Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

meow, you are being disingenuous. You knew it was off when you said it, or you wouldn't have prefaced the comment with 'sorry, but'.

I think comments that offer an apology for male violence towards women, and do so by implicating women, should not stand, and I think it does fly in the face of I Believe You. A big part of that campaign is focussed on getting people to see why explaining away rape is a terrible response to rape survivors, and I think it's very hard to discuss male violence from the perspective of wanting to explain it, without coming across as if you're explaining it away.

the doctrine
i'm fairly sure i wouldnt have said anything agaisnt the 'i belive you' campaign, i think it's a great idea.
i've received an answer but it was just the standard reply 'we dont allow goading, personal attacks, advertising or anything that maybe libel'
sent another back now asking for a more precise explanation of which part of my post broke the guidlines, waiting again now.

Great post, Whisky4Tea.

Ad feminam, surely?

I think when you are claiming other people don't know what they're talking about, making silly digs about radical feminists, but strangely unable to provide any evidence to demonstrate any of your points properly, you've rather missed the boat on objecting to ad feminam.

Seriously, though, when you've finished revising basic grammar, why not re-think your definition of RadFem?

I rate the Ad-Grammariam as an even better sign of a rampantly successful argument than the Ad-Hominem :)

Oh, sorry, I'm meant to be being humourless.

Nothing funny here at all, moving along!

RadFems, like Creationists, are not great fans of science I've found.

Maybe the 'science' that you've found isn't all that reliable, worry!
(And clearly you're not much of a fan of Lynne Truss...)

Seriously, though, when you've finished revising basic grammar, why not re-think your definition of RadFem?

Meow, whilst you are waiting for MNHQ's response, I would expect that your post was deleted for being against the spirit of the I Believe You campaign.

SGM

Can I ask if you have changed your view that women (and children) are the vast majority of victims of violent crime, given the data?

If not, is there alternative data to support your assertion,or can you say where it comes from?

(I am a bit about "women and children" as a category, does seem a bit odd as the question was about whether the female gender is more often subjected to violence and murder etc... Why put them as one category - are children more feminine, or women more childlike?

From a purely statistical point of view women and children make up the vast majority of PEOPLE in the world)

Info about deer antlers is not transferable to humans

Again - They used deers rutting as an example of male on male violence for sex selection, the point you seem unwilling to grasp was that the same behaviour is seen across many species.

It's not a case of saying 'ooh ... animals are like this ... uh ... humans must be!' That is not science, that is drawing a specious parallel

If you see a behaviour occurring across many species it's absolutely science to test what lessons can be derived for humans. That is exactly science. You sound like those Victorians who opposed Darwin, who couldn't grasp that humans are animals too.

wiki is a very poor resource for many things. If you had scientific papers to cite, you should do so. Or maybe you don't?

Wikipedia is a poor resource? Ah yes, of course - you prefer the biassed anti-evolution websites I suspect. RadFems, like Creationists, are not great fans of science Ive found.

If you are serious about wanting to know what sociobiology, evolution and evolutionary psychology are about I could point you to some good books on the subjects, which summarise the academic knowledge - but I suspect you'd rather have your biasses confirmed than your understanding improved.

actually i havent said that women are attracted to violent men for protection, others on this thread have gone that far, not me , i said that women tend to be attracted to men higher up in the pecking order , closer to the alphas. and that males will then want those positions and there may well be male v male violence in getting there.

so i'm still waiting for MNHQ answer as to why my post was deleted, i sent it yesterday.

violence being 'natural' is no excuse for violence, just a way to better understand it. nor does it mean that nothing can be done to reduce it.

i also dislike the 'men created civilisation to impress women' theory it suggests that women cannot be creative or accomplished, but i was talking about males attracting the opposite sex, that shouldnt mean that females cannot do that too, just wasnt my point at that time.

Sorry, major editing fail:

My quarrell with the "natural" argument is THAT IT IS TOO OFTEN USED AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE EXPLANATION. WHEH I THINK IT CAN never be a good enough explanation ON ITS OWN.

Sorry. And sorry for the capitals. I don't trust myself to use the bold function correctly.

The point I was trying to make-probably being too categorical as is my wont- is that arguments which claim certain behaviour is "natural" in an evo psych kind of way, seem to suggest that there is little that can be done to reduce violence, because it is inevitable.

I am not naive enough to think that violence can be erraticated. The example I wanted to use in my previous post was that of a Rottweiler or pit bull. As far as I understand, these dogs have the potential to be extremely violent. However, whether they become violent depends on their training. A pit bull has potential to maul children, but not all do. Some live quite happily with them.

My quarrell with the "natural" argument is not that it can't never be a good enough explanation. The learnt aspect of socialisation is too important to be disregarded. I am pretty certain that those who dedicate themselves to evo psych are quite aware of this. I am not sure, however, that the way their research is used reflects this. I think rather that their arguments are coopted in order to deny that there may actually be structures in our society which encourage men to express their emotions/control situations via violence. I think this is a huge obstacle to reducing violence.

re. the women being attracted to violent men, it isn't unsurprising that in a "dog eat dog" situation that women would seek to align themselves with the top dog. No one wants to be on the bottom rung of the ladder and women have to do it in an indirect way seeing as there will always be someone physically stronger than them.

What is sad is that women are separated from the power they could have collectively and are forced to be reliant on violent men to survive.

I'm grateful that I don't live in that kind of environment.

'(ii) You don't seem to be able to grasp that core lessons are transferable between species as we humans are also animals.'

Science fail.

No, they're not.

Info about deer antlers is not transferable to humans.

Indeed, info about walking upright and opposable thumbs aren't transferable.

It's not a case of saying 'ooh ... animals are like this ... uh ... humans must be!' That is not science, that is drawing a specious parallel.

wiki is a very poor resource for many things. If you had scientific papers to cite, you should do so. Or maybe you don't?

whatme, you tried to explain human behaviour, you messed up and linked to a description of animals' antlers

(i) The article was about the far wider subject of male on male fighting for sexual selection than just deers with antlers - thatw as used as an example - which you either didn't read/understand or wilfully ignored

(ii) You don't seem to be able to grasp that core lessons are transferable between species as we humans are also animals.

Why not just accept you need better refs than wiki, and a tiny bit more understanding and knowledge? There's no shame in being ignorant or making a silly slip, only in refusing to acknowledge it when you've done it

Wikipedia is darn sight more reliable that nearly anything else on the Web except scientific papers, as the areas of contention are clearly noted and referenced.

messy - good point. Besides, what about all the sport, music, art, good conversation and financial success women do and historically did? Does that play no role in attracting men, or do we imagine women sitting passively by while men throw rocks at each other?

No, I don't think so.

So, 7% of convictions for DV, are of women (after the 150% rise).

It's interesting women and men self-report at similar rates - does this mean men are under-reporting hugely?

"as civilisation grew, males began to use other ways of attracing females, sport, music, art, good conversation, financial success, all manner of differint things."

I think that the reason men, and not women, did those things (with exception of gc) is because women were either not allowed to do those things or were severely discouraged from doing them.

It's a bit like saying that Saudi Arabian men do sport in order to attract women when in reality they do it because they are the ones that are allowed and encouraged to.

Sorry, bit of a tangent, but I hate the "men-created-civilisation-to-impress-women" theory.

amillion - yes, that's the sort of thing I was trying to say, that the reasons women end up with violent men aren't as simply as attraction of violence being 'sexy'.

It scares the fuck out of me, the idea of anyone being in a positon where they're choosing violent people as protectors. It's the same story with gangs.

Does anyone have the actual figures for the percentage of domestic violence against men that goes unreported

Nope , but the number of women convicted of domestic abuse between 2005 and 2010 increased by 150%

"Domestic violence has traditionally been understood as a crime perpetrated by domineering men against defenceless women. Research spanning over 40 years has, however, consistently found that men and women self-report perpetrating domestic violence at similar rates. "

Guardian

Oh wow this thread. Look at the title. It wasn't enough to use it to fel sorry for the menz, now we also have to hear about how natural and great violence towards other humans is. I better go out punch some random people in the face on the street it will make me popular

Remember when we had some feminism on this board. Those were good times.

From what little I konw, women in crime ridden areas can see the police more or less as incompetent,not up to the job,too small in numbers,biased,sometimes "bent",and unable or unwilling to protect them all.
Therefore they turn "for protection",to men that are handy with their fists.
They can also have low self esteem,and if their men say they love them once in a blue moon,they are desperate to believe them,and will put up with a lot of what goes on.They also do not have much family stability,and feel they have nowhere to go,and few options educationally as well.