Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841



It's messed up things like this happen so often. And I think this has definitely a misogynist component. The history between those two sounds exactly like what is often excused with "boys will be boys"...

"The Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit organisation that compiles data on gun violence in the US, says 559 children aged 11 or under have been killed or injured in the United States in gun violence so far this year." (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org).

559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this?

HOW THE **** DOES AN 11 YR OLD HAVE ACCESS TO A SHOTGUN

( i was 12)

but seriously even for an 11 year old that is a stupid reason to shoot a 8 year old girl

She should have stayed in the kitchen.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841



It's messed up things like this happen so often. And I think this has definitely a misogynist component. The history between those two sounds exactly like what is often excused with "boys will be boys"...

"The Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit organisation that compiles data on gun violence in the US, says 559 children aged 11 or under have been killed or injured in the United States in gun violence so far this year." (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org).

559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this?

Absolutely awful.

More awful than you bringing up misogyny (seriously, what the hell, man), but yeah...

Poor kid.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Absolutely awful.

More awful than you bringing up misogyny (seriously, what the hell, man), but yeah...

Poor kid.

Yeah, talking about very real problems that lead to so much violence against girls and women is almost as bad as a girl being shot. Don't be ridiculous.

And of course this played a huge part in this, it's exactly what feminists talk about, male entitlement leading to violence against girls and women. The boy thought she has to show him her puppy or else. Being silent about it is just stupid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, talking about very real problems that lead to so much violence against girls and women is almost as bad as a girl being shot. Don't be ridiculous.

And of course this played a huge part in this, it's exactly what feminists talk about, male entitlement leading to violence against girls and women. The boy thought she has to show him her puppy or else. Being silent about it is just stupid.

Or he was just a child that hadn't developed common sense yet.

Seriously dude, way over the line. It's an awful tragedy, and you trying to colour it with this kind of... I don't even know the word.

Just seems in really bad taste to me. You don't agree, fine by me.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Or he was just a child that hadn't developed common sense yet.

Seriously dude, way over the line. It's an awful tragedy, and you trying to colour it with this kind of... I don't even know the word.

Just seems in really bad taste to me. You don't agree, fine by me.

No, he was a child that has grown up in a society that doesn't respect women and sends him messages that they have to do what he wants.

Of course I don't agree, I in fact find the opposite, I find it sick of you to pretend it doesn't play a part, it's exactly like Republicans going on television to distract from gun control by blaming mental illness.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he was a child that has grown up in a society that doesn't respect women and sends him messages that they have to do what he wants.

Of course I don't agree, I in fact find the opposite, I find it sick of you to pretend it doesn't play a part, it's exactly like Republicans going on television to distract from gun control by blaming mental illness.

I guess that's that then. shrug

Originally posted by -Pr-
I guess that's that then. shrug

Sure.

---

"He was making fun of her, calling her names, just being mean to her. "

Again, this is exactly the kind of stuff that happens all the time, and is often met with bullshit like "that means he likes you". Screw that, we need to teach boys that it is not alright to treat girls like that. It's not cutesy when it's just that, and it does lead to rampant violence against women.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, talking about very real problems that lead to so much violence against girls and women is almost as bad as a girl being shot. Don't be ridiculous.

And of course this played a huge part in this, it's exactly what feminists talk about, male entitlement leading to violence against girls and women. The boy thought she has to show him her puppy or else. Being silent about it is just stupid.

While I definitively see this angle, bad parenting gives all kind of kids a concept of self-entitlement that can explain this as well. We can agree that a little girl will be less inclined to weapon up and shoot because of gender roles, but mysoginy is still a strong word to describe that difference.

People also get objectified without the gender angle.

Originally posted by Bentley
While I definitively see this angle, bad parenting gives all kind of kids a concept of self-entitlement that can explain this as well. We can agree that a little girl will be less inclined to weapon up and shoot because of gender roles, but mysoginy is still a strong word to describe that difference.

People also get objectified without the gender angle.

I think misogyny is the correct word to describe it. And like I said in the original post there's many contributing factors, and possibly many solutions. But the one of widespread misogyny seems very apparent to me here, it's like a textbook case.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think misogyny is the correct word to describe it. And like I said in the original post there's many contributing factors, and possibly many solutions. But the one of widespread misogyny seems very apparent to me here, it's like a textbook case.

What it's clear is that you've learned from TI about reading things that aren't in the article

As I mentioned in my first post, you are probably right, but I can only reply to that as an intuition. We don't care about what happened in this particular instance (as the only particulars are given by the mom of the victim, hardly a neutral part), but in the general case of violence between children, which cannot truly evaluated without some number crunching.

How many little girls are killers (of other girls or boys) when compared with the amount of young murderers? How much of a percentage of the kills acheived by boys are against females? With those numbers we can try to draw some conclusions, but the rest would be educated guesses at best.

Originally posted by Bentley
What it's clear is that you've learned from TI about reading things that aren't in the article

As I mentioned in my first post, you are probably right, but I can only reply to that as an intuition. We don't care about what happened in this particular instance (as the only particulars are given by the mom of the victim, hardly a neutral part), but in the general case of violence between children, which cannot truly evaluated without some number crunching.

How many little girls are killers (of other girls or boys) when compared with the amount of young murderers? How much of a percentage of the kills acheived by boys are against females? With those numbers we can try to draw some conclusions, but the rest would be educated guesses at best.

While I do appreciate that "you are like TI" has become the insult du jour on the forum, I have quoted what I believe to be the parts of the article that support my reading of the sitution.


And sure, lets do that: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

Murder offenders by gender between the ages of 0-16 in the US in the year 2011.

Female: 29
Male: 308

Literally a magnitude higher. But I'm sure there's no gender issue.

I did say there was a gender issue, my reading was that it's not related to mysoginy. The number you brought pretty much backs up my notion (that guns are perceived to be "for boys", but doesn't justify any mysoginy claims by itself.

Unless your point is that young girls should get equal access to guns?

The actual relevant numbers for the mysoginy claim is that whether girls are the preferred target of children killings.

Originally posted by Bentley
I did say there was a gender issue, my reading was that it's not related to mysoginy. The number you brought pretty much backs up my notion (that guns are perceived to be "for boys", but doesn't justify any mysoginy claims by itself.

Unless your point is that young girls should get equal access to guns?

The actual relevant numbers for the mysoginy claim is that whether girls are the preferred target of children killings.

The fact that girls and women are predominantly victims of domestic violence and domestic killings is the statistical support for the claim. This story is only an anecdotal addition to the misogyny based violence.

And that's not the actual relevant number. The relevant number is for what reasons girls are killed vs. what reasons boys are killed. Because you have to factor out, for example, gang killings which are not gender motivated.

So there's two issues, boys are taught to be more violent and boys are taught to not value girls and women as people as much. These work together and both should be addressed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And that's not the actual relevant number. The relevant number is for what reasons are girls killed.


Glad we agree that much more in depth analysis is necessary to claim this is mysogynist. There was nothing evident pushing us to the gender violence narrative other than the example of violence between genders on a later age. This goes to dismiss children violence as a mere extension of it's adult counterpart.

Is there a problem of violence against women? Obviously. Is the gender male stereotype to blame in most cases? Certainly.

Are we using mysogynism as a blanket word for crimes against females? Because maybe that's the thing I misunderstood. I don't go assuming that because violence against woman happens in a macho society the crime will have a mysogynistic motivation by default. By sheer numbers, violence against women has to happen.

I was thinking mysogynism was more of an objectification process that discards women as subpeople or something akin to that?

Originally posted by Bentley
Glad we agree that much more in depth analysis is necessary to claim this is mysogynist. There was nothing evident pushing us to the gender violence narrative other than the example of violence between genders on a later age.

I was thinking mysogynism was more of an objectification process that discards women as subpeople or something akin to that?

Obviously I do not agree with this at all.

Yes that is sort of correct, of course it's more complicated, but I believe this process which is very common in western society is a large factor in this killing and many other killings of women. Again, the boys behaviour previous to the shooting as described by the article has been a very common behaviour of boys towards girl that is condoned by misogynist society rather than worked against.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously I do not agree with this at all.

Yes that is sort of correct, of course it's more complicated, but I believe this process which is very common in western society is a large factor in this killing and many other killings of women. Again, the boys behaviour as described by the article has been a very common behaviour of boys towards girl that is condoned by misogynist society rather than worked against.


Ok, I see where you're going with that. It's probably hard to portray it as a problem related with child killings because these behaviours can have consequences at a much later age or give emotional scars. So yes, I agree these activities can be linked with later crimes and domestic violence, I was just under the impresion that those weren't immediate to the topic at hand (my confusion might come from your comment coming from the OP).

Hmm, I guess what I was trying to make the topic in the OP is for posters to talk about what issues they feel contribute to the very common gun violence in the US and what solutions they think would work.

I for my part added misogyny as one of the problems I think contribute to it, and that I think a part-solution is to not condone violent behaviour, excessively competitive behaviour, and disrespectful behaviour towards women particularly by young boys.

You can of course add your own opinions of what contributes.

he is an 11 year old boy who evidently has temper issues not sapped out of him through his face ( i usualls endorse ass whacking thou)

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
She should have stayed in the kitchen.

where else would she get the knives to protect herself and that puppy


Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure.

---

"He was making fun of her, calling her names, just being mean to her. "

Again, this is exactly the kind of stuff that happens all the time, and is often met with bullshit like "that means he likes you". Screw that, we need to teach boys that it is not alright to treat girls like that. It's not cutesy when it's just that, and it does lead to rampant violence against women.

wrong it means he is a jerk who needs to be dealt with. if he was 6 years old and calling names, he would be chided by the parents. 8 years old and doing what he is, he would be disciplined. 11 years old is enough to know guns make a serious mess of people but if he had continued without the gun he would be smacked by another adult for picking on a 8 year old girl. for christ sakes no one in therir right mind would say "its because he likes you" at that age

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier

wrong it means he is a jerk who needs to be dealt with. if he was 6 years old and calling names, he would be chided by the parents. 8 years old and doing what he is, he would be disciplined. 11 years old is enough to know guns make a serious mess of people but if he had continued without the gun he would be smacked by another adult for picking on a 8 year old girl. for christ sakes no one in therir right mind would say "its because he likes you" at that age

That'd be nice if true, sadly the reality is that people are much more lax when it comes to things like that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I guess what I was trying to make the topic in the OP is for posters to talk about what issues they feel contribute to the very common gun violence in the US and what solutions they think would work.

I for my part added misogyny as one of the problems I think contribute to it, and that I think a part-solution is to not condone violent behaviour, excessively competitive behaviour, and disrespectful behaviour towards women particularly by young boys.

You can of course add your own opinions of what contributes.

misogyny is related to violence itself, guns are an instrument as wel as fists and glass and knives. you are focusing on guns a little to powerfully here but i get what you are on about.

the access to guns in this case is the problem as well as bullying/ abuse/ harrasment. gun violence more so likely due to as i have said before "access" , look at australia i am not saying we are perfect but look at our gun related deaths since the howard government put in strict gun laws

its the fact that a kid blew the brains out of a god damn little girl over a stupid "issue" that is the problem, the extremes he was willing to go to show there is a problem as well as the history of his being abusive

Originally posted by Bardock42
That'd be nice if true, sadly the reality is that people are much more lax when it comes to things like that.

amen, i get if you don't want to hurt your kids or "let boys be boys" but if that child doesnt respect that actions have consequences of **** arse around then that is bad parenting that will end in disaster

You could probably give tax incentives to people who declare that they own a gun and live with a child. That way you can both encourage breeding and gun owning while appealing to the safety sentiment of the population.

hey bentley i have a question

i was talking to an american mate who said guns are a big part of the american culture, not just because of the second ammenment but because america was founded by rebels against rule britannia and guns have made there way into the social values of the americal culture


do you believe that this is the case ?

It would surprise me if that was the case.

For me the gun culture in America thrives because the US are a prosperous country as a whole, at least when it comes to historical living standards. Some unexplainable cultural traits are set in stone because prosperity allows it, a good example would be the British royalty existing to this day after most monarchies in Europe crumbled.

i take it you are refering to prosperous as a whole element ( wealth, family, social... ect)

so maybe after the unexplainable trait has just set the socially ok idea of owning a gun(s)?
i can see that

gun related violence
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Number of Deaths 10,093

i personally think the access to guns is the problem with this incident. possibly misogyny like bardock has been claiming but i honestly thing this kid would do the same to an 8 year old boy if he also previously bullied and harrassed him like he did the girl

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841



It's messed up things like this happen so often. And I think this has definitely a misogynist component. The history between those two sounds exactly like what is often excused with "boys will be boys"...

"The Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit organisation that compiles data on gun violence in the US, says 559 children aged 11 or under have been killed or injured in the United States in gun violence so far this year." (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org).

559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this? Originally posted by -Pr-
Or he was just a child that hadn't developed common sense yet.

Seriously dude, way over the line. It's an awful tragedy, and you trying to colour it with this kind of... I don't even know the word.

Just seems in really bad taste to me. You don't agree, fine by me.
I think Bardock is right, at least in principle. Male entitlement as cause for this murder is a legitimate theory; this isn't necessarily just "the boy was a jerk, and that says nothing about our society as a whole."

That's too simplistic an explanation, I think.

Hey OP. at least wait till your second post before you start diminishing your own topic for the sake of self gratifying fedora-tipping..

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Hey OP. at least wait till your second post before you start diminishing your own topic for the sake of self gratifying fedora-tipping..

I suppose splitting it into two posts, one for the news, one for opinion, might have been a good idea. It's definitely not standard etiquette on this forum however.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he was a child that has grown up in a society that doesn't respect women and sends him messages that they have to do what he wants.

Of course I don't agree, I in fact find the opposite, I find it sick of you to pretend it doesn't play a part, it's exactly like Republicans going on television to distract from gun control by blaming mental illness.






...and heeeere we go again. Yet another pointless thread about gun control. Republicans aren't "distracting" from anything, dude. They're exactly right about mental illness playing a part in these tragedies. You won't see a sane person who isn't filled with hate going out and shooting up a school full of kids. It's democrats who keep stupidly blaming guns for those types of tragedies instead of the people who actually committ them. They're so intent on trying to convince people that guns are bad that they ignore the fact that if these "gun free" zones were allowed to at least have armed security then tragedies like those in ORegon could be prevented. Democrats are the ones doing the distracting, idiot.


I understand though that you have this unjustified hate for republicans (because they are actually true Americans;unlike demos) and are quick to blame everything on them just like most of the people on this forum do.

If only the girl had a gun herself, this horrible tragedy could have been avoided.

Originally posted by Star428



...and heeeere we go again. Yet another pointless thread about gun control. Republicans aren't "distracting" from anything, dude. They're exactly right about mental illness playing a part in these tragedies. You won't see a sane person who isn't filled with hate going out and shooting up a school full of kids. It's democrats who keep stupidly blaming guns for those types of tragedies instead of the people who actually committ them. They're so intent on trying to convince people that guns are bad that they ignore the fact that if these "gun free" zones were allowed to at least have armed security then tragedies like those in ORegon could be prevented. Democrats are the ones doing the distracting, idiot.


I understand though that you have this unjustified hate for republicans (because they are actually true Americans;unlike demos) and are quick to blame everything on them just like most of the people on this forum do.

It's interesting, I get some flack for not blaming this on gun control enough on the one hand and then on the other for blaming it on gun control to much. At any rate, if you read the thread you'll notice I was talking about other contributing factors and solutions outside of controlling guns.

As for Republican politicians only caring about mental health in order to divert from discussions about gun control (it also makes a great larger point, so definitely worth a watch):

NGY6DqB1HX8

Shotgun should've been locked away in a gun safe. That is negligence on the shotgun owner too.

Exactly. Certain people (since I"m not allowed to say what they are anymore; starts with an "L" love to shift the blame onto anyone or anything besides those who are actually responsible. They blame a gun or they blame a certain flag. LMAO.

Tragic, but did you absolutely have to bring up horseshit gender politics?

Originally posted by Star428
Exactly. Certain people (since I"m not allowed to say what they are anymore; starts with an "L" love to shift the blame onto anyone or anything besides those who are actually responsible. They blame a gun or they blame a certain flag. LMAO. They aren't blaming the gun. They aren't saying people who commit murder aren't responsible for their own actions or that they don't need to be dealt with by the law.

Most people aren't saying guns are at fault or the actions of the person that chose to use it.

What people are doing is looking that pros and cons of gun ownership and realizing just how much a gun plays into helping spread the violence. Statistically countries with higher gun regulations have lower gun related crime and no rise in other types of crime. Studies have shown homes with guns are more dangerous to live in and are more likely to have their residents become of the victims of gun tragedy.

I mean ultimately the person is responsible but allowing easier access to guns makes their intentions much easier to perform. It's much easier to kill more people with a firearm than a knife or a rock or a bow and arrow.

So no people are not saying it's the gun's fault. They are saying is the pros of lighter gun regulation worth of the risk of higher gun violence. Which is a good topic to discuss. One I happen to lean on the side of tighter gun regulation and control.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Tragic, but did you absolutely have to bring up horseshit gender politics?

No, of course I could have pretended that it doesn't play a part, would have been more comfortable for everyone, albeit wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, of course I could have pretended that it doesn't play a part, would have been more comfortable for everyone, albeit wrong.

Well, what sort of part did it play in this particular incident? And don't tell me it's because he was "calling her names" and picking on her. It's called bullying and kids do it to eachother all the time. Boys do it other boys, girls do it other girls(and quite viciously, might I add), boys do it girls and, yes, girls do it boys.

Until I see solid prove otherwise, I'll just assume this kid was just another sociopathic little shit with serious entitlement/parenting issues.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Well, what sort of part did it play in this particular incident? And don't tell me it's because he was "calling her names" and picking on her. It's called bullying and kids do it to eachother all the time. Boys do it other boys, girls do it other girls(and quite viciously, might I add), boys do it girls and, yes, girls do it boys.

Until I see solid prove otherwise, I'll just assume this kid was just another sociopathic little shit with serious entitlement/parenting issues.

Sure, you can assume what you want. I'll assume that the widespread misogyny, supported by the exact behaviour towards girls that people point out as one of outgrowth of that, played a large part.

Btw, most people who kill others, or who perform violent acts, do not suffer from mental illness, even if it is an easy and comfortable lie to tell ourselves to not address real issues.

There's still no proof misogyny has anything to do with this case.

Well, if the only proof that's accepted is an 11 year old saying "Yes, I'm a misogynist and that's why I did that" I guess we won't get it, but going by his behaviour and the way misogyny manifests in our societies it's pretty obvious.

It's not like the boy shot her because she didn't want to make him a sandwich or refused to wash his underwear. In fact, there's nothing strictly misogynist in the kid's behaviour.

He was just a run-of-the-mill bully until he got the shotgun.

A kid using a shotgun to solve a problem indicates to me that he has mental or emotional problems. A mentally healthy person would not resort to that solution. I was 11 once, and something like that would never cross my mind. I would take a look at the parenting first to see if it may have contributed to that child's issues.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
A kid using a shotgun to solve a problem indicates to me that he has mental or emotional problems. A mentally healthy person would not resort to that solution. I was 11 once, and something like that would never cross my mind. I would take a look at the parenting first to see if it may have contributed to that child's issues.

It would be great if it was only people with mental and emotional problems. Sadly the vast majority of violence is not perpetrated by people that fit the category. It's a really scary though, it's "normal" people, people like you and me that in the right circumstances do these awful inhumane things. People with mental illness on the other hand are no more likely to do such things, on the contrary they are more likely to be victims of violence.

I blame this on poor parenting more then anything else. In one of those cases the adults had loaded weapons on top of a picnic table and a kid just picked one up and fired it. Seriously wtf? This is why sterilizing people should be a legit form of punishment.

Though at this point I saw nothing to say he shot the girl because he hates women or anything like that.

Originally posted by Surtur

Though at this point I saw nothing to say he shot the girl because he hates women or anything like that.

That is obviously not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a societal misogyny that teaches boys and men to disrespect women and instills an entitlement to their time, attention, bodies, puppies, in them contributed to this happening. Like perhaps bad parenting, like most likely negligent gun ownership, like perhaps a lack of gun control, like a culture of glorifying violence, etc. etc.

It's hard to say if this wouldn't of been done had it been a boy that did what the girl apparently did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is obviously not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a societal misogyny that teaches boys and men to disrespect women and instills an entitlement to their time, attention, bodies, puppies, in them contributed to this happening. Like perhaps bad parenting, like most likely negligent gun ownership, like perhaps a lack of gun control, like a culture of glorifying violence, etc. etc.




LMAO. So now your criticizing our culture too. You Europeans need to get the **** off your high horse. You're no better than we are.

Originally posted by Star428
LMAO. So now your criticizing our culture too. You Europeans need to get the **** off your high horse. You're no better than we are.

I never said Europeans are better than Americans. Definitely not in the way I've been criticising our cultures.

I think one thing that might confuse kids about misogyny is the fact it is not just perpetrated by men.

Originally posted by Star428
LMAO. So now your criticizing our culture too. You Europeans need to get the **** off your high horse. You're no better than we are. What's wrong with him potentially pointing out serious faults within our culture?

I'm not saying this tragedy happened because of the reasons Bardock stated but the fact it is feasible given our culture is pretty sad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, you can assume what you want. I'll assume that the widespread misogyny, supported by the exact behaviour towards girls that people point out as one of outgrowth of that, played a large part.

Btw, most people who kill others, or who perform violent acts, do not suffer from mental illness, even if it is an easy and comfortable lie to tell ourselves to not address real issues.

Until the kid says something to the effect of, "That stupid girl wouldn't show me her puppy so I shot her. Girls are supposed to do what boys tell them to do!" I'll assume that it was more or less a case of garden variety bullying gone tragically wrong. And, frankly, I think my assumption will end up being the correct me. Still, we're both just assuming at this point.

I don't wish to open up the huge can of worms that mental illness can be, but I think there's a difference between crimes of passion(ex.: coming home and finding your spouse in bed with someone else) and crimes for material gain(ex.: killing someone for money and thinking you'll get away with it.) and killing someone else because they wouldn't show you their dog. In fact, some people would argue that even the first two examples are indicative of some sort of mental illness.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is obviously not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a societal misogyny that teaches boys and men to disrespect women and instills an entitlement to their time, attention, bodies, puppies, in them contributed to this happening. Like perhaps bad parenting, like most likely negligent gun ownership, like perhaps a lack of gun control, like a culture of glorifying violence, etc. etc.

You know what society and pop culture teaches people? That women are non-expendable, that rape is an absolutely abominable crime, ladies get in the lifeboat first, etc. Hell, even the tired 'Damsel in distress' trope that's been so popular until very recently places a very high value on women's lives. This shit isn't as simple as you would like it be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure.

---

"He was making fun of her, calling her names, just being mean to her. "

Again, this is exactly the kind of stuff that happens all the time, and is often met with bullshit like "that means he likes you". Screw that, we need to teach boys that it is not alright to treat girls like that. It's not cutesy when it's just that, and it does lead to rampant violence against women.
Pussy.

kid has issues or isnt smart enough to know guns make bad things

Sorry Bardock, there's literally zero evidence to support your contention as of now. If it shows its head, that's fine, but you're grabbing at straws and it's just horrid premise for an argument. In fact, it's not even a premise because it is groundless.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
It's not like the boy shot her because she didn't want to make him a sandwich or refused to wash his underwear. In fact, there's nothing strictly misogynist in the kid's behaviour.

He was just a run-of-the-mill bully until he got the shotgun.
Those are stereotypical examples, but Bardock is arguing that a general male entitlement complex is what motivated this crime, and I'm inclined to acknowledge the validity of that theory.

It might simply be a case of a bratty little kid with no moral compass or sense of proportion who thought it was an appropriate response to the girl withholding her puppy, but it might also be an emanation of misogyny. I don't think we should dismiss that as a possibility.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Those are stereotypical examples, but Bardock is arguing that a general male entitlement complex is what motivated this crime, and I'm inclined to acknowledge the validity of that theory.

It might simply be a case of a bratty little kid with no moral compass or sense of proportion who thought it was an appropriate response to the girl withholding her puppy, but it might also be an emanation of misogyny. I don't think we should dismiss that as a possibility. I'm not dismissing his theory though, it's just that there's no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Possible but not likely.

Is this a joke thread? That seems like poor taste but the "misogyny" angle can't be serious. I mean lol at the idea society is anti-women...

Biological women are far more protected that any other gender. I mean when was the last time you saw a group of women talking about how biological men are far more at risk of nearly all crimes including rape, how male children are far more at risk of physical abuse by mothers, fathers or literally any demographic or how men outnumbered women in suicide 4-to-1. But I guess that doesn't matter because men are privileged with those stats.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I'm not dismissing his theory though, it's just that there's no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Possible but not likely.

Again, the problem is not that the misoginy angle can be right, but it's still not enough to justify what happened, so it can be always highlighted as secondary in this case. I do think is a valid concern, but since it's quite secondary, imposing it into the discussion from the get to go will strike most people as radical.

There is nothing radical about discussing misoginy when we are obviously addressing poorly educated children, the very fact that they will draw into social opinions to get their twisted relationship with reality makes it a fair evaluation.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Is this a joke thread? That seems like poor taste but the "misogyny" angle can't be serious. I mean lol at the idea society is anti-women...

Biological women are far more protected that any other gender. I mean when was the last time you saw a group of women talking about how biological men are far more at risk of nearly all crimes including rape, how male children are far more at risk of physical abuse by mothers, fathers or literally any demographic or how men outnumbered women in suicide 4-to-1. But I guess that doesn't matter because men are privileged with those stats.

The society can be anti-man for something and anti-women for other thing, obviously.

So we are anti-women in imaginary slights, and anti-men in quality of life?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
So we are anti-women in imaginary slights, and anti-men in quality of life?

More like men are violent on woman because they are jealous of their quality of life and the attention they get as consumers.

Men are just bitchy little things.

Originally posted by Bentley
More like men are violent on woman because they are jealous of their quality of life and the attention they get as consumers.

Men are just bitchy little things. can't tell if joke or sjw

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
can't tell if joke or sjw

The serious answer would be that it's very hard to reduce how misoginy works in a single sentence because it has a rich history working under different economic systems and in a wide range of social classes.

Don't get me wrong, men are bitchy little things, but that's mostly unrelated with misoginy.



biscuits

the misogyny angle on this seems more theoretical

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
the misogyny angle on this seems more theoretical

Well, misoginy is a collection of motivations and previously imposed stigmas that serve as guidelines for human behaviour to some degree. It's always up in the air how much influence these impressions have on each of us, because in very similar events or conflicts you'll find different psychic backgrounds.

So in a way, it's always theoretical as it's meant to be applied to society as a whole.

Originally posted by Bentley
The serious answer would be that it's very hard to reduce how misoginy works in a single sentence because it has a rich history working under different economic systems and in a wide range of social classes.

Don't get me wrong, men are bitchy little things, but that's mostly unrelated with misoginy.



biscuits sorry if I was a bit short with you, I just very much hate progressive extremists and as a university student in a political science degree program, that's what I deal with all day.

My professor literally went off on "mansplaining" and followed it up with a story in which he had to tell a woman she SHOULD be offended... The irony was lost on him.

Shut your cis gendered mouth.

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, misoginy is a collection of motivations and previously imposed stigmas that serve as guidelines for human behaviour to some degree. It's always up in the air how much influence these impressions have on each of us, because in very similar events or conflicts you'll find different psychic backgrounds.

So in a way, it's always theoretical as it's meant to be applied to society as a whole. Misandry is sticking around though. The UN's speaker on "women's issues" on her official Twitter posted and retweeted the popular "kill all men" hashtag and was following a woman who wrote a blog about how men's semen should be extracted from them forcibly then the men should be castrated and locked away for the good of society.

Btw Misandry wasn't in my auto correct but misogyny was

Originally posted by Mindset
Shut your cis gendered mouth. I'm femasexual, it might appear the same as straight as I just made it up but... but I'm only attracted to attractive women.
So,
Stop triggering me

Originally posted by -Pr-
Absolutely awful.

More awful than you bringing up misogyny (seriously, what the hell, man), but yeah...

Poor kid. yea that was a strange spin to put on this one... i thought for sure this'd be a gun thread

i suppose this tragedy is a real goldmine considering the multiple different ways it can be exploited for political/ideological purposes

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure.

---

"He was making fun of her, calling her names, just being mean to her. "

Again, this is exactly the kind of stuff that happens all the time, and is often met with bullshit like "that means he likes you". Screw that, we need to teach boys that it is not alright to treat girls like that. It's not cutesy when it's just that, and it does lead to rampant violence against women. have you never had another boy do those things to you, bardock? what kind of utopian twilight zone did you grow up in ffs?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
sorry if I was a bit short with you, I just very much hate progressive extremists and as a university student in a political science degree program, that's what I deal with all day.

My professor literally went off on "mansplaining" and followed it up with a story in which he had to tell a woman she SHOULD be offended... The irony was lost on him.

I am sincerely sorry that you have to to deal with these f*ckos IRL.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Misandry is sticking around though. The UN's speaker on "women's issues" on her official Twitter posted and retweeted the popular "kill all men" hashtag and was following a woman who wrote a blog about how men's semen should be extracted from them forcibly then the men should be castrated and locked away for the good of society.

Btw Misandry wasn't in my auto correct but misogyny was

Seriously? What's the name of this waste of biomatter?

That's cause misandry is not a thing in the same way that people talk about misogyny. One is individual hatred (which can be both misogyny and misandry), the other systemic dehumanisation (which is only misogyny). We have to be more clear about what definitions of words we use.

Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks imo.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Misandry is sticking around though. The UN's speaker on "women's issues" on her official Twitter posted and retweeted the popular "kill all men" hashtag and was following a woman who wrote a blog about how men's semen should be extracted from them forcibly then the men should be castrated and locked away for the good of society.

Btw Misandry wasn't in my auto correct but misogyny was

yeah no i have meet and known some crazy women so i don't think its just men who are to blame here

this is in relation to the castration and forible extraction

What good has a woman ever done? We used to trade sheep for women....now were supposed to pretend they're our equals?

Ha-ha no.

Originally posted by Bentley
The serious answer would be that it's very hard to reduce how misoginy works in a single sentence because it has a rich history working under different economic systems and in a wide range of social classes.

Don't get me wrong, men are bitchy little things,



....and women aren't?

Originally posted by long pig
What good has a woman ever done? We used to trade sheep for women....now were supposed to pretend they're our equals?

Ha-ha no. Seriously?

Originally posted by long pig
What good has a woman ever done?



Oh, they do quite a bit of "good".

Ha ha sexism.

It's funny because men are obviously superior, as said by our Lord.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Seriously? What's the name of this waste of biomatter? Anita Sarkeesian. You may have heard her name, she was the anti-gamer journalist who admitted she doesn't play video games she just reviews them...

She started off her UN speech literally saying the patriarchy was trying to silence her... At the UN, she had also been on MSNBC,the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and many other global programs... She is insane. Emma "Hermoine" Watson was also a speaker, she started the "he for she" campaign and then was bewildered why people think feminists aren't egalitarian.

Ok, at the point where this has descended into Sarkeesian bashing, I'm calling time here- I will not let any thread here become some sort of Gamergate related farce.

Keep the discussion about the relevant issues please, and touch the misogyny angle only as far as it might intersect with this case.

Farce?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Farce?

Welcome to the general discussion forum.

I have to get to class but honestly I'm shocked by that.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Ha ha sexism.

It's funny because men are obviously superior, as said by our Lord.

Hey I won't say men are better but I will say God didn't make it so men have to bleed for several days per month. Just sayin...

Originally posted by Surtur
Hey I won't say men are better but I will say God didn't make it so men have to bleed for several days per month. Just sayin...
Women don't realize they only have rights because we gave it to them. They didn't earn them or deserve them, we simply decided one day we'd treat them better.

You're still off-topic. Just to note- I'm starting soon to give warnings to people that keep threads off-topic after a specific warning. Either post something useful or do not post.

Bardock opened a can of worms when he brought misogyny into this as well but that's no excuse for this to become just some sort of barrage of sexist commentary. If serious, it's just abusive and unacceptable, if in jest, it belongs in the OTF.

We could certainly go back to discussing the fact that at present time there is zero evidence this had anything to do with misogyny.

Granted the topic wasn't about misogyny and that was mentioned nonetheless.

But uh yeah so..no evidence as of yet. Yet since as I pointed out this having misogyny involved was a theory sooo..

I guess, gun rights maybe? Or just bad parenting. Probably has more to do with parenting then gun rights.

Anyways, getting back on topic. There seem to be two main societally acceptable responses to shootings like this or the one in Oregon earlier. And that's either blaming gun control or mental illness (depending on your politics). And while at least gun control has a chance to contribute to making things better, I don't think either are even in the top three to prevent tragedies like that.

Misogyny definitely plays a part in violence against women, which in parts fits different circumstances than those of men (particularly domestic violence). And things like toxic masculinity, competitiveness and condoning of violence in boys and men, as well teaching boys that only anger is a valid emotional outlet for them (because otherwise they are "being like girls" are big contributing factors (the latter is also a big part in the fact that so many more men commit suicide).

Additionally I think more than a lack gun of control, the gun culture in general and the glorification of violence in the media play a role in the rampant gun violence. However implementing gun control could work to change attitudes towards the other two.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You're still off-topic. Just to note- I'm starting soon to give warnings to people that keep threads off-topic after a specific warning. Either post something useful or do not post.

Bardock opened a can of worms when he brought misogyny into this as well but that's no excuse for this to become just some sort of barrage of sexist commentary. If serious, it's just abusive and unacceptable, if in jest, it belongs in the OTF.
I don't think anyone means it lol. But I see what you're saying.

Im on the straight and narrow topic wise from heretofore!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, getting back on topic. There seem to be two main societally acceptable responses to shootings like this or the one in Oregon earlier. And that's either blaming gun control or mental illness (depending on your politics). And while at least gun control has a chance to contribute to making things better, I don't think either are even in the top three to prevent tragedies like that.

Misogyny definitely plays a part in violence against women, which in parts fits different circumstances than those of men (particularly domestic violence). And things like toxic masculinity, competitiveness and condoning of violence in boys and men, as well teaching boys that only anger is a valid emotional outlet for them (because otherwise they are "being like girls" are big contributing factors (the latter particularly to the fact that so many more men commit suicide).

Additionally I think more than a lack gun of control, the gun culture in general and the glorification of violence in the media play a role in the rampant gun violence. However implementing gun control could work to change attitudes towards the other two.
Bahahahahaha

Originally posted by long pig
Bahahahahaha



I second that. Bardock is on another one of his many gun control rants. Yet, for all his talk, he has no power to actually do anything about it.

Originally posted by Star428
I second that. Bardock is on another one of his many gun control rants. Yet, for all his talk, he has no power to actually do anything about it.

This is bizarre to me, literally everyone else in this thread is annoyed that I am not talking more about gun control instead.

But Star, you'd be a prime candidate to actually answer the thread. You don't believe gun control is an answer. So what do you think is the reason that these kinds of things happen so often, and what do you think could be changed to solve the problem?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's cause misandry is not a thing in the same way that people talk about misogyny. One is individual hatred (which can be both misogyny and misandry), the other systemic dehumanisation (which is only misogyny). We have to be more clear about what definitions of words we use. i don't disagree with that

but the way you use misogyny as an explanation for this shooting, just cause it involves a boy and a girl, makes me feel like "misogyny" the way you conceptualize it is also "not a thing."

my main problem with your line of rationale is you picked a case where there's no clear indicatation of a sexist motive, and ran with some narrative about how female lives are valued less simply because the victim happened to be a female. bullying happens all the time and is by no means based on sex or gender alone... the strong pick on the weak. that is the way of the world. girls just happen to be (statistically) weak.

what makes me think you and other feminists are being fake when you tout this line of rhetoric is if the victim in this case happened to be male, with all of the other facts in this case being the same, that wouldn't at all seem inconsistent or unusual. but then of course the misogyny angle wouldn't be used... though of course you'd come up with a rationalization for why "patriarchy" is to blame... yawn... the idea that female lives matter less goes right out the window when you consider this fact. you are simply propagandizing and using local tragedies as emotional leverage to make your point.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't disagree with that

but the way you use misogyny as an explanation for this shooting, just cause it involves a boy and a girl, makes me feel like "misogyny" the way you conceptualize it is also "not a thing."

my main problem with your line of rationale is you picked a case where there's no clear indicatation of a sexist motive, and ran with some narrative about how female lives are valued less simply because the victim happened to be a female. bullying happens all the time and is by no means based on sex or gender alone... the strong pick on the weak. that is the way of the world. girls just happen to be (statistically) weak.

what makes me think you and other feminists are being fake when you tout this line of rhetoric is if the victim in this case happened to be male, with all of the other facts in this case being the same, that wouldn't at all seem inconsistent or unusual. but then of course the misogyny angle wouldn't be used... though of course you'd come up with a rationalization for why "patriarchy" is to blame... yawn... the idea that female lives matter less goes right out the window when you consider this fact. you are simply propagandizing and using local tragedies as emotional leverage to make your point.

This is just not a true representation of my point. I never said that female lives are valued less.

What I am saying is that the type of bullying as described in the story is often excused or even condoned when done by boys to girl.

If the victim in this case had been male, many of the reasons I gave earlier would still apply, however the condoning of disrespectful male behaviour when it comes to girl would not apply.

actually you did... maybe not those exact words but the same sentiment.Originally posted by Bardock42
So there's two issues, boys are taught to be more violent and boys are taught to not value girls and women as people as much. These work together and both should be addressed.
....

but anyway..

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is just not a true representation of my point. I never said that female lives are valued less.

What I am saying is that the type of bullying as described in the story is often excused or even condoned when done by boys to girl.

If the victim in this case had been male, many of the reasons I gave earlier would still apply, however the condoning of disrespectful male behaviour when it comes to girl would not apply. i'm wondering where you're basing the idea that boys picking on girls is generally condoned more than boys picking on boys....?

Are you pretending that valuing someone as a person and valuing someone's life is the same statement?

Reality.

when the result is supposedly making person A more likely to shoot/kill person B... i would say yea they're effectively the same thing.

and your reality must not include the popular campaigns against bullying that have emerged in the last few years.. all of a sudden bullying is seen as some sort of national epidemic.... but that's cause we don't care as a society, right? boys will be boys and other 1950's tv slogans, right? isn't that fonz character cool looking with his leather jacket and his endless talent for procuring the lesser sex? #rapeculture

Originally posted by red g jacks
when the result is supposedly making person A more likely to shoot/kill person B... i would say yea they're effectively the same thing.

I think I and others have pointed out how men are in other ways more likely to be killed (suicide, gang related crimes, as soldiers (although that's a more complicated topic)). One can completely value someone as an object and not as a person and it can be beneficial to their life expectancy.

A good example of this is the recent Mad Max, btw. The women were definitely thought of as objects and property, but being highly priced in that way made their lives be more valuable than those of the men...

Originally posted by red g jacks
and your reality must not include the popular campaigns against bullying that have emerged in the last few years.. all of a sudden bullying is seen as some sort of national epidemic.... but that's cause we don't care as a society, right? boys will be boys and all that, right? #rapeculture

Of course there's been improvements made over the years, it's still not done though. You really need to stop fighting these straw men of my arguments. It's actually not that hard to not misrepresent other people

when i ask you direct questions i don't get direct answers

"reality"...? really?

so don't whine about me misrepresenting your views when you respond like that.

Originally posted by red g jacks
when i ask you direct questions i don't get direct answers

"reality"...? really?

so don't whine about me misrepresenting your views when you respond like that.

How are those two related, you are not owed answers, but if you pretend that someone said something that they didn't that's just silly.

And whining? Idk, I'd prefer if you made valid points that are in any way related to what was talked about (hence why I made this thread), it's not fun for me to just have to reply with "that's not what I said" every time you post either, but I think I'll get over it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How are those two related, you are not owed answers, but if you pretend that someone said something that they didn't that's just silly. it's also silly to complain that i'm not responding to your viewpoint accurately when you give me vague answers like that. my post was at least 75% humor/mockery... so if my material doesn't fit you precisely then that's cause you aren't giving me proper input, buddy. of course you aren't required to do so. then my jokes will just continue to not accurately reflect your viewpoint. i would prefer to accurately mock your viewpoint, but i am only human and can only work with what i'm given, bardock.

i did make valid points, imo

and the only thing you said you "didn't say" which i accused you of saying, you actually did say but in slightly different words

"boys are taught to value girls less as people" in the context of a story where a girl was murdered by a boy = girl's life was valued less. you're just playing word games by pretending this wasn't implicit in your post.

I made like 20 posts in this thread, surely you can find more relevant material, you Lenny Bruce, you.

Also, I explained to you how you were completely wrong about equating the value of life to the value of someone as a person.

you didn't explain it so much as you stated it without any explanation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Reality. If you can't prove your point, don't make it.

Fact is that you have no objective evidence to conclude that sexism in any way played a part in this killing (you could argue gender roles might have more strongly, simply because aggressive behavior is indeed more encouraged in boys, but it would still be a weak argument). All you have is speculation.

No one has to take your speculation seriously, nor should they.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I and others have pointed out how men are in other ways more likely to be killed (suicide, gang related crimes, as soldiers (although that's a more complicated topic)). One can completely value someone as an object and not as a person and it can be beneficial to their life expectancy.

A good example of this is the recent Mad Max, btw. The women were definitely thought of as objects and property, but being highly priced in that way made their lives be more valuable than those of the men... just saw this...

see, this is basically what i mean by you will just rationalize any results whatsoever to fit your feminist narrative. if women aren't offered protection, we value them less as people. if they are offered protection, it's cause we value their "lives" merely because we value them as "objects."

you will basically twist any outcome to fit the feminist paradigm. this starts to come across as dogma, to me.

see, my "reality" growing up has been one where bullying was everywhere, and was a simple fact of life like a lion hunting down a gazelle. it transcended sex or gender, though women of course are the weaker sex and are thus easier victims... but they were by no means the predominant victims. and more often than not, a female was bullied by another (stronger) female rather than by a male.

on the other hand... if an unruly woman is attacking you physically, you were supposed to just man up and take it... at the most resorting to restraining her... but never actually fighting back with the same ferocity with which she is attacking you... because "a man doesn't lay his hands on a woman..."

yet i'm sure to you this is just another example of us valuing them as objects and not as people..

so what is the non-sexist, non-misogynist answer? do i respond with a mortal kombat style uppercut, like the bus driver from cleveland? or do i play the chivalrous role and refuse to hit a woman even if she is hitting me?

Originally posted by NemeBro
If you can't prove your point, don't make it.

Fact is that you have no objective evidence to conclude that sexism in any way played a part in this killing (you could argue gender roles might have more strongly, simply because aggressive behavior is indeed more encouraged in boys, but it would still be a weak argument). All you have is speculation.

No one has to take your speculation seriously, nor should they.

Sure, you can have a different opinion to me, I think I have given good reasons for why I think it fits, but your mileage may vary.

So, what about on topic, what solutions do you think could be implemented to prevent things like this?

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is just not a true representation of my point. I never said that female lives are valued less.

What I am saying is that the type of bullying as described in the story is often excused or even condoned when done by boys to girl.

If the victim in this case had been male, many of the reasons I gave earlier would still apply, however the condoning of disrespectful male behaviour when it comes to girl would not apply.

I honestly don't know where you are getting some of this. Boys bullying girls is not condoned in this country. In fact it is the opposite. We are taught, and have this fact hammered home, that a boy should not hit a girl no matter what. Some people take it to ridiculous heights: even if a girl hits you..you can't hit her back because reasons.

There are misogynistic things in this country, but we don't really teach that violence against women is okay. For me the misogyny you see here has less to do with violence against women and more to do with the preconceived notion that women should be fulfilling certain "roles" and not stepping out of those boundaries.

Originally posted by Surtur
I honestly don't know where you are getting some of this. Boys bullying girls is not condoned in this country. In fact it is the opposite. We are taught, and have this fact hammered home, that a boy should not hit a girl no matter what. Some people take it to ridiculous heights: even if a girl hits you..you can't hit her back because reasons.

There are misogynistic things in this country, but we don't really teach that violence against women is okay. For me the misogyny you see here has less to do with violence against women and more to do with the preconceived notion that women should be fulfilling certain "roles" and not stepping out of those boundaries.

I actually agree with your conclusion completely. That is what I meant with the misogynist aspect of the story, it seems obvious that I either didn't communicate it well or that reactions to the term are particularly strong.

Whats most important to take from this topic is that institutionalized mysoginy is bad, and bardock considers himself a feminist. ...Oh and something about children with guns.

Couldn't another way to look at be that B42 forced the misogynist (aka guys with mommy issues) in here to look their mommy issues straight in the eye and they all blinked? Way off?

Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't another way to look at be that B42 forced the misogynist (aka guys with mommy issues) in here to look their mommy issues straight in the eye and they all blinked? Way off?

Yeah, way off.

Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't another way to look at be that B42 forced the misogynist (aka guys with mommy issues) in here to look their mommy issues straight in the eye and they all blinked? Way off? yea, and another way to look at 9/11 is that the reptilian illuminati launched a false flag attack consisting of hologram planes and controlled thermite-based demolition explosions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the victim in this case had been male, many of the reasons I gave earlier would still apply, however the condoning of disrespectful male behaviour when it comes to girl would not apply. We have very little to go on here. With this information, we can't know for sure whether the bullying was condoned or not. The little that we do know indicates that it, in fact, was not condoned bullying:



So, the principal apparently shut down the bullying after being notified. Maybe the principal should have done that earlier, or teachers, or parents, but we have no sense of timeline, or of the home life of the boy involved, or really, any other details needed to draw a conclusion here.

The fact is, we don't know how this particular boy treated other kids, and therefore no idea about what role gender plays here. As others have pointed out, you could draw an argument that girls in general are more likely to be victims, and boys are more likely to be aggressors, but that argument is a far cry from claiming the boy had an internal belief that "girls have to do what I say or else".

So we have a widespread and deep-rooted problem that involves, but is not limited to, female victimization and male violence. You called this case of the boy with the shotgun a "textbook example" of this larger issue, but, with this limited information, this could just as easily be a textbook example of absentee parents, non-gendered bullying gone out of hand, gun control, or other issues worth tackling.

Obviously this whole situation was tragic, but without more information, attributing this girl's death to a larger systematic issue feels irresponsible.

Originally posted by NemeBro
(you could argue gender roles might have more strongly, simply because aggressive behavior is indeed more encouraged in boys, but it would still be a weak argument).


We did see how boys kill about 80% more people than girls. That's as good of a proof as we'll ever going to get for such an issue. So the last line pretty much means that in your opinion gender roles lead to weak discussions when it comes to children?

Actual question, I could see some rationales for that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841



It's messed up things like this happen so often. And I think this has definitely a misogynist component.

This has zero "misogynist component" about it. Its deplorable that you would even bring this up in something so tragic, to just push your misogynist agenda and beliefs on the forum. I doubt you even care about the story, nor did you report on it correctly. You lied about the article, it states no such thing in the tragedy. A shameful and deceitful post with no substance in which you made the claim.

Originally posted by Smurph

Obviously this whole situation was tragic, but without more information, attributing this girl's death to a larger systematic issue feels irresponsible.

Irresponsible? Give me a break. What's the worst case scenario if I am wrong (about this opinion I clearly labelled as my opinion) and this shooting is somehow completely devoid of a misogynist component? That some people will treat women and girls with more respect? Like this is like saying "Woah, easy there, you are being really irresponsible advocating for people to be nice to each other".

I mean what are people really doing here? Policing that it is apparently not time to talk about misogynist aspects of shootings and killings because maybe, in their opinion, this case is not influenced by this?

I think this one word has been more revealling about the state of posters here, be it from someone seeming unsure whether it was worse to bring up misogyny or the actual shooting of the girl to you using language more relevant if I was mishandling nuclear material.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean what are people really doing here? Policing that it is apparently not time to talk about misogynist aspects of shootings and killings because maybe, in their opinion, this case is not influenced by this?

Again, misogynist is a pretty strong word it warrants a responsible use. Do you think calling people racist is going to help fight against racism if done indiscriminately? Use up the word and you end up mixing really horrible actions with uneducated comments. It can be counterproductive instead of useful.

Policing the use of powerful words makes, some sense. You can disagree of course.

Originally posted by Bentley
Again, misogynist is a pretty strong word it warrants a responsible use. Do you think calling people racist is going to help fight against racism if done indiscriminately? Use up the word and you end up mixing really horrible actions with uneducated comments. It can be counterproductive instead of useful.

Policing the use of powerful words makes, some sense. You can disagree of course.

No, it's a very accurate word that describes very many interactions in our society. What is powerful is the desire to not face or think about sexist and misogynist issues. It's actually similar to "racist", people are much more comfortable arguing against something being racist than facing that racism is a common thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it's a very accurate word that describes very many interactions in our society. What is powerful is the desire to not face or think about sexist and misogynist issues. It's actually similar to "racist", people are much more comfortable arguing against something being racist than facing that racism is a common thing.

I'm not saying it isn't accurate, I'm saying accuracy doesn't warrant irresponsability. Our discussion isn't marketing speech, our idea of useful isn't talking more and more, but being effective in what we say.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not saying it isn't accurate, I'm saying accuracy doesn't warrant irresponsability. Our discussion isn't marketing speech, our idea of useful isn't talking more and more, but being effective in what we say.

Again, how is it irresponsible? Things are irresponsible because they have (big) negative consequences, explain to me how talking about systemic misogyny fits.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Irresponsible? Give me a break. What's the worst case scenario if I am wrong (about this opinion I clearly labelled as my opinion) and this shooting is somehow completely devoid of a misogynist component? That some people will treat women and girls with more respect? Like this is like saying "Woah, easy there, you are being really irresponsible advocating for people to be nice to each other".
Ultimately you're not reinforcing that women and girls be treated with more respect. Rather, you're trying to defend an empty argument and calling it feminism, while reinforcing the very un-feminist idea that every violent male and every female victim of violence is a result of the patriarchy.

It misrepresents a larger argument being made about violence that we know to be gendered, systematic, and condoned.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, how is it irresponsible? Things are irresponsible because they have (big) negative consequences, explain to me how talking about systemic misogyny fits.

Look at this thread. Many people who aren't very clear on how the misogyny claim works had a kneejerk reaction against it. This could've gone much smooter by a more consious choice of words and a build up towards your conclusion.

I'd say discrediting your own "fair" cause is a negative thing. Also you redirected the attention from other equally important issues, the time spent away from those situations limits awareness. In the cacophony that is the web, too much information can become misinformation.

If the term doesn't serve as a teaching tool then it's just useful for initiated people and hence the term doesn't deserve a serious place in societal debate.

Originally posted by Smurph
Ultimately you're not reinforcing that women and girls be treated with more respect. Rather, you're trying to defend an empty argument and calling it feminism, while reinforcing the very un-feminist idea that every violent male and every female victim of violence is a result of the patriarchy.

It misrepresents a larger argument being made about violence that we know to be gendered, systematic, and condoned.

I disagree, I think I have very much clarified many different aspects that contribute to violence. This reaction doesn't have to do with the story at all, it's solely the word, and it would happen exactly like that in any other case (and I know, because it basically happens every time sexism or misogyny is brought up).

Again this statement "I think this has definitely a misogynist component." has brought on the extreme reactions by everyone (comparing the sentence to the actual shooting, why bring up "horseshit gender politics", it's in poor taste, starting a barrage of sexist jokes, calling it irresponsible).

The only way it is irresponsible is that it brings out the latent sexism in posters, and tbh, I don't view that as a bad thing.

Originally posted by Bentley
Look at this thread. Many people who aren't very clear on how the misogyny claim works had a kneejerk reaction against it. This could've gone much smooter by a more consious choice of words and a build up towards your conclusion.

I'd say discrediting your own "fair" cause is a negative thing. Also you redirected the attention from other equally important issues, the time spent away from those situations limits awareness. In the cacophony that is the web, too much information can become misinformation.

If the term doesn't serve as a teaching tool then it's just useful for initiated people and hence the term doesn't deserve a serious place in societal debate.

I guess we disagree on tactics then. I believe a direct "calling a spade a spade" is the better approach. I do see the value of trying a soft approach (perhaps rather than criticising my approach you could have attempted that and we could have arrived somewhere more positive)

Is your second part a joke? Every thread on shootings devolves into a gun control thread. I opened up the discussion to more topics, and gave many more topics myself as well. I am not responsible that people would cut off their own arms before admitting something is misogynist.

I think it is a good teaching approach, this has been the only discussion on sexism, misogyny and male entitlement in the GDF in months...if I hadn't brought it up we would have just continued in our comfortable "Obama is the worst, no he's the best, no he's the worst" discussions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess we disagree on tactics then. I believe a direct "calling a spade a spade" is the better approach. I do see the value of trying a soft approach (perhaps rather than criticising my approach you could have attempted that and we could have arrived somewhere more positive)

I did throw you a bone in my very first reply on that regard towards a softer build up, but then we delved into semantics

Again, we are arguing methodology here. We both know feminism scares people, if you are willing to consider a different approach from time to time, that's good enough for me.

Other people get the impression that you are being bias about it and I can see why. I would rather have them look at you differently, but whatever. Ultimately it's your call.

Originally posted by Bentley
I did throw you a bone in my very first reply on that regard towards a softer build up, but then we delved into semantics

Again, we are arguing methodology here. We both know feminism scares people, if you are willing to consider a different approach from time to time, that's good enough for me.

Other people get the impression that you are being bias about it and I can see why. I would rather have them look at you differently, but whatever. Ultimately it's your call.

Okay, we are on the same page ideologically I suppose. And I do try different approaches in different circumstances.

I understand people think I'm biased. But that's literally going to happen the second you bring up support for any feminist issues, no matter how benign. I did qualify basically every of my posts with "In my opinion/I think/It seems to me/etc.".

If we are talking about methodology however, do you think yours is particularly helpful? Because all your replies have basically been about policing my tone, instead of supporting your own view (which I am still not sure of, but assume is somewhat in line with mine).

So why did you bring in horseshit gender politics into this particular incident(which almost certainly has nothing to do with misogyny)? Why not start a separate topic on it?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So why did you bring in horseshit gender politics into this particular incident(which almost certainly has nothing to do with misogyny)? Why not start a separate topic on it?

I believe this incident has to do with gender politics.

However, and I know you don't know that, cause you stopped reading my original post when you hit the word "misogyny", I said "559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this"

So this thread, from the start, has been about different reasons and different solutions to shootings, one of my contributions has been the "gender politics" angle to them. You are free to bring yours.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe this incident has to do with gender politics.

However, and I know you don't know that, cause you stopped reading my original post when you hit the word "misogyny", I said "559 children, and this is entirely preventable, no other first world country has this problem. Of course gun control is one of the prime target, and definitely a very valid one, but what other actual solutions do you think can be implemented to prevent this"

So this thread, from the start, has been about different reasons and different solutions to shootings, one of my contributions has been the "gender politics" angle to them. You are free to bring yours.

I've read all of the post, but I focused on the gender politics angle because, to me, it seemed so out of left field and kind of disingenuous.

My suggestions are as such: don't leave guns around children, introduce stricter gun control laws, parent better, pay better attention to children with emotional issues, and/or come to terms with the fact that such accidents will inevitably happen in a country that has hundreds of millions of guns in it and has the right to bear arms set in its constitution.

You don't think misogyny contributes to these kinds of shooting generally or just not in this case?

Those are good suggestions, many of which I made as well, btw.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't think misogyny contributes to these kinds of shooting generally or just not in this case?

Those are good suggestions, many of which I made as well, btw.

No, not in this case. Generally? Like when kids end up shooting eachother? Highly unlikely.

In other cases of killings or mass shooting, I think it varies wildly. Even someone like Elliot Rodger hated not just women, but everybody in general and ended up killing more men than women.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we are talking about methodology however, do you think yours is particularly helpful? Because all your replies have basically been about policing my tone, instead of supporting your own view (which I am still not sure of, but assume is somewhat in line with mine).

I did post a few things on a different line when discussing with other people (if you take the time to reread my posts in the last few pages).

Was I effective? Who knows? I did my best to sneak objective facts into the debate (such as the gender disparities between killings that you generously provided), to consider a wider view into the gender bullying problem (as how it can be reflected on a later age and cause psychological scars) and to exchange with you so the points are clearer and more articulated.

But to be effective I'd need to have a goal and maybe to me having an enriching discussion and sharing it with onlookers is a goal on itserf?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, I think I have very much clarified many different aspects that contribute to violence. This reaction doesn't have to do with the story at all, it's solely the word, and it would happen exactly like that in any other case (and I know, because it basically happens every time sexism or misogyny is brought up).

Again this statement "I think this has definitely a misogynist component." has brought on the extreme reactions by everyone (comparing the sentence to the actual shooting, why bring up "horseshit gender politics", it's in poor taste, starting a barrage of sexist jokes, calling it irresponsible).

The only way it is irresponsible is that it brings out the latent sexism in posters, and tbh, I don't view that as a bad thing.

you don't respond in any real depth to any level headed objections people have raised to your extremist over-analysis of a relatively mundane human tragedy. it is almost as if you don't believe your own bs, but merely post it so that when people inevitably object you can step back and go "aha! misogyny!"

Originally posted by red g jacks


you don't respond in any real depth to any level headed objections people have raised to your extremist over-analysis of a relatively mundane human tragedy. it is almost as if you don't believe your own bs, but merely post it so that when people inevitably object you can step back and go "aha! misogyny!"
Check your privilege, bro.

This has zero "misogynist component" about it. Its deplorable that you would even bring this up in something so tragic, to just push your misogynist agenda and beliefs on the forum. I doubt you even care about the story, nor did you report on it correctly. You lied about the article, it states no such thing in the tragedy. A shameful and deceitful post with no substance in which you made the claim.

There is no proof an any misogyny in this article, its a complete lie and a shameful way to push feminism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, I think I have very much clarified many different aspects that contribute to violence. This reaction doesn't have to do with the story at all, it's solely the word, and it would happen exactly like that in any other case (and I know, because it basically happens every time sexism or misogyny is brought up).

Again this statement "I think this has definitely a misogynist component." has brought on the extreme reactions by everyone (comparing the sentence to the actual shooting, why bring up "horseshit gender politics", it's in poor taste, starting a barrage of sexist jokes, calling it irresponsible).

The only way it is irresponsible is that it brings out the latent sexism in posters, and tbh, I don't view that as a bad thing.

You didn't clarify anything and now you are playing a the role of a coward, in my absence you wanted to name drop and troll me whenever you could and now you realize I'm back and are being shameful and hiding cause you know I will destroy you in this.

No need to spam what you already put, TI.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No need to spam what you already put, TI.

He was trolling and name dropping me for a week and you didn't do anything about it. He better start posting something or I will continue to call his bs out.

I was referring to the two posts before your last- one an exact repeat of what you posted earlier and one a paraphrase of the same thing, adding nothing to what you had already done. Don't do that. Responding like you then did is different- but I am not convinced by your trolling accusation there. People are allowed to comment on your general posting content.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I was referring to the two posts before your last- one an exact repeat of what you posted earlier and one a paraphrase of the same thing, adding nothing to what you had already done. Don't do that. Responding like you then did is different- but I am not convinced by your trolling accusation there. People are allowed to comment on your general posting content.

Baiting is a form of trolling, which he has done. Which you have told me not to do in the past.

anyone ever told you the story of the boy who cried 'wolf'?