But however disappointed we are, always remember:
Posts
1 day ago
Monday, March 22, 2010
A propos
This seems like an appropriate lol today, since tonight's episode of Hjernevask was on violence and whether or not we as a species are predetermined to be violent ... and of course whether or not men by nature are more violent than women. I've found this series really interesting so far, but tonight ... meh. Eia just seems to be becoming more and more the comedian again and veering increasingly off track from the supposedly genuine questioner he started the series as. So I find myself losing interest ... which is too bad, because the topics he's presenting are interesting and I do think it's important to have this debate. Nature vs nurture, and how our society has skewed its perceptions way too far towards the latter. But the series seems to be slowly turning into a comedy show now. Too bad.
But however disappointed we are, always remember:
But however disappointed we are, always remember:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Nature or nurture? I'm not sure we really want to know the answer. Currently, the consensus leans towards the “nurture” end of the scale. Maybe the truth is closer to the “nature” end, but it is perfectly legitimate for us (as a society) to decide to pretend that nurture means more than nature, because it justifies the moral values (such as “equal opportunity for all”) on which our society is built.
there was a great (albeit short) discussion on Irish radio between a male and female journalist on how wifes who murder husbands often get off with manslaughter and do not serve time, while men get murder and nearly always serve time. The interesting thing was a woman was arguing that these women should be serving time. Apparently Fathers that were provoked are more dangerous to Irish society, unlike mothers who are often returned to their family!
I agree that the cases should be treated the same regardless of the sex of the perpetrator, IF the circumstances are the same. But generally they are not. At least in this country - I think it's safe to assume that Ireland isn't totally different in this respect - when a woman kills her husband it's as a last resort after a long period of abuse, whereas when a man kills his wife it's because of some disturbed notion of personal vanity, 'if I can't have you no one else can'. And it doesn't surprise me one bit that our courts are lenient towards those women and harsh towards those men. Especially since the latter also sometimes kill their children. :-(
But if the circumstances are the same, the punishment should be the same, absolutely. They just usually aren't.
With all due respect, Kristin, this is an outright lie. Women abuse men more often than men abuse women.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://www.sinnetshelse.no/artikler/kvinner_mish.htm
Unfortunately, we live in a society that condones violence perpetrated by women against men.
Exercise: divide a sheet of paper in two columns. On the left, write down three movies you've seen where a man hits his wife. On the right, write down three movies where a woman hits her husband. Next, put a large C next to each title if it was a comedy, and a large D if it was a drama. Discuss.
You know, DES, I really wish that FOR ONCE you would just read what I actually wrote ... !!!!!!!
You really are the king of the straw men.
(Word verification 'monolog'. How incredibly appropriate.)
Kristin, I did read what you wrote, and here's what I read:
“when a woman kills her husband it's as a last resort after a long period of abuse, whereas when a man kills his wife it's because of some disturbed notion of personal vanity, 'if I can't have you no one else can'.”
This tells me that you espouse the myth that men are by definition aggressors and women are by definition victims. You are part of the problem.
See, this is my big problem with you. It's the same IRL. You don't hear what I say, you don't read what I write. You just hear what you want to hear. I don't think I've ever in my life met anyone it's more exhausting to have a conversation with. It's a free world, and I don't censor comments on this blog, but seriously, STFU.
So explain what I didn't understand.
I'm talking about one particular specific set of circumstances, you're talking about general statistics. You clearly infer that I disagree with your stance on the issue. You are wrong. You present your input as if it invalidates what I said in my comment. It does not, you are wrong. What I said is true, what you said is true. There is obviously no contradiction. But you don't take that into account at all. You present your facts in a very off-putting way. Not that you care, I guess. As long as you can feel that you're smarter than me and morally superior?
Don't correct me if I'm wrong ... I'm not particularly interested in discussing this with you, I generally don't feel that you hear much of what I say, so it seems pretty pointless. You seem to filter what you hear/read in some way so that what I'm actually saying/writing is often totally not what you manage to perceive. There is so much communication interference that it's just exhausting. I've got enough shit to deal with.
plink
Like I said, STFU. Have a nice weekend.
Post a Comment