International Day for the Elimination of Violence against men

[4th law of robotics]

. . . is never.

Men are the victims of homicide, assault, and suicide at rates roughly 6 times higher than women.
Men represent the vast majority of those killed in wars.
And there's even evidence that men are about as likely to be victims of DV as women (it's just rarely reported and even less likely to be prosecuted).

But you despite being the primary victims of violence you will never see an international effort to reduce violence against males. At best you could hope for boys to be included with women (as in "women and children&quot .

Men are viewed as disposable.

Being seen as less valuable and having our deaths be less tragic is yet another male privilege.

/sorry for the depressing post. But this stuff irritates me.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. What do the victims, men and women, have in common?

The perpetrators of violence are overwhelmingly men.

But you knew that when you posted your trollish op.

Buh-bye.

[Upton]

3. Real classy...

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Like flies to honey.

[Upton]

10. Just out of curiosity..

do you often comment to posters whom you know have been PPRed? And if so, does it do something positive for your self esteem? Again, just curious.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Only when they have been massively annoying and obvious

and using either the gungeon or the mens group as a safe haven for their nonsense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Brave Sir Robin n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

16. The total lack of any self examination within this group is not amazing at all.

No reflection at all on how one of your prominent contributors happened to be an obvious rw troll?

This op of his is classic 4th trollery. And none of you responded to it at all, although it was up for days. I thought about it, but I'd pretty much had it with arguing with that troll, so I didn't. It reflects really poorly on this group.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Let me get this straight.

He's a troll because he posted something that wasn't commented on until the day you heard he was PPR'd, at which time you replied (in the men's group) that violence against men wasn't such a big deal because it's men doing the beating... which attracted the disagreement you predicted, from the individuals you expected?

What's your definition of "troll"?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. He is a troll because he was shitcanned the fuck out of du for being a troll.

Did you not get the memo?

[Squinch]

70. 4th law got shitcanned? I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the good news!

[Upton]

28. Yep..bravest of the brave..

[Bonobo]

20. Since you only come in here to criticize, I have to ask.-

Do you think there are ANY issues that men can benefit from discussing among themselves that do not involve self-flagellation?

Do you know what Beta Male strategy refers to?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Yes sure, men can and should discuss real issues that affect men

Rather than, as in this OP, discussing fake issues that are simply part of the rw culture war against progressive values.

My hostility is not to this group, per se, but to those in this group who, like dearly departed 4th law of zombie robots, used this group to push their rw bullshit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. How is that relevant?

Is male victimization acceptable because it represents a form of karmic justice?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. How isn't it?

The perpetrators of violence across the planet, against both men and women, are overwhelmingly men.

An OP bemoaning the poor downtrodden male, so set upon and so neglected:

But you despite being the primary victims of violence you will never see an international effort to reduce violence against males.

is nothing but absurd trollery, (and awful proof checking,) the sort that makes this group an embarrassment.

Oh wait, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Then avoid the embarassment. It's easy.

I asked a direct question and you haven't answered it.

Woman on woman violence is crass entertainment.
Woman on man violence is the punchline to a joke.
Man on man violence is tolerable because the loser is getting what he deserves for being a man.
Man on woman violence is an important social ill that govenment action must resolve.

Oddly enough #2 is the most common form of IPV. It becomes a problem if and only if it leads to #4. Yet, anyone points out the bright line connecting the dots between #2 and #4 is a misogynist.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/?tool=pubmed

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i decided to come back to these threads to answer your questions

Woman on woman violence is crass entertainment: Who is the audience for this? Is it typically a female audience?

Woman on man violence is the punchline to a joke: In this case I agree with you, it should not be. The reason it is though is rooted in misogyny and the belief that women are not strong enough to be seriously considered a threat. In some cases this is true and in others not so much. However, in spirit I agree that women on male violence should not be treated as though it was a laughing affair.


Man on man violence is tolerable because the loser is getting what he deserves for being a man: Here your conclusion is incorrect. Man on man violence, is not seen through a gendered lens because the roots are not in gender inequality. The roots lie in risk taking and aggressiveness, which is often rewarded in society but sometimes results in violence and death. Here women are not the problem, so I am not sure why you see this particular problem as a gender disparity. Are women belittling violence in society generally?

Man on woman violence is an important social ill that govenment action must resolve: Yes, this is a true statement. Domestic violence despite your constant pretense that it is somehow a mutual act, is a huge problem that causes many lost lives and many women to live in terror. As does rape. Again a violence perpetrated against women by men. Or sexual abuse. Here gender inequality plays a huge role in how seriously governments take it, how many resources women have to escape from it and how economically dependent women in various societies are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Man on man violence is clearly seen through a gendered lens.

Nearly every time someone points out that men are more likely to be victims of violence, the above excuse is deployed - the ONLY way that excuse has any merit is if one assumes that because the victim is a man, then the ass-kicking he just got is justified.

If we were serious about improving education, increasing health outcomes, decreasing violence and promoting justice, a concerted effort to improve those issues from the perspective of men would have a greater effect, since men disproportionately suffer from all of them.

... it doesn't happen because we're not. Paradoxically, it's the patriarchal system which prevents it. The patriarchy was a system in which men decided how to best protect the women. Now it's a system in which men and women decide how to protect the women.

[Bonobo]

21. My father was abused by his wife.

In this society, it is difficult for men to admit this kind of domestic violence for fear of seeming weak and most assuredly law enforcement and the courts are similarly skeptical.

THIS is a problem. A real problem. When was the last time you saw it addressed?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. actually i have seen a rising support for battered men

who generally are battered by other men, but also those battered by women

though let me ask you what is the battered women to men ratio? you hear of something more when it happens more frequently.

[Bonobo]

77. I don't know but I would guess that more women are battered by men.

But I also think that more men don't report abuse proportionally for a few reasons:

1. It is damaging to the male ego to admit being abused by a woman.

2. Mwn would be slower to recognize it as abuse since, on the face of it, women aren't a "serious physical threat" (but that does not change the fact that it is abuse)

3. Authority figures would tend to look with scorn, amusement and skepticism at the male who accused a woman of abuse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Undeniably, more women are injured by physically violent men than the reverse. n/t

[Major Nikon]

53. I think you have us confused with someone else

We don't have a convienient conspiracy theory in which we can use to scapegoat all gender based problems. As such, not everything that affects one gender is a matter of blaming the other which is a bit different mindset. So you might not look so ridiculous if you keep that in mind next time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. yeah, because it's within gender violence

it's not like women are running around beating men up. for whatever reason they are getting beaten up or killed, it's not their gender/sex.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. In a heterosexual relationship, IPV is more likely to be initiated by the woman.

It is, however, less likely to cause injury and far less likely to be reported. It is only when it escalates to reciprocal violence that the woman gets injured and the crime reported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/?tool=pubmed

Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.

[Major Nikon]

54. I suppose men could always invent a conspiracy theory

...to scapegoat all their problems on the other gender, and while that would certainly be a convienient way to dodge reponsibility, it just sounds like too much of a silly idea to try and pass off.

Just sayin'

[Warren DeMontague]

12. How about we just try to eliminate violence, period?

I mean, maybe that's a good starting point, instead of breaking it down further.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. And which gender would have to change the most for that to happen?

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Then we're taking the wrong approach

The VAWA is treating the symptom and not the cause.

Programs targeted at men and boys to reduce our violence are necessary. Better education, better nutrition, better primary care. Also, since the outcomes of boys raised with a father in their home are better, then changes in family court to support their wellbeing are indicated.

Not what you had in mind, huh?

Well maybe we could get tougher on them, exclude dads from the home (because they're probably abusers anyway) and make popular entertainment portray them as the most ludicrous possible caricature. That'll work this time, I'm sure.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. violent people would have to change the most. as in, people who are violent.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. So you seriously reject the existence of male culture of violence?

Seriously?

[Bonobo]

25. I think he is saying, rightly, that violent people are violent whether men or women.

There are violent men and violent women. More men? Sure, you bet. It's a part of being a man in a way.

But to address the issue of violence, we need to address violent people in general, not just men.

I know some kids near me, 3rd graders, that sure get a lot of violence from their moms. How do you think they will grow up?

When they do, they will be violent men. But the root cause was not solely from their dads. I can tell you that for sure.

Violence is the problem whether man or woman. Do YOU disagree?

[Warren Stupidity]

26. "There are violent men and violent women. More men? Sure, you bet."

No there is a male culture of violence that some women participate in. We celebrate violence. It is part of our male culture.

[Bonobo]

27. I think this is where we part ways for sure.

"No there is a male culture of violence that some women participate in."

That framing makes it incredibly clear to me how deeply you have come to own the storyline put out there that men are bad. That even violence perpetrated by women can be laid on the doorstep of men really speaks volumes about your worldview.

I think this statement of yours really illustrates the rock bottom core difference that you and I have and does a good job of bringing meaning to any other disagreements we may have on other male/female issues, so I am glad it came out.

Best wishes to you. I am not sure much more can be said as I think this really laid it out there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. +1 n/t

[Major Nikon]

41. +1

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. To the extent that there is, your attitude is a contributing factor.

To you, the very mention of violence against men is a ludicrous embarrassment. Why? Because the attacker was probably a man too.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. "To you, the very mention of violence against men is a ludicrous embarrassment"

no, to me 4th Robot of RW Trollery was a ludicrous embarrassment who was pampered coddled and cajoled right here.

Men are victims of violence.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. How was he pampered coddled and cajoled?

I'm sorry, was he not sufficiently told to screw off immediately upon walking through the door? I'm getting awfully tired of people on DU trying to make federal cases out of "you should have done this and you didn't". Everyone is given the benefit of the damn doubt here, and posts are judged on their merit, not on how well liked the poster may or may not be in other corners of this website.

I am going to have a larger statement coming soon about keeping meta crap out of this group, but for the time being, consider what you've written - i.e. discussion of DU and DU members, not issues - an example of the sort of thing which I don't believe belongs in this group anymore.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. On the internet I'm indifferent to people. Points of argument, I can either like or dislike.

The argument that men are immune to victimization is one that I strongly oppose. It doesn't matter to me who also holds that view, or that it is or is not a majority viewpoint.

You have planted your flag with the view that victimization of men isn't a significant problem because men are most commonly their victimizers. It is a guilt by association argument I strongly dislike. The same argument has been used to diminish the problem of inner city crime.

And WdM is right that this group should be about issues... not about DU, its members or its other groups.

I disagree with the view you put forward, but it sounds as if it was mainly intended as a way to defile a recent grave. And frankly I think one grave dancers support group is enough.

[Major Nikon]

42. If that's true

Then it must also be true that some of the folks you pal around with coddled and cajoled Iverglas who was a no shit hater of the 1st degree if there ever was one.

You can't have it both ways, so I suggest you pick one.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. No

I'm saying the best way to address violence is to address violence.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. To do that you have to admit that there is a male culture of violence

that we celebrate, even worship, violence. If you do not recognize and address the cultural issues, issues that are gender based, you cannot address the problem of violence itself.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. That is a certainly an authoritative sounding statement, I will grant you that.

However, let's look at a couple things objectively. One, by every statistical yardstick, violent crime in the United States has dropped dramatically in the past 40 years, as shown in this graph:



Now, if gender were the only or the primary factor or driver behind "violence"... well, are there significantly fewer men out there, as a percentage of the population, than there were 40 years ago? Doubtful. In fact, I suspect the percentage is essentially unchanged. Demographically, what is the one trend that has changed and is often linked to the decline in violence? Age. So it would be far more accurate, to talk about a "youth culture of violence" than a male one, wouldn't it? People aren't stopping being men, but they are stopping being young.

Furthermore, if one were to dissect the data on violence along other demographic lines beyond gender or age, one might find other trends or statistical preponderances, lying along lines like race. Socioeconomic status. Where people live, geographically or urban v. rural. Yet, there is not the seeming rush to talk about the ________ culture of violence, as there is the "male" one, is there?

Why do you suppose that is?

What it boils down to, from my perspective, is that rather than using violence to advance group-based agendas, if we want to address violence the simplest and most direct route is to talk about violence itself as the problem.

Edited to add: you say "we" worship violence. Is that the royal we? The inclusive we? The exclusive we? I don't worship anything.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Do you know that that stat correlates to the proportion of young males in the population?

Donohue and Levitt study

Main article: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime
Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime". Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Which is one of the many things one can do with statistics.

Still, what is clearly happening is the population is getting less young, on average. Not less male. See?

[Warren Stupidity]

40. I think you have a huge blind spot here.

It is specifically young males that commit the overwhelming percentage of crimes. You are going to have to dig very deep into the bullshit well to avoid that unpleasant fact.

We have a culture of violence. It is specifically a male cultural phenomena. Hollywood knows this. Madison Avenue Knows this. Every cop knows this. Only the men's group on du seems to be unaware of its existence.

Kind of pathetic.

[Major Nikon]

45. I think you have a very poor understanding of cause and effect

Pointing your finger at a problem and pretending you know the reason doesn't get you very far if your reason just doesn't hold water.

[Bonobo]

46. Warren, you have a very manipulative way of arguing.

Let me illustrate it by (slight) exaggeration.

OTHER: Violence is a problem. There are violent men and violent women. The way to deal with the problem of violence in society is to address the root causes in both men and women.

WARREN: Yeah, but even when it is women that are being violent, that violence is part of MALE culture. It is because of the influence of "male violence culture" on them. Violence against men is overwhelmingly done by men as well.

OTHER: Yes, men are more violent in general, but the problem of violence in society is more complicated. There are violent men AND women and the cycle of violence does not always start with the father, it can also start with an abusive mother for example.

WARREN: I can't believe you are denying that men are violent. The Men's Group is truly pathetic and needs to be cleaned up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. For the sake of argument, let's accept for a moment that what you say is true.

Let's accept the premise that young men operate in a worsening "culture of violence".

What novel approach do you suggest to improve the situation?

Don't say "get tougher on crime". That is in no way novel, since the US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One in three black men will spend some time in jail.

(FWIW, the population of women in federal prison has increased at twice the rate of men since 2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

I'm interested to hear your answer, because it will tell whom of us is drinking from the bullshit well.

I'm fed up with people complaining about the problem, but then rejecting the sensible solutions as insufficiently progressive.

[Major Nikon]

50. Sensible solutions don't line up very well with radical feminist theory

Because what he saying is that the "male culture of violence" (AKA the patriarchy conspiracy theory) is to blame for all the ills in society, and therefore in order to fix the ills of society we need to change the culture (crush the patriarchy), which is the same answer I've heard for at least the past 30 years. In 1973, the most violent mainstream media we had was Dirty Harry and The Exorcist which by today's standards wouldn't even rate the after school television hour. The "culture" has unquestionably gotten far more violent, yet as Señor DeMontague demonstrated, violence has gone down during the same time period that rad-fem "theory" says it should be going up. So where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, a certain feminist (she-who-must-not-be-named) testified before the Meese commission and assured everyone that the rate of rape would follow the proliferation of internet porn and we all know how that one turned out. So the whole idea that "the patriarchy" is driving these things just doesn't quite pan out. I'm not sure about Mr. Stupidity, but when someone tells me up is down and down is up not once, but twice, I tend to raise the bullshit flag.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Men are bad. Full stop.

The rhetoric stops at that point. Always.

"What can we do to make men less bad?" is met with either crickets or "Tell them that they're bad".

[Major Nikon]

57. The idea I keep hearing is change the culture

Which is codespeak for crush the patriarchy. So what we are supposed to do is radically change the whole of western civilization as a grand experiment based on a "theory" that never was based on science, doesn't accurately describe reality, and may even create the exact opposite effect of what they are trying to accomplish.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I have to assume it's something you're demanding I say, that I'm *not* saying, thats making you mad.

Otherwise, can you point to the specific thing I *have* said, that is causing your anger?

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Also. Tell me something: From a, I guess it would be, sociological perspective?

what sweeping cultural generalizations would you be inclined to make from this graph, courtesy of the CDC?

[Major Nikon]

44. As Paul Harvey used to say....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/1999/does_abortion_prevent_crime/_3.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=969508

Then there's this...

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

[Major Nikon]

43. The problem with your theory is it just doesn't prove itself in the real world

Which means it isn't much of a theory.

[6502]

51. [I DON'T GET IT]===>...

I mean, we fellows make a full $1 for ever $0.75 women.

We fricken make the God damn wars that kill us.

Men control the media, the big companies, the small companies, the medium companies, the 5-dimensional companies that project a part of their 4th-dimensional shadow into our 3rd-dimensional realm.

Yeah... that 5th-dimensional CEO is a guy, too.

I've met his projection.

I mean, I could go on and on.

Heck, even in the most poorest societies, the men are on top.

I'm not buying this.

We guys have issues, but being on the top of every society in the world (don't waste my or anybody's time with some one-off exception...) we don't need some special day for our issues like that. It's an insult to everybody else with real problems... like earning $0.75 for every $1 we get... on a good day.

I'll tell you what: let's just start threads about the real problems we're dealing with.
Like how some fellows are mentally (sometimes --- I'm pretty sure rarely -- physically) abused by their wives and how law enforcement provides no help.

PS:
I definitely know about the mental abuse.

And about physical abuse: married fellows are like 25% bigger then the ladies they marry.
Often times she can't expect to dent us just because of our fat alone.

But mental abuse can be quite corrosive.
It can slowly crush anybody... and a marriage can provide a serious trap. Some fellows don't realize what had happened to them for years. And when they try to seek help, they hear things like "Man up!" and shit like that.

On the physical side, it goes to an interesting conundrum, I think.
Most regular fellows wont strike a lady.
Even if she slaps him. Even if she hits him.
It's part of our core upbringing.
It is the rare lady (I want to believe) that goes as far as that.
But think, for a fellow in that situation, he can't talk to his friends, usually. ("Man up, dude!&quot
Can't talk to the police. ("Man up, dude!&quot
Can't talk to his doctor...
Can't mention it to any lady he knows. ("Wuss! Man up!" or "He probably deserved it.&quot
If the cops take any action, they are likely to assume that he is the abuser and that she is just fighting back. ("You horrible person!&quot

We don't need some "Internalization day for fellows" thing.

I know any fellow that had to divorce his wife had issues that were quite serious.
Women who were abusive to their children.
Women who are control freaks.
Women who were mentally abusive.
Cheating.

You see?

Come on... let's go and start threads to deal with our real problems.

[Major Nikon]

52. I don't get it

Are you saying that because men get an extra 25 cents we just shut the fuck up about having far higher rates for murder, assault, suicide, and incarceration, even though pretty much all of that 25 cents is due to differences in productivity and choices?

[6502]

60. Interesting... yet...

I found your link... and a PDF did in fact show up.

The document is 93 pages long.

Hmmm.... you've already stated your contention and indicated that it's support could be found in this 93 page long document.

I will ask for one favor to help me along: Please tell me where is the reference in the document that supports your position?


No one should be expected to search though the document you present in search of the text that might support the position you proposed. That's unreasonable.

Clearly, because you sent the link, you must know where the reference is.

And no one could reasonably be expected to be able to read the document quickly enough and return to the thread to say what they think about what they read.

Not just me... but... we waiting now.

[Major Nikon]

65. You can get everything you need from page 1

However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public.

...

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. ...

So your 25 cents (actually 20.4 cents) just went down to 5 to 7 cents that can't be readily accounted for by choice. If you want to know the details, read the other 92 pages.

When you consider total compensation, rather than just wages, the gap becomes statistically meaningless.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. You're operating from stereotype.

Men aren't paid 25 cents more because we're men. If we can find work (men are more likely to be unemployed) we tend to choose the highest paying jobs regardless of other considerations (92% of all on the job fatalities are men). We also work more hours and take fewer days off. Once you normalize those factors, we're paid about 6 cents more, and some of that can be attributed to negotiating for salary.

Second, women are more likely to be physically violent. It is generally when that unilateral violence on her part escalates to reciprocal violence that she gets injured and the cops called.

We're poorly educated, in a bad state of health and increasingly depressed. Fixing those problems among men isn't a priority for progressives or conservatives.

Just because you don't see or understand all of the problems doesn't mean they are nonexistent.

... welcome to the group.

[6502]

61. You know... it's great that I'm a Liberal...

You see, a RW would just tell you that you're wrong and be completely impervious to real facts and data and successful peer reviewed research positions. (You know... like how Global Warming Deniers and Science Deniers do in the US).

But you see, you're lucky. I'm a total Liberal.

So, I don't believe your right...
... but the BIG difference is that because I am a Liberal, I will consider new information and make a determination of the presented information matches the position presented by the speaker... and then on top of that, it the position is valid at all.

You see how you're lucky?

Now, I'm going to make it clear: I think you've at best fallen for some made up stuff... or you're in denial of real issues with being a man. You might be confused.

A significant piece of evidence is not the math you present in your comment --- I find it dubious, but I am willing to see the source of your math... and how you applied it.

But really important is in the OP: The OP indicates that it is men who mostly die in wars... but says this without pointing out that virtually all wars in history are started by men.

Heck, that's like saying that most men die in bar fights, therefore we are oppressed or something.
The problem is that it's not like there are women who give the order and tells the fellows to beat each other up over one's choice of football team, is it?
No... it isn't.

But... I'm a Liberal.

So, I willing to see your evidence.
A typical Liberal is not impressed by any fancy math or contortions with numbers that have no references and nothing peer reviewed by respected educational institutions.

So... please come back with references.

Not just me... but we (everyone else that will see this thread) are all waiting.

[hrmjustin]

63. Are you trying to say your a liberal?

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Okay, here are the cites.

Men aren't paid 25 cents more because we're men. If we can find work (men are more likely to be unemployed) we tend to choose the highest paying jobs regardless of other considerations (92% of all on the job fatalities are men). We also work more hours and take fewer days off. Once you normalize those factors, we're paid about 6 cents more, and some of that can be attributed to negotiating for salary.

Second, women are more likely to be physically violent. It is generally when that unilateral violence on her part escalates to reciprocal violence that she gets injured and the cops called.

We're poorly educated, in a bad state of health and increasingly depressed. Fixing those problems among men isn't a priority for progressives or conservatives.

Given the fact that we're having this conversation, the last sentence should need no elaboration.

I may occasionally be an asshole. But I know this shit and I don't lie.

[6502]

69. I call BULLSHIT.

Yeah... really.

You are just grasping at all kinds of stuff and creating a fruit salad of shit to somehow support your real goal:

You want to somehow get people to accept the weird idea that there is no income inequality between men and women so that support for pay equality would appear unnecessary.

You see the kicker: most of us are married to ladies... have sisters... nieces... aunts.... moms.

We've heard all of the stories already.

And as fellas, we worked for or alongside the very bastards that stunted the careers of ladies.

Heck, President Obama (Yeah... remember him?... the one who won the election fair and square.),
he's using the government data to back up his experience and push for pay equality based on the very premise that women make $0.75 for every $1 a man makes.

And that's the rub... your premise is that the disparity does not exist.
The device being used here is to invalidate or weaken anything else that shines a light on the disparity.

And don't waste your time denying it.
That's what you're doing.

Plain and simple.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. You have instincts looking for a world view to justify them.

Like Don Quixote, you see yourself as a knight in shining armor riding to rescue lady fair from the dragon.

Being told that there is no dragon, and that shining armor comes in women's sizes too, is a big threat to your ego. You're welcome to call bullshit, but there is no data to back up your assertion. You're simply deluding yourself.

There is no wage gap, and IPV is mostly reciprocal. The part of IPV that is not reciprocal, is 70% unilateral violence by women.

Support for pay equality IS necessary, in fact, it's already the law. Employers who pay women less for the same work are subject to significant punishment. That is why we've reached parity.

If you believe that we need to eliminate a 25% imbalance, then you are supporting higher pay for women per hour worked, without regard to career, simply because they're women. Without forcing women to work more hours, or men to work less, there's no other way to make the math work.

And that's the rub... your premise is that the disparity does not exist.
The device being used here is to invalidate or weaken anything else that shines a light on the disparity.

And don't waste your time denying it.
That's what you're doing.

You're right, that's exactly what I'm doing. The disparity doesn't exist. And if you had read the link you'd know that the dragon was slain long ago. But it is entertaining and profitable to "ladies fair" to watch you and Pancho flail at the windmills.

on edit
I see you've been locked out of this thread, but if you don't like the Consad report (or the first page written by the labor department) then check out the report by the American Association of University Women, who conclude essentially the same thing; 7%.
http://www.aauw.org/GraduatetoaPayGap/upload/AAUWGraduatingtoaPayGapReport.pdf

See page 2.
Consider a hypothetical pair of graduates—one man and one woman—from the same university who majored in the same field. One year later, both were working full time, the same number of hours each week, in the same occupation and sector. Our analysis shows that despite these similarities, the woman would earn about 7 percent less than the man would earn. Why do women still earn less than men do after we control for education and employment differences?

[Major Nikon]

76. He's done in this thread

His anger got the best of him. It became readily apparent after one or two posts that he wasn't going to accept any evidence that runs counter to his world view regardless of source. The cite you just produced came from a woman's advocacy organization and echos Consad.

Basically all he had was duplicitous talking points intended for the consumption of the weak minded to serve the purposes of subterfuge.

[Major Nikon]

66. "virtually all wars in history are started by men"

Here's the female Senate roll call vote for the Iraq War resolution:

Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Susan Collins (R): Yes
Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Hillary Clinton (D): Yes
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Maria Cantwell (D): Yes

Barbara Boxer (D): No
Barbara Mikulski (D): No
Debbie Stabenow (D): No

[Gore1FL]

67. We can go back further in history than that.

Margaret Thatcher
Golda Meir
Elizabeth I
Cleopatra
Sammuramat
Joan of Arc
Isabella I
Amina
Mbande Nzinga
Catherine the Great
Sirimavo Bandaranaike
Indira Gandhi

[Warren Stupidity]

72. this sub-argument is ludicrous.

Here is an analogy: there existed black slave owners in the united states, therefore slave owning was not a racist cultural institution, and slavery was not a feature of the dominant white male culture of the era, nor is slavery and racism part of the cultural heritage of the still dominant white male culture of the united states.

None so blind as those wont see.

[Major Nikon]

73. Why do you almost always have to conflate sexism with racism to make your arguments?

It leads one to believe that you can't make your arguments without such conflations which means you really have no argument at all other than one against racism. You're simply throwing around false equivalencies that are childishly simple to debunk and all the while claiming everyone else is the one who is blind. While that behavior is a bit comical, after a while it becomes an annoyance.

[Upton]

74. You're equating the women of today with slaves?

Mostly university educated white women too, who come up with the talking points you love to recite..

Sure...okay..

[ElboRuum]

58. Wow, and to think I have been under these misapprehensions for years!!!

Looked at all the statistics, been privy both in the personal and philosophical of the reality that society finds me totally expendable, and come to grips with the reality that certain parts of our culture seems to think that once I stopped being a cute little baby, I've been nothing but trouble ever since.

But thank the maker that you're here to clearly explain why every observation I've ever made, every statistic I've ever analyzed, every ounce of philosophy and reason on the matter is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG!!! I was under the impression that inequities in any culture regardless of who they benefit or hurt was a real problem, a real stumbling block to the egalitarianism and humanism that we liberal types tend to support, but you've come and erased all of that silliness.

I sit here gobsmacked at the simplicity of it all, as though it had been raining my whole life and the sun finally shone through and illuminated the darkness.

But your promise... the promise of dealing with our real problems... oh, please, do tell, what are they? What are our real problems? I MUST KNOW!!!

Oh, and welcome to DU.

Since you are new here...

[6502]

59. Um... interesting...

You started your comment as if you had actually read my comment...
... and at end end ask me to list some problems we ought to be working on.

The hilarity of it all: You ask me to list things... but...
I listed those things in my comment.
How did you miss it?

Oh, but I have to keeping here...

I really appreciate that, unlike most people, YOU ACTUALLY READ THE COMMENT BEFORE COMMENTING.

And your analysis throughout your comment showed depth of thought.

And that you responded to my comment by bring real issues to the table without any snark.

My heart is so warmed by your demonstration of the best qualities of humans to:

* come together.
* recognize the real issues.

And of course, my heart is warmed for your thoughtful words and your total lack of sarcasm.

[ElboRuum]

62. I had read your comment...

Let me put it this way.

Your post was a snide little lecture.

"Come on... let's go and start threads to deal with our real problems."

Your list of so called problems are nothing more than things we've talked about here in jest and in seriousness off and on since the group formed. Sorry you missed them, but you are free to check out the older posts.

I have never seen anyone put forth such a display expecting to be taken at all seriously. Apparent first time poster coming in here with some kind of over-the-top stereotype and a boatload of supporting nonsense.

But hell, maybe you are for real, actually earnest in your desire to contribute. If so, I apologize for my brusqueness.

I wait with great anticipation your first OP in this group. I'm sure that under your keen intellectual leadership, we can stop discussing things that concern us and, instead, start discussing things that concern us.

I feel like we're on the precipice of something big here... I can feel it... I am awash in its positive energy... I hope it's not just a bad case of gas.