I recently read an article that pointed out that protesters have apparently moved on from climate change as well, although that's supposedly the most urgent issue as the planet is burning....or something like that
Basically, my impression is that the unspoken motivation for protesters is self-interested...whether rebelling against Dad, burnishing their progressive CVs, feeling like a hero or morally superior to others, or just blowing off some steam and having an adventure.
The actual "issue" at hand is a widget that can be swapped our with convenience. Next year it will be veganism, trans medicine, save the bunnies, who knows.
Agreed. That's what comes, I think, of having no stable external belief system or moral source such as that provided by, say, Christianity. You have to find your meaning somewhere but that somewhere is constantly shifting.
When you say women perpetrate domestic violence "as much as men", do you just not care about the relative rates at which women are KILLED by their male partners versus men being killled by their female partners? How often do men land their girlfriends and wives in the hospital vs. the reverse? Do you actually think the same kinds of violence are being measured in that stat? Or is it that you somehow think you are being cute or funny and you are smirking when you put that link in? What actually is the matter with you?
Thank you for reading and your response. I'm not quite sure what your point is though....that I shouldn't have said something that is empirically supported because it is inconvenient with a moral narrative?
1992 paper analyzing a carefully selected 9 year range and still: husbands kill more wives by a lot than the reverse. Great database you have there for your assertions.
Holy crow! I hope you take the time to work out what that table I made indicates. Better yet. Sort through the StatsCan stats for yourself.
"Women who end their partners’ lives have been an under-examined group, the researchers note, given they represent a minority of the total partner homicides. Almost 80% of the 738 spousal killings in Canada between 2000 and 2009 were committed by men, who the study said are also responsible almost exclusively for bloody massacres where children, as well as the partner, are murdered in one act."
This study shows that wives in the United States murdered their husbands at twice the rate of any other western country. If the rate of women in all western countries killing their husband's is 75% as often as husbands killing wives, as stated, and in Canada it's half that, then our rate of wife murderers here is 37.5%? Am I misinterpreting?
The article cited by the author says female US spouses murder at a rate 2x that of other countries, so, on average, at a rate of 37.5% of men based on the 1992 article cited by the author. However, (more recent) StatCan data indicates the rate in Canada is very much lower than 37.5% (a bit less than 20%). The US Department of Justice data in this 2005 document finds the rate much closer to the rate in Canada (see document p. 19) https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf
Yes that's what I thought it said. I was hoping the author would respond, since the study he linked seems to refute his statement that violence is nearly equal between men and women in relationships, at least in Canada.
So men commit almost all of the murders, almost all of the assaults, almost all of the sex crime, if you take biology seriously you know that testosterone has a direct relationship to aggression...
but MAGICALLY in the HOME women commit domestic violence as the same rate as men. Not anywhere else! And women don't kill, assault, or rape one another at anything like the rates men kill, assault, and rape one another. but in the home, none of this is relevant. Is the home also an anti-gravity zone? Has cold fusion been accomplished there? Because it sounds like a place where nothing we know about reality is relevant!
the bear meme is stupid? compared to what? if the bear meme is pea brained this is begonia seed brained.
Apparently, Dr. Ferguson doesn't like the bear analogy. However, in attacking it, he has betraying himself as someone who does not know, or does not take seriously, violence against women.
He writes, “although men are overwhelmingly perpetrators of sexual violence, for domestic violence, considerable evidence suggests women perpetrate this as much as men,” a statement Dr. Ferguson supports with a 2010 journal article that seems to be more about violence at the end of relationships than about which sex is the perpetrator. What Dr. Ferguson misses is the effect on women in general of the fact that violence against women inside and outside of the home that results in serious injury or death, violence that involves a weapon or choking, and repeated violence in the home, is almost always perpetrated by men. In fact, by far, most violence resulting in serious injury or death is perpetrated by men, period.
StatCan cited in 2019 that about 4.7 million women over the age of 15 (30% of women) reported they experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 compared to 8% of males. Even allowing for an argument that one sex may be more likely to report than the other (even when reporting anonymously), those are staggering odds, and women have good reason to avoid situations where they are vulnerable. Given Dr. Fergusson’s PhD in psychology, one would expect that he would question a woman’s tolerance for risk if she did not take such evidence seriously rather than focusing on an analogy he finds to be inaccurate.
I’m sorry but you’re off base on this one. You are correct men do commit more violence than women albeit most of that targets other men. However consistent research since the 70s has found that women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence (early work by Murray Straus, Susan Steinmetz, etc). That’s been confirmed again and again (my textbook Violent Crime covers more recent rosters). I’ve done studies on this myself that find a similar pattern.
This is all important to discuss but doesn’t change the fact that the silliness of 🐻 discourse only beclowns an important topic.
But I wish you an excellent day and thank you for reading.
I created this table using data from StatsCan (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00018/tbl/tbl02-1-eng.htm). According to this 2018 data, female victims of IPV form 78% of those who experience IPV and report it to the police. In addition to this, females are much more likely to suffer significant assault such as choking, sexual assault and / or assault with a weapon, much more likely to experience significant injury requiring hospitalization, and more likely to die as the result of an assault. I'm sorry that the formatting won't translate in this post, but perhaps you can make out the colums.
Victims of police-reported intimate partner and non-intimate partner violence, by victim sex and relationship of accused to victim, Canada, 2018
Total Male % Female %
Total Victims 328,844 154,231 46.90 174,613 53.10
Perp not intimate partner 106,984 59,816 55.91 20,962 19.59
Perp is a stranger 85,872 58,259 67.84 47,618 55.45
Perp Unknown 226 208 92.04 18 7.96
Total IPV 135,762 35,948 26.48 106,015 78.09
I'm sure your text is excellent, but $185 is too rich for my budget.
Thanks so much Kathleen for sorting out this post. I was initially furious because this is the kind of off handed remark that so many men's rights activists frequently drop.
Thanks to you and Janice, at least I was able to cool off, safe in knowing that any others passing by this comment section will realise how totally off base men are and how glibly they comment that women are 'just as violent as men' apropos of some shockingly pathetic study which is actually vaguely proving some other point.
They didn't even define their terms properly.
As a result of the essay writer's egregious error and cavalier attitude about women, I'm rethinking how this guy actually relates to 'woke'. Dumping on women certainly is popular amongst the so-called 'woke'.
I've seen a couple of things on Woke Watch that I prefer not to be associated with. It makes me question whether I will contribute $50 again if this sort of stuff gets through whatever filters. I do find some "woke" is actually just some of that old-fashioned, unpleasant, right wing rhetoric that gives conservativism a bad name.
Men don't even seem to realise how violent practices of this nature (men 'breastfeeding' undermine the very things that only women can do.
It's a serious, capitalist form of male violence and way too many people just blithely accept it, unaware of how the unnatural forms of feeding infants are killing women and children. https://thecritic.co.uk/misappropriating-motherhood/
Before you judge reincarnation maybe look into the Ian Stevenson reincarnation wing of the University of Virginia. His protégé was up here in Northern BC researching local aboriginal reserves for possible cases. My wife and I read many of his papers from around the world. Very dry reading. For a more fun read is "Soul Survivor" by Bruce and Andrea Leininger.
I enjoyed the read here, but as I am finding everywhere I look, there is just no analysis around as to why bizarre behavior is becoming the norm rather than the exception; as if the rationally irrational characters that populated the 'Alice World' in the novels of Lewis Carroll have escaped into our world, colonized it and then hijacked its institutions.
This really does require some sort sort of explanation, because the world that not even 'Mad' magazine could have imagined in its day, is upon us. And it isn't some serendipitous 'What me worry?' passing aberration. This is the 'New Normal'.
It is impossible to make sense of what is going on in our culture without having some overview of the way the current form of capitalism rolled itself out in the 1960, and into our present conundrums. This economic and cultural transformation that has been going on now for over 60 years, is now into its third generation and it seems to me that it has almost entirely gone under the collective radar, leaving behind populations of entirely mystified subjects with little to no idea of what has happened to them during that time.
The normal warnings of state based totalitarian governance just did not eventuate when it came to an economy and culture of disciplined needs and wants being displaced by fantasies of desire, their instant gratification and sense of rights based entitlement-without-responsible agency, that over time kept harrying and undermining the boundaries of knowing fancy and unknowing delusion, where the main output of the system was no longer goods and services so much as consciousness itself, where unmediated perception was and is the mainstay of the architecture of discourse, where evidence based reason was made redundant, as autonomous citizens were remolded into customer/slaves.
And hardly anyone noticed the existential hollowing out of reality, as its grounding and compass were resolved into manufactured dreaming, where faith and reason had parted company, such that faith became blind and reason, anybody's.
I am the maker of dreams and the seeder of thoughts.
In me are the power and the profit.
Through me you will reach the visions of your customers.
Their habits are but the sum of my old campaigns.
I cannot be denied, for I pass beneath all understanding.
I am the omnipresent silent partner.
I am the shape of ambition,
The evocation of desire,
The imagined worlds of all.
There is no escape except in me.
I am the hope and the despair,
The answer to prayers for upgrades ever after.
They who believe in me shall be saved by products
And my enemies shall be frustrated for ever.
And while this has been one of the most successful hijacks of human affairs in its history, the damage to social and existential infrastructure through the gross cultural and economic excesses it created in the process of exponential growth at any price, threatens to take down not just the current world order, but the future of the modern period that started with the Reformation and the rise of capitalism.
Its decadent indulgence driven format isn't sustainable at any level. Cross platform deregulation and privatization created a huge cascade of activity, but at the expense of the existential, social and ecological commons that holds us and our world in one piece.
What we are witnessing is an end game and the promise of sustained turbulence, 'trimming' of the human enterprise, and the trashing of the Goldilocks natural environment that made it possible.
Whatever that future is and however tough it becomes for us, there is still hope to be found in the seeking of some different vision of ourselves, even if we have to do it under constant siege.
I recently read an article that pointed out that protesters have apparently moved on from climate change as well, although that's supposedly the most urgent issue as the planet is burning....or something like that
I covered this a bit in a previous post on the protests (https://grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/protests-on-college-campuses)
Basically, my impression is that the unspoken motivation for protesters is self-interested...whether rebelling against Dad, burnishing their progressive CVs, feeling like a hero or morally superior to others, or just blowing off some steam and having an adventure.
The actual "issue" at hand is a widget that can be swapped our with convenience. Next year it will be veganism, trans medicine, save the bunnies, who knows.
Agreed. That's what comes, I think, of having no stable external belief system or moral source such as that provided by, say, Christianity. You have to find your meaning somewhere but that somewhere is constantly shifting.
When you say women perpetrate domestic violence "as much as men", do you just not care about the relative rates at which women are KILLED by their male partners versus men being killled by their female partners? How often do men land their girlfriends and wives in the hospital vs. the reverse? Do you actually think the same kinds of violence are being measured in that stat? Or is it that you somehow think you are being cute or funny and you are smirking when you put that link in? What actually is the matter with you?
Thank you for reading and your response. I'm not quite sure what your point is though....that I shouldn't have said something that is empirically supported because it is inconvenient with a moral narrative?
Actually for homicide too the evidence suggests that there's something closer to sex parity than people imagine. It's not quite 50/50 but surprisingly close: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/who-kills-whom-spouse-killings-exceptional-sex-ratio-spousal
I think you may just be misinformed.
However, you've chosen to be ad hominem and insulting in your comments, so I won't reply to you futher.
Have an excellent day.
the authors of this paper *themselves* do not agree with the conclusion you are drawing here, in a paper published IN THE SAME YEAR (1992)
The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in
Marital Violence*
RUSSELL P. DOBASH, University of Wales College of Cardiff
R. EMERSON DOBASH, University of Wales College of Cardiff
MARGO WILSON, McMaster University
MARTIN DALY, McMaster Uni
1992 paper analyzing a carefully selected 9 year range and still: husbands kill more wives by a lot than the reverse. Great database you have there for your assertions.
Holy crow! I hope you take the time to work out what that table I made indicates. Better yet. Sort through the StatsCan stats for yourself.
"Women who end their partners’ lives have been an under-examined group, the researchers note, given they represent a minority of the total partner homicides. Almost 80% of the 738 spousal killings in Canada between 2000 and 2009 were committed by men, who the study said are also responsible almost exclusively for bloody massacres where children, as well as the partner, are murdered in one act."
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/women-rarely-gave-a-warning-before-killing-their-mates-and-most-didnt-suffer-abuse-study-finds
This study shows that wives in the United States murdered their husbands at twice the rate of any other western country. If the rate of women in all western countries killing their husband's is 75% as often as husbands killing wives, as stated, and in Canada it's half that, then our rate of wife murderers here is 37.5%? Am I misinterpreting?
The article cited by the author says female US spouses murder at a rate 2x that of other countries, so, on average, at a rate of 37.5% of men based on the 1992 article cited by the author. However, (more recent) StatCan data indicates the rate in Canada is very much lower than 37.5% (a bit less than 20%). The US Department of Justice data in this 2005 document finds the rate much closer to the rate in Canada (see document p. 19) https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf
Yes that's what I thought it said. I was hoping the author would respond, since the study he linked seems to refute his statement that violence is nearly equal between men and women in relationships, at least in Canada.
Thanks for the updated info re US stats.
So men commit almost all of the murders, almost all of the assaults, almost all of the sex crime, if you take biology seriously you know that testosterone has a direct relationship to aggression...
but MAGICALLY in the HOME women commit domestic violence as the same rate as men. Not anywhere else! And women don't kill, assault, or rape one another at anything like the rates men kill, assault, and rape one another. but in the home, none of this is relevant. Is the home also an anti-gravity zone? Has cold fusion been accomplished there? Because it sounds like a place where nothing we know about reality is relevant!
the bear meme is stupid? compared to what? if the bear meme is pea brained this is begonia seed brained.
Apparently, Dr. Ferguson doesn't like the bear analogy. However, in attacking it, he has betraying himself as someone who does not know, or does not take seriously, violence against women.
He writes, “although men are overwhelmingly perpetrators of sexual violence, for domestic violence, considerable evidence suggests women perpetrate this as much as men,” a statement Dr. Ferguson supports with a 2010 journal article that seems to be more about violence at the end of relationships than about which sex is the perpetrator. What Dr. Ferguson misses is the effect on women in general of the fact that violence against women inside and outside of the home that results in serious injury or death, violence that involves a weapon or choking, and repeated violence in the home, is almost always perpetrated by men. In fact, by far, most violence resulting in serious injury or death is perpetrated by men, period.
StatCan cited in 2019 that about 4.7 million women over the age of 15 (30% of women) reported they experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 compared to 8% of males. Even allowing for an argument that one sex may be more likely to report than the other (even when reporting anonymously), those are staggering odds, and women have good reason to avoid situations where they are vulnerable. Given Dr. Fergusson’s PhD in psychology, one would expect that he would question a woman’s tolerance for risk if she did not take such evidence seriously rather than focusing on an analogy he finds to be inaccurate.
I’m sorry but you’re off base on this one. You are correct men do commit more violence than women albeit most of that targets other men. However consistent research since the 70s has found that women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence (early work by Murray Straus, Susan Steinmetz, etc). That’s been confirmed again and again (my textbook Violent Crime covers more recent rosters). I’ve done studies on this myself that find a similar pattern.
This is all important to discuss but doesn’t change the fact that the silliness of 🐻 discourse only beclowns an important topic.
But I wish you an excellent day and thank you for reading.
I created this table using data from StatsCan (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00018/tbl/tbl02-1-eng.htm). According to this 2018 data, female victims of IPV form 78% of those who experience IPV and report it to the police. In addition to this, females are much more likely to suffer significant assault such as choking, sexual assault and / or assault with a weapon, much more likely to experience significant injury requiring hospitalization, and more likely to die as the result of an assault. I'm sorry that the formatting won't translate in this post, but perhaps you can make out the colums.
Victims of police-reported intimate partner and non-intimate partner violence, by victim sex and relationship of accused to victim, Canada, 2018
Total Male % Female %
Total Victims 328,844 154,231 46.90 174,613 53.10
Perp not intimate partner 106,984 59,816 55.91 20,962 19.59
Perp is a stranger 85,872 58,259 67.84 47,618 55.45
Perp Unknown 226 208 92.04 18 7.96
Total IPV 135,762 35,948 26.48 106,015 78.09
I'm sure your text is excellent, but $185 is too rich for my budget.
I'm sorry, but this reply is equal parts stupid and dishonest.
Thanks so much Kathleen for sorting out this post. I was initially furious because this is the kind of off handed remark that so many men's rights activists frequently drop.
Thanks to you and Janice, at least I was able to cool off, safe in knowing that any others passing by this comment section will realise how totally off base men are and how glibly they comment that women are 'just as violent as men' apropos of some shockingly pathetic study which is actually vaguely proving some other point.
They didn't even define their terms properly.
As a result of the essay writer's egregious error and cavalier attitude about women, I'm rethinking how this guy actually relates to 'woke'. Dumping on women certainly is popular amongst the so-called 'woke'.
I've seen a couple of things on Woke Watch that I prefer not to be associated with. It makes me question whether I will contribute $50 again if this sort of stuff gets through whatever filters. I do find some "woke" is actually just some of that old-fashioned, unpleasant, right wing rhetoric that gives conservativism a bad name.
Men don't even seem to realise how violent practices of this nature (men 'breastfeeding' undermine the very things that only women can do.
It's a serious, capitalist form of male violence and way too many people just blithely accept it, unaware of how the unnatural forms of feeding infants are killing women and children. https://thecritic.co.uk/misappropriating-motherhood/
Before you judge reincarnation maybe look into the Ian Stevenson reincarnation wing of the University of Virginia. His protégé was up here in Northern BC researching local aboriginal reserves for possible cases. My wife and I read many of his papers from around the world. Very dry reading. For a more fun read is "Soul Survivor" by Bruce and Andrea Leininger.
Good comments.
I enjoyed the read here, but as I am finding everywhere I look, there is just no analysis around as to why bizarre behavior is becoming the norm rather than the exception; as if the rationally irrational characters that populated the 'Alice World' in the novels of Lewis Carroll have escaped into our world, colonized it and then hijacked its institutions.
This really does require some sort sort of explanation, because the world that not even 'Mad' magazine could have imagined in its day, is upon us. And it isn't some serendipitous 'What me worry?' passing aberration. This is the 'New Normal'.
It is impossible to make sense of what is going on in our culture without having some overview of the way the current form of capitalism rolled itself out in the 1960, and into our present conundrums. This economic and cultural transformation that has been going on now for over 60 years, is now into its third generation and it seems to me that it has almost entirely gone under the collective radar, leaving behind populations of entirely mystified subjects with little to no idea of what has happened to them during that time.
The normal warnings of state based totalitarian governance just did not eventuate when it came to an economy and culture of disciplined needs and wants being displaced by fantasies of desire, their instant gratification and sense of rights based entitlement-without-responsible agency, that over time kept harrying and undermining the boundaries of knowing fancy and unknowing delusion, where the main output of the system was no longer goods and services so much as consciousness itself, where unmediated perception was and is the mainstay of the architecture of discourse, where evidence based reason was made redundant, as autonomous citizens were remolded into customer/slaves.
And hardly anyone noticed the existential hollowing out of reality, as its grounding and compass were resolved into manufactured dreaming, where faith and reason had parted company, such that faith became blind and reason, anybody's.
I am the maker of dreams and the seeder of thoughts.
In me are the power and the profit.
Through me you will reach the visions of your customers.
Their habits are but the sum of my old campaigns.
I cannot be denied, for I pass beneath all understanding.
I am the omnipresent silent partner.
I am the shape of ambition,
The evocation of desire,
The imagined worlds of all.
There is no escape except in me.
I am the hope and the despair,
The answer to prayers for upgrades ever after.
They who believe in me shall be saved by products
And my enemies shall be frustrated for ever.
And while this has been one of the most successful hijacks of human affairs in its history, the damage to social and existential infrastructure through the gross cultural and economic excesses it created in the process of exponential growth at any price, threatens to take down not just the current world order, but the future of the modern period that started with the Reformation and the rise of capitalism.
Its decadent indulgence driven format isn't sustainable at any level. Cross platform deregulation and privatization created a huge cascade of activity, but at the expense of the existential, social and ecological commons that holds us and our world in one piece.
What we are witnessing is an end game and the promise of sustained turbulence, 'trimming' of the human enterprise, and the trashing of the Goldilocks natural environment that made it possible.
Whatever that future is and however tough it becomes for us, there is still hope to be found in the seeking of some different vision of ourselves, even if we have to do it under constant siege.
https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1810745-Post-Modern-Heroes-Michael-and-Giordana
Man or bear question covered on CNN: xxhttps://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/us/man-bear-safety-tiktok-question-cec/index.htmlxx
Grizzly bears are extremely dangerous, as most residents of B.C. know.
Very few men are dangerous. Ridiculous comparison. True, women should be cautious (don’t hitchhike, for example).