology or religion. It's best to learn what it is your hooking your cart too. Incidentally while I reject feminism, I don't reject equality, or many of the ideals feminists want, they claim to want it and I believe them. That doesn't mean their ideology will get us there. Like I said I keep hearing solutions that are worse than the problem. And if they get what they want we're gonna live that nightmare hellhole.... I'm not a fan of being bullied or abused no matter who's doing it. More important I'm anti authoritarian. And I don't tie my cart to any other horse either. All of them have problems. Just one is gaining a lot of extra steam these days and is dangerously close to becoming the monsters they hate so much. None of this is unusual or new open a fucking history book. Hell read any book this is a common theme in the human experience. 

The fuck you on about anyway? You intentionally being thick?

Keep in mind I'm Anti Authoritarian thus I must reject feminism. I've rarely seen such an extremist bullying authoritarian ideology. Frankly I think it's going to rival Christianity at it's worst one day. I fully expect feminism to continue to grow into an uncontrollable monster far worse than Christianity ever was. Does that mean the end of the world? No it just means feminists will get exactly what feminist theory demands to "turn the tables of oppression" This phrase is not the elimination of oppression it's literally to turn the oppressors into the oppressed. I'm not white, though I am male, I'm against oppressing the oppressors, I'm against oppressing the currently oppressed. Unlike feminism (not the fucking same thing as feminist) I'm pro equality, and unlike feminism and most feminists that I've heard I'm anti authoritarian. I don't care if the authoritarian is a government oppressing the people or some mob justice bullshit or corporate overloads I'm against all of it.

So yea, when people say things need to change I may very well agree with them, but then I ask. So exactly how do you intend to force the world into your submission? Because if you allow any level of freedom at all you're gonna have to compromise somewhere.

I think the rules should be reasonably fair, simple to understand and follow and workable for as many people as possible. Making a utopia is impossible without extreme crimes against humanity, so I reject such goals.

Too further cement the point when you ask a feminist about feminism the response I always hear is "feminism to me is....." and in my mind I can't help but hear "Christianity to me is....." I don't care what feminism or Christianity to YOU is, I care about what it actually is. Christianity is a monstrosity. And so if feminist theory. But seeing as most people know virtually nothing about feminist theory they can safely say "feminism to me is about equality" without realizing that the leadership and the activists don't have that goal in mind.

[epronovost]

My point of view sees feminism as a supremacy movement

I also think that almost all feminists don't realize this and want equality not realizing that "feminist" theory is anything but about equality if people would actually read it. [...]

That's my honest view.

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

To me it sounds like a lack of knowledge about the history of feminism, a lack of knowledge of gender relations in the last few centuries, a lack of knowledge about women's right activism, all of which produce a rather shallow and distorted view of feminism as a whole. I would also add a certain tendency toward a composition fallacy when it comes to feminism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My point of view sees feminism as a supremacy movement

I also think that almost all feminists don't realize this and want equality not realizing that "feminist" theory is anything but about equality if people would actually read it. [...]

That's my honest view.

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

Feminists are working towards what they think is equality, most of them. The leadership is not.

The democrats value liberal ideals. The leadership are corporate stooges

The republicans value conservative ideals. The leadership are corporate stooges both leadership groups are working towards the same goal in this case (also "conservative Ideals" have been pretty perverted over the course of history but then again so have "liberal ideals")

Christians think they are doing good things, christian leadership are mostly going after padding their own wallets and controlling the people under them....

Often what people claim to believe in and support is something that exists only in their minds. While their actions are hijacked by scumbags who don't want what they want. In the case of feminism it was never about equality just actually fucking read feminist theory.... oh right... you won't. Just like Christians won't read their bible.... funny.... that.

What I said is feminism and feminist are not the same thing. It's not condescending it's pretty normal with any group or ideology or religion. It's best to learn what it is your hooking your cart too. Incidentally while I reject feminism, I don't reject equality, or many of the ideals feminists want, they claim to want it and I believe them. That doesn't mean their ideology will get us there. Like I said I keep hearing solutions that are worse than the problem. And if they get what they want we're gonna live that nightmare hellhole.... I'm not a fan of being bullied or abused no matter who's doing it. More important I'm anti authoritarian. And I don't tie my cart to any other horse either. All of them have problems. Just one is gaining a lot of extra steam these days and is dangerously close to becoming the monsters they hate so much. None of this is unusual or new open a fucking history book. Hell read any book this is a common theme in the human experience.

The fuck you on about anyway? You intentionally being thick?

Keep in mind I'm Anti Authoritarian thus I must reject feminism. I've rarely seen such an extremist bullying authoritarian ideology. Frankly I think it's going to rival Christianity at it's worst one day. I fully expect feminism to continue to grow into an uncontrollable monster far worse than Christianity ever was. Does that mean the end of the world? No it just means feminists will get exactly what feminist theory demands to "turn the tables of oppression" This phrase is not the elimination of oppression it's literally to turn the oppressors into the oppressed. I'm not white, though I am male, I'm against oppressing the oppressors, I'm against oppressing the currently oppressed. Unlike feminism (not the fucking same thing as feminist) I'm pro equality, and unlike feminism and most feminists that I've heard I'm anti authoritarian. I don't care if the authoritarian is a government oppressing the people or some mob justice bullshit or corporate overloads I'm against all of it.

So yea, when people say things need to change I may very well agree with them, but then I ask. So exactly how do you intend to force the world into your submission? Because if you allow any level of freedom at all you're gonna have to compromise somewhere.

I think the rules should be reasonably fair, simple to understand and follow and workable for as many people as possible. Making a utopia is impossible without extreme crimes against humanity, so I reject such goals.

Too further cement the point when you ask a feminist about feminism the response I always hear is "feminism to me is....." and in my mind I can't help but hear "Christianity to me is....." I don't care what feminism or Christianity to YOU is, I care about what it actually is. Christianity is a monstrosity. And so if feminist theory. But seeing as most people know virtually nothing about feminist theory they can safely say "feminism to me is about equality" without realizing that the leadership and the activists don't have that goal in mind.

Who are you to tell someone what they do and don't understand?

Get over yourself. Your opinion is just that: your opinion. I find it very unconvincing and shifty, myself. If that's "thick" to you, meh ... I'll let you know when your opinion matters to me. Until then, perhaps you should explain why you know better than feminists what the aims of feminism are. Far as I can see, you're some blowhard online who has done a lot of thoughtless reading.

I'mma go light up a smoke, we'll see what you can scrape up by then.

[JesseB]

My point of view sees feminism as a supremacy movement

I also think that almost all feminists don't realize this and want equality not realizing that "feminist" theory is anything but about equality if people would actually read it. [...]

That's my honest view.

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

To me it sounds like a lack of knowledge about the history of feminism, a lack of knowledge of gender relations in the last few centuries, a lack of knowledge about women's right activism, all of which produce a rather shallow and distorted view of feminism as a whole. I would also add a certain tendency toward a composition fallacy when it comes to feminism.

There has always been more than one woman's rights activism thing going on, one more mainstream version the happy go lucky equality kind. And the extremist #killallmen kind... the problem is the denial that the more extreme kind was there first, was there always and is the actual intended goal. Also funny enough history itself has been pretty actively distorted. 

You know another bit of history out there? The history of a man called Lysenko know anything about him? I see a hell of a lot of science denial and intentional pushes to pervert science to push an ideology and it absolutely reeks of what Lysenko did. Any guesses as to how many millions of people Lysenko killed with his ideological bullshit?

[Thumpalumpacus]

My point of view sees feminism as a supremacy movement

I also think that almost all feminists don't realize this and want equality not realizing that "feminist" theory is anything but about equality if people would actually read it. [...]

That's my honest view.

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

To me it sounds like a lack of knowledge about the history of feminism, a lack of knowledge of gender relations in the last few centuries, a lack of knowledge about women's right activism, all of which produce a rather shallow and distorted view of feminism as a whole. I would also add a certain tendency toward a composition fallacy when it comes to feminism.

There's also more than a touch of modern MGTOW/incel subtext to me eyes.

[JesseB]

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

Feminists are working towards what they think is equality, most of them. The leadership is not.

The democrats value liberal ideals. The leadership are corporate stooges

The republicans value conservative ideals. The leadership are corporate stooges both leadership groups are working towards the same goal in this case (also "conservative Ideals" have been pretty perverted over the course of history but then again so have "liberal ideals")

Christians think they are doing good things, christian leadership are mostly going after padding their own wallets and controlling the people under them....

Often what people claim to believe in and support is something that exists only in their minds. While their actions are hijacked by scumbags who don't want what they want. In the case of feminism it was never about equality just actually fucking read feminist theory.... oh right... you won't. Just like Christians won't read their bible.... funny.... that.

What I said is feminism and feminist are not the same thing. It's not condescending it's pretty normal with any group or ideology or religion. It's best to learn what it is your hooking your cart too. Incidentally while I reject feminism, I don't reject equality, or many of the ideals feminists want, they claim to want it and I believe them. That doesn't mean their ideology will get us there. Like I said I keep hearing solutions that are worse than the problem. And if they get what they want we're gonna live that nightmare hellhole.... I'm not a fan of being bullied or abused no matter who's doing it. More important I'm anti authoritarian. And I don't tie my cart to any other horse either. All of them have problems. Just one is gaining a lot of extra steam these days and is dangerously close to becoming the monsters they hate so much. None of this is unusual or new open a fucking history book. Hell read any book this is a common theme in the human experience.

The fuck you on about anyway? You intentionally being thick?

Keep in mind I'm Anti Authoritarian thus I must reject feminism. I've rarely seen such an extremist bullying authoritarian ideology. Frankly I think it's going to rival Christianity at it's worst one day. I fully expect feminism to continue to grow into an uncontrollable monster far worse than Christianity ever was. Does that mean the end of the world? No it just means feminists will get exactly what feminist theory demands to "turn the tables of oppression" This phrase is not the elimination of oppression it's literally to turn the oppressors into the oppressed. I'm not white, though I am male, I'm against oppressing the oppressors, I'm against oppressing the currently oppressed.  Unlike feminism (not the fucking same thing as feminist) I'm pro equality, and unlike feminism and most feminists that I've heard I'm anti authoritarian. I don't care if the authoritarian is a government oppressing the people or some mob justice bullshit or corporate overloads I'm against all of it.

So yea, when people say things need to change I may very well agree with them, but then I ask. So exactly how do you intend to force the world into your submission? Because if you allow any level of freedom at all you're gonna have to compromise somewhere.

I think the rules should be reasonably fair, simple to understand and follow and workable for as many people as possible. Making a utopia is impossible without extreme crimes against humanity, so I reject such goals.

Too further cement the point when you ask a feminist about feminism the response I always hear is "feminism to me is....." and in my mind I can't help but hear "Christianity to me is....." I don't care what feminism or Christianity to YOU is, I care about what it actually is. Christianity is a monstrosity. And so if feminist theory. But seeing as most people know virtually nothing about feminist theory they can safely say "feminism to me is about equality" without realizing that the leadership and the activists don't have that goal in mind.

Who are you to tell someone what they do and don't understand?

Get over yourself. Your opinion is just that: your opinion. I find it very unconvincing and shifty, myself. If that's "thick" to you, meh ... I'll let you know when your opinion matters to me. Until then, perhaps you should explain why you know better than feminists what the aims of feminism are. Far as I can see, you're some blowhard online who has done a lot of thoughtless reading.

I'mma go light up a smoke, we'll see what you can scrape up by then.

So telling someone what things look like from where you stand is telling them what they do and don't understand? Perhaps it was worded wrong but that's how it comes across. Especially when I talk to reasonable feminists who would reject "turn the tables of oppression" if they ever got far enough in....


It is just my opinion. I never claimed it to be anything but. And who are you to say what feminists do or don't understand? You speak for yourself. As for "thoughtless reading. No... not really. I didn't know shit about any of this until people around me started changing in a very disturbing way. Almost cult like. What I did was listen to people. Though I have done some reading into feminist theory, which is hard as hell that shit is thick as fuck convoluted and generally about as bullshit as the intro to the anarchist cookbook. Few other things I know about the humanities departments and how this "research" is being conducted. And how it compares to how proper scientific research is conducted and self correcting. And how the normal controls that should be in place aren't being utilized, allowing pretty much any asinine horse shit to be accepted into the body of work. Do you?

[JesseB]

Strikes me as an odd combination of defensiveness and condescension. "Feminists are working for supremacy, but don't realize it."

To me it sounds like a lack of knowledge about the history of feminism, a lack of knowledge of gender relations in the last few centuries, a lack of knowledge about women's right activism, all of which produce a rather shallow and distorted view of feminism as a whole. I would also add a certain tendency toward a composition fallacy when it comes to feminism.

There's also more than a touch of modern MGTOW/incel subtext to me eyes.

You can add nazi, white supremisist, litterally hitler, bastard, PUA (because PUA and MGTOW go hand in hand so well in an insult lol) Trump supporter, MRA, Fox news anchor, satan, pile of shit, to the list of insults if you're gonna go that route why not just use them all like most people....

None of them are true of course, but you don't give a fuck. You can't accept even the tiniest criticism to feminism that much is clear. You've made no concessions or attempts to be even remotely reasonable. I have.... funny....that.

It's like when you say that women can be bullies, the following response is almost "why do you hate women" as if to acknowledge that women are people is to hate women. What do you demand the worship of women? Kinda black n white for you ya?

Idk.... you tell me, this is just how you're coming across now.

OH by the way, no I"m not MGTOW. My goal of being married and a father one day is kinda counter to their ideology. And I have been and can get laid.... kinda disqualifying for the Incel community.... But if by MGTOW you also mean the formerly named "Confirmed Bachelor" I know a few of them, some on this forum even. Some you quite like.... I'm not gonna out them because they don't deserve your blind rage, hate, abuse, insults and bullying, which would likely follow if you knew who they were.

[epronovost]

There's also more than a touch of modern MGTOW/incel subtext to me eyes.

I disagree. It seems to me more like the case of Dunning-Kruger effect. We all fall prone to it at some point in our lives. That doesn't make JesseB an imbecile, far from there, neither does it make him in any way related to any of those groups ideologically. In my experience, it's bit more common in social sciences and humanities since these subjects seem easier of access to the laymen and are certainly easier to discuss and debate at a lower level then let's say physics or chemistry.

[JesseB]

There's also more than a touch of modern MGTOW/incel subtext to me eyes.

I disagree. It seems to me more like the case of Dunning-Kruger effect. In my experience, it's bit more common in social sciences and humanities since these subjects seem easier of access to the laymen and are certainly easier to discuss and debate at a lower level then let's say physics or chemistry.

With one exception. You assume I claim to know more than I do. I claim to know very little. But if you want sure feel free to run with this. I can accept this. (and computer science is my bag, though I'm probably more qualified to deal with chemistry and physics than humanities topics, which admittedly isn't saying a whole lot)

When have I ever claimed to have higher than an A.S. level of education exactly?


Keep in mind, no one has addressed my actual points, that there's holes in the data, that there's cracks in the narrative. And there shouldn't be. If I'm wrong it shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate. Instead of blindly throwing statistics I'm claiming are flawed at me, explain how those statistics are actually quite sound. I'd love to hear it. I really would....

Explain to me all ways there's no contradictions in the bible.... Oh right wrong ideology.... slip up disregard.

[SYZ]

...I mean do you accept those same crime statistics when it says black people commit significantly more crimes than white people? Or do you think that at least to some extent there's other factors involved that inflate those crime statistics against black people?

Your introduction of black people into the male versus female crime statistics is
clearly a straw man.

Fix the problems, do the math, the numbers will change. If they don't change by much I'll accept that, provided the methodologies you use to derive your statistics are sound. Until they are I don't really give a flying fuck about your bullshit numbers.

You've claimed before that any/all genuine crime statistics I've cited have been
"bullshit" without any sustainable evidence.  That's nothing more than your
personal opinion, and thus worthless.  Sorry.

Even the ones [statistics] performed by the government if you bothered to look into them would become dodgy as hell.

And you know this how exactly?  You maybe have a crystal ball that lets you see
behind the machinations of the Australian Bureau of Statistics that you claim are bullshit?
Or do you have viable evidence that my figures are incorrect?

To be frank Jesse, I've grown sick of your constant rebuttals made without any contrary
supporting facts and figures.  All you've done here, repeatedly, is to denounce any
statistics I post as bullshit.  I feel as though I'm banging my head against a brick wall
in trying to have a reasoned discussion with you;  there are none so blind as those who
will not see mate.

Consider my responses to you to be ceased.  You've worn me out LOL.

[JesseB]

...I mean do you accept those same crime statistics when it says black people commit significantly more crimes than white people? Or do you think that at least to some extent there's other factors involved that inflate those crime statistics against black people?

Your introduction of black people into the male versus female crime statistics is
clearly a straw man.

Fix the problems, do the math, the numbers will change. If they don't change by much I'll accept that, provided the methodologies you use to derive your statistics are sound. Until they are I don't really give a flying fuck about your bullshit numbers.

You've claimed before that any/all genuine crime statistics I've cited have been
"bullshit" without any sustainable evidence.  That's nothing more than your
personal opinion, and thus worthless.  Sorry.

Even the ones [statistics] performed by the government if you bothered to look into them would become dodgy as hell.

And you know this how exactly?  You maybe have a crystal ball that lets you see
behind the machinations of the Australian Bureau of Statistics that you claim are bullshit?
Or do you have viable evidence that my figures are incorrect?

To be frank Jesse, I've grown sick of your constant rebuttals made without any contrary
supporting facts and figures.  All you've done here, repeatedly, is to denounce any
statistics I post as bullshit.  I feel as though I'm banging my head against a brick wall
in trying to have a reasoned discussion with you;  there are none so blind as those who
will not see mate.

Consider my responses to you to be ceased.  You've worn me out LOL.

Again it's fucking not.

Now repeat after me....

Apple is to banana as asparagus is to broccoli. 

They do actually relate in some way. Can you tell me how?

to your second point. yup I admit it. The evidence does exist but I lack the ability to demonstrate it to you. It sucks. I'm working on gathering it though so I can make a more compelling case. I have no clue how long it will take because well honestly I get overwhelmed by all this shit. I see cracks here and there and I have no idea how to properly sort them out organize them and present them in a way suitable to convince you. This shit is frankly much harder than computer science.

[jerry mcmasters]

Keep in mind, no one has addressed my actual points, that there's holes in the data, that there's cracks in the narrative. And there shouldn't be. If I'm wrong it shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate. Instead of blindly throwing statistics I'm claiming are flawed at me, explain how those statistics are actually quite sound. I'd love to hear it. I really would....

You're ruling out the proof that you seek...that statistics do in fact demonstrate that men are more violent and commit more violent crimes than men.  If you rule that out, what can be said to convince you?