Ha! Sadly so often true

I think that the motivation behind it is very simple: no one gives a shit about what I go through, why should I give a shit what you go through?

I'm not saying it's right, but there is a twisted logic to it and there are certain societal factors at play that do make it seem true (like young boys being much more likely to be suspended or expelled from school).

Again, I'm not saying we should stop fighting for women's rights — rights for one are rights for all. I'm just saying, understanding instead of trivializing will be what leads all of us out of this mess.

Man here. It took me a lot of therapy and help to understand that my (or someone's) suffering doesn't mean less just because there are a lot of others who are suffering more.

I used to say crap like this too, if someone said 'X group of people have this problem'. I'd be like 'but Y has the same problem but to higher extent'. I didn't say it out of malice, at least I don't think so. lt was natural to think 'how can you be complaning about X when Y has the same problem but more'. Maybe I just believed that first you address the problem with bigger statistical number, then we do the smaller one after that and so on, but I dont know. I know now, that is a shitty way to think about things.

I guess it has something to do with how I was raised, 'your problems aren't that great, there are people with bigger problems and in comparison your life is a luxury. So chin up and carry on'. And I lived by it and parroted the same rhetoric for a long time. I believe most people (men?) do the same not out of malice but because of this shitty view of life and the world, because how they were raised, because how people told them how their problem can be ignored because someone else has a bigger problem. and they don't know any better. At least I didn't for a long time.

I like to think of most interactions as gender-less on Lemmy. I don't want to assume who I'm talking to.

So just to clarify, when you start talking about a subject, you don't want us to chip in with anything relevant. OK, got it.

And I think it's rather sexist of you to assume we're always thinking about football. If we assumed you were always thinking of housework we'd be it some right hot water.

That 1 gorilla

Female bears with no cubs to protect, practically docile.

Remember the bear clusterfuck? Lemmy is pretty bad in this regard.

I wonder why they come here, lemmy is essentially anti-cuckservative.

Came to say spiders.

Unless women learn to bring them outside and release them on the lawn... Then Im fucked.

Jesus people, why are Hexbears so scary? I'm not so in the loop.

Women could clone each other. Also 'no men' probably doesn't exclude all people capable of providing sperm. So I think if they were to mysteriously disappear we'd be ok.

Women don't need men to reproduce.

Naw. Wolves don't attack people.

Then humanity would have been extinct from the beginning. Women can't reproduce by fucking themselves or other women.

What's your source for that?

I'm reading this as crime rates would be reduced by 82%. Not 100%, but that's pretty damn good. And given that women are more likely to attack people they know, discord amoung your friend group or family would be more dangerous than walking in public.

So for some reason you're suggesting that women need men... to protect them from other women? I don't see anyone pretending that women are incapable of violence.

Absolutely crazy to see that 82% (e: whoops, binary thinking) 77% of violent offences are perpetrated by men and feel the need to remind people that 18% are commited by women.

Women also are more involved in the sexual assault of children than most people realize, but they are extremely underreported (due to patriarchal biases in our society, largely). Men still commit more offenses, but patriarchy is a double-edged sword in that it causes more women to be victimized and also protects female perpetrators of violence from punishment.

That said, men still commit much more violent crime and we should do better as a society to prevent that through social programs, education, etc.

let’s not pretend women never commit violent offences

Bro that’s a whole new sentence wtf are you talking about

The point was that in the modern day, pretty much 100% of the violence scenarios where women “need” a man in the equation to protect them, the source of the problem is another man.

I actually don’t agree with when the pendulum swings all the way to total misandry like “men are all the problem sources and even outside of physical-violence scenarios they aren’t really needed.” You need a balance. There is a hilarious article by someone who tried working in an all-female office and she found the experience intensely unpleasant and not at all like the post-gender feminist utopia that was advertised. But as far as I can tell, no one here was saying that that was the goal, or that women were never criminal or violent. Just that selling men as a vital solution to the problem of interpersonal physical violence is missing a crucial leap of logic.

18% reported.

Oh no. Get the men back, because women can't run a society?

I mean, to start with, throwing out a claim like that with no sources to back you up is not exactly arguing in good faith. It takes a lot more work to deny something when you're provided with exactly zero context on where or when this might be true (and it certainly isn't true in all countries at all times based on the data we have available).

There are some studies which suggest that lesbian couples do have a higher rate of domestic abuse. The CDC 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), for example reported that:

Four in 10 lesbian women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual women (61.1%), and 1 in 3 heterosexual women (35.0%) reported experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking within the context of an intimate partner relationship at least once during their lifetime (Table 3). This translates to an estimated 714,000 lesbian women, 2 million bisexual women, and 38.3 million heterosexual women in the United States. Bisexual women experienced significantly higher prevalence of these types of violence compared to lesbian and heterosexual women. (p. 18)

But it concluded that:

There were no statistically significant differences between the of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking when comparing lesbian women and heterosexual women.

This comes down to the fact that, as other commentors have alluded to, there are far fewer women overall in lesbian relationships compared with those in same-sex relationships. Even if the proportion of those suffering domestic abuse is slightly higher in lesbian relationships, there are far more women being abused in heterosexual relationships.

On top of this, it's important to remember that this percentage is from one survey undertaken in one country, and the reports that exist on lesbian spousal domestic abuse have statistics that vary wildly. The Wikipedia page on lesbian domestic abuse has a good summary of other difficulties in getting a clear picture of its prevalence:

Literature and research regarding domestic violence in lesbian relationships is relatively limited, including in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Many different factors play into this, such as "different definitions of domestic violence, non-random, self-selected and opportunistic sampling methods (often organisation or agency based, or advertising for participants who have experienced violence) and different methods and types of data collected". This causes results to be unreliable, thus making it difficult to make general assumptions about the rates of lesbian domestic violence. This has caused rates of violence in lesbian relationships to range from 17 to 73 percent as of the 1990s, being too large of a scale to accurately determine the pervasiveness of lesbian abuse in the community.

With regards to homicide, there is again the issue of when/where, plus the lack of detailed statistics. But the chapter on Intimate Partner Homicide in the Routledge Handbook of Homicide Studies (available to download here suggests that the rate of lesbian spousal homicides is in fact the lowest compared to those in heterosexual and gay male relationships:

Available statistics suggests that the rate of IPH [Intimate Partner Homicide] is the lowest in lesbian couples compared to IPH rates in gay and heterosexual couples (Gannoni & Cussen, 2014; Mize & Shackelford, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2019). (p. 179)

That's honestly all I have time to write right now. But in conclusion, no, what you're stating here isn't true, not at all.

Well I guess it is a good thing that married lesbian couples account for less that 1% of all marriages. And that violence against women isn't only in cases of spousal abuse. An interesting bit of information, do you have any that relate to this post?

Proof?

Aside from these not being representative of the populations, do you have a source?