TWIT~X Emma Watson - Paris, France - Feb 18th 2018 - LQ [Discussion after post 6, click at your own risk]

I keep clicking hoping for more pictures of Emma

 

‘a whitewashing of something that negatively affects both genders equally in order to portray it exclusively as something that affects women.’

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be focusing on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) studies and stats, which may, or may not, be controversial in the U.S. But violence against women is not limited to IPV, it includes Sexual Violence and Harassment, Human Trafficking, Female Genital Mutilation and Child Marriage.

In the area of IPV (uncontroversially), ‘worldwide ½ of women killed, were killed by their partners or family in 2012. In contrast 1/20 men were killed in such circumstances.’

Human Trafficking: 71% of all trafficking victims are women and girls. ¾ trafficked women and girls are trafficked for sexual exploitation.

– unwomen.org.

In those two areas alone, women are catching the lions share of the hell.

‘No, I see "gender equality" and expect a neutral position.’

Really? Neutral? Is that how the world is? Just going by the metrics listed above, it ain’t neutral. What would be the need to advocate for gender equality if it already existed?

‘if this group were presenting nuclear fallout from Fukushima as something that uniquely affected women’

Yeah, but it’s not the Fukushima fallout, it’s gender inequality which – despite your apparent disbelief - is a real thing worldwide. The name kind of gives it away.

‘accusing them of being a "hate group"’

I didn’t say you used that term. I used it hyperbolically to make a point. Which – forgive me, but – I suspect you know.

‘By the way, you re-quoted me, but did you actually check that link to see the context from which I lifted that excerpt? You should - it may be informative...’

Yeah, but the quote was presented by you. You were the one using it to make a point. So, if it’s lacking context then that’s on you. Also, I don’t have a problem with this group – you appear to. So, I don’t have a reason to fact check or contextualize their statements. Again, you have their contact info, why don’t you take up your grievances with them?

 

Let's say that - as adult personal experience goes i can compare - circumcision is also genital mutilation (and i talk proper doctor doin' it, not some witchdoctor with rusty knife). It just gives different side effects, some of which are considered 'proper macho' - at a cost. But because it's unalienable institutionalized part of many widespread religions - very few voices are raised against it, to not offend Jews, Muslim and british Royal Family.

 

Loads of scared, insecrure small men here as usual

 

Wtf happened to Wow, Emma looks great ??
Damn, y'all

 

Agreed. I once thought of circumcision as 'medically valid' mainly for hygienic reasons. But, then I caught a talk by Christopher Hitchens (RIP) on the topic and it changed my mind. Mainly because an infant can't make the choice.
BTW, not all FGM's are performed by rusty knife wielding 'witch doctors'. They're also performed by medical professionals.
As far as comparisons to circumcision - well, idk. Cutting the foreskin is a bit different from removing the head altogether. I mean, the societies that practice this put the 'mutilation' in the term Female Genital Mutilation. I challenge anyone to read a description of - let alone witness - the procedure without cringing.

 

I go by UK stats, because we're absolutely untouchable for getting the reported crime figures closer to the actual committed crime numbers. Either way, that's not relevant, as I just used domestic violence as an example because this group specifically mention it - seriously, is anyone else actually reading these sources? - and it's an area in which we have some reliable data for comparison. I just pointed out that there's a massive and indisputable disparity between the way this council presents it (as if it were exclusively a female issue) and how it is in reality (almost perfectly split between the two genders). They're taking a violent, gender-based offence that irrefutably affects both genders equally and are presenting it as if only females are generally victims of it, while also strongly implying that males are generally perpetrators (this is also equally divided between the two).

If you want to go over homicides and human trafficking in the same kind of detail then I'm up for that, but not while you're still trying to help downplay the fact that domestic violence - contrary to the assertions of this G7 council - is a gender-neutral issue that is being disingenuously presented as a gender-biased issue. If you're content to accept that fact then I'm okay with moving on to either of your cited offences and we'll see what the data shows about those too.

As for neutrality, you don't get equality by biasing in favour of one group because they claim that the other group has had it better for so long. The Civil Rights Movement worked because blacks did not demand superior treatment - they demanded equal treatment. Suffrage was exactly the same. This, on the other hand, shows signs of being beyond a desire for equality and instead shows signs of being an outright demand for preferential treatment. Maybe it's not "how the world is" right now, but you don't get to a fairer world by flip-flopping between prejudices every few years. You don't provide equality to black boxers by insisting that only black fighters are allowed to compete for the titles for the next decade; you do it by allowing black fighters and white fighters to go after those titles. Jack Johnson got equality (in competition, at least). Refusing to acknowledge female-on-male domestic violence and covering up the fact that half of all victims are male and half of all perpetrators are female is not equality.

Gender inequality surely is real, but it is not universally in favour of males over females, and the proposed solutions are not universally reasonable. As we see above, the proposed solution to domestic violence is for males to accept that it's all their fault - even though they make up half of the victims - and for females to be treated as victims even though they commit half of all such offences. The proposal put forth by this group is a perfect example of gender inequality.

Just as a preliminary shot, on the assumption that we agree on the above domestic violence points, I took a quick look at the latest murder statistics for the UK. To begin with, I note your selective group. I note that, while women are vastly more likely to be killed by current- or ex-partners, men are vastly more likely to be killed by just about every other group, including other close friends/acquaintances. Source. Be sure to note the footnotes in which they detail changes in reporting and recording from one year to another.

So we're clear on this, I only started with domestic violence because I happened to scroll to it and felt that it was misleading, so looked a little closer. I'd be surprised if this was anomalously misrepresented, given the care with which the group in question has sought to doctor the facts. If you want to dive into murder rates as well to see if this paints them in a more positive light then we can do that, but it's better to tie one off before moving on to another. Makes things easier to keep track of.

Considering the Hippocratic oath, I'm not sure "medical professionals" applies to those who mutilate the sexual organs of infants. To my mind the mere act of performing such a procedure instantly dissolves any sense of professionalism.

 

Let's remember that sexual dimorphism DO takes it's toll though - unarmed woman attacking man during emotional outburst have way less chances to inflict lasting damage than opposite situation.

 

First - not that kind of photos that provokes ""-reaction.
Second - it's one of those verbal sparring of whiteknight liberals and browncoat conservatives ( i didn't noticed 'blackhat' misogynists in thread) that goes nowhere.
If one is interested i just recently stumbled upon article that describes underlying differences in mindsets quite convincingly :
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/

 

I go by UK stats, because we're absolutely untouchable for getting the reported crime figures closer to the actual committed crime numbers.

According to whom?
But, to be fair this statement may be true – for the U.K. - but you are not the world.

‘seriously, is anyone else actually reading these sources?’

For the [lost count]th time, you’re the one with the beef. So, in answer to your question, it appears you’re the one ‘reading these sources’ and apparently finding damnable flaws or outright fraud.

‘and it's an area in which we have some reliable data for comparison’

From a cursory sampling of studies on IPV I’ve found disagreement on the data and methodologies. If you dispute that ½ of women murdered are victims of IPV where it’s 1/20 for men, then guess what, that’s a controversy. Which will or will not be settled by respected folks in the field. Not you and I arguing in a comments section. I happen to put my confidence in the UN reports.

‘As for neutrality, you don't get equality by biasing in favour of one group because they claim that the other group has had it better for so long. The Civil Rights Movement worked because blacks did not demand superior treatment - they demanded equal treatment.’

(1) You call it biasing, I call it removing stumbling blocks and policies that have biased in favor of the dominant group at the expense of the repressed group. You say outcome is not a measure of equality. I disagree – outcome reflects equality. If the outcome is nearly always one color or gender, then we need to take a critical careful look at the equality of opportunity.

(2) The Civil Rights Movement ‘worked’ because of long, very difficult and dangerous years (nay decades upon decades) of struggle. Same is true for suffrage and every other fight against injustices that are today generally frowned upon, but were once common place. And, since you brought it up, the very same arguments you’re presenting against women’s struggles were (and still are being) made against Civil Rights et al. They were also accused of demanding preferential treatment etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah…

‘This, on the other hand, shows signs of being beyond a desire for equality and instead shows signs of being an outright demand for preferential treatment.’

To you, but not me. Your beef, not mine. I don’t see a problem, and I’m not threatened.

You disagree with ‘their’ assessment, beginning with IPV. I don’t.

I’m not going to change your mind, nor vise a versa. If you feel strongly enough about it, Challenge them.

 

Physical damage, sure. Psychologically, we're equally vulnerable in most instances. This is why conflict between people who know one another is recorded differently, though, as the psychological effect of that kind of conflict in such a close in-group is incredibly distressing, especially given that we're an inherently social species.

Just to address this bit, I'd advise against trying to guess political affiliation based on nothing more than how people analyse statements made by a single political activist group. Whichever of those labels you were applying to me, for instance, you got it entirely wrong, and I'd bet the same is true of my sparring partner.

 

The UK has a much better record of recording crime than just about anywhere else (it's why other countries routinely mimic recording procedures), which means our recorded crime rate is automatically a more accurate representation of our actual crime rate. Sure, we don't represent the entire world, or even the entire developed world, but until other countries catch up a little in terms of the disparity between reported crime rate and actual crime rate we're the most reliable sample. It'll happen, but it takes time, as we see from how the UK is constantly adjusting how things are reported and recorded. In any case, this isn't really relevant. You're citing crime figures to indicate a bias, and I'm citing them to show no significant bias. Your figures aren't globally representative either, so it's disingenuous of you to make that same assertion of my cited sources without also applying that caveat to your own. Please be more objective.

On that note, it's not relevant that you agree with their claims. You still have to actually read their documentation to know that you agree with it. For all you know I've dragged everything completely out of context - maybe they don't even mention crime rates...

Your confidence in "UN reports" and "respected folks in the field" is sweet, but there are a couple of problems with it. One is that this is not actually a UN report or group, and another is that only one of the individuals on this council actually has a relevant qualification/expertise in any relevant field (Diane Elson - sociology professor), and I can find almost no peer-reviewed work from her in recent years in this field. How confident can one be about something with so little underlying evidence?

I also note that you lack the same confidence in UK crime statistics, which suggests that you are biased in favour of one set of data. I could speculate that this is because one of them supports your preconceptions while the other refutes them, but I think that'd be unproductive, so I'll leave it as a playful little implication instead...

Removing discriminatory obstacles is what happened with Jack Johnson. He was artificially prevented from fighting for the championship, and when that artificial restriction was lifted he was able to compete for it. He happened to win because he was the better fighter. What this group is talking about is not the removal of any obstacles, but the insertion of obstacles that potentially impede males in a misguided attempt to balance out situations that may not be equally suited to males and females. Going back to those previous comments, should we demand that five of the ten best-paid models be male? No, we should not, because those males simply wouldn't generate the same income that the five female equivalents would. There is no financial obstacle to male models - they earn less because they are in an industry that is less well-suited to their gender, and that's perfectly fine. That is not discriminatory. In the context of violent crime, this group is actively erasing the fact that males are equally affected by violent crime as females, and females are equally likely to violently abuse people.

Just to re-quote you for a moment:

Those are not mutually exclusive statements. Outcome is affected by equality to some degree, but opportunity is a vastly superior indicator of equality and has a greater effect on outcome. If we eroded the segregation between male and female track and field events for the next Olympics then we'd see no female finalists at all, but that would not indicate unequal opportunity. You, and this group, are claiming otherwise. This group is demanding something that would equate to reserving equal places in the 100m final for men and women, despite women being at the 90m stage when all the men are crossing the line. If the Olympics removed gender segregation, and the sprint finalists were all male, what would that tell you about the equality of the competition? This is a genuine question - I'm curious how you see this.

Yes, civil rights and suffrage were both falsely accused of being unreasonable by people who did not want the status quo upset. Now please stop pretending that this makes any difference whatsoever to the points I'm making and address them directly, not via a stand-in from another era. I'm pointing out that this group is actually demanding something that those previous movements were falsely accused of demanding, and I'm referring directly to their own statements to demonstrate it. This is not the same - although that's rather fitting, all things considered.

Oh, and please stop this bizarre tendency to project "u is threatened" onto me all the time. Actively trying to infer insecurity is a remarkably insecure thing to do. Nothing I have said thus far has been anything other than entirely neutral and objective. No appeals to emotion or rhetoric - just factual comparisons and logic.

 

‘Your figures aren't globally representative either’

They’re not my figures. They’re the UN’s which by definition…

‘it's not relevant that you agree with their claims. You still have to actually read their documentation to know that you agree with it.’

Actually… Yes, it is and no, I don’t. I thought I made that clear. You’re the one with the beef. Not me.

Whose opinion am I more likely to accept/respect? Someone who sees - in a statement about gender equality - a global conspiracy by women to cuck men? Or, an organization, that when the rest of the world is crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war, says,’ hey folks let’s calm the fuck down and see if we can solve this shit without bombs and bullets’?

‘Your confidence in "UN reports" and "respected folks in the field" is sweet, but there are a couple of problems with it. One is that this is not actually a UN report or group’

The figures I cited are from U.N. Women (unwomen.org)

‘I also note that you lack the same confidence in UK crime statistics, which suggests that you are biased in favour of one set of data.’

And you’re not? Listen everyone has a point of view (a bias). That’s why we have the scientific method – to try to mitigate our bias when viewing ‘reality’. Anyone tries to tell you they’re not biased – hold on to your wallet.

Also, I didn’t say UK numbers are wrong. I said they only speak for the UK – not the world. But you assure me that the world should accept the UK as the ultimate sample group - look no further. But I’m overcome by bias.

‘What this group is talking about is not the removal of any obstacles, but the insertion of obstacles that potentially impede males in a misguided attempt to balance out situations that may not be equally suited to males and females.’

And this is based on what? Your extensive experience in dealing with discrimination in general and gender discrimination in particular? In the US this is called Monday morning/armchair quarterbacking, don’t know the UK equivalent. You read something and saw in the fine print a global conspiracy to undermine men. What evidence do you have except your interesting interpretation of their statement, UK stats that you claim should speak for the world and some thought experiments that border on Reductio ad absurdum?
Case in point: ‘If we eroded the segregation between male and female track and field events for the next Olympics then we'd see no female finalists at all’
(?!?!?!) This is the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum and/or a red herring

‘Yes, civil rights and suffrage were both falsely accused of being unreasonable by people who did not want the status quo upset.’

I suppose the saddest part here, is you see no irony in making that statement.

‘Oh, and please stop this bizarre tendency to project "u is threatened" onto me all the time.’

I stand corrected. Reading a statement from a group seeking gender equality and seeing it as a call to unfairly advantage its members at the expense of men (nay society in general) is not at all threatened. How could I be so blind – eh, biased?

Friend this has been entertaining but the argument has circled the track way too long. So, I’ll say you’ve made your point. I’ve heard you, and I’m out. Good bye, good luck.

 

most of these posts are not needed here, or wanted. i have reported them as someone had to. if you don't like that then tough, get a life, get a dog, just get over it!

 

jones and fggts it would be highly appreciated if you continued your debate privatly. I feel both of you have gotten your point across, but maybe time to get back to Emma.

Thanks in Advance.

 

I've told you this at least once before - the group you are quoting is not a UN group. Read the sources before trying to pretend that you know what they say. As for you being absolved of reading those sources, that'd be true if you weren't inserting yourself into a discussion and making claims about what those sources contain. You have done both, which means that, like it or not, you are positioning yourself as a vicarious spokesman for that source. It's wholly unreasonable for me to demand evidence from some random stranger who hasn't even commented on the subject, but when someone wanders over and continuously insists that they have a valid point I'm more than justified in expecting them to actually read things that they cite as evidence.

To answer your (likely rhetorical) question, I think you're more likely to accept the claims made by whoever tells you what you want to hear. It would explain why you're so averse to reading material published by a group that you wholly endorse, as well as why you revert to an argument from authority in "but they're the UN!". I'd also like you - and I think it's embarrassing that I have to say this again - to stop dishonestly attempting to portray me as misogynistic in this matter. That includes your misuse of the word "cuck". Thank you.

Please provide an exact source for the figures you cited, ideally to the report(s) in which they are found.

Crime statistics are extremely difficult to accurately interpret. The very first thing you'd need to do is gather data in a way that can produce reliable results, and that means that your reported crime figures must be representative of the actual number of crimes committed. The UK is better at this than any other country. I'm not claiming that they are accurately representative of any other country, but I am saying that they are far and away the most reliable figures for the country of origin. When other agencies in other countries can at least match the UK for reliability then their data can be included. Until that happens, though, appealing to that data is problematic because it just isn't reliable. What we have are accurate, reliable figures for the UK and less accurate, less reliable figures for other countries.

If we're going to be discussing the gender biases of a specific crime then you need to have reliable and accurate data concerning those crimes. You're suggesting that it's biased to look at the most reliable and accurate data in favour of less reliable data. Curiously, I don't think you've cited any figures for domestic violence from other organisations. You do seem unwilling to accept the UK figures which show that both victims and perpetrators are almost perfectly even between the two genders, and you seem willing to defend the inexcusable misrepresentation put forth by this G7 group, but you haven't cited any figures that attest to this apparent predisposition. You've expressed a desire to change the subject, though, so I'd suggest that you prepare some sources concerning the murder rates and demographics for when we get around to that.

I'll also ask you to stop trying to portray me as proffering a conspiracy theory. I don't see this as a global plot to eliminate men and replace them with a race of parthenogenetic women and their castrated male worshippers. I just see small groups like this as almost criminally incompetent to such a degree that they are incapable of doing anything useful to further their claimed agenda. Do you recall that one of my points was that men are almost never mentioned in their documentation? Documentation that explicitly proclaims itself to be seeking "gender equality" should surely deal with inequalities that negatively impact both sexes, yet verifiable, indisputable examples of female bias are left untouched.

The truly ironic thing is that there are some instances where small changes would result in related inequalities against both genders being resolved. For instance, I cited the fact that custody hearings are horrifically biased in favour of women, whereas this report explicitly calls upon developed societies to distribute child-rearing more evenly as a way to help women advance in their chosen industry more easily. I hope you can see how balancing one of these out would automatically help to better balance the other, but in case it's not clear I'd suggest that equality in granting custody of children to mothers and fathers would give those mothers more time to further their chosen careers. It wouldn't necessarily solve either issue entirely, but it's a minor act that would serve as a highly potent way to better balance both issues. A competent council devoted to gender inequality would be advocating things like this, because when you can propose changes that necessarily benefit all sides of an issue you have a far greater chance of seeing it implemented and a far smaller chance of any public resistance.

Of course, if you're on a "gender equality" council that either buries or ignores the issues facing one of the two genders then you may well not realise how potent a solution that could be. Does that sound competent to you? Does it sound like the kind of group that would reliably get things wrong simply because they don't understand how to properly assess data and eliminate their own personal prejudices? Remember that lone sociologist I mentioned? A sceptic might suggest that the reason she has produced almost no peer-reviewed work (and none at all in reputable journals) in recent years is due to her not actually being very good at it. This is actually rather common amongst even trained scientists: objectivity is difficult to maintain, especially in the social sciences, where the entire subject is concerned with topics that automatically introduce cognitive biases. It's why psychology and sociology have such a difficult time with things like control groups and ethical guidelines. The pure science have a much easier time of this.

As for my example of the Olympics, it was not offered as a direct 1:1 analogy, so you are dishonest for portraying it as such. It was illustrating the irrefutable fact that we are a sexually dimorphic species. If you agree that humans are physically different along gender lines then you also have to accept that this extends to neurophysiology, which necessarily extends to psychology. Men and women really do think differently. You'll also note that I didn't outright state that women would not work their way into parity in any industry; only that there exist industry sectors that - and I'm directly quoting myself here - "may not" suit both genders equally. Attempting to force parity in these areas automatically constitutes a - and this is another direct quote - "potential" impedance of males if that sector happens to naturally favour them. Obviously this would also apply the other way around in industry sectors that naturally favour women, as I detailed with the modelling industry several comments back.

Forcing equity of outcome instead of equity of opportunity is discriminatory, yet it is what this council is mandating. If equity of opportunity naturally results in equity of outcome is perfectly fine, but it is also not ubiquitous.

People say things like that when they can't actually dispute what was said.

I'm not fighting against change to the status quo; I'm arguing against maintaining the status quo while switching out the beneficiaries for a different group. If the current system is unbalanced - and I've never disputed that it is - then so would be the system which supplants it. That's not equality - it's reciprocal inequality, and that's a ludicrous idea.

This council is not seeking "gender equality". They may have that in their name, and they may even have convinced themselves that they are seeking equality, but their statements and actions indicate that they are advocating inequality. I make no judgement concerning their intent. Remember that.

 

Ugh. Okay, in my defence, this comment wasn't visible until after I posted that last one. I'm guessing I just missed the "there are new posts..." message.

 

Just realized the username.. yeeeesh. With how quick one can get banned for using certain less disparaging words, I'm surprised.