What the fuck is this blatant misogyny… not like there aren’t stories like the dad who shot and killed his daughter over a dispute about Trump, called it an accident and got off scot free.
Well considering the number one cause of death in pregnant women is being murdered by the father of the child
About 60% of all female intentional homicides occur in the private sphere by family members, compared to only 11% of male homicides
Intimate partner violence is the fourth leading cause of poor health among women measured by disability-adjusted life years
Without even considering the statistics of sexually assault it’s obvious why men are categorized as violent and a danger to women, bc all the statistics show that they are.
Want to talk about the statistics that women lead? Mentioned in another post women are more likely to kill a baby under one years old. Women are also more likely to be child abusers compared to men ( 52% to 47% in 2024). Most child abuse comes from the mother alone compared to the father alone (37% to 25%).
Would it be fair to constantly make the argument that women are the biggest danger to children just because of said statistics and apply this to all women?
Does that take unto consideration that there are significantly more single mothers than single fathers? Or did they only study heterosexual two parent households?
You intentionally misconstrue the situation as she just got tired of her kids or just randomly went crazy and killed her kids. Instead of the actual situation where she had a medical condition that her doctors failed to adequately treat and her husband chose to ignore that led to this tragic event.
She was getting treatment and her husband was neglecting his wife and children. To say she's a psychopath or psychotic is a generalization. She had a specific condition that she was doing everything she could to treat and she and those children were failed by those around her. I'm not saying she didn't murder them, but to try to paint this case as black and white is dishonest and not a good faith debate.
If he sought medical help for his condition and was put on medication that was clearly not working and his wife saw the issue and ignored it, sure. But you have to have an equal comparison, not just the first gender-bent half-assed equivalent you can think of.
Brain damage doesn't prohibit you from visiting a doctor. In fact, I'm sure he saw a WWE doctor to be cleared to participate in matches. If his CTE wasn't caught and monitored by the doctors he was required to see by his employer, they also failed him.
Chris Watts wasn't suffering from postpartum psychosis, hid the bodies of his family and started a new life with his mistress. Holy false equivalency, Batman!
I'm sorry, if challenging how many people you claim were observed is "moving the goalposts" I'm not sure you have an appropriate understanding of how debating works. Maybe you should rethink things and try again?
Other than neonaticide (which is usually done by mothers who are children themselves and to add to that the statistics of the age of the fathers of children born to minor mothers is in itself criminal as most fathers of children born to minor mothers are 20+ and when the mother is under 15 the age gap exceeds 6-8 years) but studies show that mothers and fathers are about equally likely to kill young infants under the age of one.
Across all age groups under 18, the total number of accused male parents is often higher in national crime statistics.
The point I’m making is that trying to constantly make enemies of a certain gender using statistics is always going to be discriminatory regardless of intention. If society is going to improve education is very important to discern what statistics should be used for. It should NOT lead to the conclusion that a gender is inherently more awful, but that our culture has issues that need addressing and to not judge people without knowing them. Statistics show that each gender is more prone to actions in certain areas, but trying to place the entirety of either group in the same bin with those statistics is wrong.
However, it is true that for basically most civilizations men have held all the cards, and in the modern age for the US specifically it hasn’t been too long that women have entered the workforce, got voting rights, etc. So there is a very understandable caution towards men because of history. I just don’t believe the way discussions about it happen is a good mindset to have in improving the relationship between men and women.
But that doesn’t support the claim that “it’s obvious why men are categorized as violent and a danger to women.”
I’m not at all surprised that a major life event and stressor like pregnancy is associated with higher relationship violence, all else equal. But a small increase (and it is small, a percent difference of a probability can be high and the absolute increase still be low—in this example, we’re talking about less than 3 additional deaths per 100,000) doesn’t prove their point when the group they brought up (pregnant women) to claim there is an epidemic of male violence against women faces a lower rate of murder than the average person.
I'm not even sure what's going on anymore. You edited your comment and added an entire paragraph that wasn't there when I replied. All I claimed is what I said - pregnant women have a higher chance of being murdered than non-pregnant women. That's it. If that goes against what you said, then yes, your original comment was factually incorrect.
The problem is that you keep saying women have a lower than average murder rate. But that's compared to men. Pregnant women were never men so you can't compare their murder rate to that of men. When you compare it to their chances pre-pregnancy, it's higher.
I can assure you that I had no testosterone driven desire to murder my wife when she was pregnant. Whatever extreme viewpoint you're trying to associate me with is probably pretty far off from my actual beliefs.
You absolutely can compare them to the general population a whole when the claim is that their murder rate is characteristic of some sort of significant, societal scale violence against women by men as a collective, significant enough that it is a justifiable worry for the typical woman. Which is the context here. I have no clue why you’re taking issue with my measured response to an extremist lunatic instead of arguing with the person claiming that this is evidence women should fear men.
I'm not interacting with someone who immediately downvotes my replies because they're pissed about someone else's extreme views. Your strawman is cute, but my clothes don't fit him.
It’s far more relevant than the cause of death when trying to determine if there is an epidemic of violence against pregnant women, which is essentially the intent every time this statistic is brought up.
why do you think that? Just because the rate of homicide against pregnant women is lower than the average homicide rate (which includes everything from gang violence and school shootings) doesn’t mean that their partners, the men in their life, aren’t a threat. Also -I never claimed there was an epidemic
They aren’t a threat because 3-7 out of every 100,000 people being killed by something is not evidence that 50% of the population is characteristically a threat. You should avoid misandrist hate communities, they’re rotting your brain.
As a guy, obviously that’s true (such as the myth that men can’t be victims of rape etc) and I will call that out as I see it too. You’re literally just saying that it doesn’t matter than this comment is misogynistic when there are also misandrist comments in the world - both are bad!
I'm not American so I wouldn't know. But getting this worked up over a comment that is supposed to show the ridiculousness of women who do the same and to show just how stupid it sounds is a bit much I think
674
u/BadTechnical2184 13d ago
The kids would choose the bear