Yup, it’s a little known secret of our economy that roughly 15% of the populace makes over $10,000 a month evaluating restaurants, aka, eating at them and filing reports.
Those reports are essential for us all, and I for one have been perpetually grateful for the knowledge I have gleaned from them.
I reached out to The Guild of Restaurant Evaluators to ask, and they told me it was a trade secret. But then when I asked the Restaurant Evaluators Guild, they told me it’s for “legal” reasons. But they put “legal” in quotes. The Evaluators Agency told me it was because nobody trusts 21 year olds, but let’s face it, of the “big 3”, nobody trusts The Evaluators Agency compared to the other two.
This feels like it’s meant to be a joke, but it’s not.
Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir says the provision of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza endangers Israeli soldiers and must stop after more than 100 Palestinians were reported killed while trying to get aid in Gaza City.
“Today it was proven that the transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza is not only madness while our hostages are held in the Strip … but also endangers IDF soldiers,” Ben-Gvir said, calling the deliveries “oxygen to Hamas”.
The incident is “another clear reason why we must stop transferring this aid”, he wrote on X.
Ben-Gvir also said Israel must “provide complete support to our heroic fighters operating in Gaza, who acted excellently against a Gazan mob that tried to harm them”.
It is crazy to starve people to procced calling them barbars for being desperate. But here they (the fasicst government) are, using this exact argument to justify a massacre.
I’m not quite following you. Are you suggesting this is pent up righteous indignation? Or like they feel it is an injustice so egregious they now get to “make a stand” or something?
I'm imagining a grown man indignantly yelling about his Warner Houses Velvet Peacock actually being Royal Garter but secretly having the time of his life standing on the counter. So happy he can see soooo far, almost to the other side of the store! "It's like I'm a giant, rarrrr!" he thinks.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !retailhell
is “Today at my retail job” a community, because it should be
Customer facing retail workers are a unrecognized heroes of our society. They face the worst of us and have to keep their sanity in check usually for the lowest wages an employer can get away with. Some countries have compulsory military service. I would support legislation making compulsory customer service in a public facing role a requirement.
Though it has been decades since I worked customer facing retail, the cruel lessons I learned about how people treat others they have power over are absolutely foundational to my own interactions with customer facing workers. I work to inject patience, understanding, and respect when I can to those in customer facing roles. If I hadn’t worked retail, I can’t dismiss horrifying the possibility I might be standing on a paint counter today myself secure in my incorrect convictions and ignorant of my hubris.
There used to be a phenomenon on imgur (for people who spent all their free time there and didn’t know what reddit was) called “work stories.” We had a lot of fun sharing those.
If you’re going to choose a god to praise, why choose an easily insulted one-eyed old fart with a self-confidence problem? Go with someone with more pizzazz, like Freyja. Goddess of love, beauty, sex, war, magic. Is there anything she doesn’t do?
Odin kidnapped children and set them to be chased by wolves for all eternity because of how their father named them.
No hailing Oden, please. He’s a cunt.
This bit is tongue in cheek, specifically the “no hailing Oden” bit. It is a joke. I don’t actually care if someone worships Oden or not, you’re free to do as you please. I apologise if my phrasing came across as more serious than was intended. My apologies to you, @Delphia, and anyone else whom I’ve offended.
This…
Odin kidnapped children and set them to be chased by wolves for all eternity because of how their father named them.
…is a reference to the story of the children Sol and Mani, whose father loved them so much he decided to name them after the sun and the moon. Oden took offence to this, and whisked the children away up into the skies to drive the carriages of their namesakes, and just to ensure none shirked their duty, he set Fenrir’s two children, Hati (Hatred) and Sköll (Treachery) to chase them until the end times when the twin wolves devour their targets.
No matter how you look at it, that’s a shitty thing to do. It’s not the children’s fault that their father gave them that name. Suppose father was punished too in that he lost his beloved kids, but the children really drew the short end of the stick.
It’s not the first time he’s a bit of a shithead either. The way I’ve always understood the stories having grown up with them, his treatment of Loke’s children is what drives them to oppose him in the end times. He creates a lot of problems that could be fixed would he be open to properly communicate, but Oden isn’t the type to do that. He’s too prideful.
And this…
He’s also co-opted as a symbol for nationalism and white supremacy so there’s that part too.
…is sadly also true. I welcome people rekindling Asatro. I think that’s delightful. However, sadly there’s a bunch of people that have co-opted these stories and group together under Odin as a symbol of hatred and xenophobia. I obviously don’t think the person I initially responded to is one of these people, nor do I think they’re seriously practising asatro.
So, if you do decide to openly worship Oden, or carry imagery associated with him - that’s really cool, but it’s also worth noting that sadly in modern society at least here in Scandinavia, there are some unsavory connotations with it.
Finally this
If you’re going to choose a god to praise, why choose an easily insulted one-eyed old fart with a self-confidence problem? Go with someone with more pizzazz, like Freyja. Goddess of love, beauty, sex, war, magic. Is there anything she doesn’t do?
…is also tongue-in-cheek, though I do unironically think Freyja is many times cooler than Oden and I will (figuratively) fight you on that.
I love the stories about Atalanta, and how it culminates in her and Hippomenes both being transformed into lions as punishment for shagging in a temple, because at the time people believed that lions couldn’t have offspring together.
The story of Thor dressing up as and pretending to be Freyja in order to get his hammer back from some giants is also pretty sick.
And Amaterasu forever shunning her brotherhusband for in disgust decapitating a lady who invited them to a party she was too lazy to go to.
Ancient city-sized dragon that is eons older that any surviving historical text or man-made structures in the world, speaking to the dwarf that stands bravely before her: “Well ain’t chu just the most precious lil’ thang I ever did lay eyes on! Wut’s yer name, sugah?”
My papy were what you would call an elder dragon, so unless you got the fire power to take down Mrs. Tiamat you don't stand a chance against me, sugah.
So why don't you just cool your heels, I'll go make us some tea, and you can tell me about what's going on in the world these days.
Well, an instance could decide they wanted to try to make money, but I think everyone would just bail on them. People are more than happy to help out servers with donations, no need to make it a business venture.
I don’t think so. There are very few communities that actually successfully fully left reddit. A good number of them splintered across circlejerkers on multiple lemmy instances with the users remaining on reddit asking “what’s a lemmy” and staying put. The vast majority never left reddit at all, and don’t give a fuck that reddit is trying to build a business.
Where the lemmy hivemind fails is that a bunch of us are reddit refugees that lost our favorite mobile apps, so you get a bunch of delusional people here thinking that reddit is dead and lemmy is the best thing ever. It’s not. Lemmy has a lot of the same problems reddit had, and we’re just repeating history. Wait until you need to squash extremism, prevent illegal content, and people maintaining the main instance (don’t kid yourself, it’s lemmy.world) need to eat.
For me, that’s not the case. I enjoyed the amount of content and discussion, but I just lost interest in reddit over time.
I saw the same jokes too often. I got sick of seeing the ads. The admins perma-banned my fiancee’s account, despite her never really commenting or posting. They never gave a reason for banning her, other than going against “policy”, which they never specified when asked. It would be the equivilant of being banned from every single instance. Some of the “helpful” communities were becoming much more toxic over time. I stayed despite that stuff.
Then, the API thing happened. It wasn’t that reddit wanted to profit, but rather how they went about it. Had they been honest with the developers when they asked at the start of the contract year, it would have been much smoother. You can’t change the cost of a yearly subscription halfway through the year. I disliked the provable false rumors that were spread about developers.
I disliked that Spez heavily implied that people leaving reddit would harm reddit employees. He didn’t make that statement about someone who made those threats, but instead he made it about the people leaving. It left a very bad taste in my mouth. I’m not monetarily supporting someone like that if I have any say in the matter.
I disliked the sudden overwhelming toxicity that I saw start against people who were recommending Lemmy. I get being rude to people who are rude, but it’s lame to be rude just because. Someone told me that I would be back, that I should just wait to see them right. That person helped me stay off reddit, tbh.
I don’t understand fanaticism, regardless of the company/platform/group, etc. If I start to dislike a social media, I will move somewhere that I like better. If Lemmy becomes like what Reddit is today, I’ll leave Lemmy too. There’s always something else. I also don’t really care if Reddit sinks or swims. That has nothing to do with me. If I get sick of all social media, I won’t use it. There are lots of other things to do with free time.
I picture the problem being someone doing that low-key. It’s common for app developers to get offers to install privacy-violating code in exchange for very tempting amounts of money - like, have a somewhat successful piano or to-do list app that you make $15k a year from? Wel, how about you install this spyware crap and we’ll give you $60,000. It’s difficult for small developers to say no. I could picture the same thing happening with Lemmy instances - a small change in ToS, some new JavaScript, and many people wouldn’t notice. At this point Lemmy members skew towards tech and privacy aware, but it could happen later on as the membership broadens.
Yeah, but you can pay a pittance to remove the ads. It’s a one time fee of 3.50. Granted it’s still proprietary, but I chalk that up to the dev not knowing a lot about FOSS. Both the Sync and Boost devs came from developing Reddit apps and you need more cash flow to pay the proprietary API.
They took way too long to come to town, and now they have and it has ads, I don’t even want it, since Liftoff has pretty much the same UI and without ads.
I don’t mind the news bot ones as much as the ask Reddit type threads that get crossposted here. If the OP can’t even see our responses (since the discussion is on Reddit), and a bot created the thread here on Lemmy, what the hell is the point.
I filtered off 99,9% of the bot from the setting, the rest seems pretty normal content. The “lack” of user is just what it is for a newly adopted platform. Ofk the small new community needs time but the progress in few months was incredible. We are not talking of social like Xitter/Thread, where all you need is to move the user and recreate the page. Reddit work as a big discussions database with years of old content wich new user search all the time to find guides and info, you can’t replace that overnight.
The scenario of companies opting to host instances may happen, just to try to jump into the bandwagon, which could imply they could/would at some point start to run ads but I’d risk the instance would quickly be defederated and/or turned into a hell pit.
But the notion of seeing an instance being run by GOG, Valve/Steam (not a client or fan but I aknowledge they have put a lot of work towards Linux and gained a lot of support because of it), AMD (fanboy here, give me a pass), RPi (I am aware of the shady turn they have undergone) and other companies that have some degree of respect in the Fediverse could be interesting.
Read on one thread here about the RPi5 they took the evil route by funneling most of their stock to enterprise customers, which hurts the DIY hobbyist and end users trying to get hardware for the proposed purpose, which should be experimenting and learning.
Gods, this is so accurate. A part of me wish we could just isolate the U.S. for a bit, because I’d be curious to see how that’d affect the discourse in the rest of the world. The rise of the far right and Trump legitimately being voted in as president legitimised the far-right movements in my country as well. Last election people were literally pushing for the stop-and-frisk BS to become a thing here.
I’m not saying European politicians are fundamentally better, I’m just saying it’s been a while since one of them got their mugshot taken for going to jail under election fraud charges 🤷
Every time I mentioned Trump on Reddit’s world news sub, I got shouted down for talking about “irrelevant” US politics. I tried to explain his potential impact on the politics of other countries, but they didn’t want to hear it.
Trump was important for the rest of the world when he was… you know… the president of the US… now it’s just a little mediocre guy and I understand that all the little advances in bringing him to justice are pretty important to you guys, but I couldn’t care less.
If he ever gets elected again for some reason, then we will see the potential impact, but for now he is pretty irrelevant im afraid.
I would too so enjoy if, as if from some casement unseen, a pair of disembodied, godly hands were to reach down shoo away those br-r-rown masses from Albion and her sisters, to keep them pure!
It is a crime against Balthūre that they invented fascism in 2016!
True it just keeps invalidating the garbage piled up around someones faith. They could accept it was false and move on with no hindrance to their belief in god but because they can’t burn someone as a witch because we know why milk goes bad they reject it all.
I’ve met a lot of people who don’t seem to understand this important concept from epistemology, which is the philosophy of knowledge.
To demonstrate the concept of “non-falsifiability” I will now produce a short fictitious dialog between a made up Scientist, S, and a Religionist, R.
Topic: how old is the earth? Is it 6,000 years old or more than 4 billion years old?
S: The earth must be more than 4 billion years old, because I found these rocks. These rocks have isotopes in them and they definitely look like they’ve been around for more than 4 billion years. If the rocks are really old, then the earth must be really old too.
R: No. The is only 6,000 years old, because the holy Bible has a list of human descendants from Adam, the first man, to Jesus, who we know was born in 4 BC. If you count it all up, you can find the exact year that the earth was created, as described in Genesis 1, and it’s about 6,000 years.
S: But these rocks… They’re really old…
R: God must have created those rocks with the isotopes already set up in the correct ratios to look like they are 4 billion years old, when He separated the firmament from the heavens 6,000 years ago.
S: But how could God create rocks with different isotopes? When minerals solidify from molten lava, lead isotopes naturally form in this ratio. (I don’t actually know how initial lead composition was established for this)
R: God is omnipotent! Any miracle is within his grasp.
S: But why would God want to make the earth appear to be much older than it really is? What purpose does it serve?
R: I do not pretend to understand the ways of God.
God dont lie. No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words. He held up a chunk of rock. He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.
As an aside, it’s worth noting not every religion conflicts with science.
Also, its literally impossible to prove, that something doesntvexist. You can be very sure about the not existence of something, but you can’t be 100% sure.
And this is the problem. People who have their license suspended often drive anyway. Sometimes they have to in order to get to work because the U.S. has a shit public transportation system in vast areas of the country.
Give insurance companies the will power to say no im not going to insure you. And then cap insurance rates. and by cap i mean no insurance should be more expensive than the rate new drivers are allowed to be charged.
Where i live insurance rates have a discount for being a good driver. Goes up each year to cap at about 40percent. This is tied to your liscence not insurance.
Increase that discount for good drivers and make sufficiently bad drivers unable to be insured.
It’s almost like she’s trying to be polite because she knows that sometimes guys turn violent when they’re rejected.
EDIT: Look, I’m getting tired of this. Not a single person arguing with this is having a conversation about this that is based in reality, they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:
Those discrepancies are shocking but not really that surprising if you’ve lived in society at all. Also, this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
I was just ranting to my husband about how I got tired of being polite to men* in my personal life who don’t take “no” for an answer the first time, I WILL be a “bitch” to co workers, in laws, friends etc that pull this shit. I am exhausted after years of finding 17 different ways to politely say no to a stranger who wants something from me on any given day. I am absolutely fucking done wasting time pussyfooting my words, with the men I am safe with (for whatever reason) and uh often men I am not safe with but I have been VERY lucky to have positive outcomes there. Pure luck
* I just don’t currently have women like this in my life. I have though
The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?”
If you can’t answer that fast enough to determine if you’re dealing with a violent man, then “not all men” is meaningless to a woman who is trying to not get killed.
Also, you’re basically saying women don’t think about this. I wonder what kind of answers you’d get if you actually asked any of them about this.
Black men usually get the talk at a very young age that they need to be super careful in every interaction with police or else they might be killed.
Now, not all cops are trying to kill black men in traffic stops. But if you don’t know which cops will kill you on the flimsiest pretext, then this isn’t terribly useful to a black man trying not to get killed.
Tell me, is it “racist” of these black men to be concerned about being killed by cops?
It’s not a perfect comparison, but the point is that these are people who are simply being extremely polite to avoid the potential threat of violence, and the other party is the one who has an undue likelihood of perpetrating that violence.
In both cases, the violence is the bigotry, not the worry about who might inflict that violence.
Some - wrong - people might say that black men worrying about being killed by a cop is racism because they are acting on information about their race. These are presumably the same people saying women are sexist for worrying about male violence. As always, noticing bigotry is in fact not the real bigotry.
Let’s go back to the original example: a woman dating.
Assume the woman is a lesbian. Would it be racist for her to apply the behavior in the post when she dated women of color, if her opinion was based on the statistic quoted in my last post?
So, absolutely no interest in the subject matter then. I’ve been trying to figure you out and I think I’ve got it:
You’re using racism as a tool to deflect any talk of sexism, and to imply that saying men are far more likely to kill women is sexist against men, even though it is 100% true. And even then you’re talking about racism using anti-black racist talking points, which is extremely telling.
You’re staying in the realm of innuendo though. You’re not really saying anything. I bet if you actually stood up and said what you mean it would be horrific and you’d get banned, which is why you’re not doing it.
Do you not know how often racists use crime stats to bolster their arguments too?
Men more often kill women is no grounds to make blanket arguments about men in general, same way as some minorities being overly represented in rape statistics is no grounds to make blanket statements about those minorities.
You can say it’s just you “being careful” and whatnot, but you should realize that you’re using word for word the same arguments racists use to justify their racism. Both represent an actual threat to women for sure but it’s no justification for labeling them all, that’s the point.
A woman might in both cases be vary of the specific groups here, at the mildest level. Discrimination can range from very minor to very hostile behaviour. Basically your imagination is the limit for what someone might do about these prejudiced feelings.
actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it
Statistics Finland, Finnish Government, the police and several university studies have made deep dives into this. But if you can show them wrong then by all means, go ahead. But I can provide you the sources for these claims, if you really want to go there.
You’re supplying nothing and asking me to disprove it. Fuck right off with that.
You yourself already claimed the statistics are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it” and now you are indignant that I’m asking you to show your work. But very well, I’ll supply the sources first and then perhaps you can tell me how they are “twisted made up bullshit”.
Have at it. Shouldn’t be that hard because you seemingly already are knowledgeable about these stats and know they’re bullshit.
These are not the same thing, and it should be obvious if you’re even slightly paying attention.
Nobody is arguing that all forms and types of prejudice are similar. The argument is that you are using the same arguments for your prejudice as those arguing for race based prejudice. But if your argument really is that the effects from one form of prejudice are better than others so it’s fine, then alright. It’s just a terrible look and makes it easier for racists to get away with their shit since their reasoning have been already accepted in other contexts.
Okay, so I think you knew this going in, but those are mostly written in Finnish, and since you already know I’m Australian, you probably knew I can’t speak Finnish. So like, great job there.
Anyway, of the one that I can actually read, the problem is immediately apparent in the title.
Foreigners more often suspects of offences than Finns
Suspects.
That right there is the problem.
The difference is, racists will take these statistics - which often reveal racist policing and the effects of discrimination rather than saying anything about actual races - and twist them to a racist end, which is usually further violence towards those minorities.
Femicide is a real thing.
The difference is clear, and if you can’t see the difference, then maybe you don’t actually care about the people that are being hurt, and you only care about the rhetoric. I don’t know, but I do know you’re missing the point.
since you already know I’m Australian, you probably knew I can’t speak Finnish.
I’m not sure where I was supposed to know that from but I was making a claim and I think it was a fair assumption you knew what you were talking about since you dismissed it right away. So having to read Finnish sources about a Finnish topic doesn’t seem like too much to ask. I’m not sure how you got to your conclusion before that the stats are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it” if you can’t speak Finnish and don’t know how to translate them. If it was through English language sources, surely you can use them here to help your argument about the stats being bullshit.
So like, great job there.
Nobody forced you to make a claim that the stats are bullshit without even having checked them.
Suspects. That right there is the problem.
Not just suspects, as shown in the Government of Finland and University of Helsinki studies. Did you even look at them?
The difference is, racists will take these statistics - which often reveal racist policing and the effects of discrimination rather than saying anything about actual races
Again something discussed in the studies. Racial bias hasn’t been in any study shown to be anywhere near enough as an explanatory factor for having so much higher rate of sexual violence. Another things they’ve considered were for example poverty, culture, trauma and so on. I think poverty was ruled out as well, since even with racial bias, it still was much too high compared to population average. Some sort of combined factor is what they’ve considered, but a lot of the studies are unsure what causes it, but studies are very confident that’s it’s both a real thing and not made up by bias.
Whatever the explanatory factors, same as with men being violent towards women, the discussion is about what the real effect is and if that justifies blanket prejudice.
The difference is clear, and if you can’t see the difference, then maybe you don’t actually care about the people that are being hurt, and you only care about the rhetoric. I don’t know, but I do know you’re missing the point.
I’ve just provided you the studies that show that the much higher than average prevalence for sexual violence among some immigrant groups. It’s a real thing. Men being violent against women is a real thing. I care that people are hurt. I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent or call all of the men in certain immigrant groups rapists. It’s fucked up imo. I wouldn’t exactly blame women for being alert I guess, it’s a reaction, but when people are justifying it online it does feel hurtful to be grouped in there. So no wonder people speak up. It’s the same with so many types of prejudice, be it because of sex/gender, skin colour, age, whatnot.
actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it
Whenever you look at a racist trying to use statistics to bolster their worldview, it always winds up being thinly disguised bullshit. Not the statistic, but how they abuse them and pretend they say things they don’t. That’s a consistent pattern, and your attempts to do the same thing so far don’t seem to be any different.
Not just suspects, as shown in the Government of Finland and University of Helsinki studies. Did you even look at them?
Of course I looked at them. That is how - please read this, and try to internalise it - I knew they were written in Finnish and I couldn’t read them. What do you want me to do with them, exactly?
It’s muddy and the exact mechanisms aren’t clear as to why there are these discrepancies.
The femicide thing is extremely clear.
I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent
I didn’t say that.
I wouldn’t exactly blame women for being alert I guess, it’s a reaction
That’s all I said initially, and people, including you, are getting all bent out of shape over it.
when people are justifying it online it does feel hurtful to be grouped in there
But you just admitted it was justified to feel that way so like… why don’t you like it when people justify it?
And yeah, it hurts. Guess what? Misogyny hurts men too. The answer is not to deny that it exists.
Whenever you look at a racist trying to use statistics to bolster their worldview, it always winds up being thinly disguised bullshit. Not the statistic, but how they abuse them and pretend they say things they don’t. That’s a consistent pattern, and your attempts to do the same thing so far don’t seem to be any different.
I’m not arguing for racism against any groups. My point is the opposite. Yes the statistics (which you claimed are bullshit but haven’t been able to dismiss in any way) show that certain immigrant groups are way overrepresented in sexual violence. Yes, men are more violent towards women than women are towards women. But I specifically don’t think it justifies blanket statements and labeling all of them as violent or rapists and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if any people from those groups get bothered when such blanket statements are made.
Existence of the higher rate of violence (sexual, physical) is not justified reason imo to label all members of a group as such. That’s the whole point.
Of course I looked at them. That is how - please read this, and try to internalise it - I knew they were written in Finnish and I couldn’t read them. What do you want me to do with them, exactly?
If you are claiming they are bullshit then I’d prefer you’d show me how. If you can’t read them, I suggest translating them or providing stats or studies of your own that show the opposite result or dismiss the earlier stats and studies. Those can be in any language you wish.
If you are claiming my claims are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it”, what I’m obviously hoping from you is the explain how. How did you come to that conclusion, is there something about these specific stats, if you perhaps have better ones or studies and or something.
The femicide thing is extremely clear.
I don’t think the exact reasons for that have been made clear, what mix of biology, culture, poverty, misogyny and so on makes it up. Same as the sexual violence case. Hell, a lot of those factors propably overlap. But as said, the end result, these people (men, some immigrant groups etc) are cause of the violence. But the whole point was that while I understand caution (be it towards men in general or just certain men), I think the justification, blanket statements and mocking people who are hurt and alarmed by such blanket statements is bad.
I understand you’re only using the statistics to make a point, and I’m explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear. You seem determined to only look at the aesthetics of using statistics.
And I very easily dismissed the one that I could read. I’m not going to translate everything you send me so I can play whackamole with it, especially when we agree on the fact that the racists are wrong to use these studies. Unless we don’t, in which case the fact you have these in your back pocket ready to go really does say something about you, doesn’t it?
the end result, these people (men, some immigrant groups etc) are cause of the violence
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That’s actually something I’ve never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
You keep talking about these “blanket statements”. Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
I’m explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear.
It doesn’t seem clear to me. What’s the actual difference of men having a higher rate of violence towards women and one of those immigrant groups having having higher rate of sexual violence towards women? Both are real, actual things that are concerning for women, but what makes it okay to be prejudiced towards one group as perpetrators but not the another? That’s something I don’t understand.
I very easily dismissed the one that I could read
Not at all. You saw the word “suspect” and thought it can be dismissed on that basis alone without showing anything for conviction rates. It’s an inordinately high rate of suspects and there’s an inordinately high rate of those convicted.
I mean, you sure dismissed it I guess, but rather with an argument that doesn’t hold much water at all. As the actual statistics show.
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That’s actually something I’ve never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
It’s sorta the whole basis of the discussion, that the behaviour and rhetoric employed here is justified because it is backed up by statistics. I don’t think so. You seem to think so, at least in some cases.
You keep talking about “blanket statements”. Can you find the blanket statements I’ve made, please? You keep talking about these “blanket statements”. Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
If you don’t feel like this is one then I’m not sure what it is trying to say:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
I don’t think it’s unfair, I think labeling a whole group is.
I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent
I said this:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
Now, if you can’t tell the difference here, if you really think I was making a blanket statement that all men are violent, I cannot help you.
You are completely wrong to call those blanket statements. If you’re curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me. So far I have seen nothing but pettifoggery. I will not translate that word.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
If you’re curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me.
I mean better late than never. I would’ve expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
Oh, what happened to “blanket statements”? Sounds like you’ve walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you’ve fallen back on the aesthetics.
I mean better late than never. I would’ve expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
Oh, what happened to “blanket statements”? Sounds like you’ve walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you’ve fallen back on the aesthetics.
I don’t honestly understand what you mean with this. Unless you mean you edited your comments, the blanket statements, the discussion, it’s still there? Are you saying you changed the comments…? Because while good, it sure is going to make it confusing to follow the whole thing.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
I’m saying yes I am curious and that you should’ve started with that. Instead we got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics, that didn’t go anywhere.
Since you said you are curious to understand me, I will extend one more attempt to help you understand. If you don’t work with me, I will stop.
(Edit: I feel I should add that the lone downvotes on your comments aren’t from me. I know you’re not downvoting me at this point so I’m not returning them. I don’t want the fact you were downvoted to make you more defensive against me. Also, I haven’t deleted any statements after the fact.)
Now, since you said “you should’ve started with that”, I feel like I need to explain that I have been saying exactly what I mean this entire time. There is no hidden message behind the words that I am about to reveal to you. I simply believe that there must be a misunderstanding here.
You tell me that these sentences are “blanket statements”:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
Now, it’s not clear to me why you believe this, since at no point have I said that “all men” are anything. If you believe these are blanket statements, then I don’t know how to help you understand me unless you explain in detail what you believe these sentences mean.
I want you to paraphrase the messages you see (edit: in these two sentences that you specifically named, not in everything, I want to stay focused here), in your own words, so that I can understand what you think I was saying, so that I can explain whether or not I agree.
This appears to be a foundational issue for you, since when I asked what I said that offended you, you named these statements. So, if there’s any hope of reaching an understanding, this is where it starts.
If a good man has a woman turn violent on him, odds are he has a physical advantage and will be able to deal with it. It shouldn’t have to happen that way but he can probably keep himself safe.
Flip that around, and as a woman, even if 99.99% of men will take it completely calmly, the small chance that you’re dealing with that 0.01% who will flip out and try to hurt you the second things don’t go his way, is fucking terrifying.
Especially if you’re smaller than average and dealing with someone bigger than average, the smart thing is to not just risk it. No, it doesn’t feel good when a girl assumes the worst about me, but I get it, so I don’t take it personally.
I can know I would never turn my strength and size to hurting to someone, she cannot.
The exact same considerations apply. If you’re in a situation where others could physically overpower you, you tend to try avoid doing anything that gives anyone reason to do so if that occurring is even the tiniest possibility.
When it comes to ones own bodily safety, other considerations become secondary, whether that’s fair or not.
It’s not matter of “all of them are like that” but of playing it safe.
I’m saying you’re the one who was in danger and therefore had the exact same concerns, and thereby you enforced my point that prioritising your own safety in this way isn’t about gender.
Anyone can be at a physical disadvantage, and therefore have to rely on caution. And anyone can turn out to be a crazy person.
My point is - you’d think attacking a guy twice one’s size might present a risk to one’s safety, but that didn’t seem to stop them. Like, one punch from me might easily have killed them, so it’s puzzling. In a way I think they knew they were protected by their size, because I just wouldn’t dare touch them. Even when being attacked with a blunt object!
“And therefore, it’s women that are privileged”. No, I’m really not trying to make that point, but it would be funny if I was.
You met some crazies, which just proves the point that they exist, and we all have good reason to act with caution lest we encounter one with unfortunate results.
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament. The salty dudes on Lemmy won’t let you get away with telling them otherwise.
I’ve been in a handful of conversations over the last couple weeks with men on this platform that don’t understand the concept that women have to treat men a specific way for fear of the few of them that can be violent.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
Men killing women and women being afraid of being killed by men is apparently exactly the same thing, and we’re sexist for even noticing it. How dare we make them aware of an uncomfortable truth that they were successfully ignoring?
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. Thank you for saying it, and don’t pay the salty dudes here any mind. I readily tell the ones that argue on behalf of their egos to just talk to any woman they know about this, and I always get some half-cocked “well they’re bigots too” line.
Like yeah sure, every woman is explicitly taught by other women not to put themselves in a potentially compromising position with a man because all women are secretly bigots.
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament.
I’ve honestly been taught that blanket statements about sex/gender are usually not fine. So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement. I’m sure many can agree with that sentiment in general terms, whether it’s based on skin colour, sex/gender, sexual orientation or whatever.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
I mean treating all men different is sexist and prejudiced. There’s really no way around that. Whether this sort of blanket prejudice is justified in this case, could be. But also that’s not a great look, to justify statistics or stereotype based prejudice.
It’s not unreasonable for a woman to avoid putting herself in a situation that a potential predator can take advantage of or retaliate against her for. Talk to a woman you know about this. I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you. It’s not about you, especially if you aren’t a predator.
I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
Unfortunately, people who take offense will find ways to deny the situation. The fact is, if you’re walking down the street and a woman 100 ft out moves to the other side before crossing you, she understands that there is a slight chance you might be a danger to her.
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
What I’m saying is, women don’t think all men are like that. That would be completely ridiculous. But statistically, enough of them are to warrant not being immediately trusting of strangers that can biologically overpower them in every situation.
I’m sorry but receiving end of what?
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
How come?
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
It wasn’t clear what you meant. Hence the need for clarification. But I got what you meant now.
I directly answered that in the same comment. Unfortunately, people who are offended will find a reason to take exception of the situation. There’s no amount of drawing examples that will satisfy the type who only sees that they personally are being attacked and not that it’s more about mitigating risk.
I try to illustrate the reasoning every time. As I have with the following example I made to you. The usual reaction is “well actually the woman in question is still a bigot for avoiding me on the street because she doesn’t know me”, or a similar sentiment in which the offended person runs head first into the point and still misses it.
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
Well first, I’d like to congratulate you on being the only person I’ve encountered so far who’s interested in the discussion and not the reaction.
But also, I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
No one is going after men who take offense at that line of logic so much as those men who are loudly voicing their misunderstanding of a concept which goes on around them all of the time that they have only just noticed. It seems that your concept of “going after those men” is just people who understand the situation trying over and over to explain it.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
I’m interested to hear how you might improve an exchange with someone who doesn’t allow the reasoning that women should be allowed to cross the street 100 ft before crossing you in the interest of their safety.
I don’t think it’s about finding it personally offending but rather that it does paint all men in a certain light and I just don’t think that sort of generalizations are good.
I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
I mean I think it went a bit further than that.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
If you are acting differently towards someone because of their gender (or skin colour or religion), that would make them prejudiced at least. So I wouldn’t argue that point. I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Look, I’m not going to sit here and debate the ethics of a precautionary behavior with you because you, like many other men, misinterpret the behavior itself as a slight against men as a whole.
There’s no way I can do that without venturing into the realm of defending that kind of prejudice, which you’ll inevitably take as an invitation to just say is wrong on principle.
I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Here’s the thing. The kind of person you’ll be responding to will cover their ears and say prejudice of any kind is wrong. You won’t convince anyone that way.
I literally had someone tell me the last time I had this discussion that the act of determining to do something based on the gender of someone is the very same as determining to do something based on their race. So it’s also racism.
There is no winning that. Once someone is bent on being against prejudice on any order, they will make false equivalencies to bludgeon their point.
that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Let me ask you something: For a solution short of reeducating the world’s men, how come the onus is on women to be forced to take a chance with someone who they don’t know how they’re going to react?
Why are we looking at a situation where a woman might say “I shouldn’t walk alone from the gym to my car because there was this one guy staring at me and I saw him go out just before me” and saying “That woman is obviously a bigot, what can we do to correct that behavior?”
I honestly don’t think there’s anything to do about this. There’s no way to make women be less prejudiced against men in these situations that doesn’t also inherently raise their risk of being assaulted.
The only thing left is a man who will insist that a woman take the chance of raising her risk so that his feelings don’t get hurt. But here’s the thing. The worst that can happen to that man is his feelings get hurt because a stranger doesn’t trust him. The risk to a woman is an actual, physical thing.
No, no, you’re supposed to treat everyone fairly, the exact same way and always assuming they are the best, most stable people who would never react adversely to a “no” or any other negative occurrence.
And then when you run into that statistically inevitable crazy person, just let em beat you to death! You wouldn’t want to hurt the feelings of all the perfectly decent people you met before then, would you?
Big giant /S
This is unfortunately one of those cases where the mere existence of dangerous individuals makes being a little unfair with the rest of us completely warranted.
Bear in mind Lemmy is an overall very leftist platform. Claiming an outside observer can tell a man from a woman is going to attract downvotes, let alone going on to list alleged specific differences.
Note to readers, because I am used to Lemmy: Anyone assuming I agree or disagree with any given take on gender differences can fuck off. My actual post conveys no opinion on them.
You’re completely correct. Normally, I’m on the side of not assuming people’s gender and I’m of the mind that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.
But, because of the safety and personal ramifications crossing the wrong person can have, I think it’s important that we acknowledge a woman’s right to seek safety in a situation she perceives might possibly go south for her. That includes the prerogative of not putting herself in a situation that she perceives as risky to begin with.
Maybe that concept would be better accepted if it were expanded to “Anyone should have the right to avoid danger they think they might be in”
Some countries in Europe started to look more into this topic since the number of femicides is growing and becoming more newsworthy it seems.
A lot of people are biased since sexism is deeply rooted in our society and many don’t realize what’s happening around them if they are not directly affected.
Just this week I had to discuss with a rather aggressive delivery person who berated me (unprovoked and for a made up reason) until my partner came from another room. As soon as he had to discuss his issue with another man he started to believe the facts and stopped. Actually kinda glad this happened since my partner is also very biased regarding “everyday sexism” since it doesn’t affect him and this was the first time he was able to see it first hand.
I didn’t want to relay this while the thread was still so hot, but I’m a large scary-guy-shaped person - I really doubt any of the guys in this thread would say any of this to my face - and I didn’t understand this until my sister asked me to tell our dad something she needed him to hear because “he’ll listen to you because you’re a man”. I said I didn’t think he was that sort of person, and she just said, “No, it’s normal for people not to listen to women.” So I told him the thing and he listened to me where he hadn’t listened to her.
I was pretty shook by that, so I asked my partner if that was normal and she said “Oh, yeah,” without having to think twice about it.
That’s where my journey started. After you start seeing it, you can’t stop.
I also started noticing at a certain point how often women would randomly apologise for existing near me in public. Like they are clearly afraid of me. It doesn’t feel nice, but it’s never once occurred to me to yell “not all men!” or “I’m one of the good ones!” at their retreating backs.
I’ve discovered - through being NB - that I can completely reverse this by even slightly feminising my appearance. I actually get random women smiling at me in public, not politely, but openly and genuinely. It makes me think of what a trans man said about how lonely it is to be a man, how he misses the camraderie of women looking out for each other. From my perspective when I’m fully man-coded I agree, men absolutely do not openly smile at me. That’s too gay, or something.
I’m not worried that any bad actors will abuse this info to get women to let their guard down though, because a consequence of this is getting an absolutely appalling amount of disgust and hate from random dudes, but I consider the trade absolutely worth it when I have the energy for it.
Thanks for sharing your story. One of my guy friends is the Hagrid Type. Big, hairy, loud. But he also tries to break through his appearance. And I think that’s the whole point:
Instead of telling “not all men” it’s better (but also more difficult) to show us. Be nice. Hold other men accountable. Things can be changed but first we have to face reality.
It also saddens me to hear about the manly loneliness that’s caused by the same internalized sexism. I’m glad to hear you found a way out of this, that still lets you be you!
Genuinely not trying to be that guy, but it seems like you’re saying that because it happens to men less often than to women, we can just ignore when it happens to men. Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.
Because your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too? I get you’re doing it because those people arent arguing in good faith, but its still ultimately you insinuating "men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too
Nobody brought it up. I wasn’t dismissing anything like that.
"men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it. You haven’t made your case, you’ve just said I said something I clearly didn’t say. I don’t know what else to um… say.
So if nobody brought this up, why did you write that edit and bring up these statistics?
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it.
You did though.
this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
And you also pull the claim of “women get harsher sentences when they commit DA” out of your arse too.
So you admit that you read “the consequences of that violence” and your mind immediately went to the legal consequences for the perpetrator, instead of thinking about the physical harm done to the victim.
That says basically everything about the butthurt responses in this thread.
So you admit to pulling the claim that men are less affected by abuse then women completely out of your arse based on nothing but your own sexist ideas?
Women are far more likely to be killed by men than vice versa, which is the obvious point I was making. I didn’t want to go find the information because frankly it’s pretty obvious that a man beating up a woman will usually do a lot more damage than a woman beating up a man. That’s why I framed it as a “guess”, so you’re not catching me out on anything here. If you care about the stats you can find them in this thread somewhere.
Should I go ahead and assume that you dodged my question about the thing you clearly admitted because you don’t want to admit it again, because it’s actually really revealing about the kind of person you are, and you don’t want that revealed because deep down you know exactly what kind of person you are?
I didn’t realise you were asking a question. Yes I did interpret it that way, as I believe “consequences” has more association with facing the consequences of your own actions than the physical affects of abuse. So I don’t think this is some big gotcha moment like you’re claiming.
Women are far more likely to be killed by men than vice versa
And men are more likely to take their own life due to suffering abuse, does that not count as a “consequence”
revealing about the kind of person you are, and you don’t want that revealed because deep down you know exactly what kind of person you are
And here we go with the redditor mentality of trying imply you can physcho-analyse me to be some horrible person because I dared to disagree with you on the internet. I have been polite with you from the start and all you’ve done is act like a child that cares more about “winning” an argument than anything else.
But yes I do know what kind of person I am, someone that’s survived DA and has has to fight people like you constantly who want to dismiss it because “☝️🤓 well Women are more often victims of abuse than men” which is exactly the argument you started with and have been simultaneously defending and denying you’re even making this whole time.
someone that’s survived DA and has has to fight people like you constantly who want to dismiss it because “☝️🤓 well Women are more often victims of abuse than men”
I would never tell an individual that their trauma doesn’t matter. You keep saying I did this, and you have not even once shown me where or how I did that. Just quote the place where I said this. I would love to understand.
they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:
and
If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
and I get that pointing this out is completely pointless because you’ll just say “That not what i was implying” without offering an explanation as to what you’re actually implying or having the self awareness to realise my original comment was saying “Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.”
But then you both doubled down on defending that insinuation as well as denying you insinuated it. Which is insane and leads me to believe you did actually intent to say.
I’m pointing out rates of violence to show that women in general do have good cause to be cautious and overly polite when rejecting men. And the point about the rate being so low is just a statistical fact. It is in fact too low to reliably measure.
If you want to explain how this creates an insinuation that your abuse doesn’t matter, or any other insinuation, you need to explain it, because I didn’t say it. I’ll try to understand where you think the insinuation comes from, but I don’t see it currently.
You’re saying you want an explanation from me, but you haven’t provided an explanation yourself either. You have just given me bald assertions.
You have yet to ever explain why you think I’m saying what you apparently think I’m saying. I told you I would try to understand if you did, but you declined to.
As to the kind of person this makes you, I want you to hear this: you are an abuse survivor. It sucks that you went through that, but it doesn’t make you good or bad, or qualified to say what other people mean when they talk about the subject.
Some people go through abuse and they learn to be empathetic and understanding, and to put themselves in the shoes of other abuse survivors to understand them. You apparently have come out of it thinking that now every conversation of abuse and violence has to specifically center your experience or it is somehow dismissing you personally.
That makes you selfish. You don’t have to stay that way, but if you keep insisting that everyone else is the problem and you are right, then you will.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
“If you are bothered by blanket statements and sexism towards you, it’s just because your ego is bruised and you might actually be the violent person I’ve painted you as.”
No. The point is we can’t ask vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind when around those who have the ability to harm them.
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
This is almost word for word what racists argue. You even used the term “one of the good ones”, holy hell. How do you not see how fucked up this is?
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
It’s hard to not take it personally when a group you’re member of is being made negative blanket statements about and when those who think it’s hurtful speak up, they’re mocked. And then there’s the belittling language about how if you are “one of the good ones” you should just take it and “make sure you won’t harm them”.
It’s one thing to say that yes, women are more cautious around men and there’s some reason for it. But it’s the blanket statements, "“NOt All mEn” and “just ignore it” shit that bothers me. That’s not fine imo.
If you’re not asking vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind, be specific about what should be different.
I know it feels like absolute shit to have the worst assumptions made about you because of your gender, race or whatever else, but aside from treating everyone fairly whenever no risk is involved, we can’t ask people to assume the best about others when deciding anything, if doing so puts them at the mercy of a stranger in any way.
Hell. I’m a tall man, and I would have reservations if a girl wants to have a first date at her place, alone. Odds are, 99.99%, it’ll be fine, might get laid, woo. But what if it isn’t fine?
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
The first kind robs people of life opportunities, the second only ever hurts our feelings.
I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.
Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.
I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.
But no one here is suggesting any of this is grounds for completely disregarding a person or a demographic of people.
I would turn down that first at-home date, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make a counter-suggestion. And even then I would risk offending her by revealing my unwillingness to immediately trust her.
And if she does take offence, that isn’t exactly telling of her having a healthy understanding of how the situation might look to me. Even as I turn her down, it’s not like I’ve already decided she’s a crazy person.
The people getting mocked are ones who feel they’ve been wronged by this kind of caution, for example by getting an overly careful and roundabout “no”, taking offence because someone would assume the worst about them. That they wouldn’t have taken a straight answer well.
In reality, it was going to be a “no” either way, and she was perfectly within her right to do it carefully with a complete stranger.
Throwing around the stats and explanations is to help us understand. The point is that the numbers are such that vulnerable people do not even have the option of being fair, because if they are, inevitably, they will run into at least one nutcase which will then proceed to explode in their face.
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
In any situation where two or more people interact, a more vulnerable party has every right to take whatever precaution they feel is needed to be safe, until they know for sure that doing so isn’t needed.
When this is the case, there is nothing to take offence from. It’s not about you.
But it can still hurt, and when you then see stats and stories about violent men thrown around it feels like people are telling you that “they were right about you” and that you should feel hurt.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are good reasons to be careful. And when someone does so around you, unless there are additional circumstances to consider, there’s nothing there that’s a personal slight upon your character, gender, or anything else.
I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.
Who are you referring to when you say “these”? Because it seems like you’re making judgement calls about people based entirely on whether or not they questioned your blanket generalization about literally half the population of the planet.
Oh really lol? So you made this accusation but as soon as I ask you to explain specifics you back out?
I mean, I know what I said, and I wasn’t generalising about all men. You said, “these”. Give me the quote, explain what you’re talking about, unless you re-read it and you know you it actually doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it say. I’m happy to explain, but I do want you to explain what you’re talking about. I said a lot, so you need to meet me halfway. It’s not a big ask.
“n in m women said that they …” and “p in q men said that they …” would be more correct.
You are comparing apples to oranges. If women and men were treated the same by the society and thus would report actual events with the same probability, then you could compare these.
How many men would admit they experienced emotional abuse were that the case? A rhetorical question. Like a half of them or more wouldn’t.
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
It is from factual statistics. Yes, I’m actually saying that.
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
Factual statistics say otherwise, that my argument isn’t silly.
I thought perpetuating gender role stereotypes and even prioritizing them over data was something a slrpnk.net user would be unlikely to do?..
Also I’m following the example of that other person and disengaging.
and Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/…/Domestic_violence_against_men with this - “The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
Also every fucking police service publishes some stats.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”
Which is exactly why they rely on anonymous survey results rather than police reports to get these statistics, which you would understand if you looked into Excrubulent’s sources before immediately going into defense mode and jumping down their throat because they acknowledged that women being wary of men is not irrational behavior.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
To acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!” only when violence against women is discussed is to dismiss and silence the trauma experienced by all domestic abuse survivors regardless of gender, assume that there is some “clue” they all missed to avoid being abused, and that anyone who responds to that trauma by being wary of people with similar broad-strokes profiles is treating unfairly everyone that does not exhibit this explicit “clue”. And that is victim-blaming, because there is just no way to know at first glance.
Those might sound like hefty assumptions but I gotta be honest with you, I truly do not understand what outcome you are trying to reach by rehashing this, over and over, other than silencing discourse that you find damaging to your own ego and self-image, and, further, what rationale you could find to feel personally attacked by this discourse, other than simply not being able to empathize with fellow members of the human race that happen to belong to the opposite gender.
It is reasonable to be cautious as a woman until you can be sure that the man you are with is safe. You can argue that men should do the same if you truly believe that they experience the same risks. You cannot argue, however, that women are wrong or irrational for behaving this way without making sexist arguments. Which is probably why you people always stop short of making any actual actionable arguments.
And to clarify, because apparently we are unable to differentiate unless it is said explicitly; I’m talking about you, personally, and people that respond in this way to any mention of domestic abuse with acknowledgement that it is primarily experienced by women at the hands of men. I am not talking about ALL men.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
OK, suppose I agree, but what does this sentence add to this conversation? “More” doesn’t mean much.
o acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!”
OK, I won’t answer the rest because you are not arguing in good faith.
Lol. That is exactly my point. Thank you for confirming it.
“More” doesn’t mean much
In the context of this conversation and supported by the data provided earlier, yes it does.
you are not arguing in good faith.
Not really sure what it is about those two sentence fragments that suggest that my argument is not in good faith but I honestly don’t expect you to have any answers anyways beyond base knee-jerk reactions.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?
In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
Somebody should have taught you that claims are not supported by rhetoric.
Guys, we have to suck it up. I’ve talked with my wife about this very thing, a lot. She’s really helped me process a lot of relationship trauma in my deep past, including bad/weird breakups.
Men, by and large, have the ability to utilize violence in ways that women simply do not*. Especially towards women. This shapes a lot of inequity and abuse in society writ large, no matter where you are. Forget the law, forget about the rest doing the right thing, forget all your bias, and forget any logical fallacies you are clinging to right now. Just look at the stats above.
One in four. 25%. If you were doing anything in your day-to-day life that came with a risk of bodily or psychological harm a quarter of the time, every time, you’d probably just stop. Or, as OP is pointing out, screw social pretense and improvise a solution with a better shot at safety.
To flip that around, consider all the women you know and then think about how 25% of them have been abused in some way.
Women learn from their peers or otherwise adapt to be non-confrontational, passive, indirect, avoidant, or just plain not present. Sometimes that lesson is learned proactively, sometimes first-hand. Why? Because 25%, that’s why.
(* As someone who has been abused by women, yes, there are outliers. But since we’re talking statistics, that’s another discussion.)
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.