So many evil men...can't stand it

[SplitHeadGirl]

First of all, I know fully well that men will get upset at what I think and am about to say, so I would like to clarify that I am talking about EVIL men, not the good, wonderful dads and granddads and husbands and nice single blokes out there....the ones who I KNOW (my brain, not my gut, tells me so) are in a majority, but who seem to be few (is it their deafening silence?)

But any fool can see that the sheer amount of men, who are prepared to do unspeakable things to women and girls (and boys as well as other men, not to mention the vulnerable and the elderly...wow, the list goes on) is just overwhelming. I read today about Anene Booysen, and I was absolutely heartbroken, but yet not shocked. For men to be so diabolical to women is not shocking anymore, and that is men's greatest tragedy.

I have two little daughters, and a little son, and I fear for them at the hands of men. Not women...just men.

I feel like I am thinking out loud with this post, so no worries if no one feels they can respond. I just wish I didn't feel so helpless at the tsunami of male violence.

Thankfully I seem to have dodged the "sheer amount" of evil men.
There are evil people in this world the gender is not relevant.

Thanks, but I have seen that before, Sabrina.

Well sunshine as long as you're alright eh? No need to look at anyone's experience.

I have seen and been a victim of evil people. However that does not give me any right to start labelling a set group of race.

Kasey, I have a vague recollection of that advert. Personally, I would outlaw the advertising industry without a second thought. A bullshit industry, and a dangerous one, wrapped up in it's own warped view of the world.

I am curious as to some of the terminology used in here though. 'Acceptable' behaviour, 'expected' behaviour - both used to describe acts that are illegal in this country (UK) - murder, assault, harassment, bullying. How can a society that condones these behaviours also deem them illegal? I am not saying that they don't happen - but they are punishable under law.

But if those acts routinely go unpunished, does that not imply that they are accepted to an extent ?

Look at the pressure on young men to be part of a pack, stag nights etc. Men who ordinarily wouldn't objectify women seem to think it normal as long as it's group behaviour.

So yes,expected and accepted.

That can be said in regards of female to male dv though. The lack of justice and support for men is shocking.
Then there are hen nights, male strip clubs, male escorts it is all out there to.
I live in a popular stag/hen "party area" and what you can see walking home at night is disgraceful and I must say it is both genders that go around touching up random strangers for a "drunken laugh" and some times much worse. It is not one sided. There is Nasty, inappropriate behaviour that should be tackled but tackled in the right anti-bias way.

OK, Biggedy, Try this then.

Certain behaviours that I find objectionable are not illegal. I understand the objection to strippers. But the other stuff - murder, assault, harassment, incitement to hatred, bullying - these thing are illegal. I still don't see how they can be described as acceptable or expected.

Sabrina - I meant that I have read it before, not that I didn't understand it. Schroedinger's original postulation was that the possibilities of the states of particles in the subatomic world become absurd when applied to our own reality. I think the author of your article is slightly misunderstanding his original paradox. However, I do get the gist of the article.

Good, biggedy. Your posts were rather suggesting otherwise.

Have you also seen the 'shocking attitudes towards rape' surveys? Here It's a scary fact that plenty of women share these views (although I bet none of them are feminists).

Goodman found in a survey that 15% of male students in the US say they would commit rape if they knew they would get away with it. Of course, all but 6% of rapists do get away with it.

Of course, all but 6% of rapists do get away with it.

How can you be so sure of that statistic? If you are deriving that from the fact that only 6% of rape prosecutions end in a successful conviction then you are manipulating the figures. Some Of the other 94% not all will have actually committed the offence of which they have been accused (i do accept that many will have done so and the evidence is not sufficient for a conviction). So let's not state that 6% conviction rate means 94% getting away with committing a crime, because we don't know that to be accurate.
Don't twist statistics to represent what you want them to represent.

Put it in context, mttrail. That poster was abused by close family and it was pretty clear from her full post (and if not, from the post two or three below it) that she meant it was difficult to know, even about those close to you, if they are rapists. She was not accusing any one poster's brother of being a rapist.

But I suspect you know that and are selectively quoting for your own reasons.

That's not what the 6% refers to, Norude.

Of rape cases that make court, the conviction rate is about 58%. However, there is considerable attrition between reports and prosecutions, and considerable numbers of tapes never reported. That's where the 6% comes from, though I believe this may have improved a bit.

What are people's views on the work of Steven Pinker, and his assertion that we, the human race, are becoming less violent, rather than violence being on the increase?

www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

Very little of what he theorises on in that article relates to violence at the levels being discussed on here. The morality involved in statecraft is very different from that of an individual so you can't extrapolate that human nature is less violent simply because governments have determines that state sanctioned conflicts are too expensive or vote losing.

We're currently still in a state of flux and the New World Order that supposedly replaced the Cold War hasn't yet shown how the balance of power is going to play out. What we appear to have is less state on state conflict that results in all out warfare and instead have more guerrilla warfare both internally and externally. When that guerrilla warfare involves states with less mechanical resources such as arms, particularly in the air, then the human element of the war goes back to being disposable. You need sheer volume of number of humans to make up for the inadequate military hardware. Cruelty and violence then become the norm again.

To an extent this applies domestically in as much as if you have machines that can do the work of humans, you don't need to control such a large labour force with all the welfare issues concerned. Where we do have industries that rely on human grunt work, there's plenty of evidence that that human labour force is still mistreated. Sweatshops anyone ?

All it means is the modern technology allows mankind use other means to achieve their aims. It doesn't mean that the nature of mankind has changed, just that there are now alternative ways of achieving those aims.

There is nothing to suggest that domestic violence against women and children is lessening. Men who resort to violence against their partner appear to do so because their control is threatened. Modern life hasn't really given them a technological solution by which they regain control so they resort to a more baser instinct.

So no, I don't think he's right to make an assumption that just because the larger nation states use less violence as a means of conflict resolution, that you can extrapolate that there has been a fundamental change in the nature of man.

Of rape cases that make court, the conviction rate is about 58%. However, there is considerable attrition between reports and prosecutions, and considerable numbers of tapes never reported. That's where the 6% comes from, though I believe this may have improved a bit.

Ok, fair enough. I'm surprised that the conviction rate of those that make it to court is 58% and is used to be much much lower than that. I wonder if the increase is due to better police work, better prosecution case presentation at court or better societal understanding of rape or something else.

It's the percentage of cases that go unreported (85-90%), and the low number that even get to court that is the problem.

Women are fighting back. A good thing, SF, or pointless? Should we be saying "But what about the men?"

I think it's fine to just discuss women and how a problem affects them sometimes when the problem does predominantly affect or pertain to women, FGM for example.

Unfortunately with some men (and I emphasise the word "some") men when you have a debate about such issues you can literally count 5-4-3-2-1 from the first post before one turns up to say "What about the men??"

DucktoWater, that just happened on pan's thread in Dadsnet.

Blistory, some figures on a more individual level relating to Pinker's study;

_ Murder in European countries has steadily fallen from near 100 per 100,000 people in the 14th and 15th centuries to about 1 per 100,000 people now.

_ Murder within families. The U.S. rate of husbands being killed by their wives has dropped from 1.2 per 100,000 in 1976 to just 0.2. For wives killed by their husbands, the rate has slipped from 1.4 to 0.8 over the same time period.

_ Rape in the United States is down 80 percent since 1973. Lynchings, which used to occur at a rate of 150 a year, have disappeared.

Taken from this article;

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

Now I don't have his book to hand, so don't have the sources for this. But these figures, if accurate, indicate a less violent society.

FGM is horrendous, but in my opinion so is male circumcision when done for any reason other than a health problem.
What about the little baby boy who died in Manchester after being circumcised at home by a female nurse?
The long term problems with FGM are well documented, but the long term problems caused by male circumcision often go ignored, but the impact can be just as bad.