yeah, the middle ages is apparently completely ignored as is the European settlement of North and South America
Everything you know is wrong: the modern decline in violence
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
yeah, the middle ages is apparently completely ignored as is the European settlement of North and South America
what? every man is bound to beat his wife? Really? Destined? Exaggerate much?
I said it was legal for them to do it. I didn't say every man did it
So obviously men would be beating their wives had those laws not been in place? It's in a man's nature to wish to beat his wife?
I'm simply saying its interesting that we understand hitting a woman is wrong and therefor illegal but hitting an immensely more dependent small helpless child who had no say in their relationship with their parent is legal and for some, correct behavior. Even though all the evidence points to the fact hitting children interrupts the higher-learning processes, reduces IQ, and overall only achieves Pavlovian reflex-like compliance. Think of how appalled people would be if an employer did this to their employee. Yeah, I had to discipline Betty she forgot to add sugar to a customers coffee. I noticed that since I beat this shit out of her, she hasn't made that mistake again. I noted that as Jim the manager, a 6'8" 250 lb barrel chested man screamed in her face and made her feel ashamed and insignificant, small and scared and started bawling her eyes out... well, she hasn't come in late again.
The solution is pretty simple, seek counseling and find out what is the underlying reasons are and deal with those. You'll probably find she wasn't properly parented like most everyone else. As an example, there's some evidence that a low number of adjectives in ones vocabulary can result in poor memory storage (language as theory of mind) making this individual susceptible to depression. Finding the reason WHY a wife or husband is emotional abusive may be difficult but might not be impossible with self reflection and therapy. And, ultimately you can divorce.
Mennonites are one of, if not the, historic peace churches due to their total commitment to pacifism and opposition to war and violence. I read about a Mennonite community in the USA that had no record of violent crime at all. Incidentally, they don't hit their children. The concept doesn't exist in the minds of those children as they grow up and reach adulthood. Instead children are spoken to rationally and lovingly. This is the language they learn and, apparently, the type of consciousness that develops. One could think, the type of human. One very different from most of America.
Yet, most men loose battle in courts for rights to their own children. And only some do win.
Do you not see the growing inequality between sexes?
No, I don't see that, but then my ex gave me our son free and clear as long as he didn't have to pay child support. He picked which was more important to him.
And, what on earth does this have to do with the supposed decline in violence???
Oh how progressive, rational and loving you say? No violence you say? yeah you might as well claim they aren't human! Also some Mennonites forgo modern convince like modern medicine for the children.
What I'm saying its amazing we gone that far! 200 hundred years ago beating a women or a child was perfectly acceptable, so was beating your slave! Perhaps someday spanking will be illegal in the USA as well.
Correlation is not causation: it could be that only stupid people spank thus producing stupid children genetically and not stupid because they were spanked. Also what is wrong with reflexive? If your 4 year old child throws quarters into a fan what wrong with making it reflexive that they don't do that? If your 6 year old leaves a gate open so that her little brother falls down the stairs and knocks out his teeth, what wrong with making it reflexive the she closes the gate? Unlike adults some children are too young to be reasoned with or to implement non-physical negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement to achieve the desires result, more so unlike adults children are ignorant enough to do things that are supremely dangerous to themselves and others. I just don't see it as nearly as wrong to hit a child to correct extreme misbehavior or when other parenting techniques fail, verse beating a grown women or abusing an adult.
Last edited:
Agreed. Women win custody cases more often. This may be because men are physically abusive more often.
The sexes have never been close to equal. However, with time, their _legal_ rights are becoming more similar.
Answer:
you just said previously that most men are not violent towards their women, yet now you say that men are physically abusive more often. Make up your mind who's side you are on, pal.
That's my point, they are not becoming more similar, the law prefers women in court, it is obvious. The so called declined in violence has created a way of creating new scapegoats for everything in law world, men. Think my words are rubbish? show me statistics of men winning in courts vs women winning in courts. How is this tied with violence? Everything goes through court, before someone is indicted of the crime they have commited.
Well your ex has no business being a parent if he just sold his son for a chance to not pay child support. So I am glad the son is with you. Am I like him? No. I would have fought until the end of my own life to have the rights to my own child.
"Research spanning over 40 years has, however, consistently found that men and women self-report perpetrating domestic violence at similar rates."
it just men are usually bigger and thus less likely to get hurt, that and social pressure is on men to not report that a women is beating on them and that society usually thinks they are too pussy to just shut up and take it like a man!
Which is why gun control is the issue. I replied here in trepidation at the thought of derailment, but that was the point.
I'm not going to pursue it.
Correct.
Yes. "More often" does not equal "most."
Blacks are, statistically, more likely to be involved in crimes than whites in the US. That does not mean "most blacks are criminals."
100 years ago women didn't even have the right to vote. 40 years ago a woman could not go after her husband for rape anywhere in the US. 20 years ago there were still a few states where a woman could be raped by her husband and have no right to legal protection.
I'd say the courts have been so far on the rights of men for so long, it's good to see some balance being returned.
A violent man will have almost zero chance of winning a custody battle - which is how it should be.
Perception of violence can also have an element of subjectivity. For example, a high school football player will not see a good hit as a form of violence that needs to be exorcised by nanny law. Someone who does not play the sport, may project their fears and pains. They will see the same thing differently. As America culture got feminized, the little things now seems worse, because the collective psyche no longer reflects male perception to the same degree.
As an example, a couple has two sons. One son, the dad trains to be rough and tumble. He is told to try tough things, take risks and if he fall and gets hurt, walk it off. The other son is totally sheltered by his mother, who over empathizes to the nth degree. If he bumps his toe, she will fuss for hours and run to the emergency room. As the two sons grow up and look at the same event, which one will think it is worse than it is, and which less worse than it is? You can condition people to over react or under react.
If I see someone get cut, especially a child, that will bother me. It hurts me more than it did them. If I get cut, it is not so bad to me since the pain is small and controllable. I asked myself, where is the disconnect coming from, since I should be extrapolating my own lack of pain instead of amplifying the other persons pain, since I do not know the other person's pain threshold. Imagination fills in the difference. Even if the other person says they are fine I will still feel extra pain for them. This is similar to what we have today.
A good experiment would be for someone who is against spanking to have someone give them a spanking; couple of whacks. This would allow one to collect real data and not rely on their conditioned perception.
As an example, a couple has two sons. One son, the dad trains to be rough and tumble. He is told to try tough things, take risks and if he fall and gets hurt, walk it off. The other son is totally sheltered by his mother, who over empathizes to the nth degree. If he bumps his toe, she will fuss for hours and run to the emergency room. As the two sons grow up and look at the same event, which one will think it is worse than it is, and which less worse than it is? You can condition people to over react or under react.
If I see someone get cut, especially a child, that will bother me. It hurts me more than it did them. If I get cut, it is not so bad to me since the pain is small and controllable. I asked myself, where is the disconnect coming from, since I should be extrapolating my own lack of pain instead of amplifying the other persons pain, since I do not know the other person's pain threshold. Imagination fills in the difference. Even if the other person says they are fine I will still feel extra pain for them. This is similar to what we have today.
A good experiment would be for someone who is against spanking to have someone give them a spanking; couple of whacks. This would allow one to collect real data and not rely on their conditioned perception.
However an overwhelming majority of men are not violent. Yet, they loose in court to women.
Yes in past women had no legal rights in court, but who says that much more men did not die during work striving for their rights or their families of which women were part of?
Back 100 years ago, courts were a joke, a Wild West no truth to the accusation jury. Most "real" courts were between people of the cities, who took law into their own hands. And please tell me who suffered the most in such peoples' courts? Men, they took the most risk.
What equality are you speaking of?
Oh really? Those are noble words, but what do they amount to exactly? Is being hurt yourself emotionally strong enough to "feel the pain of the child" going to help that child?